HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-03 FINAL
9:00 A.M.
'DECEMBER 3. 1997
MEETING ROOM 241, COUNTY OF.FICE BUILDING
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Ailegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6) Approval of Minutes: February 14, 1996; April 16. September 3. October 8 and November 12. 1997.
7) Transportation Matters:
a) Other Transportation Matters.
b) Airport Plan Presentation, Bryan Elliott.
8) Discussion: Financing Option for Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP~ Financing.
9) FY I996/97 Preliminary Audit Report, Presentation off
10) 11:00 a.m. - Interfaith Roundtable on Sustainability, Presentation by Michael Collins, TJPDC.
11) Work Session: Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance.
12) Work Session: FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002 '2003 Capital Improvements Program.
13) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
14) Executive Session: Legal Matters.
15) Certify.Executive Session.
16) Appointments.
17) Recess and Reconvene i~ Meeting Room 235
18) 4:00 P.M. - Room 235 - Ioint meeting with School Board.
A) Call to Order.
B) Executive Session: Personnel.
C) Certify Executive Session.
19) 4:30 P.M. - Ioint meeting with School Board and State Legislators to discuss the Cottnty's 1998
Legislative Program.
20) Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Resolution to prohibit the use of through truck traffic on Rio Road (Route 63I from the Charlottesville
City linCts to Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). (Deferred from November 12. 1997.)
5.2 Resolution to accept roads in Dtmlora Subdivision. Phases lB. lC 0ard ID ~SUB-12.354 into the State
Secondary, System of Highways.
5.3 Authorization to proceed ~vith sale of Trigon stock to be used to offset heaith costs.
5.4 Volrmtary Early Retirement request for FY 1998-99.
5.5 Request for additional funding of $37,732 to complete Dixie Little League project at Mclntire Park.
5.6 Appropriation: School Division, $26,743.74 (ForTM #97030).
5.7 Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center, $5,364 (Form #97034).
5.8
Authorize County Executive to sign lease of Old Jailer's House to City of Charlottesville for the
Community Assessment Center.
5.9
Resolution to readopt the Emergency Operations Plan developed by the Emergency Operations Center
Management Board which indudes emergency operation procedures for the County, City and University
of Virginia.
5.10 Resolution of Support For The James River Heritage Parmership's Nominarion of the James River as one
of Ten American Heritage Rivers.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.11 Budget calendar for FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget.
5.12 Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, at the November 4, 1997 General Election.
5.13 Letter dated November 17, 1997, from Jay Roberts, Environmental Engineer, to the Honorable
Charlotte Y. Humphris, re: Public Notice of Draft VWP Permit #97-1454.
5.14
Copy of memorandum dated November 14, 1997, from Hannah Twaddell, Senior Planning,
Charlottesv~2Ie-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, to the Honorable Mautice Cox,
Charlottesville, City Council, providing a printout of costs for projects in the draft CATS 2015 Plan.
5.15 1997 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
5.16 Copy of mXnutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting for
September 11, 1997.
Notice of application filed with the State Corporation Conunission by Virginia Electric and Power
Company to revise its fuel factor pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-249.6.
5.18 Monthly update on the FY 1997/98 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & Public
Works as of November 24, 1997.
5.19
Letter dated November 21, 1997, from Angda G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of
Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerl<, regarding items discussed at the November 5, 1997 Board
meeting.
5.20
Copy of letter dated November 20, 1997, from Roy T. Mills, Assistant State Hydraulics Engineer,
Department of Transportation, to Robert W. Tud<er, Jr., re: Route 29 North Bypass - erosion and
sediment control and stormwater management plan.
5.21 June 30, 1997 Financial Management Report.
5.22 September, 1997 Financial Management Report.
C~UNTY 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~
December 8, 1997
Board Actions of December 3. 1997
At its meeting on December 3, 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following
actions:
Agenda Item No. i. 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.
Mr. Vernon Fischer. representing the Coalition for Tax Equity, said the Board needs to
discuss at what point taxes become counterproductive to the people and families who llve in
Albemarle County. He presented a petition, signed by residents of the Monticello Precinct on
election day, asldng the Supervisors to limit the percentage of taxes County citizens have to
pay. He asked the Board to begin a study as to when taxes become counterproductive and to
survey the citizens once a year regarding issues that concern the County, i.e., rexes and capital
projects. He thinks citizens appreciate receiving "FYI," but they need to be given more
information and an opportunity to respond to the Supervisors to let them know their needs.
opinions and desires.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Resolution to prohibit fire use of through truck traffic on Rio
Road (Route 631) from the Charlottesville City limits to Hillsclale Drive (Route 1427).
(Deferred from November 12, 1997.) ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Original forwarded
to Angela Tucker.
Item No. 5.2. Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision_ Phases lB. lC and
1D (SUB-12.354) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached
Resolutions. Originals for~varded to Engineering.
Item No. 5.3. Authorization to proceed with sale of Trigon stock to be used to offset
health costs. ADOPTED the attached Resolutions. Originals forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item No. 5.4. Voluntary Early Retirement request for FY 1998-99. APPROVED.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr,
V. Wa)me Cilimberg
Date: December 8, 1997
Page 2.
Item No. 5.5. Request for additional fmrding of $37.732 to complete Dixie Little
League project at Mclntire Park. APPROVED with the understanding that any additional costs
associated with the completion of this project will not be the responsibility of the County of
Albemarle.
Item No. 5.6. Appropriation: School Division. $2&743.74 (Form #97030).
APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item No. 5.7. Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center, $5,364 t Form
#97034). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item No. 5.8. Authorize County Executive to sign lease of Old Jailer's House to City of
Charlottesville for the CommunltyAssessment Center. APPROVED. Agreement forwarded to
City of Charlottesville for appropriate signature.
Item No. 5,9. Resolution to readopt the Emergency Operations Plan developed by the
Emergency Operations Center Management Board which includes emergency operation
procedures for the Cotmty, City and University of Virgima. ADOPTED Resolution. Original
forwarded to Mr. Kaye Harden.
Mr. Tucker said he would ask Mr. Harden to attend next month's Board meeting to
review the Emergency Operations Plan with the Board.
Item No. 5.10. Resolution of Support For The James River Heritage Partnership's
Nomination of the James River as one of Ten American Heritage Rivers. ADOPTED. Original
forwarded to David Hirschman.
Referring to the data on ferries, Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Hatton Ferry should
also be recognized. She also mentioned several ~ypographical errors.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Other transportation Matters.
Referring to Item No. 5.1, Mr. Bowerman asked that something different other than
iust a sign stating "no through trucks" be installed. He suggested flashing yellow lights on the
top and bottom of the sign. as well as an indication of the last place a trucker driver can turn
around.
Mr. Bowerman said he is pleased Albemarle was selected as one of the counties to
participate in the Traffic Calming Pilot Program. He asked what kind of flexibility and input
the County will have with regard to the program. Mrs. Tucker said she does not think VDOT
has ruled out streets with a 35 mph speed limit for participation in the program at this time.
Memo To: Robert W. Tud<er, Ir.
V. Wa~vne Cilimberg
Date: December 8, 1997
Page 3.
On December 4, 1997. representatives from her staff and Culpeper's Traffic Engineer will be
meeting with the County's Planning and Engineering staffs to discuss the program.
Regarding Item 5.19, Mrs. Thomas said she appreciates receiving responses to her
concerns from the previous Board meeting.
Mrs. Thomas said she received a telephone call from Mr. Rauzelle Smith regarding
Route 805. Route 805 is a short road that deadends at the church, l~he church maintains the
road for the last 100 yards or so. Parishioners are concerned about the condition of the road
during the winter. When brush is cut, it piles up in the ditch. The road then becomes the
ditch and gets washed out when the weather is bad. They would also like to have the road
paved. Parishioners are meeting on December 13. 1997. Mrs. Thomas asked if someone from
Mrs. Tucker's office could tdephone Mr. Smith to discuss steps to get necessary tights-of-way
to bring the road into the Six Year Plan, or to see if the Pave-in-Place Program would be
appropriate.
Mr. Marshall said recently he drove on the new connector road between Avon Street
and Route 20. In his opinion, the speed limit on Route 20 needs to be reduced. The speed
limit on Route 20 is 55 mph. and it is dangerous trying to exit the road onto Route 20.
Something needs to be done now before signs are installed for opemng of the school. He asked
if some signage or flashing lights could be installed on Route 20 to get people used to the
change in traffic.
Mrs. Tucker said they have discussed the installation of lights. VDOT has not
determined whether lights will be installed on Route 20. the connector road. Avon Street
Extended or a combination of all three. She will continue to examine the issue and keep the
Board informed. She added that when traffic control is established in an area, there needs to
be a reason for it, otherwise, drivers will not mtderstand it. VDOT recently conducted a speed
study on the section of Route 20 surrounding the connector road: 85 percent of the traffic was
traveling at 58 mph, slightly above the posted limit. The sight distance at the connector road
is based on vehicles traveling at 55 mph.
Mr. Tucker suggested installing temporary signs, until the school opens, cautioning
drivers to slow down because of trucks entering and exiting the road.
Mrs. Tucker said VDOT could install signs indicating trucks are entering the roadway,
as an interim measure, until they straighten out the school zone signage and determine the
actual posted speed limit through that section.
Mr. Marshall also suggested more police enforcement.
Mrs. Thomas said she continues to hear from people living on the tmpaved portion of
Broad Axe Road. She asked if there are any spot improvements or anything that can be done
to that section of road. As she understands it, the people chose not to have the road paved
when the option was before them- and they did not make the right-of-way available. Now they
Memo To: Robert W. Tudcer, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: December 8, 1997
Page 4.
are seeing the impact of their decision, and she asked if the road could be looked at as a
maintenance issne.
Mrs. Humphris said there is a major pot hole on Colthurst Drive, in the right hand
travel lane. headed south after you pass the "T" intersection, around the curve,
Mr. Bowerman said he has heard nothing but compliments on the signalization and
timing of the light on Old Brook Road, which is coordinated with Hillsdale Drive.
Mrs. Tucker said VDOT is reviewing the future installation of signals in several
locations. The first is the four-way stop sigaas located at South Pantops and Riverbend Drives
at the back entrance to State Farm Insurance Company in the Pantops Shopping Center. The
second location is on Route 250 at Route 729, which is the intersection near Stone Robinson
Elementary School on the east side of town. The next location is the 1-64/Route 250
interchange, at both off ramps. The last location is the Fifth Street interchange with 1-64. at
both off ramps.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Airport Plan Presentation. Bryan Elliott. Received: no action.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: PREP Financing. Received: no action. The entire
project and associated agreements required to move forward are to be presented to the Board
in January. 1998.
Agenda Item No. 9. FY 1996/97 Preliminary Audit Report, Presentation of. Presented;
no action required.
Agenda Item No. 10. I 1:00 a.m. - Interfaith Roundtable on Sustainability, Presentation
by Michael Collins, TJPDC. Presented: no action required.
Agenda Item No. 11. Work Session: Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance.
Public hearing scheduled for February 11, 1998.
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital
Improvements Program.
The Board instructed staff to come up with a method to fund traffic calming.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker_ Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: December 8. 1997
Page 5.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
ADOPTED the attached resolution creating the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention
Commission.
Mr. Tucker said Loudon County, along with the Virginia Innovation Group, is rtying to
put together a forum throughout the state to discnss growth management issues. They have
asked Albemarle County to participate. A formal date for the forum has not been set. but it
*vill probably be next spring. They are trying to get a consensus of how many people might be
interested in joining them. He and the Chairman have been invited to attend a steering
committee meeting to be held in Richmond later this month. There were no obiections from
Board members.
There was some Board discussion about hunting in the County, and Mr. Tucker
suggested the Game Warden come to a Board meeting, after hunting season has ended, to
provide data on enforcement.
Mrs. Thomas again asked for the report from GE Fanuc on their employment data.
Mrs. Humphris suggested sending a letter [rom the Board stating the terms of their loan.
Mr. Marshall mentioned a letter he received from Mr. Gregory MacDonald. Executive
Director at Michie Tavern. asldng the Board to not implement the meals tax on January 1,
1998. or to financially assist them in some way. They have booked tour packages for 1998
that do not take into acconnt the meals tax. There was no support expressed for
Mr. MacDonald's suggestions.
Mr. Marshall asked for information on revenue shortfalls.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to provide the Board with a scenario that provides for level
funding in the next budget cycle.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the reception for Karen PowelL who will be leaving the
School Board after seven years of service and two years as Chairman. The reception will be
held on Monday, December 8, 1997, at 5:30 p.m.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Bowerman and she will be sworn in as Supervisors today at
3:45 p.m.
Mrs. Humphtis said the Board received an invitation to attend a joint VACo/VML
Regional Legislative dinner meeting in Harrisonburg to be held at the Sheraton Hotel on
December 17, 1997, starting at 5:30 p.m., with dinner at 6:30 p.m.
Memo To: Robert W, Tud<er, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: December 8, 1997
Page 6.
Mrs. Thomas said if the Board wanted to get together with its local legislators, the
Planning District Commission's legislative dinner will be held on December 19, 1997.
Mrs. Humphris said February 5, 1998, is Legislative Day in Richmond. It will be held
at the Marriott, and starts at I:00 p.m. She will attend.
Mrs. Humphtis mentioned the Housing Committee has invited the Innovative Housing
Institute of Silver Spring, Maryland, to give a presentation on Wednesday, December 10, 1997,
in Room 241. Board members have been invited to attend.
Mrs, Humphris mentioned the ads for the Planning Commission and Board of Social
Services. The deadline for applications is December t8, 1997.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 1:14 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman. seconded by Mrs. Thomas. that
the Board go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia
under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and conunissions, to discuss a Board
personnel matter and the appointment of an employee: and under Subsection (7) to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legai matters relating to reversion and specific
legal matters relating to a service agreement.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
The Board remained in Executive Session and certified after the meeting with the
School Board.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
APPOINTED Mr. Steven Gibson to the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
APPOINTED Mr. David vanRoijen to the Agricultural & Furestal District Advisory
Committee.
APPOINTED Mr. Robert Walters to the Regional Disabilities Sexvices Board to fill out
the unexpired term of Elsie Fryer. to expire on July 1. [998.
REAPPOINTED Mr. Richard G. Piccolo and Mr. G. David Emmitt to the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority, with terms to expire on December 31, 2000.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cflimberg
Date: December 8, 1997
Page 7.
Agenda Item No. 18. 4:00 P.M. - Room 235 - Ioint meeting with School Board.
Item No. 18a. Call to Order. At 4:00 p.m.. the Chairman of the School Board called
the School Board to order. Mrs. Humphris noted that the Board of Supervisors was still in
session.
Item No. 18c. Certify Executive Session.
At 4:30 p.m.. both boards reconvened into open session.
APPOINTED Mr. Michael Thompson as the Director of Human Resources, effective
lanuary 5. 199& with an annual salary of $67,000.
Agenda Item No. 19. 4:30 P.M. - Ioint meeting with School Board and State Legislators
to discuss the County's 1998 Legislative Program.
By a vote of 4:2, the Board of Supervisors voted to support Delegate Van Yahres's
efforts to create a Public Defender's office for the City of Charlottesville and County of
Albemarle.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
/ewc
Attachments (9)
cc: Richard E. Huff. II
Roxanne White
I(evin C. Castner
Larry Davis
Amelia McCulley
Bill Mawyer
Bruce Woodzell
Richard Wood
Jan Sptinlde
Yadira Amarante
File
RESOLUTI'ON
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
V±rglnla, received a reques5 from the Virctnla Department of
Transportation to consider the prohibition of through truck traffic
on a segmenE of Rio Road (Route 631) as a means co address safety
concerns; and
WHEREAS, combinations of Route 29-Seminole Trait and Route 29-
250 Bypass are reasonable alternatives 5o trucks now traveling Rio
Road 5o the Charlottesville City limits or Route 29.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, does hereby reques5 that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board prohibit the use of through truck 5raffic on
Rio Road (Route 631) between the Charlottesville City limits and
Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). This prohibition shall apply ~o any
truck or uruck and trailer or semi-trailer combination, except a
pickup truck or panel truck. A truck shall mean every motor
vehicle designed uo transport property on its own snrucnure
independent of any other vehicle and having ~ registered gross
weight in excess of 7,500 pounds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virglnza, does support this request and suames
its intent that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the
proposed prohibition by the Albemarle County Police Department and
any other appropriate law enforcemenn agency.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a nrue, correcE copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by ~he
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at ~ regular
meeting held on December 3, 1997
~e~c~, Board of Co%fnty Supervisors
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting
on the 3rd day of December, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streeus in Du~lora o Phases lB and lC (SUB 12.354) described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5 (A) dated Dece~foer 3, 1997, fully incorporamed herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Departmenu of Transportation has
advised the Board that the s~reets mee~ the requirements established by the Subdivisic~
Street Recr~irements of the Virginia Deparmmen5 of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervmsors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add roads in Dunlora - Phases lB
and lC as described on the attached Additions Form SH-5(A) dated December 3, 1997, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia. and
the Department's Subdivision Street Reca~irements: and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hoard guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded mo the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: F~rs. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Martin.
Mrs. Thomas.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Marshall, Mr. Martin,
Mr. Perkins and
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, ~C
Board of County Superv/~sors
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Charter Oaks, Drive from Station 39+65.8t, right edge of pavement of
State Route 1177, to Station 37+00, end of road construction, 265.81
lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75,
with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.05 mile.
2)
King William Drive from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of Charter
Oaks Drive, to Station 33+00, rear edge of pavement of cul-de-sac, 2290
lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75,
with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded
12/27/89 in Deed Book 1081, pages 426-30; 7/28/93 in Deed Book 1328,
pages 746-7; 8/11/97 in Deed Book 1633, page 220, for a lengtk of 0.43
mile.
3)
Barclay Hill from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of King William
Drive, to Station 16+37.61, rear edge of pavement of cul-de-sac, 627.61
lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75,
with a right-of-way width of~50 feet, with additional plats recorded
8/11/97 in Deed Book 1633, page 224; 11/12/97 in Deed Book 1654, pages
545-7, 548-50, 551-3 and 854-6, for a length of 0.12 mile.
Pendleton Court from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of King
William Drive, to Station 11+90, rear edge of pavement of cul-de-sac,
180 lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/27/89 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1081, pages 426-
30, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.03 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.63 mile.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regula~ meeEing
on the 3rd day of December, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the sureeus in Dunlora - Phase 1D (SUB 12.354) described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 3, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference,
are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the snreeEs meet the requirements established by the Subdivisic~
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Deparumenu of Transportation to add Mosby's Reach in Dunlora
Phase 1D as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 (A) dated December 3, 1997,
Co the secondary system of suaue highways, pursuant uo §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requlrements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cues, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded uo the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Deparumenu of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Martin.
Mrs. Thomas.
Nays: None.
Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Marshall,
Mr. Martin, Mr.
Perkins and
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, ~C
Board of County Superv£sorsU
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Mosby's Reach from Station 10+10, right edge of pavement of King William
Drive, to Station 20+05.51, right edge of pavement of King William
Drive, as show~ on plat recorded 5/25/95 in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1470, pages 265-9, with a
right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 12/27/89
in Deed Book 1081, pages 426-30 and 7/28/93 in Deed Book 1328, pages
746-7, for a length of 0.19 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.19 mile.
RESOLUTION
I, Ella Carey, in my official capacity, hereby certify: that I am Clerk of the County of
Albemarle, a political subdivision of the Comonwealth of Virginia duly organized and
existing under the laws of Virginia: that at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors. duly and
regularly convened and held on the 3rd day of December, 1997, at which a quorum for the
transaction of business was present and acting, the following resolution was duly and
regularly adopted, and is still in full force and effect, and appears as follows in the minutes
of the meeting:
RESOLVED: that Melvin A. Breeden. who is the Director of Finance of this County is
hereby authorized to sell, assign and transfer the following:
the execution of Trigon stock
and to execute any and all instruments necessary, proper or desirable: further that any
past action in accordance herewith is hereby ratified and confirmed; and further, that any
officer of this county is hereby authorized to certify this resolution to whom it may concern.
I further certify that the foregoing resolution is not contrary to any provision in the county
or state code and that I have been duly authorized to make this certificate on behalf of this
county. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of this county this
8th day of December. 1997.
Clerk, County of Albemarle/
Board of Supervisors /
(SEAL)
Commonwealth of Virginia
County of Albemarle:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
My commission expires:
dC//o//~oo/
/ ~
Nbtary Public
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia. a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has determined that it is
desirable for the County to sell its Trigon stock;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
That Melvin A. Breeden. who is the Director of Finance of this county is hereby
authorized to sell, assign and transfer the following:
the execution of Trigon stock
and to execute any and all instruments necessary, proper or desirable: further that any
past action in accordance herewith is hereby ratified and confirmed; and further, that any
officer of this county is hereby authorized to certify this resolution to whom it may concern
WITNESS my sig nature and seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. this
8th day of December. 1997.
C-~rk of the Board of Supe¢ors of
Albemarle County, Virginia,--
(SEAL)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT PLAN
APPLICATION
NAME 3F APPLICANT: KOB~,2~'~U~% S~AW
POSITION: ~l~o$ioN COI~'I'I~OL O~iCE)~ DEPT./SCHOOL:
DATE OF qIRE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY: 11 /28 /77
DATE OF BIRTH: 11 / 14/41
APPLICATION IS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT TO BEGIN: 02 /01 /98
STATE BRIEF REASON FOR EARLY RETIREMENT REQUEST:
1) TO ENJOY LIFE AND DO
2) PUBLIC SERVICE WORK.
I understand that the Albemarle County Voluntary Early Retirement
Plan is voluntary ane that I am pursuinc this~ request on my own
initiative. The Plan will be administered in accordance with the
Voluntary Early Retirement policy of the Board of Supervisors/School
Board.
SIGNATURE OF EMI~I_OYEE
DATE SIGNED*
*NOTE: Application must be received by the Director of Personnel by
December 1 in order to be considered for next fiscal year.
~APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD
[~ NOT APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD
9ATE AC~ED UPON BY BOARD
WHITE - PERSONNEL; YELLOW - SUpT./COUNTY EXEC.; PINK - EMPLOYEE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 97/98 NUMBER 97030
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED o YES
NO X
FUND GR3LNT
PLrRPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL GRANTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOI/NT
121126110280C701 ASSISTIVE TECH. ADP EQUIP. $1,500.00
1350961102132100
1350961102138100
1350961102210000
1350961102420100
1350961102600200
1350961102601700
PROJECT UNITE
SALARIES-TEACHER 1,942.80
SALARIES-WORKSTUDY 1,375.79
FICA 260.62
FIELD TRIP MILEAGE 548.92
FOOD SUPPLIES 99.26
COPY SUPPLIES 164.20
1310460252312500
131046025255C400
1310460252601300
1310460212601300
1312663328111400
1312663328210000
1312663328221000
1312663328231000
1312663328232000
1312663328241000
1312663328550100
1312663328550400
1312663328601300
1312663328601700
1350260201601300
1350260203601300
1350260204601300
1350260206601300
1350260211601300
1350260212601300
UPTON GRANT
SCIENCE MINIGRANT
LEARN & SERVE GRANT
EXCELLENCE GR3LNT
PROF SER-INSTR.
TRAVEL
INSTR. MATERIALS
4
,925.00
475.00
200.00
INSTR. MATERIALS 500.00
SALARIES 8,600.00
FICA 659.90
RETIREMENT 1,056.08
HEALTH INSURANCE 500.00
DENTAL INSURANCE 15.75
LIFE INSUP3LNCE 30.10
TRAVEL-MILEAGE 100.00
TRAVEL 75.00
INSTR. MATERIALS 598.17
COPYING 150.00
INSTR. MATERIALS 497.75
INSTR. MATERIALS 494.45
INSTR. MATERIALS 300.00
INSTR. MATERIALS 174.95
INSTR. MATERIALS 500.00
INSTR. MATERIALS t,000.00
TOTAL S26~743.74
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200024000240210
2350924000240243
2350951000510100
2310418000181221
2310418000181224
23126240~0240306
2350218000181223
ASSISTIVE TECH.
PROJECT UNITE
PROJECT UNITE FUND BALANCE
UPTON GRANT
V.A.S.T. MINIGPJ%iNT
LEARN & SERVE GRANT
EXCELLENCE GRANT
$1,500.00
2,041.49
2,350.10
5,600.00
500.00
11..785.00
2,967.15
TOTAL $26~743.74
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
S I GNATURE
/
DATE
2
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 97/98 NUMBER 97034
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
YES
NO X
FUND E.O. C
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES TO PURCHASE A
LAPTOP COMPUTER FOR DISASTERS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1410031041800700 ADMIN.-ADP EQUIPMENT $5,364.00
TOTAL $5,364.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2410033000330211 DEPT. OF EMERGENCY SERVICES S5,364.00
TOTAL $5,364.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINAiqCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINA/~CE
BOA/AD OF SUPERVISOR
S I GNATURE
DATE
7
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervzsors is
concerned with the health and wellbeing of its citizens ~nd desires
that the best possible emergency service be available to them; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and
Disaster Law of 1973 requires that each city and county develop and
maintain an Emergency Operations Plan which addresses its planned
response To emergency situations; and
WHEREAS, such a plan has been developed by County staff in
coordination with the Virginia Deparumenu of Emergency Services
with inpuu from local agencIes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED uhat the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, on this 3rd day of December, 1997, does hereby
officially readopu the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle
and University of Virginia Integrated Emergency Operations Plan, co
include plans and procedures for both peace time and war-caused
disasuers.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregozng writing
is a nrue, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the
Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, an a
regular meeting held on December 3, 1997.
Clerk, Board of County ~ervisors
THIS LEASE. effective the first day of November, 1997, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, hereafter designated as "Lessor", and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereafter designated as
"Lessee":
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Lessor owns certain property within the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia known as the Old Jailors House, and has agreed to lease a portion of the
same to the Lessee as provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein contained, the parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1 LEASED PROPERTY: The Lessor hereby leases and demises to the
Lessee, and the Lessee hereby leases and hires from the Lessor the following
described property for use by the Community Assessment Center, to wit:
409 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia
RoomsB, J Kand/
in the City of Charlottesville Virginia. hereafter designated as the "Property." The
leased area contains approximately 633 square feet, and the location of the rooms is
shown on the attached sketch.
2. TERMS OF LEASE AND TERMINATION THEREOF: This lease shall be
effective from the date of its execution and shall continue for a term of twelve (12)
months, to expire on November 1, 1998. Thereafter this lease shall continue on a
month to month term unless terminated as provided herein. The Lessor may terminate
this lease by giving the Lessee notice in writing of its intention to terminate thirty days
prior to the termination date. This lease shall not be renewed if the Property is
determined by the Lessor to be necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Section
15.1-258 of the Code of Virginia. Upon termination of the lease, all improvements
erected thereon shall revert to the Lessor and shall be free from any encumbrance at
the time of such reversion.
3. RENTAL RATE: The rental rate for the Property is $382.44 per month,
based on a rate of $7.25 per square foot to be paid in advance by the tenth day of each
month to the County of Albemarle. Director of Finance. The renta rate may be
increased for any new term of the lease if Lessor gives notification to the Lessee in
writing sixty days prior to the beginning of the lease term.
4. USE: The Lessee shall use and occupy the Property solely. Parking is
on a first come-first served basis and no spaces are provided or guaranteed as part of
this lease.
5. UTILITIES: The Lessee shal pay its proportional share of the electricity
(Virginia Power) within ten (10) days after notice by the Lessor to the Lessee of the
proportional amount owed for the month. Utility accounts will remain in the Lessor's
name.
6. MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF PROPERTY: The Lessor shall maintain
and keep the Property in its present physical condition. Janitorial services are the sole
responsibility of the Lessee. Upon the termination of this lease, the Property shall be
returned to the Lessor in good repair, ordinary wear and tear expected. If the Lessee
2
desires to make any repairs, improvements or changes in the Property, the Lessee
must first obtain the written permission of the Lessor. Repairs, improvements or
changes, if approved by the Lessor. are to be made at the expense of the Lessee. The
Lessee agrees to be responsible for any damages which the Lessee or any person the
Lessee permits to be there, caused to the Property.
FIRE INSURANCE: The Lessor shall maintain adequate fire insurance on
the Property.
8.
DAMAGE TO LESSEE'S Property: The Lessor shall not be liable for any
loss or damage to any of the Lessee's Property in or on the Property, regardless of how
such loss or damage may occur. The Lessee, in placing its Property ~n and on the
leased Property, does so at its own risk.
9. INDEMNITY: The Lessee shall indemnify and save harmless and provide
a defense for the Lessor. its agents, officials, and employees, from any and all liability,
damages, expenses, causes of actions, suits or judgments, which may accrue against.
be charged to, or recovered from the Lessor, its agents, officials, and employees by
reason of or on account of damage to the Property of. injury to or death of any other
person arising from the Lessee's use and occupancy of the leased Property.
10. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF Property: If the Property shall be
damaged by fire, act of God. war, or any other casualty or catastrophe, so as to make
them untenable, this lease shall terminate unless the Lessor shall, within thirty (30)
days after such damages notify the Lessee of its intention to restore the Property to a
tenable condition. The Lessee shall not be obligated to pay rent for the period of time
3
during which it is unable to occupy and use the Property as a result of such damage.
The Lessor shall be under no obligation to repair or replace the Property or any portion
thereof which may be changed or destroyed by fire or other casualty.
11. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL: The Lessor and the Lessee shall have
exclusive control of the management, assets, and offices of their respective institutions.
Neither party by virtue of this agreement, assumes liability for any debts or obligations,
either financial or legal, incurred by the other par~y of this agreement.
12. ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE: The Lessee shall not assign this lease or
sublet the Property or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the
Lessor.
13. NOTICE: Any notice required under this lease to Lessor shall be by
ordinary mail, addressed to the County of Albemarle, Director of Finance, County Office
Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596. Any notice required
under this lease to the Lessee shall be by ordinary mail addressed to City of
Charlottesville as Fiscal Agent for the Community Assessment Center, Post Office Box
911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.
14. MODIFICATION OF LEASE: This agreement of lease when executed by
the parties hereto, constitutes the final and entire agreement between the parties and
they shall not be bound by any terms, conditions, statements or representations, oral or
other, not herein contained. This agreement of lease may be modified or amended
from time to time by written agreement executed after the day hereof and signed by all
4
the parties hereto Such written modification or amendment shall be attached to and
become a part of this agreement.
This agreement is executed in triplicate.
WITNESS the following s~gnatures and seals:
Witness
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By
Date
(Seal)
Approved as to Form:
County Attorney
Witness
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By_ (Seal)
Date
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
5
Concurrent Resolution
of the
Boards of Supervisors of the
Counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna
and the Council of the City of Charlottesville
Creating the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission,
Establishing the Membership of Such Commission,
and Detailing its Powers and Responsibilities.
WHEREAS,a need has been identified for the construction of a juvenile correctional facility to serve the
Counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna and the City of Charlottesville (the "Participating
Jurisdictions"); and
WHEREAS,a "needs assessment"performed at the direction of the Participating Jurisdictions indicates
that their combined anticipated demand for juvenile correctional space will be sufficient to utilize
a 40-bed juvenile detention facility expandable to 80 beds; and
WlIEREAS, preliminary considerationsindicate that this need can best be met by building a new facility;
and
WHEREAS, a program planning study performed for the City of Charlottesville and the County of
Albemarle by Mosely-Harris & McClintock estimates the total project cost to design and finance
the construction of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center (the New Facility) to be
approximately $6.36 million dollars; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle have requested the Virgirfia
Department of Juvenile Justice to approve state funding participation in the design, construction,
eqtfipping and operation of the New Facility at the maximum mounts permitted by state law-; and
WHEREAS,the Participating Jurisdictions now ~vish to create a regional juvenile detention commission.
as authorized by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 ro 16.1-322, to be the appropriate legal entity to plan,
finance, design, and construct the New Facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLVED BY THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE AND FLUVANNA, AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THAT:
The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission (the "Commission") is hereby created and
established as a public body corporate under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Commission shall have three members, who shall be the respective county
administrator, county executive or city manager of each of the Participating Jurisdictions.
As required by Va. Code § 16.1-316, the Participating Jurisdictions have consulted with
the chief judges of their respective juvenile and domestic relations district courts
concerning the appointment of the members to the Commission.
The Commission shall have all powers and responsibilities conferred upon juvenile
detention commissions generally by Va. Code §§ I6.1-315 m 16.1-322 or successor
statutes, and by any other state laws. Without limiting the generality of this delegation of
powers and responsibilities, the Commission shall be authorized to:
Develop a Service Agreement among the Commission and the Participating
Jurisdictions to establish the basis on which the Participating Jurisdictions will
commit juveniles to custody in the New Facility.
Take such actions as may be necessary to insure maximum allowable state
panicipationin the cost of constructing, equipping and operating the New Facility.
Upon approval of the Service Agreement by the Participating Jurisdictions, ~ssue
such debt obligations as the Commission may deem necessary to fund the
development of the New Facility, including any costs incidental to the issuance of
such debt, the establishment of reasonable operating and debt service reserve, or
any costs incurred by the Commission in anticipation or execunon of such
development or the opening of the New Facility.
Arrange for interim financing, from one or more of the Participating Jurisdictions
or otherwise, and agree to reimburse any of the Participating Jurisdictions for any
sums advanced or expenses incurred on the Commission's behalf prior to the
Commission's securing permanent £mancing.
After securing the necessary financing, proceed with the design, and construction
and equipping of the New Facility and employ architects, engineers, financial
advisors, attorneys, contractors and other technical experts as necessary to complete
such project.
Any Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw unilaterally from membership in the
CommissionatanytimepriortoitsapprovaloftheServiceAgreement. After approval of
the Service Agreement and until any outstanding debt obligations of the Commission have
been fully paid, no Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw from membership in the
Commissionwithout the unanimous consent of the remaining Participating Jurisdictions.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution
unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgima, at a regular meeting
held on December 3, 1997.
Clerk, Board of County Sup rv'~
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclrair~ Road
Chartottes'dlle. V'u~inia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
WakecE Perkins
Sally H. Thomos
December 9, !997
Mrs. Angela G. Tucker
Resident Engineer
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mrs. Tucker:
At its meeting on December 3. 1997. the Board of Supervisors made the following comments
regarding transportation matters:
Agenda Item No. 5.1, Resolution to prohibit the use of through tm& traffic on Rio Road
~Route 631 from the Charlottesville City limits to Hillsdale Drive Route 1427). (Deferred from
November 12 1997.. ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item No. 5.2. Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision. Phases IB. IC and 1D
SUB-12.354 into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached Resolutions.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters.
Referring to Item No. 5. I. Mr. Bowerman asked that something different other than iusr a sign
staring "no through trucks" be installed. He suggested flashing yellow lights on the top and bottom of
the sign, as well as an indication of the last place a trucker driver can ttrrn around.
Mr. Bowerman said he is pleased Albemarle ~vas sdected as one of the count/es to partidpam
in the Traffic Calrrdng Pilot Program. He asked what kind of flexibility and input the County will
have with regard to the program. You did not think VDOT had ruled out streets with a 35 mph speed
limit for participation in the program at this time. On December 4. 1997. representatives from your
staff and Ctflpeper's Traffic Engineer will be meeting with the Cotmty's Planning and Engineering
staffs to discuss the program.
Regarding Item 5.19, M?s. Thomas said she appreciates receiving responses to her concerns
from the prewous Board meeting.
PHnted on recycled paper
Mrs. Angela G. Tucker
December 8. 1997
Page 2
Mrs. Thomas said she received a telephone call from Mr. Rauzelle Smith regarding Route 805.
Route 805 is a short road that deadends at the church. The church maintains the road for the last I00
yards or so. Parishioners are concerned about the condition of the road during the winter. When
brush is cut. it piles up in the ditch. The road then becomes the ditch and gets washed out when the
weather is bad. They would also like to have the road paved. Parishioners are meeting on December
13. 1997. Mrs. Thomas asked if someone from your office could telephone Mr. Smith to discuss steps
to get necessary rights-of-way to bring the road into the Six Year Plan or to see if the Pave-in-Place
Program would be appropriate. Mr. Smith can be reached at work at 924-~469,
Mr. Marshall said recently he drove on the new connector road between Avon Street and
Route 20. In his opinion, the speed limit on Route 20 needs to be reduced. The speed limit 6n Route
20 is 55 mph. and it is dangerous try/ng to exit the road onto Route 20. Something needs to be done
now before s~gns are installed for opening of the school. He asked if some signage or flashing lights
could be installed on Route 20 ro get people used to the change in traffic.
You indicated that there have be discussions about installation of lights. VDOT hasmot
determined whether lights will be installed on Route 20, the connector road. Avon Street Extended or
a combination of all three. You will continue to examine the issue and keep the Board informed. You
added that when traffic control is established in an area. there needs ro be a reason fbr it. other~vise.
drivers will not understand it. VDOT recently conducted a speed study on the section of Route 20
surrom~ding the cormector road: 85 percent of the traffic was traveling at 58 mph, slightly above the
posted limit. The sight distance at the connector road is based on vehicles traveling at 55 mph.
Mr. Tucker suggested installing temporary signs, until the sd~ool opens, cautioning drivers to
slow dorm because of trucks entering and exiting the road.
You said VDOT could install signs indicating trud<s are entering the roadway, as an interim
measure, until they straignren out the school zone signage and determine the actual posted speed liralt
through that sectmn.
Mr. Marshall also suggested more police enforcement.
Mrs. Thomas said she continues to hear from people living on the unpaved portion of Broad
Axe Road. She asked if there are any spot improvements or anything that can be done ro that section
of road. As she understands it, the people chose not to have the road paved when the option was
before them, and they did nor make the tight-of-way available. Now they are seeing the impact of
their decision, and she asked if the road could be looked at as a mmnren.ance issue.
Mrs. Humphris said there is a major pot hole on Colthurst Drive. in the right hand travel lane.
headed south after you pass the "T' intersect/on, around the curve.
Mrs. Angela G. Tucker
December 8. 1997
Page 3
Mr. Bowerman said he has heard nothing but compliments on the signalization and timing of
the light on Old Brook Road. which is coordinated with Hillsdale Drive.
You said VDOT is reviewing the future installation of signals in several locations. The first is
the four-way stop signs located at South Pantops and Riverbend Drives at the back entrance to State
Farm Insurance Company in the Pantops Shopping Center. The second location is on Route 250 at
Route 729. which is the intersection near Stone Robinson Elementary School on the east side of town.
The next location is the 1-64 t~oute 250 interchange, at both off ramps. The last location is the Fifth
Street interchange with 1-64, at both off ramps.
%WC
Attachments
Sincerely, .
Ella W. Carey, CMC. Cl/erk
cc: Robert W. Tucker. Jr.
WORK LIST FOR DECEMBER 3, 1997
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.. by the Chaimtan.
Mrs. Humphris.
All Board membes were present. Also. present were rite County Executive. County Attorney and County
Plmmer.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Mr. Vernon Fischer. representing the Coalition for Tax Equity. said they have a problem with more
r~xes. He thinks the Board needs to have discussions about at what point taxes become counter productive to
the people mtd families who live in this County. He showed Board members a peitition where residents of the
Monticello Precinct at Piedmont Virginia Community College signed asking the Supervisors to limit the
percentage of taxes County citizens have to pay. They asked the Board to begin a study as to when taxes
become counter productive and to survey the citizens once a year which include an item on taxes how much
rmxes, should they be raised, lowered, remain the same, etc. other issues such as projects that the Cotmty want
to do. The citizens appreciate receiving FYI, but he thinks they need to be given more information and tire
vehide to respond to the Supervisors to let them know what their needs, opinions and desires are,
Mrs. H~m~phris said the Board has an open budget process. She hopes that the people who signed the
petition will come to the public hearings and let the Board know their feelings at that time. The Board would
also welcome any ideas.
Mr. Marshall said it is important that the people who signed the petition come to the budget public
hearings for the Supervisors and School Board.
Agenda item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas. seconded by Mr. Martin.
to approve Items 5.1 through 5.I0 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as information.
Roi/was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshal/. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman asked to pul/Item 5.1 and 5.I9 for discussion under transportation matters.
Mrs. Humphris asked ro pull Items 5.5 and 5.10.
Mrs. Thomas asked to pll Items 5.9 and 5.17 for discussion.
Item No. 5.1. Resolution to prohibit the use of through truck traffic on Rio Road (Route 631 from the
Charlottesville City limits to Hi/Isdale Drive Route 14275. (Deferred from November 12. 1997 ) ADOPTED
the attached Resolution.
Item No. 5.2. Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision. Phases lB. lC and ID tSUB-12.354,
into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item No. 5.3. Autttotization ro proceed with sale of Trigon stock to be used to offset health costs.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
item No. 5.4. Voluntary Early Retirement request for FY 1998-99. APPROVED.
Item No. 5.5. Request for additional funding of $37.732 to complete DLxie Little League project at
Mclntire Park. APPROVED.
Item No. 5.6. Appropriation: Sdrool Division: $26,743.74 (Form #970301. APPROVED.
Item No. 5.7. Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center. $5,364 Form #97034
APPROVED.
Item No, 5.8. Authorize Cotmty Executive to sigm lease of Old Jailer's House to City of Charlottesville
for the Community Assessment Center. APPROVED.
Item No. 5.9. Resolution to readopt the Emergency Operations Plan developed by the Emergency
Operations Center Management Board which indudes entergency operation procedures for the County, City and
University of Virginia. ADOPTED Resolution.
Mr. Tucker said he would have Kaye Hardin come to next month's Board meeting to review the Plan.
Item No. 5.10. Resolution of Support For The James River Heritage Parutership's Nomination of the
James River as one of Ten American Heritage Rivers. ADOPTED.
Mrs. Humphris said on page four of the information it mentions ferries that were popular with tourists
and it seems to her the Hatton Ferry should also have been mentioned. She thinks that should also be
recognized. She also mentioned several typographical errors.
Item No. 5.11. Buaget calendar for FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget, was received as information.
Item No. 5.12. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle, Virginia. at the November 4, 1997
General Election. was received as information.
Item No. 5.13. Letter dated November 17, 1997, from Mr. Jay Roberts. Environmental Engineer. to the
Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris. re: Public Notice of Draft VWP Permit ~P97-1454. was received as
information.
Item No. 5.14. Copy of memorandum dated November lZt_ 1997. from Ms. Hannah T~vaddell, Senior
Planning, Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, ro the Honorable Maurice Cox.
Charlottesville. City Council, providing a printout of costs for projects in the draft CATS 2015 Plan. was
received as information.
Item No. 5.15. 1997 Third Quarter Building Report as p~:epared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development. was received as information.
Item No. 5.16. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting
for September 1 l 1997. was received as information.
item No, 5.I 7. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric
and Power Company to revise its fuel factor pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-249.6, was received as
information.
Item No. 5.18. Monthly update on the FY 1997/98 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering
Public Works as of November 24. 1997, was received as information.
Item No. 5.19. Letter dated November 21, 1997, from Ms. Aa~gela G. Tudcer, Resident Engh~eer.
Department of Transportation. to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding items discussed at the November 5, 1997
Board meeting, was received as information.
Item No. 5.20. Copy of letter dated November 20, 1997, from Mr. Roy T. Mills. Assistant State
Hydraulics Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., re: Route 29 North Bypass -
erosion and sediment control and stormwarer management plan, was received as information.
Item No. 5.2i. June 30. 1997 Financial Management Report, was received as information.
Item No. 5.22. September, I997 Financial Management Report, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: February 14. 1996; April 16. September 3, October 8 and
November I2. 1997.
Mrs. Humphris read the mintes of Februarv 14. 1996 - pages 15 (Item #9 } to end. and with the
exception of some typographical errors found them to be in order.
Mr. Martin read the minutes of November 12, 1997, and found them to be in order. Mrs. Thomas
noted that on page I 1, last sentence should indicate "Mr. Vanroijen' instead of "Mr. Bowemmn'
Mrs. Thomas sa/d she read the minutes of April 16. 1997, pages 15 (Item #101 - end, and found them
to be in order with the exception of some minor typographical errors.
Mr. Bowerman said he read the minutes of September 3, 1997, and found them to be in order with the
exception of some minor typographical errors.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas. seconded by Mr. Bowerman. to approve the minutes as read. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Peri<ins:
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters.
Mrs. Tucker said she had no new information. She will answer any questions from Board members.
Referring to Item No. 5.1 on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowerman said he did not understand that a
truck encompassed vehicles down to 7.500 pounds gross vehicle weight. He owns a delivery truck which is
typical of most retailers. By definition of VDoT that truck is prohibited as is almost all delivery trucks from
these roads. He did not understand that was the intent of the definition for elimination of that type of traffic.
He thought Rio Road was concerned with large trucks that could not negotiate the S curves. He did not know it
would predude most commerdal enterprises in Charlottesville and Albemarle from using either Georgetown
Road or Rio Road.
Mrs. Tucker said that wording in the proposed resolution comes directly from the Code of Virginia. The
two axle excludes pickup and panel trucks. Anything that is not one of those that is something other than those
are prohibited. Keep in mind this is a through truck restriction. Any trnck that has a destination between
points for ddivery purposes or otherwise is not prohibited. This resolution states tht if that same vchide can get
from "A" to "B" by an alternate route then it must do so because this road is not the best option. That alternate
route would be tire Route 250 Bypass and Route 29.
Mr. Boweman asked Mrs. Humphris if that was her understanding of what the Board did for
Georgetown Road. Mrs. Humphris replied, "yes". The alternatives for Georgetown Road are so much more
rasonably dose. For Rio Road the alternative is not as simple. Mr. Bowerman said he can live with this. He did
not understand this was the Board's intent.
Mr. Tucker asked if this same truck restriction is prohibited on Park Street in the City. Mrs. Tucker
replied"yes". This would match the prohibition already in place, but rarely enforced on the City portion of
Route 631. Park Street.
Mr. Perkins suggested that maybe the Code of Virginia needed to be darified to indicate the length of
the truck rather than the weight of the truck. Mr. Bowerman commented that VDoT is trying to keep out
asphalt and concrete trucks off Rio Road because of the damage to the roadway. Mrs. Tucker replied that is
correct which would take into account tire weight of vehides in addition to their length. The length is of
concern because of the sharp geometrics that are involved. The through track restriction on Rio does mainly
concern safety.
Mrs. Tucker said this does not prohibit ddiveries or people from doing business in the area even if it
should be a large 18 wheeler moving van.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the public or Police Department understand this because he did not have a due.
He asked if there was a definition on the sign that states "no through truck traffic". Mr. Tucker replied. "no".
The sign states "no through truck". Mr. Bowerman commented that the City is proposing that Meadow Creek
have no ti~rough trucks.
Mr. Bowerman asked that something different other than lust "no through trucks" be put tip. He thinks
there should be flashing yellow lights on the top and bottom of tire sign and where ever the last place to turn
arotmd is located. He believes it is enough of a safety issue to be signalized in some fashion so that no one can
miss it_ especially someone from out-of-town.
Regarding Item 5.19, Mr. Bowerman said he is pleased the County was selected as one of the pilot
counties for traffic calming. He asked if we have input in the speed where this wilt talce place. He asked what
flexibility Albemarle has in doing the pilot. Where we are looking at for some of these measures being necessary
is 35 mph streets. Mrs. Tucker responded that her office intends to support them looking individually at these
specific locations. Mr. Bowerman said if we are limited by 35 mph, then we might as well throw it away because
those are residential streets and most are 35 mph. Mrs. Tut<er said she does not think VDoT has determined
that they are not eligible for participation in this program as yet. VDoT will sit down tomorrow and discuss
with Planning and Engineering staffs, Culpeper traffic engineer and her office. Mr. Bowerman said he does not
see a street doing this. he sees neighborhoods. There is going to be a lot of participation of the communities to
get 75 percent of the signatures. He also asked ff there is any funding that goes along with this, Mrs. Tudcer
said there will be a cost participation. It is part of the County's allocation: part secondary funds and part CIP
funds.
Mr. Bowerman asked ~fthe $200.000 in the CIP anticipates a match from VDoT. Mr. Cilimberg said it
did not anticipate a match. It was estimated on what the City put into traffic calming per year at $50.000. Last
night the Planning Commission, in endorsing the CIP for the Board's review, asked that the money be put bad<
into traffic calming and taken out of the Ivy LandfiLl Recreational Access. It is a higher priority. That would
give us a chance to match secondary funds. Mr. Cilimberg said our position was that we look at it in a broader
sense, to indude the 25 mph.
Mrs. Tucker said the 25 mph speed has been shared with Department staff.
Regarding Item 5.19_ Mrs. Thomas said she appredates receiving responses to her concerns. Mrs.
Thomas said she received a telephone call from Rauzelle Smith regarding Route 805. Route 805 is a short dead
end road: it deadends at the church. The church maintains the last 100 yards or so of the road. There seem to
be concerns about the condition of that road mostly what it will become in the winter. When brush is cut down
it piles up in the ditches and they third< the ditches then end up not acting as ditches, but the road becomes the
ditch and it gets washed out when the weather is bad, They were also concerned about what they would have to
do get the road paved, They are having a meeting on December 13. She asked if someone from Angela's office
could telephone Mr. Smith. at 924-4469 (work~ to discuss the steps necessary about getting the rights-of-way to
get into the Six Year Plan or if Paving in Place would be appropriate. This is not a safety issue: it is more of a
convenience xssue. She does not think it needs to be high on the list. but it also is a short road.
Mr. Marshall said on Monday he was our on the new road between Avon Street and Route 20. it looks
lil<e the pnmary grade is £mished all the way through. We need to slow down traffic on Route 20. If you are
coming our of the road. turn left onto Route 20 heading towards Charlottesville. you will get broadsided from
someone traveling south because they are rn~uring 55 mph. Just a short distance up the road. the speed is
reduced to 45 mph because of the curve, It looks like we should put a s~gn up with flashing 25 mph when the
school opens but we should be doing that before because that road is going to be piddng up a lot of traffic. It is
a dangerous intersection. He asked if some signage or flashing lights be installed now on Route 20 to get people
use to the change in traffic.
Mrs. Tucker said they have discussed the installation of those lights. It has not been deterrrdned
whether they will go on Route 20. on the cmmector road, Avon Extended or a combination of all three. She wi]]
continue to look at that and keep the Board advised. They want to be careful that they establish traffic control
out there that it has a reason behind it. Otherwise we will be drawing people's attention and they will not
understand what it is for, They recently conducted a speed study on that section of Route 20 surrounding the
connector road. 85 percent of the traffic was traveling at 58 mph which is slightly above the posted limit. The
sight distance at that cormection to Route 20 is based on vehicles traveling at 55 mph.
Mrs. Tucker said they should do what they are doing out there and coordinate it closely with
enforcement. Again. Mr. Marshall asked if they can do something before the road opens.
Mr. Tucker suggested temporary signs indicating to slow down trucks entering installed until the school
opens. Something to alert people coming around that curve to slow down due to trucks entering the road, to
alert them that they need to be cautious. Mrs. Thomas suggested the sign stating change in traffic partem.
Mrs. Tucker said they can do the trucks entering roadway as an interim measure tmtil they straighten
out the school zone signing and the actual posted speed through that section.
Mr. Martin said they are going to have to do some serious police enforcement. Mr. Marshall suggested
getting more police enforcement.
Mrs. Thomas said she keeps hearing from people on Broad Axe Road, the part that is not paved. She
thinks Angela was going to see if there were any spot improvements or anything that could be done. As she
understands it the people chose to not have it paved when the option was before them. rights-of-way were nor
made available. Now they are seeing the impact of their decision. If it could be looked at as a mamtenance
issue.
Mrs. Humphris asked who to contact for a malor pot hole on Cokhurst Drive. in the travel lane on the
right headed south after you pass the "T" intersection, you go arotmd the curve and it is on the right. Mrs.
Tucker said she will have it taken care of.
Mr. Bowerman said the signalization and timing of light on Old Brook Road which is corrdinated with
Hillsdale Drive, he has heard nothing but compliments. It seemed to work well from the begnnning.
Mrs. Tucker said they are reviewing signalizing two secondary intersection in the near future The first
is the four-way stop condition at South Pantops and Riverbend Drives at the badcvvay rd State Farm in the
Pantops Shopping Center That four-way stop condition has multi-lane approaches and it is somewhat
confusing. The four-way stop was an interim measure to an intersection that did meet warrants for
signalization. There should be some developer partidpation in that signal that VDoT wants to talce advantage
of.
The second location ~s on Route 250 at Route 729. which is the intersection tight by Stone Robinson
School on the east side of town. That meets signal warrants. There is concern about the Route 250 East
Corridor Study, but traffic control is needed at that location.
Another location for signals is the 1-64 Route 250 interchange, both off ramps. ]?hey would work in a
similar manner to the signals newly installed at Barracks Road and the Route 250 Bypass.
A/though they are not looking for this to happen until after the 1-64/Route 250 location, the 5th Street
interchange with 1-64 is another location to be prioritzed for a signal on both ramps. The signals would be
coordinated. Mr. Bowerman asked what is the timing for this signal Mrs. Tucker said the first three locations
she mentioned would be next year: this one would follow shortly. It is possible to have developer contributions.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Airport Plan Presentation. Bryan Elliott,
Received: no action.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: PREP Financing.
Received. no action. Entire project and associated agreements required to move forward will be
presented in January.
Agenda Item No. 9. FY 1996/97 Preliminary Audit Report, Presentation of.
Presented: no action required.
Agenda Item No. 10. I 1:00 a.m. - Interfaith Roundtable on Sustainability, Presentation by Michael
Collins. TJPDC.
Presented: no action required.
Agenda Item No. 11. Work Session: Comprehensive Water Resottrces Ordinance.
Public hearing scheduled for February 11 1998
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: FY 1998 1999 - FY 2002 '2003 Capital Improvements Program.
Motion by Mr. Bo,verman. seconded by Mr. Martin, to instruct staff to come up with a method to fund
traffic calming. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman_ Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tud<er said this will allow the General Assembly to allow us to borrow money and the General
Assembly will share in a per bed cost for this detention center. City Cotmcil and Fluvanna Cotmty will vote on
later this month.
Mr. Davis said this just approves the Co,remission. It is not binding in reality until a smwice agreement
is approved. This also authorizes the service agreement to be drafted and put together
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall. seconded by Mr. Bo~verman. to adopt the attached resolutin
creating the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Htunphris, Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker said Loudon County along with the Virginia Innovation Group is trying to put together a
forum throughout the state to discuss growth management issues and we are one of the counties they are asMng
to participate in. A formal date for the forum has not been set. It will probably be next spring. They are tryin~
to get a consensus of how many people might be Jarterested in joimng them. They will have speakers from
throughout the country to come to th~s area. He would like to notify them that we would be interested in
participating. They are having a steering con~mittee meeting in Ridxmond later this month that we might be
able to attend. He and the Chair have been invited to attend. There were no objections to participating.
Mr. Perkins mentioned the Deer Management Committee Report which is asking for input from the
public. He served on that committee. He thinks we are going to continue to have problems w/th deer in our
suburban areas. There were some things he advocated that did not get adopted. If have any recormnendations_
should let the Commission know.
Mr. Tucker suggested having the Game Warden come to the Board meeting to give us some data on
enforcement after hunting season.
Mrs. Thomas again asked for the report from GE on their employment data. Mrs. Humphris suggested
sending a tetter from this Board stating the terms of their loan. They are not meeting the conditions of their
loan.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the meeting with the Maryland people on the housing ordinm~ce.
Mr. Marshall mentioned a letter he received from Greg McDonald at Michie Tavern asked that tour
packages that were booked asking that the Meals tax not be implemented until after June 30 because of the
prices quoted for these tour packages. Think would be grossly unfair because he would have to take the
difference out of his pockets. Board lek it was a business decision if he made no contingencies in his contracts.
Mr. Bowerman asked what happens next with the CIP, what about the proposal for level funding. Mr.
Tucker said this was iust a work session. Mr. Bowerman asked if we wanted to give staff any direction, Mr.
Tucker said if we do not hear anything we will move forward with level funding from this current year to ne~
year.
Mr. Marshall said he wotfld like to see what our revenue shortfalls are going to have to be.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff to provide the Board ~vith scenario which does level funding for the nex~
budget cycle.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the reception for Iqaren Powell- who ~vill be leaving the School Board after 7
years of service and 2 years as Chairman. The reception w/ll be Monday, 5:30 p,m..
Mrs. Humphris said she and Mr. Bowerman will be sworn in today at 3:45.
Mrs. Humphtis said the Board received an invitation for a loint VACo/VML Regional Legislative dinner
meeting in Hartisonburg at the Sheraton Hotel on December 17, starting at 5:30 p.m. with dimmer at 6:30 p.m.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the Planning District Commission legislative dinner if we want to get together with our
local legislators. They have all agreed to come. That is on December 19th.
Mrs. Humphris said legislative day in Richmond. February 5th. at the Marriott. starts at 1:00 p.m. Mrs.
Humphris said she will be going ,need to ask ff she will be staying overnight3
Mrs. Humphtis said the presentation next Wednesday afternoon beginning at 2:30 p.m.. the Innovative
Housing Institute, sponsored by our Housing Committee. we have been invited to attend.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the ads for the Planning Commission and Board of Social Services. They are
significant vacancies. There are four vacancies on the Planning Commission. We are encouraging in the
districts to apply. The deadline will be December 18th.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 1:14 p.m. motion was offered by Mr.
Bowerman. seconded by Mrs. Thomas, that the Board go into executive session pursuant to section 2.1-344~A of
the Code of Virginia under subsection ( 1 ) to consider appointments to boards and commissions and to discuss a
board personnel matter and the appointment of an employee and under subsection (7) to consu/t with legal
counsel and staff regarding spedfic legal matters relating co reversion and specific legal matters relating to a
service agreemem. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas- Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Httmphris. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perltins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Recess and Reconvene in Meeting Room 235.
Note: The Board remained in executive session to continue with Sd~ool Board. Did not certify after
regular meeting.
Agenda Item No I8. 4:00 P.M. - Room 235 - Ioint meeting with School Board.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
At 4:30 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas_ to certify the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall. seconded by Mr. Bowerman. to appoint Mr. Michad Thompson as
the Director of Human Reso~trces, effective January 5. 1998, with an annual salary of $67.000. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas_ Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, to appoint Mr. Steven Gibson to the Route 250 West Corridor
Study and to appoint Mr. David vonRoiien to the Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowrman to appoint Mr. Robert Walters to the Regional Disabilities
Services Board to filI out the tme~cpired term of Elsie Fryer. to expire on July 1.1998. and to reappmnt Mr.
Richard G. Piccolo and Mr. G. David Emmitt to the Public Recreational Facilities Authotity, with terms to
expire on December 31. 2000. Mr. Perkins seconded the motions. Roll ~vas called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 18A~ Call to Order. Mrs. Humphtis noted that the Board was already in session. Mrs. Powell
called the School Board to order.
Agenda Item No. 19. 4:30 P,M. - Joint meeting with School Board and State Le~slators to
discuss the Court .ty's 1998 Le~slative Program.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin. seconded by Mrs. Thomas. to support Delegate Van Yahres's efforts
to create a Public Defender's office for the Charlottesville Albemarle area, Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. The meetingwas adioumed at 5:45 p.m.
RESOLUTTON
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, received a request from the Virginia Department of
Transportation uo consider the prohibition of through truck traffic
on a segment of Rio Road (Route 63t) as a means ~o address safety
concerns; and
WHEREAS, combinations of Route 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, does hereby requesE that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board prohibit the use of through truck traffic on
Rio Road (Route 631) between the Charlottesville City limits and
Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). This prohibition shall apply To any
truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combinatIon, except a
pickup truck or panel truck. A truck shall mean every mouor
vehicle designed to ~ranspor~ proper~y on its own s~ruc~ure
independent of any other vehicle and having a registered gross
weight in excess of 7,500 pounds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does~supporE this reques5 and sEaEes
its intent that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the
proposed prohibition by the Albemarle County Police Depar5menu and
any other appropriate law enforcement agency.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correc5 copy of a resolution adopted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on December 3, 1997
Clerk, Board of County Supervmsors
!~ ~5 ~BOT TEL 804 979 5789
Phone [804) 293-00t I
Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
POOl
Fax (804)
FAX: [804) 979-3759
Comments:
Number of pages '~ (Including cover sheet)
~ms r.eceJving this information,
04) 293-0011
If you have any pmb,
please call VDOT at
motor veh/cle, ts-~er, or Mm~r
~v~v f~ ~e ~ of ~pe~ of
~he ~Z~: (~) ~e o~m~ ~ the ~s~ ~Mr
~ emp~y~ ~ ~ ~p~ by ~e le~ ~d (v) a
~, For ~ p~ M ~a~ 8 of ~ ~,
~ a M~way.
~ ~ or w~l c~ir ~ ~ a
~1 ~b~ a~ o~e~e ~ble ~ move A~ as
w~ ~ ~ ~-p~ wheel ~lr
eh~ ~t be co~r~ a m~r v~de, {~ 1~0,
~ ~, ~159, ~1~, ~1~, ~; ~, c. 59;
~3, 5~ 1974, e. 3~7: 1975, ~ ~2,
372: 1977, ~, 2~, 58~; 197& ~ 36, 5~, ~; 1979,
~ 1~; 19~, c. ~l; 1~, ~ ~; 1983,
,qL~M~LE CObNT¥
TEb 804 979 a ~9
P 003
RE$OLUTZON
WHEREAS, the Board Of Supervisors of Albemarle CounL'y, Virginia, received a
request from She Virginia Department of Transpiration t~ consider the prohibition of
through truck traffic od a secjment of Rio Road {Rou~e 63!) as a means to addre~ ~afe~y
concerns; and
WHEREAS~ comb[n~tions~f Eout~e 29-Seminole Trail and ROule 29-250 Bypass are
~sona~le at~em~five~ :o ~c~ nOW ~vel~ng R~ Roa~ ~o ~he Charlo~e~ille CiW limi~
or R~u~ 29,
NOW., TH EREFORE, BE ~.T RF-~OLVED that the f~ard of Su.:e~visors o¢ A~b~arE
C~un~, doe~ hem~e~u~that ~e Commonwealth Transpo~a~t0n BOard prohibit the
of ~hrough ~uc[ :mffic 0n ~o ~ad (~o~ E3~) be~een the ~aHO~e~flle
H Ii.ale Or~ve (Rou~ 1~27), ~i~ pmhlb~ shall a~PN ~ any ~c~ or ~ an~ ~ra~ er~
or ~emi-~Jler ~mbt~ion, ~e~ a ~kup ~ or ~nel ~c~; and
BE ZT FURTHER RESOLVED, tha~ the B~rd of Supe~'isors of Albemarle County,
Vi~jinia, does support this r~uest; and ~aLes ILs ,nmnt that it will use its §ood office~ For
en(orcement o¢ the 1orol~o~ed prohibition by the Albemarle ~ounty Police Departmen~ and
an5 other appropriate law enforcement agency.
l, Ella W, darey, do herein' ce~ that the foregoing writing is a true, c~rrec~ copy
of ~ re~oluUon unanim~udy adop~ ~ the ~ard ~ Su~rs of Al~marte CounW,
~r~tnia, at a regular m~etlng held o~ N~er I2, I997
Cler~, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Through Truck Restriction on Rio Road
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Support Resolution for this Request
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
October 1, 1997
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT~SI: ,/' ~ ~ .-~"---~-"'~
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg 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 ~s a nan'ow, curvy,
and hilly read that carries 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 30, 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 guardraiis in a portion of this section. The alternative throug ~ truck route would be Route 29
to the 250 Bypass.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors support VDOT's request to restrict through trucks on Rio
Road from Hillsdale 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.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
97.181
RESOLUTTON
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, received a
request from the Virginia Department of Transportation to consider the prohibition of
through truck traffic on a segment of Rio Road {Route 631) as a means to address safety
concerns; and
WHEREAS, combinations of Route 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, does hereby request that the CommonwealthTransportation Board prohibit the use
of through truck traffic on Rio Road {Route 631) between the Charlottesville City limits and
Hillsdale Ddve {Route 1427). This prohibition shall apply to any truck or truck and trailer
or semi-trailer combination, except a pickup truck or panel truck; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does support this request and states its intent that it will use its good offices for
enforcement of the proposed prohibition by the Albemarle County Police Department and
any other appropriate law enforcement agency.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wdting is a true, correct copy
of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November I2, 1997
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
LARRY W. DAVIS .
Count~ Attorney
§ 46.2-807 CODE OF VIRGINIA § 46.2-810
§ 46.2-807. Rotary traffic islands. -- A vehicle passing around a rotary
~raffic island shall be driven only to the right of such island. (Code 1950.
§ 46-220.1: 1952, c. 671: 1958. c. 54i, § 46.1-204; 1989, c. 727.
§ 46.2-808. Commonwealth Transportation Board may prohibit cer-
tain uses of controlled access highways; penalty. A The Common-
wealth Transportation Board may, when necessaW to promote safety, prohibit
the use of controlled access highways or any part thereof by any or all of the
following:
1. Pedestrians.
2. Persons riding bicycles or mopeds
3. Horse-drawn vehicles.
4. Self-propelled machinery or equipment, and
5. Animals led, ridden or driven on the hoof.
B. The termini of any section of controlled access highways, use of which is
restricted under the provismns of this section, shall be clearly indicated by a
conspicuous marker.
C. This secnon shall not apply co any vehicle or equipment owned or
controlled by the Virginia Department of Transportation. while actually
engaged in the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of highways or to
any vehicle or eqmpment for which a permit has been obtained for operation on
such highway.
Any person violating a restriction or prohibition imposed pursuant to this
section shall be guilty ~fa traffic infraction. (1964. c. 239, § 46.1-171.1: 1966.
c. 365; 1981, c. 585: 1983, c. 262; 1989. c. 727; 1991, c. 55.)
§ 46.2-809. Regulation of truck traffic on secondary highways. The
Commonwealth TranspmCation Board in response r4~l request by a
local governing body, after such body has held public--ay; after due
notice and a proper hearing, prohibit or restrict the use by through traffic of
any part of a secondary highway if a reasonable alternate route is provided.
Such restriction may apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semitrailer
combination, except a pickup or panel truck, as may be necessary [o promote
the health, safety; and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth, Nothing
in this section shall affect the validity )f any city charter provision or city
ordinance heretofore adopted.
The provisions of this section shall not apply in i) cities, (ii) any town which
maintains its own system of streets, and (iii) in any counw which owns.
operates, and maintains its own system of roads and streets. (1973. c. 67.
~ 46.1-171.2 1989. :. 7272
§ 46.2-809.1. Regulation of residential cut-through traffic by Board.
The Commonwealth Transportatmn Board may develop a residential
cut-threugh traffic policy and pgocedure for the control of residential cuc-
through traffic en designated secondary highways.
For the pm-poses of this section, "reside~ztial cut-through graffic' means
vei-.icular traffic passing through a residential area without stopping or
without at least an origin or destination within the area.
The provisions of this section shall not apply in (9 cities, (ii) any town that
maintains its own system of streets, and (iii) any counw that owns. operates,
and maintains its own system of highways. (1995. c. 556.)
§ 46.2-810. Age limits for drivers of public passenger-carrying ve-
hicles. -- No person, whether licensed or not under the age of eighteen ye. ars
she 1 drive a motor vehicle while in use as a public passenger-carrying vehicle.
5O6
1o' Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer
Department of Engineering & Public Works
From: Ella Washington Carey. Clerk. CMC ~
Subject: Road Resolutions
Date: December 8. 1997
At its meet/rig on December 3, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following
resolutions:
to accept roads in Durdora Subdivision. Phases iB. IC and 1D
(SUBd2.354, into the State Secondary System of Highways.
Attached are the original and four copies of the adopted resolutions.
/EWC
Attachments i0~
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting
on the 3rd day of December, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the snreeEs in Dunlora - Phases lB and lC (SUB 12.354) described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 3, 1997, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streets meet the requiremenEs established by the Subdivisicm
Street Reauirements of the Virginia Deparnmenn of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervzsors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add roads in Dunlora - Phases lB
end lC as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated De~ember 3, 1997, to
the secondary sysnem of state highways, pursuann no §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guaranEees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easemenEs for cues, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; end
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Deparnment of Transportation.
Recorded voEe:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
'it-~ ;-g7P05:~i5 I~CVC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer tV~
DATE: November 18, 1997
$1/BJECT: Dun/ore Subdivision, Phase IB, 1C, and lD (SUB 12.354)
The roads serving the referenced subdivision are substantially complete and ready for
VDO T acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt
the two (2) resolutions for the reads specified in the attached VDO T SR-5(A) forms. After
the adoption of the resolutions, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies of each
signed and dated resolution and SR-5A.
Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me ff you have any questions.
MBH/ybv
Attachment
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Charter Oaks Drive from Station 39+65.81, right edge of pavement of
State Route 1177, to Station 37+00, end of road construction, 265.81
lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75,
with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.05 mile.
2)
King William Drive from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of Charter
Oaks Drive, ~o Station 33+00, rear edge of pavemenu of cul-de-sac, 2290
lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarl~ County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75,
with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded
12/27/89 in Deed Book 1081, pages 426-30; 7/28/93 in Deed Book 1328,
pages 746-7; 8/11'97 in Deed Book 1633, page 220, for a length of 0.43
mile.
3)
Barclay Hill from Station 10+10, left edge of pavemenu of King William
Drive, to Station 16+37.6t, rear edge of pavement of cul-de-sac, 627.61
lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75,
with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded
8/11/97 in Deed Book 1683, page 224; 11/12/97 in Deed Book 1654, pages
545-7, 548-50, 551-3 and 554-6, for a length of 0.12 mile.
4)
Pendleton Court from Station 10+10, left edge of pavemenu of King
William Drive~ ~o Station 11+90, rear edge of pavemenE of cul-de-sac,
180 lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded 12/27/89 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1081, pages 426-
30, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.03 mile
Total Mileage - 0.63 mile.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting
on the 3rd day of December, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WI~EREAS, the streets in Dunlora - Phase 1D (SUB 12.354) described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 3, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference,
are shown on plats recorded mn the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engzneer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streems meet the requirements established by the Subdivisic~
Street Rec~irements of the Virginia Deparnmenn of Transportatmon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervzsors
requests the Virglnza Department of Transportation to add Mosby's Reach in Dunlora -
Phase 1D as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 A) dated December 3, 1997,
to the secondary system of shame highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Reauirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board gnarannees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportatlon~
Recorded rome:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County SupervIsors
Tha road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Mosby's Reach from Station 10+10, right edge of pavement of King William
Drive, to Station 20+05 51. right edge of pavement of King William
Drive, as shown on plat recorded 5/25/95 in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1470, pages 265-9, with a
right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 12/27/89
in Deed Book 1081, pages 426-30 and 7/28/93 in Deed Book 1323, pages
746-7, for a length of 0.19 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.19 mile.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BOARD OF SUPERVI O ,$
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
l-2!-97~02:~8 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Authorization to sell Trigon Stock
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
ReqUest authorization to proceed with the sale of
Trigon stock tc be used to offset health costs.
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
I ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT, S,: ..z///
Messrs. Tucker, Huff; Breeden I REViEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
in February 1997, Tdgon converted to a public-traded stock company at which time all policy holders received
common stock based on their premium history with the company. As a result of this, Albemarle County received
23.758 shares of stock as of August 5, 1997.
.DISCUSSION:
Due to the complexity of this issue involving most Virginia localities, special legislation was adopted in the ~997
General Assembly governing the allocation and distribution of the stock and/or proceeds from the sale of the stock
as well as any investment income. The main issues addressed by the legislation are as follows:
I. Allocation - In localities such as Albemarle, where all employees; general government, schools, and
other agencies, are covered by a joint policy; the stock must be allocated to each group based on premiums
paid during FY 96/97. Allocation of Albemarie's stock is:
Shares %
General Gdvemment 4,668 19.65
Schools 17, S 19 74.16
Jail Authority 746 3.14
Service Authority 487 2.05
CATEC 238 1.00
Total 23,758 100.00%
2. School Allocation -At least fifty pement of the School stock or proceeds must be uses to offset health
insurance premium expenses incurred on behalf of school em,31oyees. Any remaining School stock or
proceeds must be used for school construction, maintenance, or debt service. All of the School stock or
proceeds may be used for health insurance instead of construction, etc.
3. Liability for Retaining Stock - Since common stock is not an allowable investment of local funds, certain
statutory protection has been provided for the Treasurer or Director of Finance responsible for local
investments. Basically, to take advantage of this prolection, at least one-third of the stock must be sold
each year, with August 5. 1998, being the end of the first year. All stock may be sold immediately.
AGENDA TITLE:
Authorization to sell Tdgon Stock
December 3, 1997
Page 2
This stock was originally issued at $13.00 per share, has been as high as $27.00 per share, and is currently selling
at $26.'125 (11/20/97)~ The current value of Albemade's stock is $620,677. A fee of approximately $1,200 will be
incurred to sell the stock.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the main objective for local investments, safeguarding of principal, it is staff's recommendation to sell all
stock in the near future, Although the stock market can be very unpredictable, there is a general consensus that
Trigon stock will stabilize around $25.00 per share. It is staff recommendation that this stock be placed with a
brokerage firm with an order to sell as long as the pdce per share is above $25.00. Should the pdce drop before
the sale can be completed, the stock pdce will be tracked on a regular basis and the Executive Health Committee
will re-evaluate this recommendation if the stock does not reach this value within a reasonable time. Staff also
recommends that the entire proceeds be allocated to the Health Insurance Reserve Fund. Based on projected
increases of 8 to '10 percent in health costs, this amount would offset a large portion of the increase for FY 98/99.
Representatives from each group on the Health Insurance Executive Committee has tentatively agreed to this
approach, however, a decision to use the entire proceeds for health insurance will require official agreement by the
Board of Supervisors, the School Board, and other agencies.
Staffrequests the Board's authorization to proceed with the sale of the stock to be used to offset the health costs
after obtaining the consent of the other parties. This authorization requires adoption of the attached resolution which
[s required by the brokerage firm pdor to the sale of the stock.
97.223
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia, a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has determined that it is
desirable for the County to sell its Trigon stock;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
That Melvin A. Breeden, who is the Director of Finance of this county is hereby
authorized to sell, assign and transfer the following:
the execution of Trigon stock
and to execute any and all instruments necessary, proper or desirable; further that any
past action in accordance herewith is hereby ratified and confirmed; and further, that any
officer of this county is hereby authorized to certify this resolution to whom it may concern
WITNESS my signature and seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. this
day of ,1997,
(SEAL)
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia
RESOLUTION
I, Ella Carey, in my official capacity, hereby certify: that I am Clerk of the County of
Albemarle, a political subdivision of the Comonwealth of Virginia duly organized and
existing under the laws of Virginia; that at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, duly and
regularly convened and held on the day of ,1997, at which a
quorum for the transaction of business was present and acting, the following resolution
was duly and regularly adopted, and is still in fuji force and effect, and appears as follows
in the minutes of the meeting:
RESOLVED: that Melvin A. Breeden, who is the Director of Finance of this County is
hereby authorized to sell, assign and transfer the following:
the execution of Tdgon stock
and to execute any and all instruments necessary, proper or desirable; further, that any
past action in accordance herewith is hereby ratified and confirmed; and further, that any
officer of this county is hereby authorized to cedify this resolution to whom it may concern.
I further certify that the foregoing resolution is not contrary to any provision in the county
or state code and that I have been duly authorized to make this certificate on behalf of this
county, In witness whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seat of this county this
day of ,1997.
(SEAL)
Clerk, County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
Commonwealth of Virginia
County of Albemarle:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
My commission expires:
day of ,1997.
Notary Public
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert B. Brandenburger
Deputy Director of Human Resources
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~D/
December 9, 1997
Board Actions of December 3, 1997
At its meeting on December 3. 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved an application
for participation in the County's Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program from
Mr. Robert A. Shaw. Mr. Shaw's early retirement will begin February t, 1998. Attached is the
signed application form.
In addition, the Board of Supervisors and School Board appointed Mr. Michael
Thompson as the Director of Human Resources, effective January 5, t998, with an annual salary
of $67,000.
/ewe
Attackmem
cc: Richard E. Huff. II
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B@A' D OF SUpERvIsoRs
77-2~'-97~C9:73 RCV_r
AGENDA TITLE:
Early Retirement Request FY 1998-99
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board approval of eady retirement benefits for
County employee
STAFF CONTACT(S}:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff & Brandenburger
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
_REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Albemarle County Personnel Policy §P-63 provides for voluntary eady retirement for county employees who have
been employed by the county for ten of the last thirteen years and who are at least 50 years of age and currently
employed. Staff has received one request from an employee who has been employed with the county for the
prerequisite minimum number of years and has indicated his intention to retire within the current fiscal year (2/1/98).
The associated employee costs will be absorbed into the FY 1997-98 budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
County policy requires the Board of Supe~som to approve all early retirement applications upon recommendation
of the County Executive. Staff recommends that this request be approved with the budgetary implications absorbed
within the current departmental FY 1997-98 budget.
97.222
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Richard E. Huff II, Deputy County Executive
Bob Brandenburger, Deputy Director of Human Resourc~s~/Y~
Application for Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program and Budget
November 5, 1997
Attached you will fmd an application for the County's Voluntary Early Retirement
Incentive Program for FY 1996-1997 received fi:om Robert A. Shaw. He is requesting
early retirement starting February 1, 1998. I have also included a revised VERIP budget
which Includes the budget projection for Mr. Shaw.
Please let me know if you have any questions or reqmre any additional information.
Attachments
COUNTY OF ALBEMAF:~..E
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
230-54-.8215-0
Ro/~I Shaw
DOB: 11/14/41
Start pay: ~
Last Pay: Olr2Oo3
VERIP BUDGET WORKSHEET
97~8 98-99 99-2000 2000-20 2(X)1-2~0
# o~ Mor&hs 5 12 12 12 12
M<allhly ~ 281.00 292.24 303.93 316.~9 328.73
Anm~ stipa~t 1,405.00 3.506.88 3,647.16 3,793.04 3,94.4.76
Proaa. ed Medical 833.33 2,2(X).00 ?_,420.00 2,C:~?-00 2,928.20
Annual FICA 171.23 436.58 464.14 493.81 525.78
~-2003
7
341.88
?_393.16
1.878.93
326.81
Total Yearly Cost 2.409.57 6.143.46 6,531.29 6.948.85 7.398.74 4,598.90
To~al Plan Co~t $34.030.81
V~ur~q~ ~ R~ I n~eet~,e
3,346.24 3.6~9.27
Oe~uty She~f
230.50 239.72 249.31 259.28 2~.60
2.766.00 2.876.64 2.99t.71 3.111.37 1.887.57
2.(3~0.00 2.200.00 2,420.~0 Z~62.(0 1.708.12
5.130.60 5,465.(0 5,825.70 6.215.04 3,870.75
Jesse R. Hurt # Months 12 12 12 12
(E/3 monti~s) laoS'dy ~ 344.72 358.51 372.85 387.76
DO~: 00J21/4t Anm.~ stJoend 4,136.64 4.30:2.11 4.474.19 4.~33.16
225-56-7956-1
Ge~ge Sv&"~Mr # Mcmth~ 12 12 t2 t2 a
(60 months) M~,~dy s~dpe~:t 203.74 211.89 220.37 229. t8 238.35
De~xe/Saemf
C~erk To~I Yee~y C~et 4,98t.32 5.780.72 $.154.~ 6.556.52 6.9G0.7t 621.62
7
34t.88
i 878.93
326.81
$34.030.81
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~
December 8, 1997
Dixie Little League Project at McIntire Park
At its meeting on December 3, [997, the Board of Supervisors approved the additional
funding of $37,734 from the existing Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program
for the completion of the Dixie Little League project at Mclntire Park. This approval is with the
understanding that any additional costs associated with the completion of this project will not be
the responsibility of the County of Albemarle.
/ewc
cc: Robert W. Tucker. Jr.
Richard E. Huff, II
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE oARD SUPBR¥IsoRS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request from City of Charlottesville - Dixie Little
League
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for additional funding of $37,734 to
complete Dixie Little League project at Mclntire
Park
STAFF CONTACT~S}:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mullaney
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, '1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
On October 2, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved County funding for $36,000 to participate with the
City of Charlottesville and the Dixie Little League in the construction of two little league fields at Mclntire
Park. The project included the demolition and reorientation of the existing field to make room for the
second field. The City of Charlottesville estimated the cost of this project at $100,000. The Dixie Little
League raised $40,000 for the project, with the remaining $60,000 coming from the City and the County.
Since 60% of the participants in the Dixie Little League are County residents, the County was asked to
provide 60% of this amount.
DISCUSSION:
The City's odginal estimate was made without the benefit of topographical surveys or plan details and was
based on actual cost data frem arecenflycompleted ballfield at Tonsler Park. Dudng the early part ofthe
design phase, it became apparent that the grading and utility components of the project were more
extensive than the Tonsler Park job and would require most of the allocated budget. The City decided to
adjust the scope of work and proceeded to bid and award a contract of $89,000 for the grading, seeding,
and utility component of the project. This base bid amount along with Architectural and Engineering fees
and other incidental expenses have exhausted the original $100,000 project budget.
A complicating factor in flying to determine the true cost of the project was that the ong~nal site plan
included elements of the Phase II Master Plan for Mclntire Park. With all of these costs associated with
the project the development cost estimate soared to $318,000. A lot of effort has gone into isolating what
costs should be faidy associated with this project and hence shared by the County and Dixie League, and
what costs would have occurred in the future, regardless of this project, and should be the sole
responsibility of the City of Charlottesville. City and County staff and Dixie League representatives have
agreea that costs associated with the access road, parking area and associated curb, gutter and utility
work are peripheral to the ballfield project. These improvements, estimated at $60,000, were planned for
the future, but have been accelerated by this project. The City has agreed to assume full responsibility for
these costs. The County and Dixie League will only share in costs directly associated with the
development of the two ballfields and concession stand which will be primarily used by the Dixie League
program.
AGENDA TITLE:
Request from City of Charlottesville - Dixie Little League
December 3, 1997
Pae 2
The Dixie League has identified the following elements totaling $97,980, in addition to the base bid work
as required to open the fields for play in the Spring:
Concession Building: $35,000
Fencing: $28,000
Infields: $10,000
Dugouts: $16,000
Bleachers: $ 4,000
Seeding: $ 4,890
Total: $97,890
The League has raised an additional $35,000 toward these costs. The City is proposing that the remaining
$62,890 be funded as the odginal request was at 60% County and 40% City. The respective contributions
for these additional components therefore would be $37,734 ICounty) and $25,156 (City).
The Parks and Recreation Department has recently completed interviewing representatives from the
vadous area athletic organizations to determine current and future athletic field needs. The Department
submitted a list of those needs in pdority order with its 1998/99 - 2002/03 CIP requests. Based on the
Dixie League's needs, the current status of this project, the City's commitment, and the tremendous efforts
made by League volunteers, the completion of this projec~ is listed as the number 1 priority for funding.
The Parks and Recreation Department currently has funding available of $70,000 for the athletic field
needs study and development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve additional funding of $37,734 from the existing Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvements Program for the completion of the Dixie Little League Project at Mcintire
Park. This appropriation is recommended with the understanding that any additional costs associated with
the completion of this project, will not be the responsibility of the County of Albemarle.
97.221
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PUBLIC WORKS
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CC:
PAT MULLANEY
The purpose of the memo is twofold: First, I would Ftke to provide some history on
the project, to include original estimates for the work and subsequent revisions to the
scope. Second, I will outline the current status of the work and outline the minimum
requirements necessary to complete the project and open the ball fields in the Spring. I
w'fll also mmmarize the status of contributions in this joint endeavor.
Stated simply, the original scope for this project involved minimal site grading,
seeding and fencing necessary to create two ball fields in the Mclntire Park. Without the
benefit of topographical surveys or plan details, the City was asked to provide an estimate
for the cost of the work. Actual cost data from a recently completed ball field at Tonsler
Park was used. (In the case of Tonsler, the actual cost to construct one ball field, to
include grading, seeding and fencing, totaled $38,000.) Accordingly, a budget in the
mount of $I00,000 was established for the current project.
During the early part of the design phase, it became apparent that the grad'mg and
utility components of the project would require most of the allocated budget and
therefore the scope of work was adjusted accordingly. The plans were revised and the
low bid for the reduced scope of work (grading, seed'mg and utilities) came in at about
$89,0O0.
The Dixie Little League has identified the following elements, in addition to the base
bid work, as being required to open the fields for play in the Spring.
Component Estimate DLL Commitment City/County Share
Concession Build'rog $35,000 $10,000 $25.000
Fencing $28,000 $ -0- $28.000
Infields $10,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,000
Dugouts $16,000 $14,000 $ 2,000
Bleachers $ 4,000 $ 3,000 $1,O00
Seeding $ 4,890 $ -0- $ 4, 890
Totals $97,890 $35,000 $62,890
(Cost estimates have been provided by the Dixie Little League and represent the
maximum amount that will be allocated for these additional componems. Cost overruns,
if any, will be the responsibility of the League.)
The above schedule suggests that of the $97,890 required to complete the work,
the Dixie Little League will contribute $35,000 (in addition to the $40,000 akeady raised)
and the City and County will contribute the remainder in accordance with the establish
formula of 40% City and 60% County. Our respective contributions for these additional
components therefore would be $25,156 (City) and $37,734 (County). In addition m the
above, the access road, parking area and associated curb, gutter and utility work will be
required. Since these latter items are peripheral m the ball field project, the City has
agreed to assume full responsibility for their costs (approximately $60,000).
This project represents a mae partnership of public and private entities. We are
grateful to the Dixie Little League for their energy, enthusiasm and commitment to this
project and feel, as partners, it is appropriate that we see this project through to its
completion. Accordingly, we are formally requesting the Board of Supervisors to joia
the City and approve additional funding of $37,734 to complete the project.
COUNTY OF ALBEMA RE. Rc¥
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - School Division
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of the appropriations for various school
grants, totaling $26,743.74, as detailed on form #97030.
AGENDA DATE:
December 3 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
A'I-FACHM ENTS.:
~ffEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMA~ON:
Yes
STAFF CONTACTtSI: ~/~' I I-'~'''~
Messrs. Tucker. Huff, Castner, E~reeden . REVIEWED BY: ~d..~/~[.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on September 22, 1997, the School Board approved appropriations for several school grants.
DISCUSSION:
o Appropriation of $1,500.00 from the V/rginia Department of Edacatiot~ The Virginia Department of Education designated $1,500.00
to Albemarle County for ass/stive technology equipment. These funds will be used to purchase adaptive equipment for students with
disabilities.
Re~Appropriadon of $4,391.59 for Project Unite Funds. The Virgirda Department of Education awarded Albemarle County Schools
$14,000.00forfl~eProjeatUniteGrant in July, 1996. These funds werenot fullyexpendedinthe 1996/97 schoolyear. Thesefunds
wi/1 be used for expenses incurred during our summer school program for remediafion.
Approprialien of $5,600.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. J.T. Henley Middle School has received a grant award from
the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. These funds will provide an introduction of Henley Middle School's students to an
interdisuiplina~ arts program. This wilt include 3 artist-in-residency performances. The performances are Masque, with Larry Hunt;,
The StoE~teller, with Dylan PriteI~tt; and African Percussionist, with Dan'ell Rose. The programs will involve the entire school in
assemblies end several large groups in interactix s activities to include hands on learning experiences with performing, visual, and
musical arts.
Appropdationof$500.0Ofromthe VirginiaAssociafion of Science. The VirgmiaAssociafionofScience Teachers (V.A.S.T.)has
awarded Linda D. Hut'son, a teacher at Woodbrook Elementary School, a mini-grant in the amount of $500.00. The mini-grant will
fund project S.K.I.F.F (Science Kits Intended For Families). S.K.I.F.F. wilt provide a chance for families to explore theme-based,
hands-on science kits at hame, with investigative kit ideas such as: Magnets, Color, Sound, Chemistry, Light, Life Cycles, The Human
Body, Nature and Scientific Investigation. Each kit will include materials supporting the topic and wilt be housed in the school's media
center available for families to check out for two week periods. S.K.I.F.F. goals are designed to promote science both at school end
at home and encourage families to spend quali~y time while enjoying science together.
Appropriation orS11,785.00ffomthe VirginiaDepartmant ofEducation. Albamarle CountyPublio Sohoolshasmceived a grant
award inthe amount orS11,785.00 from the Virginia Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education Services.
This graat will fund the program entitled Reading Together to Reach the Stars. This program will develop and implement a model
program of~a'aining target[ag ~ow Income, undereducated adults to become tutors for children in grades K through 4 who need reading
support and to increase the reading comprehension and vocabulary levels of both the adult tutors and the children receiving instruction.
Tutor packets will be developed with the support of the At Risk specialist to assure that the contents and activities are appropriate.
o Appropriation of $2,967.15 from the Foundation for Excellence in Public Education. The Foundation for Excellence in Public
Education has made grant awards to several teachers in the Albemarle County Public Schools. The awards made were to Steve
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - School Division
Dccembe~ 3, [997
Pag~ 2
Gissandanunr, Broadus Wood Elementary School, in the mount of $497.75, Jenn/fer Fcrguson, Crozet Elementary School, in the
amount $494.45, Amy Va/l, Lisa Frazier, Gayle Reed, and Kedra Hauser, Crreer Elementary School, in the amount of $300.013, Anne
Stranme, Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, ia the mount of $174.95, Brian Maznevski, Stony Poiat Elementary School, ia the
amount of $500.00, tJmda D. Hutsen, and Anne Scherer, Woodbrook Elementary School ia the amount of $500.00 each. These funds
will support projects ia Science, Social Studies, Reading, History, Geography, and Math developed by the teachers such as Geography
at Lunch, Colon/al Day, Math Activities to take Home. Picture "Research" in First Grade and Science Buddies, em.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends the Board approve the appropriatiens totaling $26,743.74 as detailed on form #97030.
97.227
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY o.4. D oF SUP RWSO S
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Emergency Communications Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of the receipt and disbursement of
$5,364.00 from the Department of Emergency Services
as detailed on form #970034.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
DISCUSSION:
The Emergency Communications Center recently received $5,364.00 from the State Department of Emergency
Services. This money will be used to purchase a laptop personal computer to assist ECC employees during
disasters which may occur in our area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $5.364.00 as detailed on form #970034.
97.218
David P. Bcs~erman
Rio
Charlott~ Y. Humphm
Farrest P~ MamhalI, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMA~I _E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntirs Road
Charlottesville, ~a'ffmia 22902-4~596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
S~]ly H. Thomas
December 8, 1997
Ms. Jeanne Cox
Cleric, City Council
City Hall
PO Box 911
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Dear Jeanne:
At its meeting on December 3, 1997, the Board of Supervisors authorized the
County Executive to execute the attached lease with the City of Charlottesville for
use of the Old Jailor's House for the Cormmmity Assessment Center. After both
copies of the lease have been signed by the City, please return them to me and I will
obtain the County Executive's signature. A fully executed agreement will then be
forwarded to you for your files.
Sincerely,
Ella W. Carey, Clerk. CMC//
/ewc
Attachments
CC:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Roxanne W. White
Printed on recycled paper
BOARD OF SUPERV!SORS -24-v oo5: , cvD
Updated 11/24/97
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
FY 97/98 PROJECT REPORT
Scheduled
Budge; Completion % Complete Notes
SCHOOLS
Stony Point Addition
Brownsville Addition
Woodbrook Addition
WAHS Renovations
Monticello High School.
Stony Point Kitchen/Cafeteria
High School Technology Ed. Labs
Murray High School Renovations
WAHSlCATEC Roofs
Stony Point Parking and Playfield
Site lmprevements 0NAHS)
VMF Facility
Chiller Rem. AHS/Hollymead
Greet HVAC Renovations
Hen[e~ Middle School Addition
Stone Robinson Addition
PREP Facility
AHS Phase Itl Renovations
Subtotal
1.204.667 08/15/97 98% C
1.773.470 08/15/97 99% C
2.245.550 08/15197 99% C
2.700.000 08130/97 99% C
29.743.000 06/15/98 60% C
75.000 08/01/98 80% D
230.000 09/01/98 05% P
920.000 09/15/96 20% D
1.022.500 09/18/98 85% P
193.000 10/30/98 80% D
407.200 11/30/98 45% D
437,000 11/30/98 50% D
668.000 05131199 05% D
306.000 05/31/99 05% D
2.385.500 06115199 50% D
2.664.000 06/15/99 25% D
2.900.000 07/01/99 10% D
650.000 08/01/99 05% P
$50.524.887
Final Change OrdedPayment Pending
On Hold by Building Services
Funding Approval Needed
ADMINISTRATION & COURTS
Court Square Painting
TJ Visitor's Center Roof Painting Projecl
Courts Space Needs Study
Old Real Estate Building Drainage Design
Keens Landfill Remediation
County Facilities 5-Year Maintenance Study
Old Crozet School Roof
Roof Study, County Facilities
COB Maintenance Program:
Misc. Building Renovations
Replace Rooti COB
Seal Parking Lot COB
HVAC Contrel System
UST Replacement @ COB
COB Additional Parking
Su~o~l
74.254 10/30/97
10.000 12/15/97
50.000 06/30/98
15,000 06/30/98
170.600 06/30/98
20.000 06/30/98
135,000 08/31198
5.000 06/30/98
81.000 01/30/98
100.000 t 1/30/97
30.000 11/30/97
30.000 06130198
120.000 10130198
100,000 10130198
$940.854
100% C
85% C
100% P Fee Negotiation Stage
80% P On Hold
50% P
10% P
50% P
05% P
99% C
25% C
25% B
60% C
20% P
05% P
HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
Airpod Access Funds Agreement 900.000 09~30~97
Adams Court 3.800 12/30/97
Hydraulic Rd Sidewalk 65,000 04101198
Rt 20 Connector Road 2.528.300 05101198
~'-ses for 29 180.000 05/30/98
West Leigh Drive Rural Addition 300.000 06130198
Berkmar Dr. North Extension (Close out) 1.000.000 06/30/98
GE Fanuc ind. Access Project 267.000 06/30/98
Barracks Road Sidewalk 61.000 06~30~98
Milton Farm/20 Sidewalk Lights, Landscape 140.000 10/30/98
Street Lighting:
Airport Acres 1.500 04/30/98
Rio/Old Brook ~oad 0 04/30/98
Commonwealth Ddve 16.000 06/30/98
Hydraulic Road (Inglewood to Georgetown) 16.000 06/30/98
Hydraulic Road (Georgetown to AHS) 10.000 06/30/98
Hydraulic Road rAHS to Whitewood) 12.000 06/30/98
Whitewood Road Area 40.000 06/30/98
Marshall Manor 1.000 06~30~98
Subtotal $5.541.600
75% P Co. Attorney Revising
05% D
85% D
87% C Weather Delay
75% C
95%D Obtaining Plat Sig natures
100% C
10% D
05% P
05% P
80% B Confirming Costw/Va. Power
80% B Confirming Costw/Va. Power
80% B Confirming Costw/Va. Power
80% B Confirming Cost wl Va. Power
80% B Confirming Cost w/Va. Power
80% B Confirming Costw/Va. Power
10% D Underdesign by Va. Power
80% D Under design by Va. Power
LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction
STORMWATERCONTROLPROJECTS
Moores & Meadow Creek Studies 184,600 08/30/97
Woodbmok Channel Phase I 20.265 08/30/97
Lickinghole Basin (Close out) 1.972.880 09/01/97
Branchlands Wet[and Dedication 21.000 12/30/97
Rio Hills Basin Dedication 4.700 1 2/30/97
Design Standards Manual - Needs Assmt. 11.980 02/28/98
Design Standards Manual - Final Design 38.000 06/30/98
Woodbraok Channel Phase II 28,035 06/30/98
Windham/Jarman GaB Channel 82.000 06/30/98
Peyton Basin 156.500 06/30/98
Picky Road 39,900 06/30/98
Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer 17.500 06/30/98
Four Seasons Channel 23.100 06/30/98
Four Seasons Basins 96.100 06~30~98
Birnam Basin 98.485 06~30~98
Master Drainage Study 205,400 06/30/98
SW/Erosion Correction Projects:
Kropf Drainage Improvements 1.550 08~30~97
Hasko Drainage Imorevemems 4.870 08~30~97
3rookmere Rd. Drainage Improvements 4.250 08130197
:as[brook Dr. Drainage ~mprovements 9~012 10/30/97
~atdck Drainage improvements 2.500 06/30/98
Westmoreland Ct. Drainage Improvements 30.000 06/30/98
Minor Ridge Drainage improvements 30.000 06/30/98
Subtotal $3.082.627
PUBLIC SAFETY
UST Removal @ Regional Jail
Regional Jail Addition
Juvenile Detention Facility
Police Aoademy Training Facility
Subtotal
P-.._ .-RECREA :N
50,000 01/30/98
14.978.792 10/01/99
7.200.000 04/01/00
6,250,000 05/15/00
$28.478.792
Chris Greene Fountain 10.000 12/30/97
Oorder Park Shelter/Restroom 56.008 04/91/98
Crezet Park Field 640,000 36/30/02
Subtotal $706.000
TOTAL ,$89,274,760
95% D
100% C
100% C
85% D
90% D
30% P
0% P
50% D
05% D
95% D
05% D
05% D
10% D
10% D
t0% D
00% P
Finalizing Deeds
Deed Revisions w/C. Attorney
4 Meetings wi Focus Grp.
Base Maps Completed
Funds for Next Watershed
100% C
100%C
100% C
100% C Replacing Trees
25% D
10% D
05% P Pending RHH Final Site Plan
85% D
60% B Adveriised for Construction Bids
50% P
50% P Consultant Selection Pending
100% D 0% C Contract Pending
95% D
LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911
November 21, 1997
SUPERVISORS
A. G. TUCKER
::IESiDENT ENGINEER
Board of Supervisors Meeting
November 5, 1997
Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
We offer the following comments regarding EransporEaEzon matters that were
discussed am the November 5 Board meeting.
o Albemarle County has been selected co particlpaee in a' Traffic Calming Pilot
Program co begin Januamy ~958 'through Ded~mber 1999. W~ are ~meetlng with the
County Planning and Eng~neerinc 'S~affs on December~~ to d~scuss this pilot pro,ram
o The DeparEment~will conduct- speed studies for Dick Woods Road (Route 637 ,
Buckingham C~rcte Route 82'0 ~ and Morgantown Road Route 739) ih orde'r to Donsider
what action to take with ~especc ~o speeding problems. We will advise the Board
when these studies are complete.
o The Deparcmenn is reviewzng Ivy
trucks no physical road restrictions.
complete.
Depot Road (Route 786) for signzng to alert
We will advise the Board when this revzew ~s
o We have scheduled the work necessary Eo address the drainage problem ac 209
Benningcon Road. This work should be complete within cwo weeks.
o The traffic signal ~o be installed aE the proposed realigned intersection of
Route 25£ 'Route 601 Route 809 Canterbury Road, Bellair Subdivision will allow for
protected left 5urns ae all approaches.
o A citizen requesc co review Route 715 for a reduced speed limit resulted in the
following. Twc speed monitoring scam~sns were established within the study area £o
collec~ vehicular speed data. The 85th percentile speeds were 58 and 48 mph and the
50th percentile speeds were 52 and 42 mpk. k review of accident dana indicates £hat
67% of the 21 accidents ~eported from January 1, 1992, co June 30, 1997, were due ~o
driver ,ina~enEion.'The basic criterion for determihing appropriate speeds is Zhe
~h percentile speed.', Rou~e 715 is c~e~'ly~p~&d a~ th~ 50%~ ~erc~i'le speed
of 45 mph. Posting speed limits lower than what zs reasonable .can result in
enforcementd%~ficulties ~nd, increased tYaffiC ~a~a~ds ~ince'm~t'moto~i~t~ ~o~tinue
to drive at speeds which~ they-find to be r~as6nable an~ prudent wit'h regard cd the
prevailing roadway conditions. No reduction inthe po~ted speed limit should occur
as this time.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
MS Ella Carey Pa§e 2
Board of Supervisor Meeting November 21, 1997
November 5, 1997
o The Depar5men~ has completed a speed study on Route 20 approximately 1.7 miles
north of Route 742 Avon Stree5 Extended The 85th percentile speed was recorded
aE 58 mph. The 50th percentile speed was 52 mph. Approximately 85% of vehicles
were traveling over the recommended 45 mph. Based upon this data, it would be
unrealistic ~o lower the prssent speed limit am this time. We will review 5his
location again after pammerns are established upon opening of the connecmor road.
Please share this information with the Board members~ If there are any
questIons, I will be prepared mo discuss them am the December 3rd Board meeting.
Sincerely,
AGT/smk
cc: J. S. Hores w/attachment
H. W. Gentry
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
BOARD OF SUPERV} SORS
!I-25-97,~, :i3 RCV,r
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND 23219
November 20, 1997
J.T. MILLS
Route 29
Project 6029-002-F22,C-501
Albemarle County
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22902-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) administers
the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the
virginia Stormwater Management'Regulations for State Agency
projects. VDOT mustsubmit annually to DCRz for their approval,
the standards, specifications and criteria for its stormwater
management and erosion and sediment control program.
The Route 29 By-Pass Project, throughout its entire length,
is being developed to comply fully with provisions set forth
in VDOT's approved program to address the Virginia Erosion
and Sediment Control and Virginia Stormwater Management
Regulations. In the areas adjaoent to the Reservoir, additional
measures are being proposed to address concerns for potential
impacts to this sensitive downstream area.
The general details of the erosion and sediment control and
the stormwater management plan have been completed. The plans
are currently being reviewed by Dr. Shaw Yu to determine if
additional enhancements can be utilized to increase the water
quality efficiency of the proposed facilities. By copy of this
memorandum, I am also sending a set of the plans to Mr. David
Hirschman for his informatio~ and'review. '
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Page
I hope that this information addresses your concerns. If you
have additional questions or desire additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Roy T. Mills
Assistant State Hydraulics
Engineer
for
Jimmy T. Mills
State Location and Design
Engineer
cc:
Mr. Arthur D. Petrini
Mr. David J. Hirschman
Ms. Hannah Twaddell
Mr. J.G. Browder, Jr.
Ms. Angela G. Tucker
Ms. Patrica G. Napier
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI,:E RD
OF SUPERVISORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
11-26-g7702:15 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Preliminary June 30, 1997 Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request acceptance of the attached preliminary
financial report for the year ending June 30, 1997.
STAFF CONTACT, S}:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
December 3, 1997
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
DISCUSSION:
Fiscal year 1996/97 preliminary financial report shows County operations
more than budgeted. Major factors impacting this surplus are as follows:
Revenues
Property Tax $(965,000)
Sales Tax 86,000
License Tax 452,000
Other Local Tax ( 131,000)
Building Related Permits 64,000
Fines 69,000
Interest 122,000
Charges for Services 52,000
Recovered Cost 101,000
Lease Vehicle Tax 78,000
Public Assistance 308,000
Other 148,000
Sub-Total $ 384,000
completing the year with $2.1 million
Expenditures (unexpended)
Finance $ 53,000
Clerk of Court 44,000
Police 69,000
Fire/Rescue 53,000
Engineering 66,000
Solid Waste 165,000
Staff Services 74,000
Virginia Public Assistance 114,000
Parks and Recreation 86,000
Planning 140,000
Zoning 49,000
Contingency
Other
School Revenue (over projections)
School Expenditures (unexpended)
Total
Sub-Total
145.000
197,000
$1.255.000
$ 52,000
$ 445,000
$ 2,136,000
As you can see from the above, the major portion of this surplus was realized from expenditures being lessthan
budgeted. In many cases, however, this was due to uncompleted projects which were carried forward into FY
1997/98 as reappropriations.
Action taken in FY 1997/98 that have used a large portion of this surplus are as follows;
Surplus: $2,136,000
Less: FY 97/98 Budgeted Surplus
Reappropriations
Avon Street/Route 20
845,687
589,995
627,221
Remaining Surplus
73,097
Due to a change in generally accepted accounting principles, you will see at the bottom of the attached Fund
Balance Schedule, the addition of $663,889 to the General Fund Balance and $535 097 to the School Fund
Balance. This results from a decision that an additional month of sales tax revenue should be accrued to
properly show the financial position al June 30th. A caution should be noted that these amounts are accruals
only and do not represent funds available for expenditure.
As shown by the attached reports, the County completed fiscal year 1996/97 in a sound financial position. It
should be noted, however, that there appears to be a definite flattening of local property taxes which should be
watched closely for the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the attached preliminary financial report for the year ending June 30, 1997.
97,231
Z
Z
>~o
~o~ ~
~>z ~0
Z~
zm m~
0~
o~Om>m
~0~0~
Z
n~
Z
U=
uJ
fl.
oZ
~l.u
o~
r. Dn~
i
ZZ -
'mo
u-F_
...r -m
oo
Z~
Z
a ~ ~a~~zz ~o o ~ ~ ~= ~
Z
o<o>~
~mz~
~o<
~m~
~m~>
>~ ~o
Z
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
30ARD OF SUPERVISORS
I 1-26-97Po2-13 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
September 1997 Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
September 1997 Financial Report for the Genera[ School,
and Capital Funds
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ms. White, Messrs. Tucker, Braeden, Walters
.AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:~
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Attached isthe September 30, 1997 Monthly Financial Report for the General, School, and Capital Funds.
General Fund revenue projections were re~/lsed as of September 30. 1997. Prelirninary estimates indicate that Personal
Property Tax collections witi be approximately $1.8 million less than budgeted.
General Fund expenditure projections have not been revised at this time,
Education revenue and expenditure projections have not been revised at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the September 1997 Financial Report.
97.224
I-
· el' ~ t.,"~ L..") o~. ~ ',o. o o o ,- ca 0~ o~ ca ua ~.
LLI
0000000
LU
Z
LL
0
I.IJ
m
LLI
W
Z O~
--
~ ~w>O
Z
n, LU
~- Z
--I ,-I
I-- m
0
~'- Z
o o
o o
To: Membe~ 3oard of Supervisors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC. Clerk
Subject: Reading List for December 3. 1997
Date: November 25. 1997
February 14, 996 - pages 5 (Item #% - eno - Mrs, Idum~}hris
ADn~ 16. 997 - pages 5 (tern # I 0) - end - Mrs. Thomas
September 3. 1997 - Mr. Bowerman
October 8. I997 - Mr. Marsna~
NovemDer 12. 1997 - Mr. Martin
/~WC
Septeu~ber 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mrs. Thomas suggested that the first condition state that water quality
is paramount. She added that, while neigh-bors are in agreement with the
project, they are concerned about the impact on the neigkborhood and the
quality of water. She then suggested rewording condition number two to
include, ~...developmenn and use of the trails". Regarding condition number
four, she suggested rewording the condition to read: ~increased boating
access..." She said the Ivy Creek Foundation indicated that hunting and
trapping will be prohibited. She pointed out that deer are overpopulated and
it should be mentioned that it may necessary to regulate the animal population
no protect the area, since deer carry a paraslte and have been eating vegeta-
tion in the area. Mr Tucker suggested that possible efforts for animal
control should be considered in collaboration with a state biologist and the
Department of Games and Inlands Fisheries.
Mrs Humphris said she was parn of the discussion on this Fro3ect and
thinks it is important to maintain this area in a wilderness state. She feels
that the Planning Commission's recenn review of the Fro]ecn is vague about
future negative effects and pressure no use it by the public. It should be
emphasized
that the County is de~g~w~tine water supplies. She is
concerned that people forget tha%~ "~ are not recreational areas.
and that trails might become ovef~sed. The County needs to have a better
vis,on for the future of water supplies.
Regarding condition number four, Mrs. Hun%0hris wondered if the County
should prevenu access no water supply areas now. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority RWSA) is examining the use of the reservoir but
RWSA does nou own a lot of the land area. This is a tiny watershed owned
almost entirely by the C~ty, with County oversight. The policy could be
expanded to address Mrs. Humphris' concerns and to develop a vision ~f the
County's use of water bodies_ Mrs, Thomas said the RWSA's new advisory
committee suggested the same thing.
Mr. David Hirschman agreed, saying that recent developmenns have
concerned him. Some reservoirs are well managed by the Parks and Recreation
Department, but some others, such as Sugar Hollow, are abused by citizens.
Mr. Tucker said the Iv!; Creek Foundation and citizens say there is a
need for this use. He suggested that Priddy Creek might be another location
to be devoted to passive use by the Ivy Creek Foundation so that the Ragged
Mountain area is non overused. Mrs. Humphris asked about trails at Walnut
Creek~Park. j
~o~r. Bowerman said the County must educate ~itizens about the
~..
~ ~_~_,e~ the~watersheds.~_z~ A/1 overall plan should be developed, because there is--~]
,~'~ I~a~ greenbelt from the Meadow Creek Parkway to the Riva~na
Greenway
~/~'~arden Park, and the RWSA should be made aware of any plans, k,~
Mr Marshall said usage of these areas has increased beyond previous
Boards' expectations. Mrs. Humphris said the Planning Commission voted that
this plan was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but additional
suggestions were made at the meeting. She asked Mr. Davis~for direction.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board approve the plan with modifications.
Mr Bowerman suggested adding s comment about a strategic plan.
Mr. Tucker suggested the Board support this plan and review progress in the
future.
Mrs, Humphris said it is lmporuann to protect water supplies.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board review the plan on September 17, 1997, with
proposed changes to the Planning Commission's conditions
Mr. Perkins said there needs ~o be a comprehensive review of County
resources Mr. Tucker said this is being done because of issues with Buck
Mountain Creek.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Couu/ty could use the James River as a water
source. Mr. Perkins said there are other much more affordable locations
available. Mrs. Thomas added than the City of Richmond has water rights to
the James River.
At this time.
September 17, 1997,
following changes:
it was the consensus of the Board mo defer this item until
and asked than the conditions be amended to reflect the
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5}
way that is less than forty feet wide.
The possible lmpacns upon the envzronmenn
This legislation provides flexibility in hard surfacing some
of our unpaved roads However, safety much be our first
consideration and for this reason pavmng within exlssing right of
way may be limited in use. Should you elect 5o pursue the hard
surfacing of a road under this provlsionf your local resident
engineer can provide you with any need assissance.
Sincerely,
James S Givens
Secondary Roads Engzneer
Mr. Martin asked that this item be discussed under 5ransportation
matters.
Item 6.5. Memorandu~ from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr County Executive.
providing a copy of a reporu on Commonality between the School Division and
Local Government, was received as informatzon
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the SlJ0 million that comes from the General
Fund is counned in the funds that go 5o education. MrJ Tuckez said it is nom.
Item 6.6. Copy of letter dated Au~c~/s5 20, 1997, from Ms. Janmce D
Sprinkle, Depuuy Zoning Administrator, no Ms. Judith H. McGinniss and William
Persen. re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1, Tax
Map 47, Parcel 43, was received as informaEion
Item 6.7. Letter dated Augus5 20, 1997, from Mrt Jay Roberts, Environ-
mental Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality, re: Public Notice of
Draft VWp Per~it #93-0570. was received as information.
Item 6.8. Copy of memorandum dated AugusE 22, 1997, from
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Developmenu, uo
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive. re: Compliance with Comprehen-
sive Plan (456 Review) - Ragged Mountain Natural Area, was received for
information. The memorandum ssaues:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, au lUS mee~u-lng on Augusu~19
1997, by a rome of 5-1-1, found the Ragged Mountain Natural Ar~a no be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan under the following conditions:
The trail muss conform generally with the proposed plan and be approved
by the Water Resources Manager;
The ICF and the county will ~6n~inue to work
minmmLze adverse impacts in the development of trails;
The ICF will conduct a general survey of natural heritage resources and
design trails uo avoid areas with identified resources;
The County will work with the City o~ Charlottesville and the Rivanna
Wauer & Sewer Authority, including an annual review, ~o ensure that the
proposal, including indirect effects such as increased boating access,
does nou adversely impact waEer quality; and
5. A slue plan muss be approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Ragged Mountain Natural Area 5rail network has
~o be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Tucker said
it was hOE necessary. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation,
said the trail, due to the grade, will be rustic, and thereby impossible ~o be
in compliance with ~A regulations. He said this does not presen5 a problem
since other County parks meeu ADA standards. Mr Tucker noted that the
National Forrest and Appalachian Trail are not totally in compliance.
Mr, Bowerman said he was concerned that someone might try ~o sue the County a~
a later date ~o make the trail in compliance.
OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'!-26-g?A1':l? RCVD
AGENDATITLE:
Financing O~on ~rPREPFa~
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of the use of a temporary loan to
temporarily finance the construction of a new PREP facility.
STAFF CONTACT¢S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
December 3.1997
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
BACKGROUND:
Over the last several months, the Finance Department has assisted the School Division and the Piedmont Regional
Education Program (PREP) to determine the most viable solution to construct a new facility for PREP to replace the
current facilities housing the Burgess Lane School. Since 1992. PREP has operated a regional day program for students
with sedous emotional disturbances. Since 1995, the program has been housed in five modular units on the CATEC site.
This site has always been considered as temporary with a commitment to relocating the facility by the end of FY 98/99.
DISCUSSION:
The program currently has 48 students enrolled of which 22 are from Albemarle County. 17 from Charlottesville, 1 from
Fluvanna County, and 8 from Greene County. Currently the per pupil cost is $18,000 compared to an annual cost of
$30,000 per student if placed in a similar private facility.
In February of 1997, the School Board approved the use of land on the Albemarle High School site for construction of
a new facility and endorsed funding for the project, Currently, it would appear that the best option for funding is a
lease/purchase for the two. year construction period. Since the project, estimated to cost $3,000,000, can be completed
within a two-year period, any interest earned during the construction period would not be subject to rebate to the Federal
government. These earnings would be used to offset any financing cost and legal expenses incurred. Based on current
rates, the interest rate would be approximately 4.4% while the proceeds would be invested at approximately 5.4%,
Depending on the direction of interest rates, this lease/purchase would be repaid during the two-year pedod by the
issuance ora VPSAloan, This method of financing will allow PREP to continue operations at the current site for FY 98/99
without incurring any substantial debt service at the same time they are incurring expense for rental of the modular units,
it is anficyated at thistime that the annual tuition cost per student will increase from ~;18.000 to $22,000 to cover the debt
service. This amount would continue to be well below the $30,000 annual per pupil cost for private placements. Based
on 22 students, Albemarle Counts increased annual cost would be $88,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff presents this as information only in preparation for the entire project and associated agreements required to move
forward being presented in January. Feedback on this financing proposal is welcomed.
97.230
· -a0 o~
LU
terfaith
Rou dtable
sustainability.
'1997
Interfaith Roundtabl¢ on sustatnabtltty
Final R~ort
The Vt~tnta Foundation for the patmantttes a~[ Public Policy
Robert vaughn, EXecutive Director
The Thomas Jefferson Planntn~ DiStrict Commission
Nanq K. O'Brten, EXecutive Director
The r£nterfatth Roundtable on sustatnabtItt~ ts ~onsored b~:
Thomas Jefferson Pbtnnind~ District Comratssion
300 East Main Street
P.O. BoX 1505
22902-1505
(804)-979-7310 FaX (804)-979-1597
Email: tj?&@avenue.3en;org
web Pudje: httj~: / / avenue.ordj/ Gov / TJPDC
Project staff:
Michael c. collins
senior Planner
Project ~soaate
S~t~nkr, 1997
co~re4~o~ ~eth ~I
T~m j~rso~ ~m~M c~rch - u~it~ unW~s~t
F~rs~ 3q~
Fir~ 3q~ ckr~h ~ ~rd
crozet ~qt~t church
ckrlo~e~ chreh of the 3retMen
st. ~[~ ~o~[ Ey~co~a[ church
s~ R.
Pa~ LI~O F~o~/J~rso~ T~e~ Socle~
TDmm ]~erson s~ta~il~
Daf~
z~on u~on 3q~t c~r&
A~ ~ Tra//ar, J~
cen~ fir ch~s~an s~dy
XECLITIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 1994, the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy awarded a
grant to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for the convening of an
Interdenominational Roundtable to "establish the dimensions, relevance, and framework for a
mutually shared conception of sustainability in the region."
The proposal detailed the production of a Regional Faith Community Statement on
Sustainability that would contain shared principles for community sustainability. The intent of
this document would be to provide depth to the growing culture of sustainability in the region.
The statement would be distributed to church communities, civic groups, local governments,
and the media.
The group convened for the first time in early 1997 and adopted the following goal statement:
The goal of the Interfaith Roundtable on Sustainability is to provide a shared ethical
framework for individuals and organizations to consider the impact of their policies and
objectives on the sustainability of the regzon,
The overall intent of the project is to develop a set of ethical guidelines that proponents of
sustainability could use as a lens through which issues of the day could be considered:
Issue o1' tile day
Decision
Snslainabihty reached
~ I-.thics ~ considering
sustainability
The group labored for seven months to identify three ethical roots of sustainability; the
concepts of Interdependence, Respect, and Responsibility, and to synthesize these concepts
into an Affirmation for Interdependence, Respect, and Responsibility. This Affirmation is the
official finding of the Interfaith Roundtable on Sustainability. Every word and concept has
been jointly approved by the group. The reader should note that the Affirmation is not a
statement about God or theology. Although some members of the Roundtable may have
articulated their ethical orientations as a result of a theistic tradition, in and of itself, the
Affirmation is an ethical statement.
The statement Will be presented in the form of a framed document under glass to the Thomas
Jefferson Sustainability Council, The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, all
of the localities within the region, interested for-profit and not-for-profit private sector
groups, and the Virginia General Assembly. No group will be asked to approve the
statement. Rather, each will be asked by the Roundtable to hang the document in a
prominent place for public observance.
In addition, the opportunity to endorse the Affn'mation will be provided to any individual
and/or organization through the addition of a list of supporting signatories. This should
provide a medium for other parties, particularly other faith communities and groups
concerned about values and ethics, that were unable to participate directly in the
development of the Affmuation, to show support for the project.
Members of the Roundtable will attempt to continue the project beyond the development of
the Affirmation. As a first step, the group held a joint meeting with the Thomas Jefferson
Sustainabihty Council in September to present its findings and discuss possibilities for
coordination of future projects. Although no consensus about the relationship between the
two groups seemed apparent at this meeting, both wish to discuss the topic in later meetings.
One scenario already discussed would be a joint agreement for the two bodies to work in
parallel through 1998; with the Sustainability Council working on the development of the
Sustainability Accords and the State of the Region report, and the Interfaith Roundtable
working on the commentaries for the "Interfaith Summit on Sustainability."
Beginning in winter of 1998, the Sustainability Council will search for thousands of
signatories for its Sustainability Accords. Businesses, non-profit organizations, local
governments, and individuals will be asked to endorse the long-tm'm intentions developed by
the group. This would culminate with a presentation of the Accords in spring or fall of 1998,
at a gathering with hundreds of residents from the region, wliere state-wide VIPs, the
Governor, and U.S. Elected Officials would add their signatures to the document. In the
same week or on the same day, Roundtable members could provide commentaries on a
variety of religious, philosophical, and ethical themes in the arena of sustainability. This
unprecedented event, an Interfaith Summit on Sustainability, would be free and open to the
public, and would hope~ly include the participation of many faith groups and individuals
from all comers of the region.
These events would lead to new dimensions of cooperation, partnerships, programs, and
actions in the early years of the new century, the overarching goal of which would be fuller
integration of long-term ecological, economic, and social concerns.
Affimatton for Interde. pendenee, Reject, and Resjaonsbility:
An ~thtcd Framework for a sustainable Future
r~ere~e j~ a ~e~r a~ ~ ~e~n ~res some
~ red~a~o~ q t~ter~e~e firBh ~hunm~ ~es o~hers;
whk others re~o~ ~ co~m of p~so~I
our ~ar~ po~nt ~n fi~ or ~el~ we ~e reachd co~e~ on the fi~ ~ ~y ~rse ~ rel~a~ce ~ the h~ co~on:
^ii life is connected.
No Iife ts lived abm
HUmans, animaIs, and.plants deflend uyon each other through an interdependent web of physM and ~trttuaI reIatlonsh1,ps.
3ecsc each l~ tn, knees all Itfe, hnm~ ?o~er~ty ~s bound with the fmc 4 a~ the earth.
We be[teve
that ,~e are only one ;a~ of
that dI pa~ are precto~;
that ~e are each re~o~tble for
~e are ca~g to appreciate the ~onder of ~o reco~tze t~ inherent vdne, and
to reject the ~ht qf dI ltvtn~ thtn3s to live thro~h mu~a~y beneficial relntto~hps.
our ~ose ~ to care? l~e,
~ be conceded for ourselves, ourfama~es, our~en&, a~ a~ ltvtn~ beth, S 4 the~rese~t ~re.
our re~o~e ~ tn~vt~ab a~ communities shouM k settee to other fleofle a~ oth~ pectes,
not to ham or de,roy anytht~
~ share the ea~h---
Itmttt~ our ~ace,
creatt~ and presewI~ Ihces fir a~ I~e to ~uv6h,
thro~h awar~ess, cooperatton, j~ttce, and love.
this 22 ~y of Se. ptortber, 1997, by. the members of Roundtable:
Daniel $. Alexander
Congregation Beth Israel
Synagogue
Frank Forehand
First Chr/stian Church
Ernest Q. Reed
Thomas Jefferson
Sustainability Council
Wayne B. Arnason
Thomas Jefferson Unitarian
Universalist Church
First Baptist Church in
Natural Bridge
St. Pauls Memorial Episcopal Church
Andrew V~ Mackay
Church of the Incanlati~n
Mark Salata
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha i s
of Charlottesville
Doyle 7homas
Zion Union Baptist Church
Andrew ]:Z Trotter, Jr,
Center for Christian Study
David Collyer
Crozet Baptist Church
Sandra R. Newhouse
Jefferson Tibetan Society
William Stewart
Peace Lutheran Church
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOARD OF
11-20-9~05:28 RSVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work Session on new ordinance to replace existing
water resources ordinances.
STAFF CONTACT(St:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mawyer, Hirschman
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 1997
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
AC~ON:
ATTACHMENTS:
RENEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The County currently has four separate water-related ordinances, adopted at different times for different
reasons. The four ordinances are: (1) The Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, (2) The Runoff
Control Ordinance, (3) Stormwater detention provisions of the Subdivision and Zoning ordinances, and (4)
Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance. Since water-related items for development plan review and
enforcement have been found in four different documents that apply variable criteria to different or
overlapping geographic areas of the County, implementation of water-related items has often been
confusing for County staff and especially those regulated by the programs. In addition, water quality
criteria and calculation methods used in the current ordinances were developed in the early 1950's, and
do not reflect up-to-date practices recently developed for stormwater management.
For the reasons stated above, the Engineering Department has undertaken an effort, envisioned ~n the
Comprehensive Plan, to consolidate all water ordinances under one cover and to update technical
standards and calculations methods.
This ordinance development process was aided by the "focus group" of interested parties from the public
and private sectors. The focus group was instrumental in identifying inconsistencies with the current
ordinances, outlining objectives for the comprehensive ordinance, and commenting on several drafts of
the new ordinance. Subsequent to the focus group effort, the Engineering Department and County
Attorney's Office have been working together on additional drafts of the ordinance to address legal and
administrative deta~s. Comments were also received from interested parties during this time. Drafts of
the ordinance have also been discussed at two Planning Commission work sessions: on April 29, 1997
and October 7, 1997.
During the ordinance development process, presentations were made to PACC-Tech, a joint City/County
Planning Commission meeting, the Development Roundtable, and the PACC. It became clear during these
sessions that the ordinance could also serve as a template for a regional stormwater program that would
also apply to the City and University. To that end, City-specific drafts of the ordinance have been
developed and forwarded to City staff for review, and discussions have been held with the state and
University concerning applying the same stormwater criteria for University projects. This is certainly a step
in the right direction, as all three jurisdictions are connected by streams and the Rivanna River, and
stormwater runoff has no regard for jurisdictional boundaries.
AGENDA TITLE:
Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance
Decmeber 3~ 1997
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The objectives of the comprehensive water ordinance effort are to: (t) streamline the process of
development review for water-related items, (2) update standards and methods for water quantity and
quality protection, (3) allow for use of a wider range of traditional and innovative best management
practices and stormwater techniques, and (4) provide a template for a regional stermwater approach that
would include the City and University.
Another important objective came to light dudng the focus group process: the water ordinance should work
in conjunction, and not against, the Land Use Plan. Specifically, since the Land Use Plan encourages
development within designated Development Areas, water resource requirements should not create
disincentives for development within these areas vis-a-vis the Rural Areas, including water supply
watersheds. In other words, it should not be more difficult and cosily to comply with the ordinance in
Development Areas than in Rural Areas. Similarly, the ord'mance should not create incentives for
development within the Rural Areas by having few or no water resource requirements.
Interestingly, the exact oppos'rte of this scenario prevails with current water programs. At present, Rural
Areas outside of drlnldng water watersheds have no water quantity or quality requirements aside from the
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (E&S). The proposed Comprehensive Water Resources
Ordinance seeks to rectify this inconsistency. Water quantity and quality requirements are tailored to
specific regions of the County-Development Areas, Water Supply Protection Areas, and Rural Areas--in
order to reflect the objectives of the Land Use Plan. Accordingly, the new ordinance establishes a water
quality requirement County-wide, but the requirement and calculation procedure vary based on a project's
status in the Land Use Plan.
Finally, it is important to note that the ordinance must be reviewed and approved by the Virginia
Department of conservation and Recreation for compliance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Act
and Regulations. State personnel have already reviewed and commented on several earlier drafts.
The attachments to the ordinance are contained in the "Supplemental Documentation" packet, which
includes: an ordinance development history and timeline; a matrix comparing the proposed ordinance with
current stormwater practices at the County, City, and University; a record of written comments received
during the ordinance development process and County staff responses; and other relevant documents and
correspondence. A cost analysis report will be forwarded to the Board under separate cover.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for consideration of the Comprehensive Water
Resources Ordinance.
97.220
1-20-97705:i~ RCVB
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DRAFT: November '19, 1997
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
CONTROL, CHAPTER 19.1, WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE II, PROTECTION OF
PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, AND CHAPTER 19.2, WATER RESOURCES
PROTECTION AREAS AND TO ADOPT CHAPTER 19.3, PROTECTION OF WATER
RESOURCES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
that Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers,
Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, and Chapter 19.2, Water Resource
Protection Areas are hereby repealed and Chapter 19.3, Protection of Water
Resources, of the Code of the County of Albemarle. is adopted, as follows:
By Repealing:
Chapter 7. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Chapter 19.1. Water and Sewers, Article II. Protection of Public Drinking Water
Chapter 19.2. Water Resource Protection Areas
By Adding New:
Chapter '19.3. Protection of Water Resources
Article I. General
Sec. 19.3-1.
Sec. 19.3-2.
Sec. 19.3-3.
Sec. 19.3-4.
Sec. 19.3-5.
Sec. 19.3-6.
Sec. 19.3-7.
Short title.
Enabling authority.
Purposes.
Rules of construction.
Definitions.
Designation of program authority; powers and duties.
Saving provision.
Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control
Division '1. Plans.
Sec. 19.3-8.
Sec. 19.3-9.
Sec 19.3-10.
Applicability.
Determination of land disturbing activity.
Determination of erosion impact area.
Sec. 19.3-11.
Sec. 19.3-12.
Sec. 19.3-13.
Sec. 19.3-14.
Sec. 19.3-15.
Sec. 19.3-16.
Sec. 19.3-17.
Sec. 19.3-18.
Sec. 19.3-19.
Sec. 19.3-20.
Sec. 19.3-21.
Sec. 19.3-22.
Sec. 19.3-23.
Sec, 19.3-24.
Sec. 19.3-25.
Sec. 19.3-26,
Sec. 19.3-27.
Sec. 19.3-28.
Sec. 19.3-29.
Sec. 19.3-30.
Sec. 19.3-31.
Sec. 19.3-32.
Sec. 19.3-33.
Sec. 19.3-34.
Sec. 19.3-35.
Division 2.
Sec, 19,3-36.
Sec, 19.3-37.
Sec, 19.3-38.
Sec, 19.3-39.
Sec, 19.3-40.
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Erosion and sediment control plan; requirements.
Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan.
Agreement in lieu of a plan.
Monitoring and reporting.
Issuance of permit; surety.
Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan
Fees,
Review of certain program authority actions.
Division 2. Compliance and enforcement,
Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Inspections.
Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure.
Penalties and remedies.
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Division 1. Plans.
Applicability.
Designation of water resources areas,
Overlapping water resources areas.
Stormwater managementJBMP plan; requirements.
Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan.
Monitoring and reporting.
Issuance of permit; surety.
Amendment of stormwater managementJBMP plan.
Exceptions,
Dedication of stormwater management facilities.
Fees.
Review of certain program authority actions.
Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection.
Stormwater management facilities and channels.
Non-structural measures.
Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff.
Best management practices.
Contribution to regional stormwater management program,
2
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-41.
Sec. 19.3-42.
Sec. 19.3-43.
Sec. 19.3-44.
Sec. 19.3-45.
Sec. 19.3-46.
Retention or establishment of stream buffer.
Exceptions to requirement to retain or establish stream buffer.
Management of stream buffer.
Development authorized in stream buffer.
Development which may be authorized in stream buffer; request to
develop in stream buffer or to modify or reduce stream buffer.
Mitigation plan,
Division 3. Compliance and enforcement.
Sec. 19.3-47.
Sec. 19.3-48.
Sec. 19.3-49.
Sec. 19.3-50.
Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement.
Inspections.
Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Penalties and remedies.
Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources
Article I. General.
Sec. 19.3-1. Short title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Comprehensive Water
Resources Ordinance" or as the "Water Protection Ordinance."
Sec. 19.3-2. Authority.
This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.), the Virginia
Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.) and the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-2100 et seq.).
Sec. 19.3-3. Purposes.
The board of supervisors finds that this chapter is necessary to protect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the county and the Commonwealth
of Virginia and to prevent water from being rendered dangerous to the health of
persons living in the county, and is supported by the findings ofwatershed Studies that
have been conducted Therefore, the specific purposes of this chapter are to:
a. Inhibit the deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land
disturbing activities.
3
DRAFT: November 19, '1997
b. Protect the safety and welfare of citizens, property owners, and businesses
by minimizing the negative impacts of increased stormwater discharges from new land
development and redevelopment.
c. Protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of public
drinking water supplies resulting from land development.
d. Control nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and stream
channel erosion.
e. Maintain the integrity of existing stream channels and networks for their
biological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater.
f. Protect the condition of state waters for all reasonable public uses and
ecological functions.
g. Provide for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance of stormwater
management facilities and best management practices.
h. Facilitate [he integration of stormwater management and pollution control with
other county ordinances, programs, policies, and the comprehensive plan.
Sec. '19.3-4. Rules of construction.
This chapter protects paramount public interests and shall be liberally construed
to effectuate its several purposes, n addition to the rules of construction set forth in
section 1-2, the following rules of construction shall apply in the construction of this
chapter, unless such application would be contrary to the purposes of this chapter or
the context clearly indicates otherwise:
a. All -eferences to any statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline handbook,
manual or standard shall be to such statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook,
manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of this ordinance and includes
any amendment thereafter or reissue in a subsequent edition.
b. Any reference to "this article," "article I1," or "article II1" shall include references
to all applicable references of article I
4
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-5. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of
this chapter:
Agreement in lieu ora plan. A written agreement between the program authority
and an owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in
the construction of a single-family dwelling unit, and which may be executed by the
program authority in lieu of a formal erosion and sediment control plan.
Agricultural land. Land used for horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other
gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of
livestock and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not
limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies, nurseries or wayside stands.
Agricultural road. A road or portion of a road with a road cross-section not wider
than fifty (50) feet and/or with a cut-slope vertical height or fill-slope vertical height no
higher than ten (10) feet. which is used exclusively for access to agricultural land and
any residential dwelling unit on the agricultural land
Best management practice (BMP). A practice or combination of practices that is
determined by the state, a designated aroa-wide planning agency, or the program
authority, to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing the
amount of water pollutio~ generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with
water quality goals.
Board of supervisors. The Albemarle County board of supervisors.
Certified inspector. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds
a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of
project inspection for erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in the soil and
water conservation board's training program for project inspection for erosion and
sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after
enrollment.
Certified plan reviewer. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i)
holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area
of plan review for erosion and sediment control; (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water
conservation board's training program for plan review for erosion and sediment control
and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment; or (iii) is
5
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land
surveyor pursuant to sections 54.1-400 et seq. of the Code of Virginia.
Certified program administrator. An employee or agent of the program authority
who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in
the area of program administration for erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in
the soil and water conservation board's training program for program administration for
erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year
after enrollment. The certified program administrator is referred to herein as the
program administrator.
Channel. A natural stream or human-made waterway.
Contiguous nontidal wetlands. Nontidal wetlands that lie within or adjacent to a
stream channel or within the flood plain of that stream channel so that there is a
hydrologic connection between the stream and the wetland, and including
impoundments of water along a natural stream channel.
County. The County of Albemarle, Virginia
Crop land. Land which is used for the cultivation of corn and other row crops,
orchards, vineyards, and other fruits and vegetables, but excluding land used for
silviculture and those crops which consist of a dense grass cover, such as hay land or
pasture land.
Department ofengineenng. The Albemarle County Department of Engineering
and Public Works.
Development. Any construction, external repair, land disturbing activity, grading,
road building, or ether similar human activity resulting in a change of the physical
character of land, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.
Drainage basin. A watershed.
Erosion impact area. An area of land, other than a lot or parcel of less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet which is used for residential purposes or a shoreline
where the erosion results from wave action, which is not subject to a current land
disturbing activity but is subject to persistent soil erosion which results in the delivery of
sediment onto neighboring property or into state waters.
6
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Erosion and sediment controlplan. A document which sets forth the major soil
and water resources conservation measures that will be implemented to assure that the
unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives of this
chapter, and which may also include appropriate illustrations in the form of maps or a
site plan, and appropriate narratives, such as a soil and water plan inventory and
management information with needed interpretations, a record of decisions contributing
to conservation treatment, and any specifications submitted with the plan.
Flooding. A volume of water that is too great to be confined within the banks or
walls of the channel, waterbody, or conveyance system and that overflows onto
adjacent lands, causing or threatening damage.
Floodplain. Land which would be inundated by flood waters in a storm event of
a one-hundred (100) year return interval.
Handbook. The Virgl nia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
Impervious cover. A surface composed of any material that significantly impedes
or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil, including but not limited to, roofs,
~3uildings, streets, concrete, asphalt, and gravel placed over a compacted base.
Intermittent stream. A natural stream or portion of a natural stream that has a
defined bed and defined banks within which water flows in response to precipitation.
through near surface groundwater flow, or from springs, and which is not a perennial
stream.
Land developmenL A human-made change to, or construction on, the land
surface that changes its runoff characteristics. For purposes of this chapter, individual
lots in a proposed subdivision shall not be considered to be separate land
developments; rather, the entire subdivision shall be considered a single land
development.
Land disturbing activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from
water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the
Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting
and filling of land, and as further defined herein:
a. If no part of the property is located within the mountain overlay district, a land
change is a land disturbing activity if it creates an area of disturbed land of ten
thousand (10,000) square feet or more; or
7
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. If the property is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay
district, a land change is a land disturbing activity only if it creates an area of disturbed
land of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more.
Linear development. A land development that is linear in nature such as. but not
limited to: (i) the construction of electric and telephone utility lines and natural gas
p~pelines; (ii) the construction of tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities
and other related structures of a railroad company; and (iii) highway construction
projects.
Mitigation plan. A plan, a component of a stormwater managementJBMP plan,
an erosion and sediment control plan, or an agreement in lieu of a plan, that describes
how encroachments into a stream buffer will be mitigated through runoff treatment,
revegetation, the addition of extra buffer areas, or other appropriate best management
practices.
Natural stream. A nontidal waterway that is part of the natural topography, which
typically will maintain a continuous, seasonal or intermittent flow during the year, and
which is characterized as being irregular in cross-section with a meandering course. A
constructed channel such as a drainage ditch or swale is not a natural stream.
Necessary infrastructure. Components of a site development necessary for the
protection of the public health, safety, or welfare, and environmental features. These
components include, but are not limited to, the following: drainage channels structures
and facilities; best management practices; access roads for emergency vehicles; and
access roads for the maintenance of stormwater management facilities and/or water-
dependent facilities.
Nonpoint source pollution. Pollution from diffuse sources carried in stormwater
runoff, including but not limited to the following pollutants: sediment, nutrients, organic
and inorganic substances.
Nontidal wetlands. Wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, in 33 Code
of Federal Regulations § 328.3b, dated November 13, 1986.
Owner. The owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate
therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor,
8
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a piece of land. As
used herein, owneralso refers tc in the appropriate context: (i) any other person
authorized to act as the agent for the owner; (ii) any person who submits an erosion
and sediment control plan or stormwater managementJBMP plan for approval or
requests issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land disturbing activities or
land development to commence; and (iii) any person responsible for complying with an
approved erosion and sediment control plan, agreement in lieu of a plan, or an
approved stormwater management/BMP plan.
Perennial stream. Any stream that is depicted as a continuous blue line on the
most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps
(scale 1:24,000), except for streams within a development area or area of infill and
redevelopment that have been piped or converted legally and intentionally into
stormwater conveyance channels such that the stream does not resemble or maintain
the characteristics of a natural stream channel, as determined by the program authority.
Permit. Any building permit, grading permit, or other permit, including the
approval of any subdivision plat or site plan, which is required to be issued by any
board, commission, officer, employee or other agency of the county as a prerequisite to
any development.
Permit-issuing department. A department of the county that issues a permit.
Plan of development. The process for site plan or subdivision plat review to
ensure compliance with section 10.1-2109 of the Code of Virginia and this chapter
which is required as a precedent to clearing, grading, or other land disturbing activity on
a site or the issuance of a building permit.
Program authority. The department of engineering and public works. Except
where the context clearly indicates otherwise, references to the program authority
includes any officer or employee of the department of engineering and public works
authorized by the county engineer to act pursuant to this chapter.
Redevelopment. The process of developing land that is or has been previously
developed.
Regional stormwaterbasin. A facility designed to capture, detain, and/or treat
stormwater for a geographically defined upstream watershed for the purpose of
providing water quality and/or quantity benefits for the region. Such a facility may be
constructed by a public agency or by a private person or entity.
9
DRAFT: November 19, t997
Residential development. A tract or parcel of land developed or to be developed
as a s~ngle unit under single ownership or unified control which is to contain three or
more residential dwelling units.
Road cross-section. The horizontal dimension of a road, including its travelway,
shoulders, ditches, cut-slopes, and fill-slopes.
Runoff. The portion of precipitation which is discharged across the land surface
or through conveyances to one or more waterways.
Sewage disposal system. A sewerage system or treatment works composed of
a facility or combination of facilities constructed for the transport and/or treatment of
domestic, commercial or industrial sewage, but not including plumbing, fixtures lateral
pipes from a dwelling unit to a septic tank, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a publicly
owned sewerage facility, or publicly owned facilities for the transport and/or treatment of
sewage.
State waters. All waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially
within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction.
Stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement. An agreement
that commits the owner or other designated parties to maintain and inspect
stormwater/BMP facilities constructed in accordance with this chapter based on specific
terms and conditions of the agreement.
Stormwater management/BMP plan. A document that describes the controls for
the management of the rate of stormwater discharge and best management practices
for water quality protection, and which includes a narrative section, a map or site plan,
pertinent calculations, and any specifications submitted with the plan.
Stream buffe~ An area of land at or near a tributary streambank and/or nontida[
wetland that has an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological
processes it performs or is otherwise sensitive to changes which may result in
significant degradation to the quality of state waters.
Subdivision. A subdivision, as defined in the subdivision ordinance.
Subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia.
10
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Water-dependent facility. A development of land that cannot exist outside of the
stream buffer and must be located on the shoreline because of the intrinsic nature of its
operation. These facilities include, but are not limited to: (i) the intake and outfall
structures of power plants, sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and storm
sewers; (ii) public water-oriented recreation areas; and (iii) boat docks and ramps.
Water resources areas. A group of specific areas within the region that share a
unified stormwater philosophy based on existing and anticipated land uses and
environmental sensitivities, which are each managed according to specific stormwater
goals contained in this chapter. The four water resources areas, which are identified in
section '19.3-25, are: (i) development areas; (ii) areas of inflll and redevelopment; (iii)
water supply protection areas; and (iv) other rural land.
Watershed. A defined land area drained by a river, stream or drainage ways, or
system of connecting rivers, streams, or drainage ways such that all surface water
within the area flows through a single outlet.
Zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
Sec. 19.3-6. Designation of program authority; powers and duties.
The board of supervisors hereby designates the department of engineering as
the program authority. The program authority shall have the following powers and
duties:
a. The program authority shall administer and enforce this chapter.
b. The program authority shall establish reasonable administrative procedures
for the administration of this chapter, including developing and maintaining for article Ill
a design manual containing information about the content of plans required by article III,
calculation methods, maintenance and inspection procedures, and other information to
assist with the implementation and enforcement of article III. The program authority
shall update the design manual periodically. The manual shall be consistent with this
chapter and all applicable statutes and regulations.
c. Within one year of the date of adoption of this chapter the program authority
shall assure that the erosion and sediment control program set forth in article II ~s
administered by a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a
certified project inspector. Such positions may be filled by the same person
11
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
d. The program authority shall take appropriate enforcement actions to achieve
compliance with this chapter, and shall maintain a record of enforcement actions for all
active land disturbing activities and land developments.
e. The program authority is authorized to cooperate with any federal or state
agency in connection with plans for erosion and sediment control or stormwater
management. The program authority may also recommend to the county executive any
proposed agreement with such agency for such purposes, which agreement shall be
executed if at all, by the county executive on behalf of the county.
Sec. 19.3-7. Saving provision.
The adoption of this chapter shall not abate any pending action, liability, or
penalty of any person accruing or about to accrue, nor waive any right of the county
under any provision in effect prior to the adoption of this chapter, unless expressly
prowded for in this chapter. Any erosion and sediment control plan, runoff control
permit and, to the extent they pertain to stormwater management, any final site plan or
plat, approved prior to the effective date of this chapter shall remain in full force and
effect, and all rights and remedies of the county in enforcing such plans, permits and
plats are hereby preserved.
Article Il, Erosion and Sediment Control
Division 1. Plans.
Sec. 19.3-8. Applicability.
This article shall apply to any land disturbing activity as provided herein:
a. Except as provided in subsection (b), each owner shall comply with the
requirements of this article:
1. Prior to engaging in any land disturbing activity, or allowing any land
disturbing activity to occur, on his property;
2. At all times during such land disturbing activity until it is completed, including
all times when the land disturbing activity is performed by a contractor engaged in
construction work; and;
12
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
3, When notified by the program authority that an erosion impact area exists on
his land, and the notice requires the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control
plan in order to control erosion and sedimentation.
b. This article shall not apply to the following land disturbing activities:
1. Individual home gardens, landscaping, repair and maintenance work;
2. Individual service connections;
3. Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines
when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk;
provided that the land disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or
sidewalk which is hard surfaced;
4. Septic tank lines or drainage fields, unless included in an overall plan for land
disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank
system;
5. Surface or deep mining;
6. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site, roads, feeder
lines and off-site disposal areas;
7. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops,
livestock feed operations or products, or related engineering operations including, but
not limited to, construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins,
dikes, ponds, ditches, stri p cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour
furrowing, land drainage and land irrigation. This exception shall not apply to: (i) the
harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested
artificially or naturally in accordance with the ~3rovisions of section 10.1-1100 et seq. of
the Code of Virginia or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture uses
as described in section 10.1-1163(B) of the Code of Virginia, in which case such person
shall comply with the provisions of this article when grading, excavating, or filling; (ii) a
land disturbing activity related to the construction of farm structures, including but not
limited to agricultural structures or agricultural roads not associated with tilling, planting
and harvesting; and (iii) the construction of any reads, other than agricultural roads;
8. Repair or rebuilding ofthe tracks, right-of-way, bridges, communication
facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company;
13
DRAFT: November t9, 1997
9. Installation offence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other
kinds of posts or poles; and
10. Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs;
provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion
and sediment control plan if the activity was not an emergency, the land area shall be
shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the program authority.
Sec. 19.3-9. Determination of land disturbing activity.
The determination of whether an activity is a land disturbing activity shall be
made as provided herein:
a. The program administrator shall determine whether an activity is a land
disturbing activity, including any claim by an owner that the activity is exempt from the
requirements of this article.
b. If a land disturbing activity includes activity at a separate location, including
but not limited to borrow and disposal areas, the program administrator may either:
1. Consider the off-site activity as being part of the proposed land disturbing
activity; or
2. If the off-site activity is already covered by an erosion and sediment control
plan, require the owner to provide proof of the approval and to certify that the plan will
be implemented in accordance with this article.
c. If a property will be developed in phases, the determination of whether an
activity constitutes a land disturbing activity shall be determined by considering the
development of the property as a whole, regardless of the phasing of the development.
d. Land disturbing activity of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet on
individual lots in a residential development shall not be considered exempt from this
article if the total land disturbing activity in the residential development is equal to or
greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
e. Upon the determination by the program administrator that an activity is a land
disturbing activity, the owner shall immediately comply with the requirements of this
article and this article shall be otherwise immediately enforced
14
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-10. Determination of erosion impact area.
The determination of whether an erosion impact area exists on property shall
be determined as provided herein:
a. The program administrator shall determine whether an erosion impact area
exists on the property and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of this article. The
program administrator shall make this determination after an investigation brought
either on his own initiative or upon the complaint of any citizen
b. Upon making a determination that an erosion impact area exists, the program
administrator shall immediately notify the owner of the property of his determination.
The notice may either be informal, by the program administrator speaking to the owner
of the property by telephone or in person, or in writing. If the notice is in writing, it shall
be served by registered or certified mail to the address of the owner based upon the
most recent tax records of the county, or by personal delivery. The written notice shall:
(i) instruct the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan for rewew and
approval as provided in this article: and (ii) state the date by which the plan shall be
submitted.
c. U pon receipt of the notice required by subsection (b), the owner shall: (i) not
permit any portion of that land to remain in a condition so that soil erosion and
sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or
downstream property, reads, streams, lakes, or ponds; and (ii) immediately comply with
the requirements of the notice and this article shall otherwise be immediately enforced.
d If informal notice as provided in subsection (b) is first provided to the owner of
the property and the owner fails to comply with such notice and subsection (c), the
program administrator shall then provide written notice to the owner as provided in
subsection (b).
e. If good cause is shown, the program authority may grant to an owner an
extension of time for which to comply with the requirements of this section and this
article.
Sec. 19.3-11. Erosion and sediment control plan.
Except as provided in section 19.3-13, each owner subject to this article
including each owner when the land disturbing activity will be performed by a
contractor, shall submit to the program authority for review and approval an erosion and
sediment control plan as 3rovided herein:
15
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. The owner shall submit a completed application on an application form
provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-17, an erosion and
sediment control plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a
certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
b. The plan shall include specifications for temporary and permanent controls of
soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem
reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing
activity, and a statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of the owner to
assure that the land disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and requirements of this
article. The plan shall be in accordance with the applicable previsions of the handbook,
including the criteria, techniques and methods set forth in section 50-30-40 of title 4 of
the Virginia Administrative Code.
c. The program authority may require additional information as may be
necessary for a complete review of the plan.
d. In lieu of subsections (a), (b) and (c), if the land disturbing activity involves
land also under the jursidiction of another local erosion and sediment control program,
the owner may, at his option, choose to have a conservation plan approved by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Soil and Water
Conservation Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan
approval by such board.
e. If land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing
construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and
approval of a plan shall be the responsibility of the owner.
Sec. 19.3-12. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan.
Each erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article shall
be reviewed and approved as provided herein:
a. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it
complies with the requirements of section 19.3-11 and all other requirements of this
article.
b. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner
from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and shall inform the
owner in writing of any modifications, terms, or conditions required to be included in the
plan in order for it to be approved.
16
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
c. Except as provided in subsection (d), the program authority shall approve or
disapprove a plan in writing within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date the
complete application was received by the program authority. The decision of the
program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with the requirements of this
article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the
plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated in the writing.
d. [f the program authority fails to act on the plan within forty-five (45) calendar
days from the date the application was received by the program authority, the plan shall
be deemed approved.
e. If the owner is required to obtain approval of a site plan or subdivision plat,
the program authority shall not approve an erosion and sediment control plan unless
and until the site plan or subdivision plat is approved as provided by law. For purposes
of this subsection, a site plan or subdivision plat shall be deemed approved if its
approval is conditioned upon the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan
pursuant to this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the program authority may
approve an erosion and sediment control plan prior to approval of a required site plan
or subdivision plat in the following circumstances:
1. To correct any existing erosion or other condition conducive to excessive
sedimentation which is occasioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of
God or other cause beyond the control of the owner; provide(~, that the activity
proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of such condition;
2. To clear and grub stumps and other activity directly related to the selective
cutting of trees, as permitted by law;
3. To install underground public utility mains, interceptors, transmission lines
and trunk lines for which plans have been previously approved by the operating utility
and approved by the county as being substantially ~n accord with the comprehensive
plan. if necessary;
4. To fill earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or other lawful earth
disturbing activity;
5. To clear, grade, fill or engage in similar related activity for the temporary
storage of earth, equipment and materials, and to construct temporary access roads:
provided that in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its
previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours. The return to
previous condition shall occur within thirty (30) days of the completion of the activity or
17
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
temporary use, or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of any land
disturbing activity on the land which is related to the activity, whichever period shall be
shorter; or
6. To establish borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with sections 5.1.28
and 10.2.1.18 of the zoning ordinance.
Sec. 19.3-13. Agreement in lieu ora plan.
If the land disturbing activity is for the purpose of establishing or modifying a
single family dwelling unit, the program authority may allow an agreement in lieu of a.
plan for the construction of such a dwelling unit; provided:
a. The single family dwelling unit is located on an individual lot which is not part
of an approved subdivision or
b. The single family dwelling unit is located within a subdivision for which an
approved erosion and sediment control plan exists which addresses all land disturbing
activities related to the development of the subdivision and the individual lots in the
subdivision are being developed by different property owners.
c. In determining whether to allow an agreement in lieu of a plan pursuant to
subsections (a) or (b), the program authority shall include as part of its consideration
the potential threat to water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land
disturbing activity.
d. Except as provide(~ in sections 19.3-11 and 19.3-12 all other references in
this article to an erosion and sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of
a plan, and the program authority and the owner shall have all of the rights,
responsibilities and remedies set forth in this article as though such agreement in lieu of
a plan was an erosion and sediment control plan.
Sec. 19.3-14. Monitoring and reporting.
As a condition of approval of an erosion and sediment control plan, the program
authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as
provided herein:
a. Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance
with the erosion and sediment control plan and to determine whether the measures
required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment.
18
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state: (i) the method
and frequency of such monitoring; and (ii) the format of the report and the frequency for
submitting reports.
Sec. 19.3-'15, Issuance of permit; surety.
A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities
may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein:
a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an erosion and
sediment control plan, submitted for review and approval pursuant to this article, or a~
approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be
followed. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until the erosion and
sediment control plan has been approved and certification is submitted.
b. Prior to the issuance of such permit, the permit-issuing department may
require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow,
letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to
the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could
be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's
expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-21, to take timely
corrective action specified in the notice.
c. Ifa bond or other surety is required by the permit-issuing department
pursuant to subsection (b), the bond or other surety shall not exceed the total of the
estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control
structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the
erosion and sediment control plan The amount of the bond or other surety shall be
based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County,
Virginia= and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation
which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate,
maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to
comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan.
d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to
section 19.3-21 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the
owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action
exceeds the amount of the surety.
e. Within sixty (60) days of achieving adequate stabilization of the land
disturbing activity in any project or section thereof, the bond or other surety, or any
19
DRAFT: November '19, '1997
unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or
terminated based upon the percentage of stabilization accomplished in the project or
section thereof.
Sec. 19.3-16. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan.
The program authority may change an approved erosion and sediment control
plan and require an owner to submit an amended plan in the following circumstances:
a. An inspection conducted pursuant to section 19.3-20 reveals that the plan is
inadequate to satisfy the requirements of this article;
b. The owner finds that, because of changed circumstances or for other
reasons, the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed
amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this article, are agreed to
by the program authority and the owner; or
c. The land disturbing activity did not begin during the one hundred eighty (180)
day period following plan approval, or ceased for more tha~ one hundred eighty (180)
days, and the existing plan has been evaluated to determine whether it still satisfies the
requirements of this article and state erosion and sediment control criteria and to verify
that all design factors are still valid, and it has been determined that the plan is
inadequate. In such a case, the land disturbing activity shall not be resumed until a
modified plan is submitted and approved as provided in this article.
Sec. 19.3-17. Fees.
Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or
entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan,
and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth
below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of
Albemarle."
a. Plan for residential land disturbing activity: $ 40.
b. Plan for agricultural land disturbing activity: $ 40.
c. Plan for all other land disturbing activity: $150.
d. Major amendment of plan: $100.
20
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
e. Each inspection: $ 45.
Sec. 19.3-18. Review of certain program authority actions.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of
its disapproval of an erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this
article, or in the interpretation of the provisions of this article, shall have the right to
apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors, as provided
herein:
a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors
within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority.
Notice shall be deemed to be g~ven on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered.
b. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program
authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for
a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program
authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to rewew by the
circuit court as provided in section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia.
c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to
the owner, owners of adjacent and downstream property, and any interested
governmental agency or officer thereof.
Division 2. Compliance and enforcement.
Sec. 19.3-19. Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Upon approval by the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan,
each owner shall:
a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan when
performing, or allowing to be performed, any land disturbing activities or activities to
correct an erosion impact area.
b. Maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems
to ensure continued performance of their intended function.
c. Comply with all requirements of this article.
21
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-20. Inspections.
The program authority shall inspect any land disturbing activity or erosion ~mpact
area as provided herein:
a. The program authority shall conduct periodic inspections of land disturbing
activities and erosion impact areas to determine compliance with the approved erosion
and sediment control plan, and to determine whether such approved plan and permit as
implemented are adequate to satisfy the requirements of this article.
b. Except as provided in subsection (c), the periodic inspections shall be
conducted: (i) during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment
controls; (ii) at least once during every two (2) week period thereafter; (iii) within forty-
eight (48) hours following any runoff producing storm event; and (iv) at the completion
of the project prior to the release of any surety. The inability of the program authority to
conduct inspections within the time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be
deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a
ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or
employee thereof shall arise therefrom.
c. Notwithstanding subsection (b), the program authority is authorized to
establish an alternative inspection program which ensures compliance with an
approved erosion and sediment control plan. Such alternative inspection program shall
be: (i) approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board prior to
implementation; (ii) established in writing; (iii) based on a system of priorities which at a
minimum, address the amount of disturbed project area, site conditions, and stage of
construction; (iv) documented by inspection records; and (v) maintained and available
for public review in the department of engineenng.
d. The program authority shall have the right to enter upon property subject to
an erosion and sediment control plan for the purposes of conducting an inspection as
provided 'n this section or an investigation pertaining to an erosion or sedimentation
complaint. The owner shall be given notice of the inspection. Such notice may be
either verbal or in writing.
e. The fees required for inspections conducted pursuant to subsection (b)(i), (ii)
and (iv) are a part of the application fee required by section 19.3-17. The fee required
for inspections conducted pursuant to subsection (b)(iii) shall be paid by the owner
within thirty (30) days of the date shown on the invoice.
22
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-21. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Upon a determination by the program authority that an owner has failed to
comply with an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the following procedures
shall apply:
a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written
notice to comply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the
address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal
delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the
permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall: (i) instruct the
owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to
prevent erosion or sedimentatior problems; (ii) state specifically the measures needed
to come ~nto compliance with the approved plan; and (iii) state a reasonable time for
compliance. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department.
b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to
comply within the time specified in the notice, the ~)ermit-issuing department may
revoke any permit it has issued related to the land disturbing activity, and the owner
shall be deemed to be in violation of this article.
c. If the owner fails, to take the corrective measures stated in' the notice to
comply within the time specified in the notice, the program authority, upon finding that
such action is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare,
may take all corrective measures it deems necessary in order to protect the public
health, safety and welfare and shall be entitled to recover the expenses of such action
as provided in section 19.3-23.
Sec. 19.3-22. Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure.
Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of an alleged violation of an approved erosion
and sediment control plan or this article from a representative of the program authority,
the program authority may issue a stop work order as provided herein:
a If land disturbing activities have commenced without an approved erosion and
sediment control plan, the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that
all land disturbing activities on the property be stopped until an approved erosion and
sediment control plan or any required permits are obtained.
b. Except as provide(~ in subsection (c), if the owner has failed to comply with
the corrective measures stated in a notice issued pursuant to section 19.3-21 the
23
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all or part of the land
disturbing activities permitted on the property be stopped until the specified corrective
measures are taken.
c. If the alleged noncompliance with the approved erosion and sediment control
plan is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands, sediment
deposition in waters, or water quality problems within the watersheds of the
Commonwealth, the program authority may ~ssue a stop work order requiring that all or
part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property be stopped until the
specified corrective measures are taken without first issuing and serving a notice to
comply as provided in section 19.3-21
d. A stop work order issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall be served by
personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee of the
owner at the site of the land disturbing activities who is supervising such activities. A
stop work order issued pursuant subsections (b) or (o) shall be served by the program
authority by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the
application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal
delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is
supervising such activities.
e. An order issued pursuant to this section shall remain in effect for a period of
seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the program authority or
owner for appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction
f. If the alleged violator does not obtain an approved erosion and sediment
control plan within seven (7) days from the date of service of an order issued pursuant
to subsection (a), the program authority may issue an order to the owner requiring that
all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped
until an approved erosion and sediment control plan and all required permits have been
obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail
to the address specified in the application for approval of the ;)lan or the tax records of
the county, or by personal delivery to the owner.
g. Upon completion of all necessary corrective actions, an order issued pursuant
to this section shall be immediately lifted.
h. Nothing in this section shall prevent the program authority from seeking any
other remedy authorized by this article.
24
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-23. Penalties and remedies.
This article may be enforced as follows:
a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class
1 misdemeanor.
b. In addition to any criminal penalty imposed under subsection (a), any person
who violates any provision of this article may be liable to the county in a civil action for
damages.
c. The county may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a threatened
violation of this article, including the violation, failure, neglect or refusal of any person to
obey an order issued pursuant to sections 19.3-21 or 19.3-22, without the necessity of
showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. Any person violating, failing,
neglecting or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other judicial remedy
obtained pursuant to this article shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil
penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation.
d. Any owner of property which has sustained damage or which is in imminent
danger of being damaged may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a
threatened violation under this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate
remedy at law does not exist. Such owner shall not apply for injunctive relief unless: (i)
he or she has notified in writing the person who has violated a provision of this article,
and the program authority, that a violation of a provision of this article has caused, or
creates a probability of causing, damage to his or her property, and (ii) neither the
person who has violated a provision of this article nor the program authority has taken
corrective action within fifteen ll 5) calendar days to eliminate the conditions which have
caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his or her property.
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Division 1. Plans.
Sec. 19.3-24. Applicability.
Each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article prior to
commencing any land development, or allowing any land development to occur, on his
property, for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional use, and at all times
thereafter.
25
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-25. Designation of water resources areas.
In order to better effectuate the purposes of this article, all of the land within the
county is hereby designated as being within one or more of the following water
resources areas:
a. Development areas: Development areas are those areas of land within the
county designated as development areas in the land use element of the comprehensive
plan, and as shown on the official map of the land use element.
b. Areas of infill and redevelopment. Areas of infill and redevelopment are those
areas of land within the county that are: (i) within a development area; and (ii)
designated as areas of infill and redevelopment for purposes of this article by the board
of supervisors, and as shown on the official map adopted showing such areas. The
board of supervisors shall designate such areas based on a finding that existing
development has altered severely the natural condition of the area, including the
presence of vegetation, and that infill and redevelopment activities would serve other
community and comprehensive plan goals.
c. Water supply protection areas: Water supply protection areas are those areas
of land within the county that are within the watershed of a public water supply
'reservoir, and such areas shall consist of all land within the county that drains naturally
to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Beaver Creek Reservoir, Totier Creek Reservoir,
Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Chris Greene Lake. and to any
~mpoundment designated in the future by the board of supervisors as a public water
supply reservoir.
d. Other ruralland: Other rural land consists of those areas of land that are not
within a development area, an area of infill and redevelopment, or a water supply
~3rotection area.
Sec. 19.3-26. Overlapping water resources areas.
If a land development is or will be on land within both a water supply protection
area and another type of water resources area, the requirements of the water supply
protection area shall apply.
Sec. 19.3-27. Stormwater managementJBMP plan; requirements.
Each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review
and approval a stormwater managementJBMP plan as provided herein:
26
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. The owner shall submit an application on an application form provided by the
program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-34, a stormwater managementJBMP
plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a certification stating
that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
b. The stormwater management/BMP plan shall include specifications for
stormwater management and best management practices in order to satisfy the
requirements of division 2 of this article. The program authority may require the owner
to submit maps, calculations, detail drawings, reports, a listing of all major permit
decisions and any other information as may be necessary for a complete review of the
plan.
c. For purposes of this section, major permit decisions include, but are not
limited to decisions pertaining to zoning map amendments, special use permits,
subdivision plats, site plans, grading permits, building permits, erosion and sediment
control plans and any permit related to the land development required under state or
federal law.
Sec. 19.3-28. Review and approval of stormwater managementJBMP plan.
Each stormwater management/BMP plan submitted pursuant to this article shall
be reviewed and approved as provided herein:
a Within thirty (30) calendar days from the receipt of an application, the
program authority shall conduct a preliminary review of the application for
completeness. During this period, the program authority shall either accept the
application for review, which will begin the sixty (60) day review period set forth in
subsection (d), or reject the application for incompleteness. If the program authority
rejects the application because it is incomplete, it shall inform the owner in writing of the
nformation necessary to complete the application. If the program authority accepts the
application for review, it shall send an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the
application to the owner.
b. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it
complies with the requirements of section 19.3-27 and all other requirements of this
article.
c. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner
from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and to request any
additional data as may be reasonably necessary for a complete review of the plan.
27
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
d. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan within sixty (60)
calendar days from the date the application was accepted for review. The decision of
the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with this article. The
decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan is
disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision.
e. Each stormwater management/BMP plan approved by the program authority
shall be subject to the following:
1 The owner shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan,
this article the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.2 et
seq.), and the state stormwater management regulations set forth in 4 VAC 3-20-10 et
seq.
2. The owner shall certify that all land clearing, construction, land development
and drainage will be done according to the approved plan.
3. Land development shall be conducted only within the area specified in the
approved plan.
4. The rights granted by virtue of the approved plan shall not be transferred,
assigned or sold unless a written notice of transfer, assignment or sale is filed with the
program authority and the recipient of such rights provides the certification required by
subsection (e)(2).
5. The program authority may raq uire= in conjunction with its approval of a plan,
that the owner first enter into a stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance
agreement as provided in section 19.3-47.
6. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving reasonable notice to the
owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct periodic inspections as
provided in section 19.3-48.
7. The program authority may require, as a condition of plan approval, that the
owner enter into a right of entry agreement or grant an easement for purposes of
~nspection and maintenance. If such agreement or easement is required, the program
authority shall not be required to give notice prior to conducting an inspection.
f. Nothing in this section shall require approval of a plan or part thereof that is
determined by the program authority to pose a danger to the public health, safety, or
general welfare or to deviate from sound engineering practices.
28
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-29. Monitoring and reporting.
As a condition of approval of a stormwater managementJBMP plan, the program
authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as
provided herein:
a Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance
with the stormwater management/BMP plan and to determine whether the plan
provides effective stormwater management.
b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the method and
frequency of such monitoring.
c. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the format of the
report and the frequency for submitting reports.
Sec. 19.3-30. Issuance of permit; surety.
A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land development may
be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided here~n:
a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an approved
stormwater managementJBMP plan and certification by the owner that all land clearing,
construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved
plan. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until such approved pla~
and certification are submitted.
b. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the permit-issuing department may
require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow,
letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to
the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could
be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's
expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-49, to take timely
corrective action specified in the notice. The performance bond or other surety shall be
provided from a date prior to the issuance of any permit by the permit issuing
department until sixty (60) days after the requirements of the approved stormwater
management/BMP plan have been completed.
c. If a performance bond or other surety is required by the permit-issuing
department pursuant to subsection (b), the bond or other surety shall not exceed the
total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater management
29
DRAFT: November 19, '1997
facilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner
pursuant to the approved stormwater management/BMP plan as a result of the land
development. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for
new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia. and a
reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all
stormwater management facilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may
be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater managementJBMP plan.
d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to
section 19.3-49 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the
owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action
exceeds the amount of the surety.
e. Within sixty (60) days of the completion of the requirements of the approved
stormwater management/BMP plan, the bond or other surety, or any une×pended or
unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated. Thereafter.
compliance with the requirements of this article shall be assured by a maintenance
agreement entered into by and between the owner and the program authority, which
agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney.
Sec. 19.3-3'1. Amendment of stormwater managementJBMP plan.
The program authority may change an approved stormwater management/BMP
plan as provided herein:
a. The owner shall submit additional data identified in section 19.3-27(b) in order
to allow the program authority To determine whether any such change to the plan will
comply with the requirements of this article.
b. The program authority shall conduct its review of the proposed change to the
plan as provided in section 19.3-28.
c. If the proposed change to the approved plan complies with the requirements
of this article, the program authority shall approve such proposed change in writing.
d. An owner shall make no changes to an approved plan without first complying
with this section.
3O
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-32. Exceptions.
Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer or to modify or reduce the
stream buffer, which shall be made only pursuant to sections 19.3-45 and 19.3-46, a
request for an exception to the requirements of this article shall be made and granted
as provided herein:
a. A written request for an exception shall be submitted to the clerk of the board
of supervisors. The request shall address the factors listed in subsection (c).
b. The board of supervisors shall grant or deny a request for an exception within
thirty (30) days of the date of the receipt of the request.
c. A request for exception may be granted provided that:
1. Reasonable alternatives to the exception have been considered and
determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the previsions of this article the
use of nomstructural measures as provided in section 19.3-37, the use of a mitigation
plan as provided in section 19.3-46, or by other means;
2. The exception granted is the minimum necessary to afford relief;
3, Reasonable and appropriate conditions are ~mposed as necessary to ensure
that the purposes of this article are satisfied; and
4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed
an insufficient reason to grant an exception.
Sec, '19.3-33. Dedication of stormwater management facilities.
The owner of a stormwater management facility required by this article may offer
for dedication any such stormwater management facility, together with such easements
and appurtences as may be reasonably necessary, as provided herein:
a. Upon receipt of such offer of dedication by the county, the program authority
shall make a preliminary determination that the dedication of such facilities is
appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and shall forward its
determination to the board of supervisors. Prior to making its determination, the
program authority shall inspect the facility to determine whether it has been properly
maintained and is in good repair.
31
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. The board of supervisors may accept the offer of dedication by adoption of a
resolution=
c. The document dedicating the stormwater management facility shall be
recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county.
d. If the dedication of a stormwater management facility ~s required as a
condition of approval of a subdivision plat. then the provisions of sections 18.1-59, 18.1-
61 and 18.1-68 of the subdivision ordinance shall apply in lieu of this section.
e. The owner, at his sole expense, shall provided to the program authority any
deed, title search or other information or document requested by the program authority
or the board of supervisors.
Sec. 19.3-34. Fees.
Each owner seeking approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall pay
a fee upon submittal of such plan: and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts
according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a
check payable to the "County of Albemarle/
a. Plan: $100.
b. Major amendment of plan: $ 75.
c. Request for exception (section 19.3-32): $190.
d. Request for development in stream buffer or for reduction or modification of
stream buffer (section 19.3-45) and mitigation plan (if not part of another document)
(section 19.3-46): $ 50.
e. Each inspection: $ 45.
Sec. t9.3-35. Review of certain program authority actions.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of
its disapproval of a plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the
provisions of this article, shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such
action by the board of supervisors, as provided herein:
32
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors
within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority
or, if an exception to the requirements of this article as provided in section 19.3-32 is
requested and denied within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the denial of such
exception is given by the board of supervisors. Notice shall be deemed to be given on
the date that il is mailed or is hand delivered.
b. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program
authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for
a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program
authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final subject only to rewew by the
cimuit court as provided in section 10.1-603.13 of the Code of Virg~ nia.
c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to
the owner, owners of adjacent and downstream property, and any interested
governmental agency or officer thereof.
Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection
Sec. '19.3-36. Stormwater management facilities and channels.
Stormwater management facilities and modifications to channels required as part
of a stormwater managemenfJBMP plan shall be designed, installed and constructed as
provided herein:
a. Stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall be
constructed in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and
regulations, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, and the State
Erosion and Sediment Control Act.
b. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and section 30.3 of the zoning
ordinance.
c. Stormwater management facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum
extent practical, the runoff from the entire land development project area.
d. Hydrologic parameters shall reflect the ultimate buildout in the land
development project area and shall be used in all engineering calculations.
33
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
e. The number, type, and siting of stormwater management facilities shall be
designed so as to preserve natural channel characteristics and natural groundwater
recharge on a site to the extent practical.
Section 19.3-37. Non-structural measures.
Non-structural measures may be used in conjunction with or in place of structural
measures in order to satisfy the requirements of this article, as provided herein:
a. The program authority may allow non-structural measures to satisfy, partially
or in whole, the requirements of this article, if such measures are identified in accepted
technical literature, are acceptable to the program authority based on its exercise of
sound professional judgment, and the program authority finds that the measures
achieve equivalent benefit for water quantity and/or quality protection as would
otherwise be provided by structural measures.
b. Non-structural measures include, but are not limited tc minimization of
impervious surfaces, stream buffer reforestation, providing additional stream buffer
areas, wetland restoration, waste reuse and recycling, and development design that
reduces the rate and volume of runoff.
Sec. 19.3-38. Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff.
Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that land and receiving
waterways which are downstream from the land development be protected from
stormwater runoff damage, as provided herein:
a. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from flooding, the
ten (10) year post-development peak rate of runoff from the land development shall not
exceed the ten (10) year pre-development peak rate of runoff.
b. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from channel
eres~on, the two (2) year post-development peak rate and velocity of runoff from the
land development shall not exceed the two (2) year pre-development peak rate and
velocity of runoff.
c. If the land development is in a watershed for which a hydrologic and/or
hydraulic study has been conducted or a stormwater model developed, the program
authority may modify the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) so that runoff from the
land development is controlled in accordance with the findings in the study or model, or
34
DRAFT: November 19, '1997
to prevent adverse watershed stormflow timing, channel degradation, and/or localized
flooding problems.
d. In addition to the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the program
authority may require that the plan include additional measures to address damaging
conditions to downstream properties and receiving waterways caused by the land
development.
e. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates determined for purposes
of subsections (a) or (b) shall be verified by calculations that are consistent with
accepted engineering practices, as determined by the program authority.
f. Notwithstanding any other previsions of this article, the following activities are
exempt from the requirements of this section:
1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas
operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops.
3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a subdivision,
including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units.
4. Land development that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land area, not
including cases where land development is to be done in phases and the total land
disturbance for all phases is greater than one (1) acre.
5. Land development or a portion of a land development on land which is
designated as lying within a flood plain, except in cases where the flood plain has been
modified by permitted fill or other activities in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
6. Land development or a portion of a land development where the land is
adjacent to a flood plain, and the owner has demonstrated to the reasonable
satisfaction of the program authority that off-site improvements or other provisions for
the disposition of surface water runoff would equally or better serve the public interest
and safety, and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream
properties or stream channels.
7. Any land development related to a final site plan or subdivision plat approved
by the appropriate governing authority prior to the effective date of this chapter.
35
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
g. The program authority may exempt a land development or part thereof from
some or all of the requirements of this section if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The land development or a part thereof is within a water supply protection
area or other rural land;
2. The program authority determines that the application of the requirements of
this article would cause damage to the environment to an extent which exceeds the
benefits of the strict application of all of the requirements of this article;
3. All requirements which are determined by the program authority to not apply
to the land development or part thereof shall be set forth in the stormwater
management/BMP plan; and
4. The granting of an exemption of any requirement of this article will not create
a threat to the public health safety or welfare, or to the environment.
Sec. 19.3-39. Best management practices.
Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that best management
practices be provided in conjunction with or in addition to stormwater management
facilities designed for water quantity treatment, as provided herein:
a. Best management practices shall be designed and sited to capture runoff
from the entire land development project area to the maximum extent practicable.
b. Best management practices shall be designed to remove the difference
between post-development and pre-development total phosphorus loads in cases
where post-development loads exceed pre-development loads.
c. Calculation methods and expected removal ranges for various best
management practices shall be included in the design manual or manuals maintained
by the program authority.
d Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are
exempt from the requirements of this section:
1 Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas
operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of
Virginia
36
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops.
3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a subdivision,
including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units.
Sec. 19.3-40. Contribution to regional stormwater management program,
Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that the owner contribute
to a regional stormwater management program, as provided herein:
a. If the land development is located within the watershed of a regional
stormwater management program established by the county requiring pro rata share
contributions, the owner shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the facility in
accordance with any ordinance of the county establishing such program.
b. The existence of a regional stormwater management program shall not
relieve an owner of his responsibility to comply with any other requirement of this
chapter.
Sec. 19.3-41. Retention or establishment of stream buffer.
Except as provided in section 19.3-42, each stormwater management/BMP plan
shall require that stream buffers be provided for the purposes of retarding runoff,
preventing erosion, filtering nonpoint soume pollution from runoff, moderating stream
temperature, and providing for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks,
as provided herein:
a. If the land development is located within a development area or an area of
infill and redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established
where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial
streams, and/or nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams. The stream buffer shall
be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of such perennial streams
and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal
wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist.
b. If the land development is located within a water supply protection area,
stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on
any lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal
wetlands contiguous to these streams= and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend
to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of
perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured
37
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no
wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain The stream buffer shall be no less
than two hundred (200) horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water
supply impoundment.
c. If the land development is located within other rural land, stream buffers shall
be retained if present and established where, they do not exist on any lands subject to
this article containing perennial streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these
streams, and flood plains associated with these streams. The stream buffer shall
extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of
perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the
edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii)
the limits of the flood plain.
d. On agricultural lands used for crop land, whether located in a development
area, an area of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural
land, the stream buffer shall include all perennial streams, non-tidal wetlands
contiguous with these streams, and a twenty-five (25) foot buffer, measured horizontally
from the edge of contiguous non-tidal wetlands, or the top of the streambank if no
wetlands exist. On these lands, the stream buffer shall be managed to prevent
concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each owner of
crop land with a stream buffer shall have developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and
Water Conservation District a soil and water conservation plan, or a component thereof,
which, shall be based on an assessment of existing conservation practices of the crop
land.
e. Each stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of
the land development to the fullest extent possible.
f. Except for the activities pertaining to the management of a stream buffer
identified in section 19.3-43, the types of development authorized in a stream buffer
identified in section 19.3-44, and the additional types of development which may be
authorized in a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-45, no indigenous vegetation
within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size of the
area affected.
Sec. 19.3-42. Exceptions to requirement to retain or establish stream buffer.
The following types of development shall not be required to provide a stream
buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied:
38
DRAFT: November '19, 1997
a. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and
telephone transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, and their appurtenant structures, which are accomplished in compliance
with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.) or an
erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation Board.
b. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water
and sewer lines, including water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for
dedication to public agencies, provided that:
1. To the extent practical, the location of such water or sewer lines shall be
outside of all stream buffer areas.
2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct, install and
maintain the water or sewer lines.
3. All such construction, installation, and maintenance of such water or sewer
lines shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits
and be conducted in a manner that protects water quality.
c. Silvicultural activities, provided that such activities are conducted in
compliance with the water quality protection procedures established by the Virginia
Department of Forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry
Operations."
Sec. 19.3-43. Management of stream buffer.
Each stream buffer required to be retained or established pursuant to section
19.3-41 shall be managed as provided herein:
a. In order to maintain the runoff, erosion, nonpoint source pollution control,
stream temperature, and ecological values of the stream buffer, indigenous vegetation
shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover in the
stream buffer shall be an indigenous ripanan forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree
canopy layers. Removal of vegetation in the stream buffer shall be allowed only as
provided in subsections (b) and (c).
b. Within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of the stream bank and on land
classified as nontidal wetland:
39
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
1. Indigenous riparian vegetation shall be preserved or allowed to evolve by
natural succession where it does not exist.
2. Dead, diseased, and dying trees may be removed.
3. Fallen trees that are blocking stream channels, or trees with undermined root
systems in imminent danger of falling, may be removed where stream bank erosion ~s a
current or potential problem that outweighs any positive effects the fallen tree or trees
may have on the stream ecosystem
4. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species is allowed, provided
that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion.
5. Pathways shall be constructed so as to effectively control erosion; stormwater
channels shall be constructed to prevent erosion.
c. Beyond twenty-five (25) feet from the top of the stream bank and outside of
nontidal wetlands:
1. Dead, diseased, and dying trees may be removed.
2. Silvicultural thinning may be conducted based upon the best available
technical advice of a professional forester.
3. Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited sight lines
and vistas, provided that if trees are removed, they shall be replaced with other
vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering
nonpoint source pollution from runoff.
4. Trees of six (6) inches diameter at breast height or greater shall be
preserved.
5. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species shall be allowed,
provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion.
6. Pathways and stormwater channels shall be constructed to effectively control
erosion.
Sec. 19.3-44. Development authorized in stream buffer.
4O
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance, the
following types of development shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the
requirements of this section are satisfied:
a. A building or structure which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter
may continue at such location. However, nothing in this section authorizes the
continuance, repair, replacement, expansion or enlargement of such building or
structure except as provided in sections 6.0 and 30.3 of the zoning ordinance.
b. On-site or regional stormwater management facilities and temporary erosion
and sediment control measures, provided that:
1. To the extent practical, as determined by the program authority, the location
of such facilities shall be outside of the stream buffer.
2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for construction
and maintenance of the facility, as determined by the program authority.
3. The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the
functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality.
4. Facilities located within a flood plain adhere to flood plain regulations of the
county and are designed and located, to the extent practical, to maintain their water
quantity and/or water quality control value, according the standards of this article,
during flood conditions.
c. Water-dependent facilities; redevelopment as permitted in the underlying
zoning district and in accordance with subsection (al of this section; water wells;
passive recreation access, such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; historic
preservation; archaeological activities; provided that all applicable federal, state and
local permits are obtained.
Sec. 19.3-45. Development which may be authorized in stream buffer; request to
develop in stream buffer or to modify or reduce stream buffer.
Development in a stream buffer, or any request to modify or reduce the size of a
stream buffer, may be permitted as provided herein:
41
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority
only if such development is unavoidable, as determined by the program authority, and
the requirements of subsections (b) or (c) are satisfied.
b. Development in a stream buffer or a request to modify or reduce a stream
buffer may be authorized in the following circumstances:
1. On a lot which was either recorded prior to the date of adoption of this
chapter or is located within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment, or
both: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward
(furthest from the stream).
2. On a lot which was either recorded on or after the date of adoption of this
chapter, or is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land, or both:
within the landward fifty (50) horizontal feet of buffer, but only for stormwater
conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure; provided that a modification or
reduction of such a stream buffer may be authorized only if the modification or
reduction is determined by the program authority to be necessary to allow a reasonable
use of the lot.
3. On any lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a
lake, pond, regional stormwater management facility, or ecological/wetland restoration
project.
4. On any lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the
construction and maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority
determineS'that the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the
lot or parcel which is necessary for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot or
parcel.
5. On any lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the
construction, installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage
disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would
prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems.
c. A request to modify or reduce a stream buffer may be authorized on a lot
which was recorded prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream buffer
would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites
outside the stream buffer on the lot.
42
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
d. Each owner who seeks to develop in the stream buffer orto modify or reduce
a stream buffer pursuant to this section shall submit to the program authority a
mitigation plan which satisfies the requirements of section 19.3-46.
Sec. 19.3-46. Mitigation plan.
Each owner who seeks to develop in the stream buffer or to modify or reduce a
stream buffer pursuant to section 19,3-45 shall submit to the program authority for
review and approval a mitigation plan as provided herein:
a, The owner shall submit a mitigation plan that satisfies the applicable
requirements of this section, the fee required by section 19.3-34, and a certification
stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
b, The mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine
whether it complies with the requirements of this section and all other requirements of
this article. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a mitigation plan within
thirty (30) days that a complete plan was accepted for review. The decision shall be in
writing and shall be communicated to the owner, If the plan is disapproved, the
reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision.
c. Each mitigation plan shall:
1. identify the impacts of proposed development on water quality and lands
within the stream buffer,
2. Ensure that, where development does take place within a stream buffer, it will
be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least disruptive to the
natural functions of the stream buffer,
3. Demonstrate and assure thai development will be conducted using best
management practices.
4. Specify mitigation which will address water quality and stream buffer impacts.
5. Contain all other information requested by the program authority.
d. Each mitigation plan shall be evaluated by the program authority based on
the following criteria:
43
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
1. Whether all reasonable alternatives to development in the stream buffer have
been explored and exhausted.
2. Whether the development in the stream buffer is the minimum necessary and
is conducted in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the
stream Duffer.
3. Whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts
from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions.
e. In addition to the criteria set forth in subsection (d), each mitigation plan for a
development proposed pursuant to subsection 19.3-45(b)(4) or 19.3-45(b)(5) shall be
evaluated by the program authority based on the following criteria:
1. Reasonable access or development shall be the minimum necessary, as
determined by the program authority.
2. Best management practices which effectively mitigate the encroachment shall
be utilized.
3. For the development of sewage disposal systems, the lot must have been
recorded prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, and the sewage disposal system
must comply with applicable state regulations.
f. in addition to the criteria set forth in subsection (d), each mitigation plan for a
development proposed pursuant to subsection 19.3-45(c) shall be evaluated by the
program authority based on the following criteria:
1. The modification to the buffer shall be the minimum necessary to achieve a
reasonable buildable area for a principle structure and necessary utilities, as
determined by the program authority.
2. In no case shall the reduced portion of the buffer area be less than fifty (50)
feet in width, except as provided for in subsection 19.3-45(b)(2).
Division 3. Compliance and enforcement.
Sec. '19.3-47. Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement.
Upon approval by the program authority of a stormwater management/BMP plan,
each owner shall:
44
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan.
b. Maintain and repair all structural and nonstructural stormwater management
measures required by the plan, as provided herein:
1. The owner shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of such
measures and shall pass such responsibility to any successor owner, unless such
responsibility is transferred to the county or to another governmental entity as provided
in section 19.3-33.
2. If an approved stormwater managementJBMP plan requires structural or non-
structural measures, the owner shall execute a stormwater management/BMP facilities
maintenance agreement prior to the program authority granting final approval for any
plan of development or other development for which a permit is required. The
agreement shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county
and shall run with the land If an owner cannot exercise a purchase agreement until a
plan of development or other development receives final approval from the county, the
program authority may grant its final approval without a signed agreement, provided
that the agreement is signed and recorded as provided herein prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy for the development project.
3. The stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement shall be
in a form approved by the county attorney and shall, at a minimum: (i) designate for the
Iand development the owner, governmental agency, or other legally established entity
which shall be permanently responsible for maintenance of the structural or non-
structural measures required by the plan; (ii) pass the responsibility for such
maintenance to successors in title; and (iii) ensure the continued performance of the
maintenance obligations required by the plan and this article.
Sec. 19.3-48. Inspections.
The program authority shall inspect any land subject to an approved stormwater
managementJBMP plan as provided herein:
a. During the installation of stormwater management/BMP measures or the
conversion of erosion and sediment control measures into stormwater
management/BMP measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections
to determine whether such measures are being installed as provided in the approved
plan.
45
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. Upon completion of the installation of stormwater management/BMP
measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determine
whether such measures are being maintained as provided in the approved ;)lan= or to
investigate a complaint pertaining to the plan. Such inspections shall be conducted at
least semi-annually, measured from the date the installation or implementation of the
stormwater managementJBMP measures is deemed by the program authority to be
complete, and after any storm which causes the capacity of any stormwater facility to
be exceeded. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the
time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the
program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability
to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise
therefrom
c. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving notice to the owner.
occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct any inspection required by
this section. The notice may be either verbal or in writing. Notice shall not be req uired
if the program authority and the owner have entered into a right of entry agreement or if
the owner has granted to the program authority an easement for purposes of inspection
and maintenance, as provided in section 19.3-28(e)(7).
Sec. 19.3-49. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Upon a determination by the program authority that the owner has failed to
comply with the approved stormwater management/BMP plan, the following procedures
shall apply:
a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written
notice to con; ply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the
address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal
delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the
permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall: (i) instruct the
owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to
prevent or abate drainage or water pollution problems; (ii) specify the measures
required to comply with the plan; and (iii) specify the time within which such measures
shall be completed. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department.
b. if the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to
comply within the time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing department may
revoke any grading, building or other permit for activities involving the land
development, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article.
46
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
c. If the program authority determines, upon completion of a maintenance
inspection prowded in section 19.3-48, that maintenance or repair of the measures ~s
neglected, or that any stormwater management facility is a danger to public health or
safety, it may perform the work necessary to assure that such measures or facilities are
not a danger to public health or safety, and shall be entitled to recover the costs of such
work from the owner.
Sec. 19.3-50. Penalties and remedies.
This article may be enforced as follows:
a Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1000.00) or up to thirty days imprisonment for each violation, or both.
b. The county may apply to the circuit court in any jurisdiction wherein the land
lies to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of the provisions of this article without
the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists.
c. Without limiting the remedies that may be obtained pursuant to this section,
the county may bring a civil action against any person for violation of any provision of
this article or any term or condition of a permit or plan. The action may seek the
imposition of a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars ($2000.00) against
the person for each violation
d. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or
refused to obey any condition of a permit, obi gation of a plan or agreement, or any
provision of this article, the program authority may provide, in an order issued by the
program authority against such person, for the payment of civil charges for violations in
specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection {c). Such civil charges
shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under
subsection (c).
C:\WP61 \MOOP, E$\SWMOKD\OKD.FD 47
'~-2S-97765: ~ RCV7
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DRAFT: November '19, '1997
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
CONTROL, CHAPTER 19.1, WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE II. PROTECTION OF
PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, AND CHAPTER 19.2 WATER RESOURCES
PROTECTION AREAS, AND TO ADOPT CHAPTER 19.3, PROTECTION OF WATER
RESOURCES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
that Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers,
Article I1, Protection of Public Drinking Water, and Chapter 19.2, Water Resource
Protection Areas are hereby repealed and Chapter 19.3, Protection of Water
Resources, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is adopted, as follows:
By Repealing:
Chapter 7. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Chapter 19.1. Water and Sewers, Article II Protection of Public Drinking Water
Chapter 19.2. Water Resource Protection Areas
By Adding New:
Chapter '19.3. Protection of Water Resources
Article I. General
Sec. 19.3-1.
Sec. 19.3-2.
Sec. 19.3-3.
Sec. 19.3-4.
Sec. 19.3-5.
Sec. 19.3-6.
Sec. 19.3-7.
Short title.
Enabling authority.
Purposes.
Rules of construction
Definitions.
Designation of program authority; powers and duties.
Saving provision.
Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control
Division '1. Plans.
Sec. 19.3-8.
Sec. 19.3-9.
Sec. 19.3-10.
Applicability.
Determination of land disturbing activity.
Determination of erosion impact area.
DRAFT: November 19, '1997
Sec, 19.3-11.
Sec. 19.3-12.
Sec. 19.3-13.
Sec. 19.3-14.
Sec. 19.3-15.
Sec. 19.3-16.
Sec. 19.3-17.
Sec. 19.3-18.
Erosion and sediment control plan: requirements.
Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan.
Agreement in lieu of a plan.
Monitoring and reporting.
Issuance of permit; surety.
Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan.
Fees.
Review of certain program authority actions.
Division 2. Compliance and enforcement.
Sec. 19.3-19.
Sec. 19.3-20.
Sec. 19.3-21.
Sec. 19.3-22.
Sec. 19.3-23,
Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Inspections.
Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure.
Penalties and remedies.
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Division 1. Plans.
Sec. 19.3-24.
Sec. 19.3-25
Sec. 19.3-26
Sec, 19.3-27,
Sec. 19.3-28
Sec. 19.3-29.
Sec. 19.3-30.
Sec, 19.3-31.
Sec. 19.3-32.
Sec. 19.3-33.
Sec. 19.3-34.
Sec. 19.3-35.
Applicability.
Designation of water resources areas.
Overlapping water resources areas,
Stormwater managementJBMP plan; requirements,
Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan.
Monitoring and reporting.
Issuance of permit; surety.
Amendment of stormwater managemenfJBMP plan
Exceptions.
Dedication of stormwater management facilities.
Fees,
Review of certain program authority actions,
Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection.
Sec. 19.3-36.
Sec. 19.3-37.
Sec. 19.3-38.
Sec. 19.3-39.
Sec. 19.3-40,
Stormwater management facilities and channels.
Non-structural measures.
Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff.
Best management practices.
Contribution to regional stormwater management program.
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-41.
Sec. 19.3-42.
Sec. 19.3-43.
Sec. 19.3-44.
Sec. 19.3-45.
Sec. 19.3-46.
Retention or establishment of stream buffer.
Exceptions to requirement to retain or establish stream buffer.
Management of stream buffer.
Development authorized in stream buffer.
Development which may be authorized in stream buffer: request to
develop in stream buffer or to modify or reduce stream buffer.
Mitigation plan.
Division 3. Compliance and enforcement.
Sec. 19.3-47.
Sec. 19.3-48.
Sec. 19~3-49.
Sec. 19.3-50.
Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement.
Inspections.
Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Penalties and remedies.
Chapter 19.3. Protection of Water Resources
Article I. General.
Sec. 19.3-1. Short title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Comprehensive Water
Resources Ordinance" or as the "Water Protection Ordinance."
Sec. 19.3-2. Authority.
This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.), the Virginia
Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.) and the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-2100 et seq.).
Sec. 19.3-3. Purposes.
The board of supervisors finds that this chapter is necessary to protect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the County and the Commonwealth
of Virginia and to prevent water from being rendered dangerous to the health of
persons living in the county, and is supported by the findings of watershed studies that
have been conducted. Therefore, the specific purposes of this chapter are to:
a. Inhibit the deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land
disturbing activities.
3
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. Protect the safety and welfare of citizens, property owners, and businesses
by minimizing the negative impacts of increased stormwater discharges from new land
development and redevelopment.
c. Protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of public
ddnking water supplies resulting from land development.
d. Control nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation and stream
channel erosion.
e. Maintain the integrity of existing stream channels and networks for their
biological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater.
f. Protect the condition of state waters for all reasonable public uses and
ecological functions.
g. Provide for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance of stormwater
management facilities and best management practices.
h. Facilitate the integration of stormwater management and pollution control with
other county ordinances, programs, policies, and the comprehensive plan
Sec. 19.3-4. Rules of construction.
This chapter protects paramount public interests and shall be liberally construed
to effectuate its several purposes. In addition to the rules of construction set forth in
section 1-2, the following rules of construction shall apply in the construction of this
chapter, unless such application would be contrary to the purposes of this chapter or
the context clearly indicates otherwise:
a. All references to any statute, ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook,
manual or standard shall be to such statute ordinance, regulation, guideline, handbook.
manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of this ordinance and includes
any amendment thereafter or reissue in a subsequent edition.
b. Any reference to "this article," "article il," or "article Ill" shall include references
to all applicable references of article I.
4
Sec. 19.3-5. Definitions.
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of
this chapter:
Agreement in lieu ora plan. A written agreement between the program authority
and an owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in
the construction of a single-family dwelling unit, and which may be executed by the
program authority in lieu of a formal erosion and sediment control plan.
Agricultural land. Land used for horticulture viticulture silviculture or other
gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of
livestock and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not
limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, daides, nurseries or wayside stands.
Agricultural road. A read or portion of a road with a road cross-section not wider
than fifty (50) feet and/or with a cut-slope vertical height or fill-slope vertical height no
higher than ten (10) feet, which is used exclusively for access to agricultural land and
any residential dwelling unit on the agricultural land.
Best management practice (BMP). A practice or combination of practices that is
determined by the state, a designated area-wide planning agency, or the program
authority, to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing the
amount of water pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level corn ~)atible with
water quality goals.
Board of supervisors. The Albemarle County board of supervisors.
Certified inspector. An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i) holds
a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area of
project inspection for erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in the soil and
water conservation board's training program for project inspection for erosion an(~
sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year after
enrollment.
Certified plan reviewer An employee or agent of the program authority who: (i)
holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in the area
of plan review for erosion and sediment control; (ii) is enrolled in the soil and water
conservation board's training program for plan review for erosion and sediment control
and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment; or (iii) is
5
DRAFT: November 19, '1997
licensed as a professional engineer, amhitect, certified landscape architect or land
surveyor pursuant to sections 54.1-400 et seq. of the Code of Virginia.
Certified program administrator. An employee or agent of the program authority
who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the soil and water conservation board in
the area of program administration for erosion and sediment control; or (ii) is enrolled in
the soil and water conservation board's training program for program administration for
erosion and sediment control and successfully completes the program within one year
after enrollment. The certified program administrator is referred to herein as the
program administrator
Channel. A natural stream or human-made waterway.
Contiguous nontidal wetlands. Nontidal wetlands that lie within or adjacent to a
stream channel or within the flood plain of that stream channel so that there is a
hydrologic connection between the stream and the wetland, and including
impoundments of water along a natural stream channel.
County. The County of Albemarle, Virgima.
Crop land. Land which is used for the cultivation of corn and other row crops,
orchards, wneyards, and other fruits and vegetables, but excluding land used for
silviculture and those crops which consist of a dense grass cover, such as hay land or
pasture land.
Department of engineering. The Albemarle County Department of Engineering
and Public Works.
Development. Any construction, external repair, land disturbing activity, grading,
road building, or other similar human activity resulting in a change of the physical
character of land, except as herein otherwise expressly provided
Drainage basin. A watershed,
Erosion impact area, An area of land, other than a lot or pamel of less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet which is used for residential purposes or a shoreline
where the erosion results from wave action, which is not subject to a current land
disturbing activity but is subject to persistent soil erosion which results in the delivery of
sediment onto neighboring property or into state waters,
6
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Erosion and sediment control plan. A document which sets forth the major soil
and water resources conservation measures that will be implemented to assure that the
unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives of this
chapter, and which may also include appropriate illustrations in the form of maps or a
site plan, and appropriate narratives, such as a soil and water plan inventory and
management information with needed interpretations a record of decisions contributing
to conservation treatment, and any specifications submitted with the plan.
Flooding. A volume of water that is too great to be confined within the banks or
walls of the channel waterbody, or conveyance system and that overflows onto
adjacent lands, causing or threatening damage.
Flood plain. Land which would be inundated by flood waters in a storm event of
a one-hundred (100) year return interval.
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
Impervious cover. A surface composed of any material that significantly impedes
or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil, including but not limited to, roofs,
buildings, streets, concrete, asphalt, and gravel placed over a compacted base.
Intermittent btream. A natural stream or portion of a natural stream that has a
defined bed and defined banks within which water flows in response to precipitation,
through near surface groundwater flow, or from springs, and which is not a perennial
stream.
Land development. A human-made change to, or construction on, the land
surface that changes its runoff characteristics. For purposes ofthis chapter, individual
lots in a proposed subdivision shall not be considered to be separate land
developments; rather, the entire subdivision shall be considered a single land
development.
Land disturbing activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from
water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the
Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting
and filling of land, and as further defined herein:
a. If no part of the property is located within the mountain overlay district, a land
change is a land disturbing activity if it creates an area of disturbed land often
thousand (10,000) square feet or more; or
DRAFT: November '19, 1997
b. If the property is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay
district, a land change ~s a land disturbing activity only if it creates an area of disturbed
land of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more.
Linear development. A land development that is linear in nature such as, but not
limited to: (i) the construction of electric and telephone utility lines and natural gas
pipelines; (ii) the construction of tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities
and other related structures of a railroad company; and (iii) highway construction
projects.
Mitigation plan. A plan, a component of a stormwater managementJBMP plan,
an erosion and sediment control plan, or an agreement in lieu of a plan, that describes
how encroachments into a stream buffer will be mitigated through runoff treatment,
revegetation, the addition of extra buffer areas, or other appropriate best management
practices.
Natural stream. A nontidal waterway that is part of the natural topography, which
typically will maintain a continuous, seasonal or intermittent flow during the year, and
which is characterized as being irregular in cross-section with a meandering course. A
constructed channel such as a drainage ditch or swale is not a natural stream.
Necessary infrastructure. Components of a site development necessary for the
protection of the public health, safety, or welfare, and environmental features. These
components include, but are not limited to, the following: drainage channels, structures
and facilities; best management practices; access roads for emergency vehicles; and
access roads for the maintenance of stormwater management facilities and/or water-
dependent facilities.
Nonpoint source pollution. Pollution from diffuse sources carried in stormwater
runoff, including but not limited to the following pollutants: sediment, nutrients, organic
and inorganic substances.
Nontidal wetlands. Wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, in 33 Code
of Federal Regulations § 328.3b, dated November 13, 1986.
Owner. The owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate
therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor,
8
DRAFT: November 19, '1997
trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a piece of land. As
used herein, owner also refers to, in the appropriate context: (i) any other person
authorized to act as the agent for the owner; (ii) any person who submits an erosion
and sediment control plan or stormwater managementJBMP plan for approval or
requests issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land disturbing activities or
land development to commence; and (iii) any person responsible for complying with an
approved erosion and sediment control plan, agreement in lieu of a plan, or an
approved stormwater management/BMP plan.
Perennial stream. Any stream that is depicted as a continuous blue line on the
most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps
(scale 1:24,000), except for streams within a development area or area of infill and
redevelopment that have been piped or converted legally and intentionally into
stormwater conveyance channels such that the stream does not resemble or maintain
the characteristics of a natural stream channel, as determined by the program authority.
Permit. Any building permit, grading permit, or other permit, including the
approval of any subdivision plat or site plan. which is required to be issued by any
board, commission, officer, employee or other agency of the county as a prerequisite to
any development.
Permit-issuing department. A department of the county that issues a permit.
Plan of development. The process for site plan or subdivision plat review to
ensure compliance with section 10.1-2109 of the Code of Virginia and this chapter
which is required as a precedent to clearing, grading, or other land disturbing activity on
a site or the issuance of a building permit.
Program authority. The department of engineering and public works. Except
where the context clearly indicates otherwise, references to the program authority
includes any officer or employee of the department of engineering and public works
authorized by the county engineer to act pursuant to this chapter.
Redevelopment. The process of developing land that is or has been previously
developed.
Regional stormwater basin. A facility designed to capture, detain, and/or treat
stormwater for a geographically defined upstream watershed for the purpose of
providing water quality and/or quantity benefits for the region. Such a facility may be
constructed by a public agency or by a p¢ivate person or entity.
DRAFT: November 19, '1997
Residential development. A tract or parcel of land developed or to be developed
as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to contain three or
more residential dwelling units.
Road cross-section. The horizontal dimension of a road, including its travelway,
shoulders, ditches, cut-slopes, and fill-slopes.
Runoff. The portion of precipitation which is discharged across the land surface
or through conveyances to one or more waterways.
Sewage disposal system. A sewerage system or treatment works composed of
a facility or combination of facilities constructed for the transport and/or treatment of
domestic, commercial or industrial sewage, but not including plumbing, fixtures, lateral
pipes from a dwelling unit to a septic tank, lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a publicly
owned sewerage facility, or publicly owned facilities for the transport and/or treatment of
sewage.
State waters. All waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially
within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction.
Stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement. An agreement
that commits the owner or other designated parties to maintain and inspect
stormwatedBMP facilities constructed in accordance with this chapter based on specific
terms and conditions of the agreement.
Stormwatermanagement/BMP plan. A document that describes the controls for
the management of the rate of stormwater discharge and best management practices
for water quality protection, and which includes a narrative section, a map or site plan,
pertinent calculations, and any specifications submitted with the plan.
Stream buffer. An area of land at or near a tributary streambank and/or nontidal
wetland that has an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological
processes it performs or is otherwise sensitive to changes which may result in
significant degradation to the quality of state waters.
Subdivision. A subdivision, as defined in the subdivision ordinance.
Subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia.
10
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Water-dependentfacility. A development of land that cannot exist outside of the
stream buffer and must be located on the shoreline because of the intrinsic nature of its
operation. These facilities include, but are not limited to: (i) the intake and outfall
structures of power plants, sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and storm
sewers; (ii) public water-oriented recreation areas; and liii) boat docks and ramps.
Water resources areas. A group of specific areas within the region that share a
unified stormwater philosophy based on existing and anticipated land uses and
environmental sensitivities, which are each managed according to specific stormwater
goals contained in this chapter. The four water resources areas, which are identified in
section 19.3-25, are: (i) development areas; (ii) areas of infill and redevelopment; (iii)
water supply protection areas; and (iv) other rural land.
Watershed. A defined land area drained by a river, stream or drainage ways, or
system of connecting rivers, streams, or drainage ways such that all surface water
within the area flows through a single outlet.
Zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
Sec. 19.3-6. Designation of program authority; powers and dUties.
The board of supervisors hereby designates the department of engineering as
the program authority. The program authority shall have the following powers and
duties:
a. The program authority shall administer and enforce this chapter.
b. The program authority shall establish reasonable administrative procedures
for the administration of this chapter, including developing and maintaining for article
a design manual containing information about the content of plans required by article [11,
calculation methods, maintenance and inspection procedures, and other information to
assist with the implementation and enforcement of article II1. The program authority'
shall update the design manual periodically. The manual shall be consistent with this
chapter and all applicable statutes and regulations.
c. Within one year of the date of adoption of this chapter the program authority
shall assure that the erosion and sediment control program set forth in article II is
administered by a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a
certified project inspector. Such positions may be filled by the same person.
11
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
d. The program authority shall take appropriate enforcement actions to achieve
compliance with this chapter, and shall maintain a record of enforcement actions for all
active land disturbing activities and land developments.
e. The program authority is authorized to cooperate with any federal or state
agency in connection with plans for erosion and sediment control or stormwater
management. The program authority may also recommend to the county executive any
proposed agreement with such agency for such purposes, which agreement shall be
executed, if at all, by the county executive on behalf of the county.
Sec. 19.3-7. Saving provision,
The adoption of this chapter shall not abate any pending action, liability, or
penalty of any person accruing or about to accrue, nor waive any right of the county
under any provision in effect prior to the adoption of this chapter, unless expressly
provided for in this chapter. Any erosion and sediment control plan, runoff control
permit and, to the extent they pertain to stormwater management, any final site plan or
plat, approved prior to the effective date of this chapter shall remain in full force and
effect, and all rights and remedies of the county in enforcing such plans, permits and
plats are hereby preserved.
Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control
Division 1. Plans.
Sec. 19.3-8. Applicability.
This article shall apply to any land disturbing activity as provided herein:
a.- Except as provided in subsection (b), each owner shall comply with the
requirements of this article:
1. Prior to engaging in any land disturbing activity, or allowing any land
disturbing activity to occur, on his property;
2. At all times during such land disturbing activity until it is completed, including
all times when the land disturbing activity is performed by a contractor engaged in
construction work; and;
12
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
3. When notified by the program authority that an eres~on impact area exists on
his land, and the notice requires the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control
plan in order to control erosion and sedimentation.
b. This article shall not apply to the following land disturbing activities:
1. Individual home gardens, landscaping, repair and maintenance work;
2. Individual service connections;
3. Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines
when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk:
provided that the land disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or
sidewalk which is hard surfaced;
4. Septic tank lines or drainage fields, unless included in an overall plan for land
disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank
system;
5. Surface or deep mimng;
6. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site, roads= feeder
lines and off-site disposal areas;
7. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops,
livestock feed operations or products, or related engineering operations including, but
not limited to, construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins,
dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour
furrowing, land drainage and land irrigation. This exception shall not apply to: (i) the
harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested
artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of section 10.1-1100 et seq. of
the Code of Virginia or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture uses
as described in section 10.1-1163(B) of the Code of Virginia, in which case such person
shall comply with the provisions of this article when grading, excavating, or filling; (ii) a
land disturbing activity related to the construction of farm structures, including but not
limited to agricultural structures or agricultural roads not associated with filling, planting
and harvesting; and (iii) the construction of any roads, other than agricultural reads:
8. Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, right-of-way, bridges, communication
facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company;
13
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
9. Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other
kinds of posts or poles; and
10. Emergency work to protect life. limb or property, and emergency repairs;
provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion
and sediment control plan if the activity was not an emergency, the land area shall be
shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the program authority.
Sec. 19.3-9. Determination of land disturbing activity.
The determination of whether an activity is a land disturbing activity shall be
made as provided herein:
a. The program administrator shall determine whether an activity is a land
disturbing activity, including any claim by an owner that the activity is exempt from the
requirements of this article.
b. If a land disturbing activity includes activity at a separate location, including
but not limited to borrow and disposal areas, the program administrator may either:
1. Consider the off-site activity as being part of the proposed [and disturbing
activity; or
2. If the off-site activity is already covered by an erosion and sediment control
plan, require the owner to provide proof of the approval and to certify that the plan will
be implemented in accordance with this article.
c. If a property will be developed in phases the determination of whether an
activity constitutes a land disturbing activity shall be determined by considering the
development of the property as a whole, regardless of the phasing of the development.
d. Land disturbing activity of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet on
individual lots in a residential development shall not be considered exempt from this
article if the total land disturbing activity in the residential development is eq ual to or
greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
e. Upon the determination by the program administrator that an activity is a land
disturbing activity, the owner shall immediately comply with the requirements of this
article and this article shall be otherwise immediately enforced.
14
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-10. Determination of erosion impact area.
The determination of whether an erosion impact area exists on property shall
be determined as provided herein:
a. The program administrator shall determine whether an erosion impact area
exists on the property and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of this article. The
program administrator shall make this determination after an investigation brought
either on his own initiative or upon the complaint of any citizen.
b. Upon making a determination that an erosion ~mpact area exists, the program
administrator shall immediately notify the owner of the property of his determination.
The notice may either be informal, by the program administrator speaking to the owner
of the property by telephone or in person, or in writing. If the notice is in writing, it shall
be served by registered or certified mail to the address of the owner based upon the
most recent tax records of the county, or by personal delivery. The written notice shall:
(i) instruct the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review and
approval as provided in this article; and (ii) state the date by which the plan shall be
submitted.
c. U pon receipt of the notice required by subsection (b), the owner shall: (i) not
permit any portion of that land to remain in a condition so that soil erosion and
sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or
downstream property, reads, streams, lakes, or ponds; and (ii) immediately comply with
the requirements of the notice and this article shall otherwise be immediately enforced.
d. If informal notice as provided in subsection (b) is first provided to the owner of
the property and the owner fails to comply with such notice and subsection (c), the
program administrator shall then provide written notice to the owner as provided in
subsection (b).
e. If good cause is shown, the program authority may grant to an owner an
extension of time for which to comply with the requirements of this section and this
article.
Sec. 19.3-11. Erosion and sediment control plan.
Except as provided in section 19.3-13, each owner subject to this article,
including each owner when the land disturbing activity will be performed by a
contractor, shall submit to the program authority for review and approval an erosion and
sediment control plan as provided herein:
15
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. The owner shall submit a completed application on an application form
provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-17, an erosion and
sediment control plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a
certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
b. The plan shall include specifications for temporary and permanent controls of
soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem
reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbin¢
activity, and a statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of the owner to
assure that the land disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and requirements of this
article. The plan shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the handbook,
including the criteria, techniques and methods set forth in section 50-30-40 of title 4 of
the Virginia Administrative Code.
c. The program authority may require additional information as may be
necessary for a complete review of the plan.
d. In lieu of subsections (a), (b) and (c), if the land disturbing activity involves
land also under the jursidiction of another local erosion and sediment control program,
the owner may, at his option, choose to have a conservation plan approved by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Soil and Water
Conservation Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan
approval by such board.
e. If land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing
construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and
approval of a plan shall be the responsibility of the owner.
Sec. 19.3-12. Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan.
Each erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article shall
be reviewed and approved as provided herein:
a. The plan shall be rewewed by the program authority to determine whether it
complies with the requirements of section 19.3-11 and all other requirements of this
article.
b. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner
from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and shall inform the
owner in writing of any modifications, terms, or conditions required to be included in the
plan in order for it to be approved.
16
DRAFT: November 19, ~1997
c. Except as provided in subsection (d), the program authority shall approve or
disapprove a plan in writing within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date the
complete application was received by the program authority. The decision of the
program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with the requirements of this
article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the
plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated in the writing.
d. If the program authority fails to act on the plan within forty-five (45) calendar
days from the date the application was received by the program authority, the plan shall
be deemed approved.
e. If the owner is required to obtain approval of a site plan or subdivision plat.
the program authority shall not approve an erosion and sediment control plan unless
and until the site plan or subdivision plat is approved as provided by law. For purposes
of this subsection, a site plan or subdivision plat shall be deemed approved if its
approval is conditioned upon the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan
pursuant to this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the program authority may
approve an erosion and sediment control plan prior to approval of a required site plan
or subdivision plat in the following circumstances:
1. To correct any existing erosion or other condition conducive to excessive
sedimentation which is occasioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of
God or other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided, that the activity
proposed shall be strictly limitedto the correction of such condition:
2. To clear and grub stumps and other activity directly related to the selective
cutting of trees, as permitted by law;
3. To install underground public utility mains, interceptors, transmission lines
and trunk lines for which plans have been previously approved by the operating utility
and approved by the county as being substantially in accord with the comprehensive
plan, if necessary;
4. To fill earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or other lawful earth
disturbing activity;
5. To clear, grade, fill or engage in similar related activity for the temporary
storage of earth, equipment and materials, and to construct temporary access roads;
providec, that in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its
previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours. The return to
previous condition shall occur within thirty (30) days of the completion of the activity or
17
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
temporary use, or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of any land
disturbing activity on the land which is related to the activity, whichever period shall be
shorter; or
6. To establish borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with sections 5.1.28
and 10.2.1.18 of the zoning ordinance.
Sec. 19.3-13. Agreement in lieu of a plan.
If the land disturbing activity is for the purpose of establishing or modifying a
single family dwelling unit, the program authority may allow an agreement in lieu of a
plan for the construction of such a dwelling unit; provided:
a. The single family dwelling unit is located on an individual lot which is not part
of an approved subdivision; or
b. The single family dwelling unit is located within a subdivision for which an
approved erosion and sediment control plan exists which addresses all land disturbing
activities related to the development of the subdivision and the individual lots in the
subdivision are being developed by different property owners.
c. In determining whether to allow an agreement in lieu of a plan pursuant to
subsections (a) or (b), the program authority shall include as part of its consideration
the potential threat to water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land
disturbing activity.
d Except as provided in sections 19.3-11 and 19.3-12, all other references in
this article to an erosion and sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of
a plan, and the program authority and the owner shall have all of the rights,
responsibilities and remedies set forth in this article as though such agreement in lieu of
a plan was an erosion and sediment control plan.
Sec. 19.3-14. Monitoring and reporting,
As a condition of approval of an erosion and sediment control plan, the program
authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as
provided herein:
a. Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance
with the erosion and sediment control plan and to determine whether the measures
required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment.
18
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state: (i) the method
and frequency of such monitoring; and (ii) the format of the report and the frequency for
submitting reports.
Sec. 19.3-15. Issuance of permit; surety.
A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities
may be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein:
a. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an erosion and
sediment control plan, submitted for review and approval pursuant to this article, or an
approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be
followed. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until the erosion and
sediment control plan has been approved and certification is submitted.
b. Prior to the issuance of such permit, the permit-issuing department may
require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow,
letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to
the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could
be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's
expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-21, to take timely
corrective action specified in the notice
c. If a bond or other surety is required by the permit-issuing department
pursuant to subsection (b), the bond or other surety shall not exceed the total of the
estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control
structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the
erosion and sediment control plan The amount of the bond or other surety shall be
based on unit price for new public or pdvate sector construction in Albemarle County,
Virginia, and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation
which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate,
maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems, and to
comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and sediment control plan
d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to
section 19.3-21 upon the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the
owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action
exceeds the amount of the surety.
e. Within sixty (60) days of achieving adequate stabilization of the land
disturbing activity in any project or section thereof, the bond or other surety, or any
19
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
unexpended (~r unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or
terminated based upon the pementage of stabilization accomplished in the project or
section thereof.
Sec. 19.3-16. Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan.
The program authority may change an approved erosion and sediment control
plan and require an owner to submit an amended plan in the following circumstances:
a. An inspection conducted pursuant to section 19.3-20 reveals that the plan is
inadequate to satisfy the requirements of this article;
b. The owner finds that, because of changed circumstances or for other
reasons, the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed
amendments to the plan consistent with the req uirements of this article, are agreed to
by the program authority and the owner; or
c. The land disturbing activity did not begin during the one hundred eighty (180)
day period following plan approval, or ceased for more than one hundred eighty (180)
days, and the existing plan has been evaluated to determine whether it still satisfies the
requirements of this article and state erosion and sediment control criteda and to vedfy
that all design factors are still valid, and it has been determined that the plan is
inadequate. In such a case, the land disturbing activity shall not be resumed until a
modified plan is submitted and approved as provided in this article.
Sec. 19.3-17. Fees.
Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or
entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan,
and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth
below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of
Albemarle."
a. Plan for residential land disturbing activity: $ 40.
b. Plan for agricultural land disturbing activity: $ 40.
c. Plan for all other land disturbing activity: $150.
d. Major amendment of plan: $100.
20
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
e. Each inspection: $ 45.
Sec. 19.3-18. Review of certain program authority actions.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of
its disapproval of an erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this
article, or in the interpretation of the provisions of this article, shall have the right to
apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors, as provided
herein:
a An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors
within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority.
Notice shall be deemed to be gwen on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered.
b. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program
authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for
a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program
authodty's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the
circuit court as provided in section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia.
c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to
the owner, owners of adjacent and downstream property, and any interested
governmental agency or officer thereof.
Division 2. Compliance and enforcement.
Sec. 19.3-19. Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Upon approval by the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan,
each owner shall:
a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan when
performing, or allowing to be performed, any land disturbing activities or activities to
correct an erosion impact area.
b. Maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems
to ensure continued performance of their intended function.
c. Comply with all requirements of this article.
21
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-20. Inspections.
The program authority shall inspect any land disturbing activity or erosion impact
area as provided herein:
a. The program authority shall conduct periodic inspections of land disturbing
activities and erosion impact areas to determine compliance with the approved erosion
and sediment control plan, and to determine whether such approved plan and permit as
~mplemented are adequate to satisfy the requirements of this article.
b. Except as provided in subsection (c), the periodic inspections shall be
conducted: (i) during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment
controls; (ii) at least once during every two (2) week period thereafter; (iii) within forty-
eight (48) hours following any runoff producing storm event; and (iv) at the completion
of the project prior to the release of any surety. The inability of the program authority to
conduct inspections within the 'time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be
deemed to be a failure of the program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a
ministerial function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or
employee thereof shall arise therefrom.
c. Notwithstanding subsection (b), the program authority is authorized to
establish an alternative inspection program which ensures compliance with an
approved erosion and sediment control plan. Such alternative inspection program shall
be: (i) approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board prior to
mplementation; (ii) established in writing; (iii) based on a system of priorities which, at a
minimum, address the amount of disturbed project area, site conditions, and stage of
construction; (iv) documented by inspection records: and (v) maintained and available
for public review in the department of engineering.
d. The program authority shall have the right to enter upon property subject to
an erosion and sediment control plan for the purposes of conducting an inspection as
provided in this section or an investigation pertaining to an erosion or sedimentatio~
complaint. The owner shall be given notice of the inspection. Such notice may be
either verbal or in writing.
e. The fees required for inspections conducted pursuant to subsection (b)(i), (ii)
and (iv) are a part of the application fee required by section 19.3-17. The fee required
for inspections conducted pursuant to subsection (b)(iii) shall be paid by the owner
within thirty (30) days of the date shown on the invoice.
22
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-21. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Upon a determination by the program authority that an owner has failed to
comply with an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the following procedures
shall apply:
a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written
notice to comply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the
address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal
delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the
permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall: (i) instruct the
owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to
prevent erosion or sedimentation problems; (ii) state specifically the measures needed
to come into compliance with the approved plan; and (iii) state a reasonable time for
compliance. The notice shall also be g~ven to the permit-issuing department.
b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to
comply within the time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing department may
revoke any permit it has issued related to the land disturbing activity, and the owner
shall be deemed to be in violation of this article.
c. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to
comply within the time specified in the notice, the program authority, upon finding that
such action is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
may take all corrective measures it deems necessary in order to protect the public
health, safety and welfare, and shall be entitled to recover the expenses of such action
as provided in section 19.3-23.
Sec. 19.3-22. Cessation of land disturbing activity; procedure.
Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of an alleged violation of an approved erosion
and sediment control plan or this article from a representative of the program authority,
the program authority may issue a stop work order as provided herein:
a. If land disturbing activities have commenced without an approved erosion and
sediment control plan, the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that
all land disturbing activities on the property be stopped until an approved erosion and
sediment control plan or any required permits are obtained.
b. Except as provided in subsection (c), if the owner has failed to comply with
the corrective measures stated ~n a notice issued pursuant to section 19.3-21, the
23
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
program authority may issue a stop work order requinng that all or part of the land
disturbing activities permitted on the property be stopped until the specified corrective
measures are taken.
c. If the alleged noncompliance with the approved erosion and sediment control
plan is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands, sediment
depositio~ in waters, or water quality problems within the watersheds of the
Commonwealth, the program authority may issue a stop work order requiring that all or
part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the property be stopped until the
specified corrective measures are taken without first issuing and serving a notice to
comply as provided in section 19.3-21.
d. A stop work order issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall be served by
personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee of the
owner at the site of the land disturbing activities who is supervising such activities. A
stop work order issued pursuant subsections (b) or (c) shall be served by the program
authority by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in the
application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal
delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is
supervising such activities.
e. An order issued pursuant to this section shall remain in effect for a period of
seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the program authority or
owner for appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction.
f. If the alleged violator does not obtain an approved erosion and sediment
control plan within seven (7) days from the date of service of an order issued pursuant
to subsection (a), the program authority may issue an order to the owner requiring that
all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped
until an approved erosion and sediment control plan and all required permits have been
obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail
to the address specified in the application for approval of the plan or the tax records of
the county, or by personal delivery to the owner.
g. Upon completion of all necessary corrective actions, an order issued pursuant
to this section shall be immediately lifted.
h. Nothing in this section shall prevent the program authority from seeking any
other remedy authorized by this article.
24
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-23. Penalties and remedies.
This article may be enforced as follows:
a Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class
1 misdemeanor,
b. In addition to any criminal penalty imposed under subsection (a), any person
who violates any provision of this article may be liable to the county in a civil action for
damages.
c. The county may apply to the cimuit court to enjoin a violation or a threatened
violation of this article, including the violation, failure, neglect or refusal of any person to
obey an order issued pursuant to sections 19.3-21 or 19.3-22 without the necessity of
showing that an adequate remedy at law exists. Any person violating, failing,
neglecting or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other judicial remedy
obtained pursuant to this article shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil
penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars/$2,000.00) for each violation.
d. Any owner of property which has sustained damage or which is in imminent
danger of being damaged may apply to the circuit court to enjoin a violation or a
threatened violation under this article without the necessity of showing that an adequate
remedy at law does not exist. Such owner shall not apply for injunctive relief unless: (i)
he or she has notified in writing the person who has violated a provision of this article,
and the program authority, that a violation of a provision of this article has caused, or
creates a probability of causing, damage to his or her property, and (ii) neither the
person who has violated a provision of this article nor the program authority has taken
corrective action within fifteen (15) calendar days to eliminate the conditions which have
caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his or her property.
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Division 1. Plans.
Sec. 19.3-24. Applicability.
Each owner shall comply with the requirements of this article prior to
commencing any land development, or allowing any land development to occur, on his
property, for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional use, and at all times
thereafter.
25
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-25. Designation of water resources areas.
In order to better effectuate the purposes of this article, all of the land within the
county is hereby designated as being within one or more of the following water
resources areas:
a. Development areas: Development areas are those areas of land within the
county designated as development areas in the land use element of the comprehensive
plan, and as shown on the official map of the land use element.
b. Areas ofil~fill and redevelopment: Areas of infill ant redevelopment are those
areas of land Within the county that are: (i) within a development area; and (ii)
designated as areas of infill and redevelopment for purposes of this article by the board
of supervisors, and as shown on the official map adopted showing such areas. The
board of supervisors shall designate such areas based on a finding that existing
development has altered severely the natural condition of the area, including the
presence of vegetation, and that inflll and redevelopment activities would serve other
community and comprehensive plan goals.
c. Water supply protection areas:iWater supply protection areas are those areas
of land within the county that are within the watershed of a public water supply
' reservoir, and such areas shall consist of all land within the county that drains naturally
to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Beaver Creek Reservoir, Totier Creek Reservoir,
Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Chris Greene Lake. and to any
~mpoundment designated in the future by the board of supervisors as a public water
supply reservoir.
d Otherrural land: Other rural la,nd consists of those areas of land that are not
within a development area, an area of infill and redevelopment, or a water supply
protection area
Sec. 19.3-26. Overlapping water resources areas.
If a land development is or will be on land within both a water supply protection
area and another type of water resources area, the requirements of the water supply
protection area shall apply.
Sec. 19.3-27. Stormwater managementJBMP plan; requirements,
Each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program authority for review
and approval a stormwater managementJBMP plan as provided herein:
26
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. The owner shall submit an application on an application form provided by the
program authority, the fee required by section 19.3-34, a stormwater management/BMP
plan that satisfies the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and a certification stating
that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
b. The stormwater managementJBMP plan shall include specifications for
stormwater management and best management practices in order to satisfy the
requirements of division 2 of this article. The program authority may require the owner
to submit maps, calculations, detail drawings, reports, a listing of all major permit
decisions and any other information as may be necessary for a complete review of the
plan.
c. For purposes of this section, major permit decisions include~ but are not
limited to, decisions pertaining to zoning map amendments, special use permits,
subdivision plats, site plans, grading permits, building permits, erosion and sediment
control plans and any permit related to the land development required under state or
federal law.
Sec. 19.3-28. Review and approval of stormwater managemenfJBMP plan.
Each stormwater management/BMP plan submitted pursuant to this article shall
be reviewed and approved as provided herein:
a. Within thirty (301 calendar days from the receipt of an application, the
program authority shall conduct a preliminary review of the application for
completeness. During this period, the program authority shall either accept the
application for review, which will begin the sixty (60) day review period set forth in
subsection (d), or reject the application for incompleteness. If the program authority
rejects the application because it is incomplete, it shall inform the owner in writing of the
information necessary to complete the application. If the program authority accepts the
application for review, it shall send an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the
application to the owner.
b. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it
complies with the requirements of section 19.3-27 and all other requirements of this
article.
c. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner
from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and to request any
additional data as may be reasonably necessary for a complete review of the plan.
27
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
d. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan within sixty (60)
calendar days from the date the application was accepted for review. The decision of
the program authority shall be based on the plan's compliance with this article. The
decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan is
disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision.
e. Each stormwater management/BMP plan approved by the program authority
shall be subject to the following:
1. The owner shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan,
this article, the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-603.2 et
seq.), and the state stormwater management regulations set forth in 4 VAC 3-20-10 et
seq.
2. The owner shall certify that all land clearing, construction, land development
and drainage will be done according to the approved plan.
3. Land development shall be conducted only within the area specified in the
approved plan.
4. The rights granted by virtue of the approved plan shall not be transferred,
assigned or sold unless a written notice of transfer, assignment or sale is filed with the
program authority and the recipient of such rights provides the certification required by
subsection (e)(2).
5. The program authority may require, in conjunction with its approval of a plan,
that the owner first enter into a stormwater managementJBMP facilities maintenance
agreement as provided in section 19.3-47.
6. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving reasonable notice to the
owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct periodic inspections as
provided in section 19.3-48.
7. The program authority may require, as a condition of plan approval, that the
owner enter into a right of entry agreement or grant an easement for purposes of
inspection and maintenance. If such agreement or easement is required, the program
authority shall not be required to give notice prior to conducting an inspection.
f. Nothing in this section shall require approval of a plan or part thereof that is
determined by the program authority to pose a danger to the public health, safety, or
general welfare or to deviate from sound engineering practices.
28
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
Sec. 19.3-29. Monitoring and reporting.
As a condition of approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan, the program
authority may require the owner to monitor and report to the program authority as
provided herein:
a. Any monitoring conducted shall be for the purpose of ensuring compliance
with the stormwater management/BMP plan and_to determine whether the plan
provides effective stormwater management.
b. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the method and
frequency of such monitoring.
c. The condition requiring monitoring and reporting shall state the format of the
report and the frequency for submitting reports.
Sec. 19.3-30. Issuance of permit; surety.
A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land development may
be issued by a permit-issuing department only as provided herein:
a The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an approved
stormwater management/BMP plan and certification by the owner that all land clearing,
construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved
plan. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit until such approved plan
and certification are submitted.
b. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the permit-issuing department may
require the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow,
letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to
the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could
be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner's
expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 19.3-49, to take timely
corrective action specified in the notice. The performance bond or other surety shall be
provided from a date prior to the issuance of any permit by the permit issuing
department until sixty (60) days after the req uirements of the approved stormwater
management/BMP plan have been completed.
c. If a performance bond or other surety is required by the permit-issuing
department pursuant to subsection (b), the bond or other surety shall not exceed the
total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater management
29
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
facilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner
pursuant to the approved stormwater managementJBMP plan as a result of the land
development. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for
new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia. and a
reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all
stormwater management facilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may
be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater management/BMP plan.
d. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to
section 19.3-49 upon the failure of the owner to do so. the county may collect from the
owner for the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of the corrective action
exceeds the amount of the surety.
e. Within sixty (60) days of the completion of the requirements of the approved
stormwater management/BMP plan, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or
unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated. Thereafter,
compliance with the requirements of this article shall be assured by a maintenance
agreement entered into by and between the owner and the program authority, which
agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney.
Sec. 19.3-31. Amendment of stormwater managementJBMP plan.
The program authority may change an approved stormwater management/BMP
plan as provided herein:
a. The owner shall submit additional data identified in section 19.3-27(b) in order
to allow the program authority to determine whether any such change to the plan will
comply with the requirements of this article.
b. The program authority shall conduct its review of the proposed change to the
~)lan as provided in section 19.3-28.
c. If the proposed change to the approved plan complies with the requirements
of this article, the program authority shall approve such proposed change in writing.
d. An owner shall make no changes to an approved plan without first complying
with this section.
30
DRAFT: November '19, 1997
Sec. '19.3-32. Exceptions.
Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer or to modify or reduce the
stream buffer, which shall be made only pursuant to sections 19.3-45 and 19.3-46, a
request for an exception to the requirements of this article shall be made and granted
as provided herein:
a Awritten request for an exception shall be submitted to the clerk of the board
of supervisors. The request shall address the factors listed in subsection (c).
b. The board of supervisors shall grant or deny a request for an exception within
thirty (30) days of the date of the receipt of the request.
c. A request for exception may be granted provided that:
1 Reasonable alternatives to the exception have been considered and
determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the provisions of this article, the
use of non-structural measures as provided in section 19.3-37, the use of a mitigation
plan as provided in section 19.3-46, or by other means;
2. The exception granted is the m~nimum necessary to afford relief;
3. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure
that the purposes of this article are satisfied: and
4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed
an insufficient reason to grant an exception
Sec. 19.3-33. Dedication ofstormwater management facilities.
The owner of a stormwater management facility required by this article may offer
for dedication any such stormwater management facility, together with such easements
and appurtences as may be reasonably necessary, as provided herein:
a. U pon receipt of such offer of dedication by the county, the program authority
shall make a preliminary determination that the dedication of such facilities ~s
appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and shall forward its
determination to the board of supervisors. Prior to making its determination, the
pregram authority shall inspect the facility to determine whether it has been properly
maintained and is in good repair.
31
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. The board of supervisors may accept the offer of dedication by adoption of a
resolution.
c. The document dedicating the stormwater management facility shall be
recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county.
d. If the dedication of a stormwater management facility is required as a
condition of approval of a subdivision plat, then the provisions of sections 18.1-59, 18.1 -
61 and 18.1-66 of the subdivision ordinance shall apply in lieu of this section.
e. The owner, at his sole expense, shall provided to the program authority any
deed, title seamh or other information or document requested by the program authority
or the board of supervisors.
Sec. 19.3-34. Fees.
Each owner seeking approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall pay
a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts
according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a
check payable to the "County of Albemarle."
a. Plan: $100.
b. Major amendment of plan: $ 75.
c. Request for exception (section 19.3-32): $190.
d. Request for development in stream buffer or for reduction or modification of
stream buffer (section 19.3-45) and mitigation plan (if not part of another document)
(section 19.3-46): $ 50.
e. Each inspection: $ 45.
Sec. 19.3-35. Review of certain program authority actions.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of
its disapproval of a plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the
provisions of this article, shall have the right to apply for and race~ve a review of such
action by the board of supervisors, as provided herein:
32
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors
within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority
or, if an exception to the requirements of this article as provided in section 19.3-32 is
requested and denied, within thirty (30) days of the date notice of the denial of such
exception is given by the board of supervisors. Notice shall be deemed to be given on
the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered.
b. When reviewing the prog ram authority's action, the board of supervisors shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program
authority, and such other persons as shall be deemed by the boa rd to be necessary for
a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the program
authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to review by the
circuit court as provided in section 10.1-603.13 of the Code of Virginia.
c. For the purposes of this section, the term person aggrieved shall be limited to
the owner, owners of adjacent and downstream property, and any interested
governmental agency or officer thereof.
Division 2. Plan requirements: water quality and water quantity protection
Sec. 19.3-36. Stormwater management facilities and channels.
Stormwater management facilities and modifications to channels required as part
of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall be designed, installed and constructed as
provided herein:
a. Stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall be
constructed in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and
regulations, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, and the State
Erosion and Sediment Control Act.
b. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and section 30.3 of the zoning
ordinance.
c. Stormwater management facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum
extent practical, the runoff from the entire land development project area.
d. Hydrologic parameters shall reflect the ultimate buildout in the land
development project area and shall be used in all engineering calculations.
33
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
e. The number, type, and siting of stormwater management facilities shall be
designed so as to preserve natural channel characteristics and natural groundwater
recharge on a site to the extent practical.
Section 19.3-37. Non-structural measures.
Non-structural measures may be used in conjunction with or in place of structural
measures in order to satisfy the requirements of this article, as provided herein:
a. The program authority may allow non-structural measures to satisfy, partially
or in whole, the requirements of this article, if such measures are identified in accepted
technical literature, are acceptable to the program authority based on its exemise of
sound professional judgment, and the program authority finds that the measures
achieve equivalent benefit for water quantity and/or quality protection as would
otherwise be provided by structural measures.
b. Non-structural measures include, but are not limited to. minimization of
~mpervious surfaces, stream buffer reforestation, providing additional stream buffer
areas, wetland restoration, waste reuse and recycling, and development design that
reduces the rate and volume of runoff.
Sec. 19.3-38. Control of peak rate an d velocity of runoff.
Each stormwater managementJBMP plan shall require that land and receiving
waterways which are downstream from the land development be protected from
stormwater runoff damage, as provided herein:
a. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from flooding, the
ten (1,0) year post-development peak rate of runoff from the land development shall not
exceed the ten (10) year pre-development peak rate of runoff.
b. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from channel
erosion, the two (2) year post-development peak rate and velocity'of runoff from. the
land development shall not exceed the two (2) year pre-development peak rate and
velocity of runoff.
c. If the land development is in a watershed for which a hydrologic and/or
hydraulic study has been conducted or a stormwater model developed, the program
authority may modify the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) so that runoff from the
land development is controlled in accordance with the findings in the study or model, or
34
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
to prevent adverse watershed stormflow timing, channel degradation, and/or localized'
flooding problems.
d. In addition to the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the program
authority may require that the plan include additional measures to address damaging
conditions to downstream properties and receiving waterways caused by the land
development.
e. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates determined for purposes
of subsections (a) or (b) shall be verified by calculations that are consistent with
accepted engineering practices, as determined by the program authority.
f. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are
exempt from the requirements of this section:
1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas
operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural= horticultural, or forest crops.
3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a subdivision,
including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units.
4. Land development that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land area. not
including cases where land development is to be done in phases and the total land
disturbance for all phases is ~reater than one (1) acre.
5. Land development or a portion of a land development on land which is
designated as lying within a flood plain, except in cases where the flood plain has been
modified by permitted fill or other activities in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
6. Land development or a portion of a land development where the land is
adjacent to a flood plain, and the owner has demonstrated to the reasonable
satisfaction of the program authority that off-site improvements or other provisions for
the disposition of surface water runoff would equally or better serve the public interest
and safety, and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream
properties or stream channels.
7. Any land development related to a final site plan or subdivision plat approved
by the appropriate governing authority pdor to the effective date of this chapter.
35
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
g. The program authority may exempt a land development or part thereof from
some or all of the requirements of this section if the following conditions are satisfied:
1 The land development or a part thereof is within a water supply protection
area or other rural land;
2. The program authority determines that the application ofthe requirements of
this article would cause damage to the environment to an extent which exceeds the
benefits of the strict application of all of the requirements of this article;
3. All requirements which are determined by the program authority to not apply
to the land development or part thereof shall be set forth in the stormwater
management/BMP plan; and
4. The granting of an exemption of any requirement of this article will not create
a threat to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the environment.
Sec. 19.3-39. Best management practices.
Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that best management
practices be provided in conjunction with or in addition to stormwater management
facilities designed for water quantity treatment, as provided herein:
a. Best management practices shall be designed and sited to capture runoff
from the entire land development project area to the maximum extent practicable.
b. Best management practices shall be designed to remove the difference
between post-development and pre-development total phosphorus loads in cases
where post-development loads exceed pre-development loads.
c. Calculation methods and expected removal ranges for various best
management practices shall be included in the design manual or manuals maintained
by the program authority.
d. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are
exempt from the requirements of this section:
1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas
operations and projects conducted under the provisions of title 45.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
36
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
2. Tilling, planting or harvesting or agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops.
3. Single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a subdivision,
including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units.
Sec. 19.3-40. Contribution to regional stormwater management program.
Each stormwa[er management/BMP plan shall require that the owner contribute
to a regional stormwater management program, as provided herein:
a. If the land development is located within the watershed of a regional
stormwater management program established by the county requiring pro rata share
contributions, the owner shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the facility in
accordance with any ordinance of the county establishing such program.
b. The existence of a regional stormwater management program shall not
relieve an owner of his responsibility to comply with any other requirement of this
chapter.
Sec. 19.3-41. Retention or establishment of stream buffer.
Except as provided in section 19.3-42, each stormwater management/BMP plan
shall require that stream buffers be provided for the purposes of retarding runoff,
preventing erosion, filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff, moderating stream
temperature, and providing for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks,
as provided here~n:
a. If the land development is located within a development area or an area of
infill and redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established
where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial
streams, and/or nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams. The stream buffer shall
be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of such perennial streams
and contiguous nontidal wetlands measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal
wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist.
b. If the land development is located within a water supply protection area,
stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on
any lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal
wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend
to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of
perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured
37
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no
wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less
than two hundred (200) horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water
supply impoundment.
c. If the land development is located within other rural land, stream buffers shall
be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to
this article containing perennial streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these
streams, and flood plains associated with these streams. The stream buffer shall
extend to whichever of the following is wider: Ii) one hundred (100) feet on each side of
perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the
edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii)
the limits of the flood plain.
d. On agricultural lands used for crop land, whether located in a development
area, an area of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural
land. the stream buffer shall include all perennial streams non-tidal wetlands
contiguous with these streams, and a twenty-five (25/foot buffer, measured horizontally
from the edge of contiguous non-tidal wetlands, or the top of the streambank if no
wetlands exist. On these lands, the stream buffer shall be managed to prevent
concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each owner of
crop land with a stream buffer shall have developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and
Water Conservation District a soil and water conservation plan, or a component thereof,
which, shall be based on an assessment of existing conservation practices of the crop
land
e. Each stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of
the land development to the fullest extent possible.
f. Except for the activities pertaining to the management of a stream buffer
identified in section 19.3-43, the types of development authorized in a stream buffer
identified in section 19.3-44, and the additional types of development which may be
authorized in a stream buffer identified in section 19.3-45, no indigenous vegetation
within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size of the
area affected.
Sec. 19.3-42. Exceptions to requirement to retain or establish stream buffer.
The following types of development shall not be required to provide a stream
buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied:
38
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and
telephone transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, and their appurtenant structures, which are accomplished in compliance
with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 10.1-560 et seq.) or an
erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation Board.
b. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water
and sewer lines including water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for
dedication to public agencies, provided that:
1. To the extent practical, the location of such water or sewer lines shall be
outside of all stream buffer areas.
2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct, install and
maintain the water or sewer lines.
3. All such construction, installation, and maintenance of such water or sewer
lines shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits
and be conducted in a manner that protects water quality.
c. Silvicultural activities, provided that such activities are conducted in
compliance with the water quality protection procedures established by the Virginia
Department of Forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry
Operations."
Sec. 19.3-43. Management of stream buffer.
Each stream buffer required to be retained or established pursuant to section
19.3-41 shall be managed as provided herein:
a. n order to maintain the runoff, erosion, nonpoint source pollution control,
stream temperature, and ecological values of the stream buffer, indigenous vegetation
shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover in the
stream buffer shall be an indigenous riparian forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree
canopy layers. Removal of vegetation in the stream buffer shall be allowed only as
provided in subsections (b) and (c).
b. Within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of the stream bank and on land
classified as nontidal wetland:
39
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
1. Indigenous riparian vegetation shall be preserved or allowed to evolve by
natural succession where it does not exist.
2. Dead, diseased, and dying trees may be removed.
3. Fallen trees that are blocking stream channels, or trees with undermined root
systems in imminent danger of falling, may be removed where stream bank erosion ~s a
current or potential problem that outweighs any positive effects the fallen tree or trees
may have on the stream ecosystem.
4. Removal or pruning of invas~ve shrub and vine species is allowed, provided
that such removal or prumng is done in a manner that prevents erosion.
5. Pathways shall be constructed so as to effectively control erosion; stormwater
channels shall be constructed to prevent erosion.
c. Beyond twenty-five (25) feet from the top of the stream bank and outside of
nontidal wetlands:
1. Dead, diseased, and dying trees may be removed.
2. Silvicultural thinning may be conducted based upon the best available
technical advice of a professional forester.
3. Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited s~ght lines
and vistas, provided that if trees are removed, they shall be replaced with other
vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering
nonpoint source pollution from runoff.
4. Trees of six (6) inches diameter at breast height or greater shall be
preserved.
5. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and wne species shall be allowed,
provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion
6. Pathways and stormwater channels shall be constructed to effectively control
erosion.
Sec. 19.3-44. Development authorized in stream buffer.
40
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance, the
following types of development shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the
requirements of this section are satisfied:
a. A building or structure which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter
may continue at such location. However. nothing in this section authorizes the
continuance, repair, replacement, expansion or enlargement of such building or
structure except as provided in sections 6.0 and 30.3 of the zoning ordinance.
b. On-site or regional stormwater management facilities and temporary erosion
and sediment control measures, provided that:
1. To the extent practical, as determined by the program authority, the location
of such facilities shall be outside of the stream buffer.
2. No more lane shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for construction
and maintenance of the facility, as determined by the program authority.
3. The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the
functional value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality.
4. Facilities located within a flood plain adhere to flood plain regulations of the
county and are designed and located, to the extent practical, to maintain their water
quantity and/or water quality control value according the standards ofthis article=
during flood conditions.
c. Water-dependent facilities; redevelopment as permitted in the underlying
zoning district and in accordance with subsection (a) of this section; water wells;
passive recreation access, such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; historic
preservation; archaeological activities; provided that al applicable federal, state and
local permits are obtained.
Sec. 19.3-45. Development which may be authorized in stream buffer; request to
develop in stream buffer or to modify or reduce stream buffer.
Development in a stream buffer, or any request to modify or reduce the size of a
stream buffer, may be permitted as provided herein:
41
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
a. Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority
only if such development is unavoidable, as determined by the program authority, and
the requirements of subsections Ib) or (c) are satisfied.
b. Development in a stream buffer or a request to modify or reduce a stream
buffer may be authorized in the following circumstances:
1. On a lot which was either recorded prior to the date of adoption of this
chapter or is located within a development area or area of infill and redevelopment, or
both: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward
(furthest from the stream).
2. On a lot which was either recorded on or after the date of adoption of this
chapter, or is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land, or both:
within the landward fifty (50) horizontal feet of buffer, but only for stormwater
conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure; provided that a modification or
reduction of such a stream buffer may be authorized only if the modification or
reduction is determined by the program authority to be necessary to allow a reasonable
use of the lot.
3. On any lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a
lake, pond, regional stormwater management facility, or ecological/wetland restoration
project.
4. On any lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the
construction and maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority
determines that the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the
lot or parcel which is necessary for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot or
parcel.
5. On any lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the
construction, installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage
disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would
prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems.
c. A request to modify or reduce a stream buffer may be authorized on a lot
which was recorded prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream buffer
would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites
outside the stream buffer on the lot.
42
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
d Each owner who seeks to develop in the stream buffer or to modify or reduce
a stream buffer pursuant to this section shall submit to the program authority a
mitigation plan which satisfies the requirements of section 19.3-46.
Sec. 19.3-46. Mitigation plan.
Each owner who seeks to develop in the stream buffer or to modify or reduce a
stream buffer pursuant to section 19.3-45 shall submit to the program authority for
review and approval a mitigation plan as provided herein:
a. The owner shall submit a mitigation plan that satisfies the appiicable
requirements of this section, the fee required by section 19.3-34, and a certification
stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
b. The mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine
whether it complies with the requirements of this section and all other requirements of
this article. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a mitigation plan within
thirty (30) days that a complete plan was accepted for review. The decision shall be in
writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the
reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision.
c. Each mitigation plan shall:
1. Identify the impacts of proposed development on water quality and lands
within the stream buffer.
2. Ensure that, where development does take place within a stream buffer, it will
be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least disruptive to the
natural functions .of the stream buffer.
3. Demonstrate and assure that development will be conducted using best
management practices.
4. Specify mitigation which will address water quality and stream buffer impacts.
5. Contain all other information requested by the program authority.
d. Each mitigation plan shall be evaluated by the program authority based on
the following criteria:
43
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
1. Whether all reasonable alternatives to development in the stream buffer have
been explored and exhausted.
2. Whether the development in the stream buffer is the minimum necessary and
is conducted in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the
stream buffer.
3. Whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts
from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions.
e. In addition to the criteda set forth in subsection Id), each mitigation plan for a
development proposed pursuant to subsection 19.3-45(b)(4) or 19.3-45(b)(5) shall be
evaluated by the program authority based on the following criteria:
1. Reasonable access or development shall be the minimum necessary, as
determined by the program authority.
2. Best management practices which effectively mitigate the encroachment shall
be utilized.
3. For the development of sewage disposal systems, the lot must have been
recorded prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, and the sewage disposal system
must comply with applicable state regulations.
f. In addition to the criteria set forth in subsection (d), each mitigation plan for a
development proposed pursuant to subsection 19.3-45(c) shall be evaluated by the
program authority based on the following criteria:
1. The modification to the buffer shall be the mimmum necessary to achieve a
reasonable buildable area for a principle structure and necessary utilities, as
determined by the program authority.
2. In no case shall the reduced portion of the buffer area be less than fifty (501
feet in width, except as provided for in subsection 19.3-45(b)(2).
Division 3. Compliance and enforcement.
Sec. '!9.3-47. Duty to comply, maintain and repair; maintenance agreement.
Upon approval by the program authority of a stormwater management/BMP plan,
each owner shall:
44
DRAFT: November '19, 1997
a. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan.
b. Maintain and repair all structural and nonstructural stormwater management
measures required by the plan, as provided herein:
1. The owner shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of such
measures and shall pass such responsibility to any successor owner, unless such
responsibility is transferred to the county or to another governmental entity as provided
in section 19.3-33.
2. If an approved stormwater managementJBMP plan requires structural or non-
structural measures, the owner shall execute a stormwater management/BMP facilities
maintenance agreement prior to the program authority granting final approval for any
plan of development or other development for which a permit is required. The
agreement shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county
and shall run with the land. If an owner cannot exemise a purchase agreement until a
plan of development or other development receives final approval from the county, the
program authority may grant its final approval without a signed agreement, provided
that the agreement is signed and recorded as provided herein prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy for the development project.
3. The stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement shall be
in a form approved by the county attorney and shall, at a minimum: (i) designate for the
land development the owner, governmental agency, or other legally established entity
which shall be permanently responsible for maintenance of the structural or non-
structural measures required bythe plan; (ii) pass the responsibility for such
maintenance to successors in title: and (iii) ensure the continued performance of the
maintenance obligations required by the plan and this article.
Sec. 19.3-48, Inspections.
The program authority shall inspect any land subject to an approved stormwater
management/BMP plan as provided herein:
a. During the installation of stormwater managementJBMP measures or the
conversion of erosion and sediment control measures into stormwater
management/BMP measures, the program authority shall conduct pedodic inspections
to determine whether such measures are being installed as provided in the approved
plan.
45
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
b. U pon completion of the installation of stormwater managementJBMP
measures, the program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determ,'ne
whether such measures are being maintained as provided in the approved plan, or to
investigate a complaint pertaining to the plan. Such inspections shall be conducted at
least semi-annually, measured from the date the installation or implementation of the
stormwater management/BMP measures is deemed by the program authority to be
complete, and after any storm which causes the capacity of any stormwater facility to.
be exceeded. The inability of the program authority to conduct inspections within the
time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be deemed to be a failure of the
program authority to perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial function, and no liability
to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall arise
therefrom.
c. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving notice to the owner,
occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct any inspection required by
this section. The notice may be either verbal or in writing. Notice shall not be required
if the program authority and the owner have entered into a right of entry agreement or if
the owner has granted to the program authority an easement for purposes of inspection
and maintenance, as provided in section 19.3-28(e)(7).
Sec. 19.3-49. Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
Upon a determination by the program authority that the owner has failed to
comply with the approved stormwater management/BMP plan, the following procedures
shall apply:
a. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written
notice to con; ply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the
address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan, by personal
delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an agent or employee at the site of the
permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall: (i) instruct the
owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to
prevent or abate drainage or water pollution problems; (ii) specify the measures
required to comply with the plan; and (iii) specify the time within which such measures
shall be completed. The notice shall also be given to the permit-issuing department.
b. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to
comply within the time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing department may
revoke any grading, building or other permit for activities involving the land
development, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of this article.
46
DRAFT: November 19, 1997
c. If the program authority determines, upon completion of a maintenance
inspection provided in section 19.3-48, that maintenance or repair of the measures is
neglected, or that any stormwater management facility is a danger to public health or
safety, it may perform the work necessary to assure that such measures or facilities are
not a danger to public health or safety, and shall be entitled to recover the costs of such
work from the owner.
Sec. 19.3-50. Penalties and remedies.
This article may be enforced as follows:
a. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1000.00) or up to thirty days imprisonment for each violation, or both
b. The county may apply to the circuit court in any jurisdiction wherein the land
lies to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of the provisions of this article without
the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law exists.
c. Without limiting the remedies that may be obtained pursuant to this section
the county may bring a civil action against any person for violation of any provision of
this article or any term or condition of a permit or plan. The action may seek the
imposition of a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars ($2000.00) against
the person for each violation.
d. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or
refused to obey any condition of a permit, obligation of a plan or agreement, or any
provision of this article, the program authority may provide, in an order issued by the
program authority against such person, for the payment of civil charges for violations in
specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection (c). Such civil charges
shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under
subsection (c).
C:\WP61 ~vIOORES~SWMORD\ORD.FD 47
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.._25_g-oOi:Og RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
FY1998/99-FY2002/03 Recommended Capital
Improvement Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work Session on
FY1998/99-FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, White, Huff, Cilimberg, Mawyer
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWEDBY: ~:~'~-"---
BACKGROUND.:
The attached FY1998/99 - FY2002/03 Recommended Capital Improvement Program was developed from
(~epartment and school division requests by the CIP Technical Committee, which began its review of capital requests
in September. The Committee's Recommended CIP was scheduled for the Planning Commiss on's rev ew on
September 18m, but due to a full agenda, a second work session will be held at their December 2nd meeting. Any
comments and/or recommendations from that meeting will be forwarded to the Board at the December 3~ meeting.
The Planning Commission does not intend to hold a public headng on the CIP
DISCUSSION:
The Recommended FY1998/99 - FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program totals $55 million. $34.5 million of which
is allocated for School Division projects, $17.7 million for General Government projects, $0.570 for Tourism Fund
projects and $0.220 for Stormwater projects.
The attached document provides summary financial information followed by specific project descriptions under their
functional areas. School Division summary information is provided beginning on page 97 of the main document,
while individual project descriptions are found in the separate Albemarle County Public Schools Capital
Improvements Program document, which was approved by the School Board last July. The ClP Technical
Committee reviewed the School Division's request with only one recommendation to reduce the FY03 funding
request by $7.1 million to stay within existing debt service levels. The Technical Committee also reduced local
government projects by approximately $9.'1 million from their requested amounts.
In light of these recommendations, as well as the projected FY98/99 operating budget shortfalls, which were
unknown at the time of the Technical Committee's review, the Schoct Board will be revisiting their ClP at their
November 24m meeting. The Board of Supervisors may also need to re-evaluate the recommended General
Government projects in light of the projected operating budget shortfall and its impact on the FY 98/99 General Fund
transfer to the ClP. Both school division and local government debt service [s provided in a separate debt service
section beginning on page 117.
RECOMMENDATION:
The FY98/99 - FY02/03 Recommended Capital Improvement Program is submitted for your reView at Wednesday's
work session. Prior to the Board's discussion and questions, staff will present a brief overview.
97.225
Albemarle County,
Virginia
FY 1998/99 - 2002/03
Recommended Capital
Improvement Program
5oara Workession
December 3, 1997
FY 97/98 - 01/02 Recommended CIP
Expenditure Summary- All CIP Funds
Libraries 0.4%
Parks & Rec. 5.1%
Utilities 0.7%
Hwys. & Transportation 5.9%
Public Safety 12.2%
Admin. & Courts 7.8%
Transfer to Debt Service 3.9
Toudsm 1.0%
Stormwater 0.4%
School Division 62.6%
Projects/Revenues FY 98/99 FY 99100 FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 02103 TL 99-03 OUT YEARS
General Government Projects
Adrdnis~'ation & Courts 525,000 653,807 899,250 935,000 1,290,000 4,303,057 320,00C
Public Saf et7 3,634,189 1,701,015 326,332 555,000 500,000 6,716,536 5,850,00C
Highways&Transportation 672,827 749,015 602,955 602,955 600,000 3,227,752 3,516,9012
Libraries 113,000 25,000 15,000 33,000 13,500 199,500
Parks &Recreation -743,385 532,515. 400,610 675,240 469,605 2,830,355 ¢
Utility improvements O 75,000 100,000 97,937 100,000 3727937
Subtotal General Govt. 5,688,401 3,736,352 2,353,147 2,899,132 2,973,105 17,650,137 9,686,90~1
Tourism Fund Projects 213,500 281,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 570,000
Recommended School Projects 8,535,380 2,913,700 10,544,981 4,589,414 7,915,000 34,498,475
Stormwate r Projects 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 220,00~ 0
Transfer to Debt Service 263,408 437,408 437~408 479~408 524,768 2~142,400!
Grand Total CIP Projects 14,810,689 7,368,960 13 470~536 7,992,954 11,437,873 55,08%012 9,686,90(]
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 17
FY 97/98 - 01/02 Recommended CIP
Revenue Summary - All CIP Funds
CIP Fund Balance 2.3%
E-911 Revenues 2.7%
Tourism Fund Revenues
Miscellaneous 2.4%
Sorrowed Funds - Gert Govt 7.2%
Gens Fund Transfer 32.7%
VPSA Bonds 51.7%
Projects/Revenues FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/91 FY 01/02 FY 02/93 TL 99-03 OUT yEARS
~enerai Fund Transfer to CIP 2,900.000 3,200,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4.400.000 18,800,000
CiP Fund Balance 465,000 2012,000 200.000 200.000 200,000 1,265,000
E-911 Revenues 890,345 152,720 152.720 152.720 152.720 1,501,226
Tourism Fund Revenues 174,300 256.500 25.000 25,000 25,000 505,800
Interest Earned 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 500,000
Proffer Funds 529,200 0 0 0 0 529,200
Miscellaneous 41,730 57,525 47,835 125.820 45.153 318,063
Borrowed Funds - Gert Govt. 2.524.734 1,438,515 0 0 0 3,963,249
VPSA Bonds - Schools 7,185,380 1,963~700 9~444,981 3~389,414 6,515,000 28,4987475
~rand Total Revenues 14,810,689 7,368,960 13,470,536 7,992,954 11,437,873 55,081,012
;hortfall/Excess Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
~um ulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0
9,686,9£
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/05 15
General Governmem CIP Fund
Expenditures
Public Safety 38.1%
..\drain & Courts 24.4%
Utilities 2.1%
Hwys. & Trans. 18.3%
I~arks & Rec. 16.0%
Libraries 1.1%
FY 99-03
FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Totals
Admin. & Courts $525,000 $653,807 $899,250 $935,000 $1 ~290,000 $4,303,057
Public Safety $3,634,189 $1,701,015 $326,332 $555,000 $500,000 $6,716,536
Highways & Trans. $672,827 $749,015 $602,955 $602,955 $600.000 $3.227,752
Libraries $113,000 $25,000 $15,000 $332000 $13,500 $199.500
Parks & Rec. $743,385 $532,515 $409,610 $675,240 $469.605 $2,830,355
Utility Imp. $0 $75.000 $I00,000 $97,937 $100.000 $372,937
Total: $5,688,401 $3,736,352 $2,353,147 $2,899,132 $2,973,105 $17,650,137
Out Year
Totals
$320.000
$5,850,O00
$3,516,900
$0
$0
$9,686,900
19 Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03
General Government CIP Fund
Revenues
E-911 Ongoing 4.3%
Courthouse M/R Funds 1.0%
CIP Fund Balance 4.3%
City Reimbursements 0.7%
E-911 One-Time 4.2%
BesTowed Funds 22.5%
General Fund Transfer 63.1%
FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03
Borrowed Funds $2,524,734 $1,438,515 $0 $0 $0
E-911 One-Time Funds $737,625 $0 $0 $0 $0
E-911 Ongo'mg Funds $152,720 $152,720 $152,720 $152,720 $152,720
Courthouse M/R Funds $31,730 $32,525 $33,335 $34,620 $35,953
City Reimbursements $0 $0 $14,500 $91,200 $9,200
CIP Fund Balance $365,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
General Fund Transfer $1.876.592 $2.012.592 $2,052,592 $2,520,592 $2_675.232
Total: $5,688,401 $3,736352 $2,353,147 $2,899,132 $2,973,105
FY 99-03
Total
$3,963,249
$737,625
$763,600
$168~163
$114,900
$765,000
$11,137,600
$17,650,137
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 18
Summary of Administration/Court Projects
FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 CIP
General Government Expenditures
Public Safety 38.1%
Admin & Courts 24.4%
Utilities 2.1%
Parks & Rec 16.0%
-wys & Trans 18.3%
Libraries 1.1%
FY99-03
Project Name Prqiect Totals
County Computer Upgrade $1,080,000
Drive-In Window Replacement & Canopy $18,000
Courthouse Space Needs Study/Censtmction $0
County Facilities Ma'mtanance/Replacement Projects $2,363,807
Court Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Projects $841.250
Total Administration & Courts Projects $4,303,057
Fiscal
Years
FY' 99-03
FY O!
Unknown
FY 99-03
FY 99-03
Out- Year
Totals
$0
$0
$0
$320,000
$320,000
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/03 27
Summary of Public Safety Projects
FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 CIP
General Govemment Expenditures
Public Safety 38.1%
Utilities 2.1%
Parks & Rec 16.0%
Hwys & Trans 18.3%
Libraries 1.1%
FY99-03
Project Name Project Totals
Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund $1,671,332
Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade $15,000
Police Radio Simulcast System/ECC Link (Withdrawn) $0
Police LAN Upgrade $165,000
Police Firing Range Study (Moved to "Out Year") $0
Public Safety Facility/Study (Construction in "Out Year") $30,000
Transport Vehicle for Arrests $40,000
Public Safety 800MHz Communication System $2,926,623
Juvenile Detention Facility $1,868,581
Mobile Command Center (Moved to "Out Year") $0
Cellular Telephones in Police Vehicles 5;0
Total Public Safety Projects $6,716,536
Fiscal
Years
FY 99-03
FY 99
N/A
FY 02
FY 01
FY 02
FY 99
FY 99,00
FY 03
Ou~Year
Tota~
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,200,000
$4,600,000
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$5,850~00
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 35
Summary of Highway & Transportation Projects
FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 CIP
General Government Expenditures
Public Safety 38.1%
Admin & Courts 24.4%
Hwys & Trans 18.3%
Jti]ities 2.1%
%
Parks & Rec 16.0%
FY 99-03 Fiscal Out Year
Project Name Project Totals Years Projects
Revenue Sharing Road Program $2,500,000 FY 99-03
Seminole/Pepsi Place Connector (Moved to "Out Year") $0 $27,900
Rt. 29 No~th Landscaping $0 FY 99-01
Ivy Road Bike Lanes (Moved to Tourism Fund) $0 FY 99,00
Meadow Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Path $20,000 FY 99
Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase II (Moved to "Out Year") $0 $3,090,000
Greenbrier Drive Extended Pedestrian/Bike Paths $75,000 FY 00
Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Streetlights $19,250 FY 99,00
Ivy Road Landscaping (Moved to "Out Year") $0 $199,000
Airport Road Sidewalk $39,600 FY 00
Georgetown Road Sidewalk $60,000 FY 00
Sidewalk Construction Program $271,077 FY 99-03
Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program $242,825 FY 99-03
Neighborhood Traffic Calming (Moved to "Out Year") $0
Total Highways & Transportation Projects $3,227,752
$200,000
$3,516,900
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/03 47
Summary of Library Projects
FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 CIP
General Government Expenditures
Public Safety 38.1%
Admin & Courts 24.4¥.,,
Utilities 2_1%
Parks & Rec 16.0%
i wys & Trans 18.3%
Libraries 1.1%
Project Name
Library Computer Upgrade
Library Maintenance/Raplacement Projects
Total Library Projects
FY 99-03 Fiscal
Project Totals Years
$100,000 FY 99
$99.500 FY 99-03
$199,500
Out Year
Totals
$0
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/03 63
Summary of Parks & Recreation Projects
FY 1998/99- 2002/03 CIP
General Government Expenditures
Admin & Courts 24.4<;~:
Parks & Rec 16.0%
~-w~ & Trans 18.3%
Ubrar[es 1.1~
Project Name
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
Scottsville Community Center Improvements
Crozet Park Athletic Field Development
Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development
County Athletic Field Study/Development
PVCC Softball Field Lighting
School Athletic Field Imgation
Towe Lower Field Irrigation
Mint Springs Concession Stand
New High School Community Recreation Facilities
Stone Robinson Playfield Replacement/Development
Chris Greene Lake Property Purchase
Cashier Booth Improvements (to be Funded in FY 98)
Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Development
Parks Maintenance/Replacement Summary
Total Parks & Recreation Projects
FY99-03 Fiscal Out-Year
Proiec~ Totals Years Totals
$51,025 FY 99,01 $0
5172,580 FY 99-02 50
$544,000 FY 99-03 50
$100,000 FY 99,00 $0
5580,720 FY 99-03 50
5166,000 FY 02 $0
$136,500 FY 02,03 $0
520,000 FY 02 50
$45,000 FY 03 $0
$68,500 FY 99,01 $0
$270,000 FY 99 $0
$113,400 FY 99 $0
$0 FY 99 $0
$330,000 FY 99,00 $0
$232.630 FY 99-03 $0
$2,830,355 $0
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 67
Summary of Utility Improvement Projects
FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 CIP
General Govemment Expenditures
Public Safety 38.1%
Admin & Courts 24.4~
Utilities 2.1%
Parks & Rec 16.0%
Hc~ys & Trans 18.3%
Libraries 1.1%
Project Name
Keene Landf'fll Closure
Total Utility Improvement Projects
FY 99-03 Fiscal Out- Year
Proiect Total Years Totals
$372.937 FY 00-03
$372,937
$0
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 85
Tourism Fund Capital Project Costs
Highway/Transportation 59.1%
Parks & Recreation 40.9%
Rt. 250/616 Turn Lane
Ivy Road Bike Lanes
Rivanna Greenway Access/Path
Total Projects
FY98-99 FY99-O0 FYO0-O1 FYOI-02 FY02-03
$100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$5,500 $231,500 $0 $0 $0
$10g,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25_000 $25.000
$213Z00 $281~00 $25~00 $25~00 $25,000
Total
FY 99-03
$100,000
$237,1}00
$233,000
$570,000
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 89
Tourism Fund Capital Project Revenues
Tourism Fund Revenues 88.7%
Proffer Funds 5.1%
State Reimbursements 4.4%
Developer Contribution ! .8%
Developer Contribution
State Reimbursements
Proffer Funds (Wal-Mart)
Tourism Fund Revenues
Total Revenues
FY98-99 FY99-O0 FYO0-O1 FYOI-02 FY02-03
$10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0
$29,200 $0 $0 $0 $0
$174,300 $256,500 $25_000 $25.000 $25,000
$213~00 $281~00 $25,000 $25,000 $25~00
Total
FY99-03
$10300
$25300
$29,200
$505,800
$57fl300
88 Capital Improvement Program FY 1.998/99 - 2002/03
Stormwater Fund Expenditures & Revenues
Count~ Master Drainage 54.5%
Drainage/Erosion Correction 45.5%
Total Expenditures FY 98-99
County Master Drainage $60,000
Drainage/Erosion Correction $50,000
Total Projects $110,000
FYg~O0
Total
FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 99-03
$0 $60,000 $0 $0 $120,000
$0 $50,000 $0 $0 $100,000
$0 $110,000 $0 $0 $220,000
Total Revenues FY 98-99
General Fund CIP Transfer $110,000
Total Revenues $110,000
Total
FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 99-03
$110_000 $0 $(3 $220,000
$0 $110,000 $0 $0 $220,000
110 Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03
Summary of Out-Year Projects
Total Out-Year Projects $9,686,900
Public Safety 60.4%
Administration 3.3%
Hwy. & Transportation 36.3%
Proiect Name
C.O.B. Common Area Renovation/Upgrade - Maintenance/Replacement
Police Firing Range (Construction Funds)
Public Safety Facility (ConstmcQon Funds)
Public Safety Mobile Command Center
Seminole/Pepsi Place Connector
Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase II
Ivy Road Landscaping
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Initiatives
Total "Out-Year" Projects
Out-Year
Projects
$320,000
$1,200,000
$4,600,000
$50,000
$27,900
$3,090,000
$199,000
$200,000
$9~86,900
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 21
Projects Recommended for Reduced Funding:
Projects Recommended for Reduced Funding
County Computer Upgrade
County Facilities Maintanance/Replacement Projects
Court Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund
Police Radio Simulcast/ECC Link - Project Withdrawn
800 MHz Communication System - Revised Cost
Cellular Telephones for Police Vehicles
Library Computer Upgrade
Library Maintenance/Replacemant Projects
Walnut Creek Park Improvements
County Athletic Field Study/Development
Stone Robinson Playfield Replacement/Development
Cashier Booth Improvements - Funded in Current Year
Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Development
Kcene Landfill Closure
School Division Capital Projects (FY03)
Subtotal Reduced Funding
Request Recommend Change
1,100,000 1,080,000 (20,000)
3,298,000 2,683,807 (614,193)
881,250 841,250 (40,000)
1,845,000 1,671,332 (173,668)
94,330 0 (94,330)
3,107,593 2,926,623 (180,970)
5~3,000 0 (50,000)
390,717 100,000 (290,717)
193,000 99,500 (93,500)
59,415 51,025 (8,390)
805,800 497,520 (308,280)
300,000 270,000 (30,000)
69,000 0 (69,000)
350,000 330,000 (20,000)
400,000 372,937 (27,063)
15,017,617 7,915,000 (7,102,617)
(9,122,728)
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/03 7
Technical Committee Recommendations:
School Division CIP
No significant increases in debt/debt service during
FY99-02, due to operating budget shortfalls in those
years.
Limit new debt in FY03 to $6.5 million, to remain within
the $10 million debt service level.
· Fund technology projects with current revenues only.
Continue to fund as many maintenance/replacement
projects as possible with current revenues, instead of
borrowed funds.
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03
School Division CIP Fund Expenditures
Recommended Expenditure Levels:
Projects Funded with
Current Revenues
Bonded Projects
Total:
Total
FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 99-03~
$1,350,000 $950,000 $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $6,000,000
$7,185,380 $1.963.700 $9,444,981 $3.389.414 $6,515,000 $28.498.475
$8,535,380 $2,913,700 $10,544,981 $4,589,414 $7,915,000 $34,498,475
Requested School Projects:
FY 1998/99 - 2002/03 School CIP Fund
Total Requested Expenditures $41,601,092
Northern Area ElemenTary 20.3%
Southern Elementary School ¢.
High School Addition 20.2%
Miscellaneous 0.3%
Renovations/Additions 36
,¥ ainten ance/Replacement 16.9%
Mandated Projects 0.6%
Technology Projects 5,2%
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/03 101
School Division Recommended
Expenditures:
Requested
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02
$8.5 $2.9 $10.5$4.6
Available $8.5 $2.9 $10.5 $4.6
Revenues
Over/Under
$0 $0 $0 $0
FY03 TL 99-03
$15.0$41.6
$7.9 $34.5
$7.1 $7.1
The Technical Committee recommends that the School
Board reduce/defer or eliminate $7.1 million from its FY03
request, to stay within the $10 million debt service level.
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/03
Recommended School Division
CIP Fund Revenues
Interest Earned 1.4%
General Fund Transfer 13.0%
Proffer Funds 1.4%
CIP Fund Balance 1.4%
VPSA Bo
Total
FY 98~99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 99-03
VPSA Bonds $7,185,380 $1,963,700 $9,444,981 $3,389,414 $6,515,000 $28,498,475
Interest Earned $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
Proffer Funds $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000
CIP Fund Balance $100,000 $I00,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
General Fund Transfer $650.000 $750.000 $900.000 $1.000,000 $1.200_000 $4,500,000
Total: $8,535,380 $2,913,700 $10,544,981 $4,589,414 $7,915,000 $34,498,475
Recommended & Requested
1 O0 Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99- 2002/03
Requested School Division CIP Projects
New Schools:
Monticello High School Addition
Northern Area Elementary
Southern Urban Elementary School
Renovation/Addition Projects:
Burley Library Addition/Ranovation
Brownsville Addition
Henley Office/Classroom Renovation
Cale Addition/Alterations
CATEC Cosmetology Lab Renovation
Cmzet Kitchen/Serving Line
High School Technology Education Labs
Hollymead ~strooms
Western Albemarle Window Replacement
AHS Phase II & tli Restorations
Murray High Renovation
Henley Addition
WAILS Building Renovations
Red Hill Expansion
Stone Robinson Addition
Walton Renovation
Jouc'tt Addition (Includes Restrooms)
FY 99-03 Fiscal
Project Totals Years
$8,398,000 FY 02,03
$8,429,000 FY 99-01
$313.000 FY 03
$16,857,000
$2,177,500 FY 03
$1,210,000 FY 03
$440,000 FY 03
$880,000 FY 02
$38,234 FY 02
$65,000 FY 02
$344,000 FY 99
$805,500 FY 02
$230,000 FY 02,03
$649,000 FY 99
$864,000 FY 99
$628,000 FY 99
$1,244,700 FY 99
$1,260,000 FY 02,03
$2,414,000 FY 99
$605,000 FY 00,01
$808.500 FY 00,01
$14,663,434
Technology Projects
Miscellaneous Projects (including Mandated)
Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$2,160,045 FY 99-03
$888,000 FY 99-03
$7,032,613 FY 99-03
Total School Board Requested Projects
$41,601,092
Capital Improvement Program FY 1998/99 - 2002/03
· · · · · ·
Debt Service Currently Proposed
Level
Debt
Annual
Reserve
Sub-Total Prior Total
Resources Savings Resources
FY97/98 6,845,880 600,000 7,445,880 1,994,957 9,440,837
FY98/99 6,845,880 900,000 7,745,880 7,745,880
FY99/00 6,845,880 1,300,000 8,145,880 8,145,880
FY00/01 6,845,880 ,1,800,000 8,645,880 8,645,880
FY01/02 6,845,880 /2,200,000 9,045,880 9,045,880
FY02/03 6,845,880 2,600,000 9.445.880 ,9~880
Totals
Increase in
Annual
Contribution
J FY97/98 150,000
FY98/99 300,000
FY99/00 400.000
FY00/01 500.000
FY01/02 400,000
FY02/03 400.000
50,475,280
1,994,957 . iLi52~470,237
Total 2,150,000
Required
New Bonded Debt
Projects Service
FY97/98
FY98/99
F¥99/00
FY00/01
FY01/02
FY02/03
20,455,000 6,727,030
7,185,380 8,569,547
1,963.700 9,171,129
9.444,981 8,778,286
3,389,414 9,737,061
6,515.000 . 9!408.~572
Total
48,953,475 52~391,625
12/03/97 1 NEWRESER.WK4
Level Funded Debt Service
Level Annual Sub-Total Prior Total
Debt Reserve Resources Savings Resources
FY97/98 6,845,880 600,000 7,445,880 1,994,957 9,440,837
FY98/99 6,845,880 600,000 7,445,880 7,445,880
FY99/00 6,845,880 600,000 7,445,880 7,445,880
FY00/01 6,845,880 ~00,000 7,445,880 7,445,880
FY01/02 6,845,880 600,000 7,445,880 7,445,880
FY02/03 6,845,880 600,000 7,445,880 :7.~,:45~8'80
Totals 44,675,280 1,994,957 46;670~237
Increase in ~ Required
Annual New Bonded Debt
Contribution Projects Service
FY97/98 150,000 FY97/98 20,455,000 6,727,030
FY98/99 0
FY99/00 0
FY00/01 0
FY01/02 0
FY02/03 0
Total 150,000
FY98/99 700,000 8,569,547
FY99/00 0 8,392,883
FY00/01 1,000,000 7,787 095
FY01/02 2,550,000 7,762,044
FY02~3 3.700.000
Total
28,405,000 .46~630,554
12/03/97 1 NEWRESER.WK4
Concurrent Resolution
of the
Boards of Supervisors of the
Counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna
and the Council of the City of Charlottesville
Creating the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission,
Establishing the Membership of Such Commission,
and Detailing its Powers and Responsibilities.
WHEREAS, a need has been identified for the construction of a juvenile correctional facility to serve the
Counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna and the City of Charlottesville (the "Participating
Jurisdictions"); and
WHEREAS, a "needs assessment" performed at the direction of the Participating Jurisdictions indicates
that their combined anticipated demand for juvenile correctional space will be sufficient to utilize
a 40-bed juvenile detention facility expandable to 80 beds; and
WHEREAS. preliminary considerations indicate that this need can best be met by buiMing a new facility;
and
WHEREAS, a program planning study performed for the City of Charlottesville and the County of
Albemarle by Mosely-Harris & McClintock estimates the total project cost to design and finance
the construction of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center (the New Facility) m be
approximately $6.36 million dollars; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle have requested the Virginia
Department of Juvenile Justice to approve state funding participation in the design, construction,
equipping and operation of the New Facility at the maximum amounts permitted by state law: and
WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions now wish to create a regional juvenite detention commission.
as authorized by Va. Code §§ 16.i-315 to 16,1-322, to be the appropriate legal entity to plan,
finance, design, and construct the New Facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLyED BY THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE AND FLUVANNA. AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. THAT:
The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission (the "Commission") is hereby created and
established as a public body corporate under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Commission shall have three members, who shall be the respective county
administrator, county executive or city manager of each of the Participating Jurisdictions.
As required by Va Code § 16.1-316, the Participating Jurisdictions have consulted with the
chief judges of their respective juvenile and domestic relations district courts concerning
the appointment of the members to the Commission.
The Commission shall have all powers and responsibilities conferred upon juvenile
detention commissions generally by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 to 16.1-322 or successor
statutes, and by any other state laws. Without limiting the generality of this delegation of
powers and responsibilities, the Commission shall be authorized to:
Develop ~ Service Agreement among the Commission and the Participating
Jurisdictions to establish the basis on which the Participating Jurisdictions will
commi~ juveniles to custody in the New Facility.
Take such actions as may be necessary to insure maximum allowable state
participation in the cost of constructing, equipping and operaung the New Facility.
Upon approval of the Service Agreement by the Participating Jurisdictions. issue
such debt obligations as the Commission may deem necessary to fund the
development of the New Facility, including any costs incidental to the issuance of
such debt, the establishment of reasonable operating and debt service reserve, or
any costs incurred by the Commission m anticipation or execution of such
development or the opening of the New Facility.
Arrange for interim financing, from one or more of the Participating Jurisdictions
or otherwise, and agree to reimburse any of the Participating Jurisdictions for any
sums advanced or expenses incurred on the Commission's behalf prior to the
Commission's securing permanent financing.
After securing the necessary financing, proceed with the design, and construction
and equipping of the New Facility and employ architects, engineers, financial
advisors, attorneys, contractors and other technical experts as necessary to complete
such project.
Any Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw unilaterally from membership in the
Commission at any time prior to its approval of the Service Agreement. After approval of
the Service Agreement and until any outstanding debt obligations of the Commission have
been fully paid, no Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw from membership in the
Commission without the unanimous consent of the remaining Participating Jurisdictions.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia the 3rd day of
December, 1997,
Concurrent Resolution
Of The Boards Of Supervisors Of The
Counties Of Albemarle And Fluvanna
And The Council Of The City Of Charlottesville
Creating The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission,
Establishing The Membership Of Such Commission,
And Detailing Its Powers And Responsibilities.
WHEREAS, a need has been identified for the construction of a juvenile correctional
facility m serve the Counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna and the City of Charlottesville (the
"Participating Jurisdictions"); and
WHEREAS, a "needs assessment" performed at the direction of the Participating
Jurisdictions indicates that their combined anticipated demand for juvenile correctional space
will be sufficient to utilize a 40-bed juvenile detention facility expandable to 80 beds; and
WHEREAS, preliminary considerations indicate that this need can best be met by
bttilding a new facility; and
WHEREAS, a program planning study performed for the City of Charlottesville and the
County of Albemarle by Mosely-Harris & McClintock est/mates the total project cost to design
and finance the construction of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center (the New Facility) to
be approximately $6.36 million dollars; and
WltEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions have requested the Virginia Department of
Juvenile Justice to approve state funding participation in the design, construction, equipping and
operation of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Facility, in the maximum amounts permitted by
state law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle now wish to create
a regional juvenile detention commission, as authorized by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 to 16.1-322, to
be the appropriate Iegal entity to plan, finance, design, and construct the New Facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLVED BY THE BOARDS
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE AND FLUVANNA, AND
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THAT:
The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission Ithe "Commission") is hereby created
and established as a public body corporate under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
The Commission shall have three members, who shall be the respective county
administrator, county executive or city manager of each of the Participating Jurisdictions.
As reqnired by Va. Code § 16.1-316, the Participating Jurisdictions have consulted with
the chief judges of their respective.juvenile and domestic relations district courts
concerning the appointment of the members to the Commission.
The Commission shall have all powers and responsibilities confen'ed upon juvenile
detention commissions generally by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 to 16.1-322 or successor
statures, and by any other state laws. Without limiting the generality of this delegation of
powers and responsibilities, the Commission shall be authorized to:
Develop a Service Agreement among the Commission and the Participating
Jurisdictions to establish the basis on which the Participating Jurisdictions will
commit juveniles to custody in the New Facility.
Take such actions as may be necessary to insure maximum allowable state
participation in the cost of constructing, equipping and operating the New
Facility.
Upon approval of the Service Agreement by the Participating JurisdictionS, issue
such debt obligations as the Commission may deem necessary to fund the
development of the New Facility, including any costs incidental tothe issuance of
such debt, the establishment of reasonable operating and debt service reserve, or
any costs incurred by the Commission in anticipation or execution of such
development or the opening of the New Facility.
Anange for inter/m financing, from one or more of the Participating Jurisdictions
or otherwise, and agree to reimburse any of the Participating Jurisdrctions for any
sums advanced or expenses incurred on the Commission's behalf prior to the
Commission's securing permanent financing.
After securing the necessary financing, proceed with the design, and construction
and equipping of the New Facility. and employ architects, engineers, financial
advisors, attorneys, contractors and other technical experts as necessary to
complete such project.
Any Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw unilaterally from membership in the
Commission at any time prior to its approval of the Service AgreemenT. After approval
of the Service Agreement and until any outstanding debt obligations of the Commission
have been fully paid. no Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw from membership in the
Commission without the unanimous consent of the remaining Participating Jurisdictions.
Approved by Council
December 15, 1997
~t~ Council
Concurrent Resolution
of the
Boards of Supervisors of the
Counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna
and thc Council of the City of Charlottesville
Creating the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission,
Establishing the Membership of Such Commission,
and Detailing its Powers and Responsibilities.
WHEREAS, a need has been identified for the construction of a juvenile correction facility m
serve the Counties of Albemarle and Fluvauna and the City of Charlottesville (the "Participating
Jurisdictions"); and
WHEREAS, a "needs assessment" perfonued at the direction of the Participating Jurisdictions
indicates that their combined anticipated demand for juvenile correctional space will be sufficiem
to utilize a 40-bed juvenile detention facility expandable to 80 beds; and
WHEREAS, preliminary considerations indicate that this need can best be met by building a
new facility; and
WHEREAS, a program planning study performed for the Participating Jurisdictions by Mosely-
Harris & McClintock estimates the total project cost to design and fmance the construction of the
Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center (the new facility) at approximately $6.36 million dollars;
and
WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions have requested the Virginia Department of Juvenile
Justice to approve state funding participation in the design, construction, equipping and operation
of the New Facility in the maximum amounts permitted by state law; and
WHEREAS, the Pa~'lcipating Jurisdictions now wish to create a regional juvenile detention
commission, as authorized by Va. Code § § 16.1-315 to 16.1-322, to be the appropriate legal
enti~' to plan, finar~ce, design, and consh~uct the New Facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLVED BY THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE AND FLUVANNA, AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THAT:
1. The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission (the "Commission") is hereby
created and established as a public body corporate under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia..
2. The Commission shall have three members, who shall be the county
administrator/executive and city manager of each of the Participating Jurisdictions. As required
by Va. Code § 16.1-316, the Participating Jurisdictions have consulted with the chief judges of
their respective juvenile and domestic relations district courts concerning the appointment of the
county administrator/executive and city manager to the Commission.
3. The Commission shall have all powers and responsibilities conferred upon
juvenile detention commissions generally by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 to 16.1-322 or successor
statues, and by any other state laws. Without limiting the generality of this delegation of powers
and responsibilities, the Commission shall be authorized to:
a. Develop a Service Agreement among the Commission and the Participating
Jurisdictions to establish the basis on which the Participat'mg Jurisdictions will commit juveniles
to custody in the New Facility.
b. Take such actions as may be necessa.w to, insure maximmm allowable state
participation in the cost of constructing, equipping and operating the New Facility.
c. Upon approval of the Service Agreement by the Participating Jurisdictions,
issue such dept obligations as the Commission may deem necessary to fund the development of
the New Facility, including any costs incidental to the issuance of such debt, the establishment of
reasonable operating and debt service reserve, or any costs incurred by the Commission in
anticipation or execution of such development or the opening of the New Facility.
d. Arrange for interim financing, from one or more of the Participating
Jurisdictions or otherwise, and agree to reimburse any of the Participating Jurisdictions for any
sums advanced or expenses incurred on the Commission's behalf prior to the Commission's
securing permanent fmancing.
e. After securing the necessary financing, proceed with the design, and
construction and equipping of the New Facility and employ architects, engineers, financial
advisors, attorneys, contractors and other technical experts as necessary m complete such project.
4. Any Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw unilaterally from membership in the
Commission at any time prior To its approval of the Service Agreement. After approval of the
Serw~ce A~eement ar~ ur~*~ any outstan, dL~g dept obligations of the Colmmission hw:e been full3
paid, no Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw from membership in the Conm~ission without
the unanimous consent of the remaining Participating Jurisdictions.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Fluvanna County, Virginia the 3rd day of
December, 1997.
I
To: Members. Board of Supermsors
From: Ella Washhrgton Carey, CMC. Clerk
Subject: Appointments to various Boards 'Conm~issions/
Committees Updated
Oate: November 24. 1997
Following is a list of appointments to Boards Commission:
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Dan M.
Maupin has resigned, ]7here is no term expiration. Applications are attached.
[AUNT BOARD: The term of Betty L. Newell expired on September 30. 1997, The new term
would expire on September 30, 2000. Applications are attached.
PUBLICRECREATIONALFACIL1TIESAUTHOR1TY: Five vacancies. The terms of Richard
G. Piccolo and G. David Emmitt expire on December 13.1997. Both are eligible and wish to be
reappointed, l'he new terms would expire on December 31. 2000. Applications are attached.
REGIONAL DISABILITY SERVICES BOARD: One vacancy to fill out the unexpired term ot
Elsie T. Fyrer. The term would expire on July 1.1998. Also. see attached memorandum from Mr.
Tucker.
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: One
vacancy. The new term would expire on December 3 I. 1999. Applications are attached.
,ewc
Attachments
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of Supermsors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~ ~"
November 25 1997
Applications for Boards and Commissions Updated
Following is a list of applications received for vacancies on Boards and Commissions:
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Marcia Joseph
Leo Mallek
David vanRoijen
[AUNT BOARD
¢gw(~Margaret Borwhat
Ms. Kyle Levenson
Charles J. McElroy
PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY
John E. Davidson
Christopher J. Robinette
REGIONAL DISABILITY SERVICES BOARD
Marl< A. Andrews
E. Partial< Dennis
Jennifer W. Graves
Elizabeth A. Isley
Alice D. Runlde
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Lisa Briskey '
I Helen O, Johnson
ewc
COUNTY OF ALBEMAR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
November 25, 1997
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Appointment
As you may know, Ms. Elsie Fryer, the Albemarle representative to the Disability Services Board
recently passed away. Ms. Fryer was a very faithful and hard working board member and her term
was to end this December. According to State requirements, the Disability Services Board is to have
at least one local government representative from each locality. You w'dl recall that Karen Mmtis
served as that representative in the past and she was replaced with Ms. Fryer.
In order to provide a local government representative to the Board from Albemarle County, I am
recommending that Mr. Robert Walters serve in that capacity for a three-year term. Mr. Walters, as
you may know, has a family member with a disability which qualifies him to serve in this capacity.
RWT,Jr/dbm
97.128
David R Bowenuan
CharlotteY. Humphn~
Forest R. Ma~shalI, Jr.
COUNTY OF
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfim Rond
Charlottesville. V'ttgini~
(804} 296-5843 FAX I804) 296-5800
Charles S. M~n
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
December 10, 1997
Mr. David vanRoijen
2014 Monacan Trail Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. vanRoijen:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on December 3, 1997, you were appointed to
the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee.
On behal£of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Chairman
CYH/ewc
CC:
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Plarmer
Printed on recycled paper
Countv of Albemarle
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Office of Board of County Supervisors.
401McIntireRbad , -18-97?1£:28 RCVD
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMM1TI'EE
(please type or prinO
Board/Commission/Comraittce ~o~['~ )_ .~c,~ ~'-~'~-~.~'~ t~.~-. ~-~-~'a~
Home Address ~ ~ t ~ ~. e~ ~,,_~ _'~', '~,~, ) ~ ~.,
Magisterial District in which your home residenc~ is located
Employer ~4
Business Address
Phone
Date of Employment
Years Resident in Albemarle County
Spouse's Name ~r~ ,~.~
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates)
Occupation / Title
Previous Residence
Number of Children
Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Qroups
Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests
Reason(s'~ for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committe~
The information provided on this application will be released to the pub~nf~n request.
Signature
Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Superwsors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
{804~ 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
December 10, 1997
Charles S. Martin
Waiter F. Perkins
SaI~; H. Thomas
Mr. Robert J. Waiters, Jr.
1645 Ravens Place
Charlottesville, VA 22911-7527
Dear Mr..r./..9~lt"ers: ~ebb''
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on December 3, 1997, you were appointed to
the Regionai Disability Services Board, ro fill out the unexpired term of Elsie F .ryer. This term
wilt expire on July 1, 1998.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Chairman
CYH/ewc
CC:
The Honorable James L. Camblos. III
Nancy O'Brien
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Charlotie Y. Humphr/s
Forrest R. MamhalI. Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntlre Road
Charlottesville. VL, ginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-584~ FAX (804] 296~5800
Charles S, Mm'tfn
~..Valter F. Perkins
Sa~ly H. 'fhomas
December 10, i997
Mr. Richard G. Piccolo
439 Maple View Court
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Piccolo:
At the. Board of Supervisors meeting held on December 3, 1997, you were reappointed to
the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with said term to expire on December 13. 2000.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this oppom2nity to express the Board%
appreciation for your willingness to continue serving thc County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Cha/rman
CYH/ewc
CCi
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
PHnted on recycled paper
Dav/d R Bow~rman
Charlot~ ¥~ Humphrls
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesviile, V'~rg'mia 22902-4696
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804] 296-5800
Chm'Ies S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
December 10, 1997
Mr. G. David Emmitt
1734 Franklin Drive
Charlottesville, VA 2.2901
Dear Mr, E..~,mm'?~.'
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on December 3, 1997, you were reappointed to
the Public Recreational Facilities Authority., with said term to expire on December 13, 2000.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opporttmiry to express the Board's
appreciation for yo~ willingness To continue serving the County in this capacity.
Shlcerely,
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Chairman
CYH/ewc
CC~
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
Printed on recycled paper
Dauid P. Bowerman
Charlolte Y. Humphtiz
Formst R. Mamhall. Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdnfire Road
Charlottesville. V'n~inia 229024596
(804} 296-5843 FAX (804) 296.5800
December 9. 1997
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Mr. Steve L. Gibson
2203 Dudley Motmtain Road
North Garden. VA 22959
Dear Mr. Gibson:
Thank you for offering to serve on Albemarle County's Advisory Committee to the Virginia Department
of Transportation's (VDOT) study of the Route 250 West corridor. At its meeting on December 3.1997.
the Board of Supenasors appointedyou to the advisory committee. Although the study is not anticipated
to begin until autumn and there is not a firm schedule of the meetings, the Board thought it necessary
to inform the committee members of its composition.
Each member of the committee is being asked to act as liaison to several neighborhoods or interest groups.
The Board would like for you to act as liaison ,adth the commercial area at Ivy and Ivy Commons. Being
a liaison involves lettingyour group know about opportunities to participate in public hearings and letting
them know they can conzact you during the study. Although you do not have to try to represent their
interests all the time, you should keep those groups somewhat in mind while considering the consultant's
proposals.
You will be informed of the groups- first meeting in ample time to set your schedule. You will be
participating in a study prompted by VDOT's traffic projections for the Route 250 corridor. It is an
interesting time for such a study because of the increasinginterest among planners in findingways to more
efficiendy move persons and goods without only considering the width of the pavement. This study will
be at the confluence of several trends as Crozet is expected to double in size, interest in the scenic aspects
of Route 250 West remains high. multi-modal planning is required in corridor studies, and concepts such
as "traffic calming" gain in popularity. Route 250 is a Highway of National Significance to Congress: it
is also a local commuting route paralleled by Interstate 64: and it handles school buses, trud~s, a few hardy
bicyclists, and about 11.000 cars a day. Your participation will be important in shaping its future.
Again, that& you for taldng the time to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Chairman
CY~:ec
Attachment
cc: Juan Wade Printed on recycled tx~per
Angela Tucker
County of Albemarle
Offico of Board of County Supervisors
40t MeIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(8O4) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COM}v~SSION / CO/VfMITTEE
(please type or prin0
~Y~ ~esident ~ Al~m~lo Co~ ~Y ~'.~o~ Res,don~
Memberships in Fraternal. Businoss. Chumh and/or Social Croups
Public. Civic ~d Ch~ble Offi~d / or ~ A~ or In~m~s
Reason(s) for Desire to Servo on this Board / Commi.q$ign / Committe~
8i~e Date
Ke~ to: Cler~ Bo~d of~unW Su~im~
Albem~le Co~W
401 McIntke Road
C~lo~ille, VA 229024596
Chado~e Y. Humphfis
Forrest R. Marsh=!i, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI ,E
Office of Board o~ SuPer~som
401 Mdntim Road
Charlot~wflle, V'a`ginia 22902-4596
(8041 296-58~ FAX (804) 296--5800
Charles 5. Martin
Walter E Perkins
November 11, 1997
Mr. John E. Davidson
1492 Minor Ridge Court
Charlottesville, VA 2290 t
Dear Mr. Davidson:
Your completed application form has been received. We appreciate your willingness ro
serve on the Public Recreational Facilities Authority.
After the closing date, your application will be distributed to the Board members for their
review; for a magisterial district appointment, your application will be fo~varded only to the
supervisor of your district. Depending on the position and the number of applicants, the Board
will decide whether to interview qualified candidates. If you are selected for an interview, you
will be notified approximately one month after the application closing date.
Although it is not always possible, due to the Board's meeting schedules, or the schedule
of individual members, the Board attempts to schedule interviews within 60 days and to make
the actual appointment with 90 days of the application deadline. If you have any questions on
the status of your application during that time period, please do not hesitate to call this office.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
c:xwpdocs\bds~:comm~recdapp
Printed on recycled paper
~, &~r3 OF SUPERVISORS
Board / Commission ! Commi!
Applicator's Name
Magist~rial District in which yo
David E'. Bowerman
Rio
Chafiol~e Y. Humphfis
Fattest R. M,~sh~i, dr.
COUNTY OF A! I~EMAR! .E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McInQre Road
Charlotl~'ville. V'n'ginia 229024596
(804) 29~-5843 FAX (804} 296-5800
November 24, 1997
Ms. Deborah A. Easter
2731 Free Union Road
Charlottesville. VA 22901
Dear Ms. Easter:
Your completed application form has been received. Unfortunately, all applications for
the Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Corrtmittee needed to be postmarked no later than
Thursday, November 20, 1997, in order to be eligible for consideration.
Although the Board cannot accept your application to serve on the Agricultural &
Forestal District Advisory Committee at this time, it is hoped you will consider applying for
openings on County boards and commissions in the future.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
c:~wpdocs\bds&comra\lateapp
Printed on recycled paper
RD OF ~UPERViSORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMAI LO "
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rc¥_r
AGENDA TITLE:
1998 Legislative Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
1998 Final Legislative Programs for General
Government and the School Division.
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, White, Morgan
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY.'~
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
X
DISCUSSION:
The attached Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 1998 Legislative Program. which has been approved
by all the other localities, is substantially the same document that the Board reviewed at its October 1 meeting. Only
minor language changes have been made to the deregulation of electdc utilities, CSA and welfare reform sections
of the document.
The Albemarle County School Board Legislative Package is also attached for your review prior to the joint meeting
with the Legislators.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both the TJPDC Legislative Program and the Albemarle County School Board Legislative Package are submitted
for your review prior to the meeting with the Legislators and require no action at this time.
97.228
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
1998 Legislative Program
Final Draft
November 24, 1997
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
I Basic Principles
I
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 all 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.
IIAction Items
Il
Local Composite Index for Education Funding .................................................. 3
Funding for Education Infrastructure ................................................................. 4
Tangible Personal Property Tax .......................................................................... 5
Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ............................................................. 7
Telecommunications ............................................................................................. 9
Economic Development Initiatives ..................................................................... 11
Areas of Continuing Concern
Growth Management ................ : ............................................................................. 12
Finance .................................................................................................................. 12
Education .............................................................................................................. 12
Environmental Quality ............................................................................................ 13
Local Government Structure and Laws ............................... , ................................. 13
Housing ................................................................................................................ 13
Public Safety ............................................................................................................. 14
Transportation .................................................................................................... 14
Health and Human Services .................................................................................... 15
Economic Development ........................................................................................... 15
COMPOSITE INDEX
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
Th e 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.
{IssltesI
Revised 1996-98 Composite Index:
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 captare
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
Fluvarma .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%, local spending on capital outlay and debt service for schools
has increased significantly. In 1981 local government expendi~res on debt service totaled $135
million; by 1996 this amount had grown to $454 million. The State Department of Education's
(DOE) recent facility survey shows shortfalls in maimenance and capital needs in schools throu~hout
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 Constrnction and Renovation by FY2001: I
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 sram 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 servxce costs.
4
TANGIBLE 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.
Baclcgrottnd: The Personal Prope
second only to the real estate tax ~
Virginia. The stability of a local gc
rating. Replacing a local taxing auth(
abilities in the eyes of the financial c,
revenues and funding reimbttrseme~
rty Tax comprises roughly 15% of locally-generated revenues,
hich accounts for almost 44% of local revenues produced in
vermment's revenue base is critical to obtaining a good bond
rity with a state reimbursement weakens its revenue producing
)mmtmity. Furthermore, in times of economic downturn, state
ts to the Commonwealth's localities is compromised. In 1979
large cities gave up the right to annex. In exchange for subjecting themselves to this potential
revenue loss, the state agreed to pro]tide a state block gTant to provide assistance to localities with
police departments (known as HB 5~9 funding). Since the inception of liB 599, the state has failed
to meet its commitment to the tune¢f $420 million.
[Personal Property Tax Rates: (Per $1OO qf Assessed Value)
I
Nomin
Albemarle $ ~
Charlottesville $ ~
Fluvanna $ .:
Greene $ ~
Louisa $1
Nelson $;
Tax Rate % of Retail Value Assessed Effective Tax Rate
.28 75% $3.21
.20 75% 5;3.15
.70 83% 5;3.07
.45 83% 5;3.69
70 83% Sl.41
.95 83% 5;2.45
IPersonaI Property Tax Revenues: (FY 92 - FY 96)
FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95_ .FY96
Albemarle 5;10,432,769 $11,006,599 5;12,134,099 S14,141,462 5;15,737,017
Charlottesville $ 3,762,684 $ 4,131,681 $ 3,987,813 S 4,751,257 5; 5,345,383
Fluvanna $ 1,333,115 S 1,429,286 $ 1,700,849 S 1,976,110 $ 2,323,723
Greene $ 1,229,983 $ 1,191,672 $ 1,336,097 $ 1,709,514 $ 1,823,191
Louisa $ 964,423 $ 917,308 $ 1,024,117 $ 1,391,898 5; 1,611,643
Nelson $ 964,806 $ 939,666 5; 978,754 $ 1.259.361 $ 1,499,800
I Annual Rate qfGrowth in Personal Property Tax Revenues:
FY92 to FY93 FY93 to FY94 FY94 to FY95 FY95 to FY9fi Ave. (4 Yrs.)
Albemarle 5.5% 10.2% 16.5% 11.3% 10.8%
Charlottesville 9.8% -3.5% 19.1% 12.5% 9.5%
Fluvanna 7.2% 18.9% 16.2% 17.6% 15.0%
Greene -3.1% 12.1% 27.9% 6.6% 10.8%
Louisa -4.9% 11.6% 35.9% 15.8% 14.6%
Nelson -2.6% 4.2% 28.7% 19.1% 12.4%
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 TJPDC, Charlottesville
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 are particularly
concerned in this region with the effect deregulation could have on Louisa County which is
home to one of Virginia Power's larger facilities. Louisa pays 68% of the total cost of public
education making the eonntv the sixth wealthiest county in the Commonwealth according to
the funding formula. This is a direct result of the real estate tax revenues collected from
Virginia Power which accounts for two-thirds of the county's total real property revenues.
Lastly, 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 kee market competition. A joint subcommittee (Senate Joint Resolution 259) was
established by the General Assembly in 1996 to address the restmcturing of the electric utility
industries which are now heavily regulated by the State Corporation Commission and exist as
investor-owned public service corporations, mraI cooperatives and municipal electrics. Virginia's
state and local governments raise more than $400 million annually from electric providers and
consumers. Local governments collect revenues fi:om electric providers and consumers through five
mechanisms: utility tax on consumers, gross receipts tax on providers (.5%), personal property and
property tax on providers and the motor vehicle license fee. The Commonwealth collects revenues
from a gross receipts tax (2%), the State Corporation Commission special tax (. 1% of gross receipts)
and the motor vehicle fuel tax. Electric providers are exempt fi:om the state income tax and state
sales tax. The State Corporation Commission has released a working draf~ model of a deregulation
plan for electric utilities that would not be implemented for another 3 to 5 years.
7
[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 I
Greene I
Louisa
Nelson
Total I
I Consumer Utility Rates in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District:
Albemarle:
Charlottesville:
Fluvanna:
Greene:
Louisa:
Nelson:
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: As recommended by the State Corporation Commission, proceed with caution
in selecting a a deregulation scheme and a replacement 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% o£the total electricity used
in the Commonwealth, but who shoulder 47.6% of current taxes.
TELE COMMUNICATIONS
Legislative Position of TJPDC. Charlottesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene. Louisa and Nelson
Background: 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 stare law to
prevent localities from receiving fair compensation for the private use of public property as currently
provided in state law. Certaiifly, this issue along with other legislative proposals affecting local
governments will be introduced in 1997.
Recommendation: 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 of a
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 management and maintenance costs. Taxpayers buy and maintain
rights-of-way in their communities through their 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 their taxpayers are entitled to a fair return
for private business use of public property and for reimbursement ofalI 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 governments. No legislation should restrict the ability of
local governments to impose equitable taxes on telecommunications providers.
Competition: Local governments support healthy competition in the field of
telecommunications. 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 flee-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.
lO
] CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Legislative Position of TJPDC, 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 distributed 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 inveskment 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 minimum private investment of $10 million producing 100 new jobs is eligible for
funding.) Funds can be used for such things as site acquisition and development; transportation
access; training; construction or bnild-cut ofpub!ic!y-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, railroad span
construction, and water and sewer projecs. Communities may use these funds to support projects
which wilt 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 guarantee that al1 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
govermnents to leverage dollars more effectively.
GR O WTH MANA GEMENT
]'he Planning District and member goverrm~ents recognize the importance of a m~x of vibrant
growing urban 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, modify and
enforce their comprehensive plan or to regulate land use.
FINANCE
]'he Planning District and its member localities recognize that financing government 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 often 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 soumes, taxing authority
or user fees available to localities. The state must broaden the revenue sources available to localities
in the form ora 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. Furthermore. counties should be _re'anted taxing powers equal to those granted cities.
ED UCA TION
The Planning District and its member localities share the state's interest in educational excellence.
Funding for education is a rop 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, ~ve oppose any
legislation that limits the authority of local school boards and Iocal governing bodies to finance and
manage their schools.
12
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The Planning District and its member localities are committed to the protection and enhancement
of the environment. This commitment recognizes, however, the need to achieve a proper balance
bet~veen 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. The state should be a
partner or advocate for localities in water supply development. The state should undertake water
supply plarming, not just simple inventory_ of resources. The plarming should encompass water
conservation, a determination of needs and how they can be met, including emerging technologies.
I]LOCAL GO VERNMENT STRUCTURE AND LA WS
11
The Planning District and its member localities believe 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 m meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships.
We oppose intrustonary 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 immunity laws seeking m narrow county
or mmmcipal corporation immunity. We support legislation to allow localities to pass on to property_
owners the cost of the removal or repair of ~affiti or other defacement undertaken by the locality.
USING
The Planning District and its 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 implemented whenever possible. We support continued funding of the Virginia
Housing Parmership Fund from both the general fund and VHDA, 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 lar~d
trusts. In addressing the lack of input that local governments have concerning housing issues, We
13
support local government notice provisions for all proposed low and moderate income housing
projects seeking federal tax credits. Lastly, we support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages
rehabilitation of existing housing and discor~rages new construction in close proximity to existing
subsidized housing.
I PUBLIC SAFETY
The Planning Districl 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.
~c~nd~ for thc state and local costs ~f t~c ~ystcm, including capital and opcrating 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 j ails and juvenile detention facilities 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 constmction costs and 66% of operational costs.
I[ TRANSPOR TA TIOAT
The Planning District and its member localities support the development of a comprehensive
statewide transportation plan that recogmzes 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 with local land use planning,
especially in rapidly growing areas. We support additional state funding for public transportation
operating costs as federal aid in this arena has decreased dramatically. We support an ISTEA
reauthorization that provides a ~reater return of funds to donor states such as Virginia while
preserving funding designations for public transportation,
I HEAL THAND 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 recogrdzed. The delivery ofhealth 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 progams that require additional local funding.
Welfare Reform. We support Virginia's welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote
family preservation and work requirements. We support a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
Plan (TANF'} that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation and support
services costs, focuses on private sector emplovment, gives local governments maximum regulato _ry
and funding flexibility to meet particular communi _ty needs, and does not burden local governments
with paving emergency assistance costs for those who are cut off from federal/state public assistance
programs. We support initiatives to help former VIEW participants maintain 'confinuiW in child care
and oppose any initiatives to shift traditional federal and state child care administrative responsibility
and costs to local eovernments. The federal and state government should work together to create
transitional health benefit options for those making the transition from VIEW to the private sector
in the event that emnloyers do not provide adequate health care benefits and Med/caid is no longer
an option.
Comprehensive Services Act. The state should allow local governments te use other funding
sources such as state funds from the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act or certain
Medicaid funds for CSA needs in order to minimize the local dollars that are spent on CSA. The
state should not undertake any cost-containment measures without the means to pay for them. As
such. the state should provide more technical assistance to local governments. State and local
governments must work together to ensure the greatest degree of coordination between Individual
Education Plans and CSA service plans. We support full state fi~ndin~ in the state's base budget for
the costs of CSA.
I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Planning District and its member localities recognize economic development as essential to the
continued viability of the Commomvealth. The state needs to clarify its positions on growth and
development by enhancing the state economic developmem plan to more clearly define the
responsibilities of the state and of local governmems~ We support the development of the state
Economic Development Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth. The plan should include new tobls
for local governments to use in attracting economic development opportunities such as a capitalpool
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 forward. Fair and proportional
fundine should be provided to ail regions of the state.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
F~ICHMOND
November 18, 1997
~OAkD OF SUPeRVISOrS
The Honorable Charlotte Humphris, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Charlotte:
Thank you for the invitation to attend the joint meeting of the Board of
Supervisors and the School Board on December 3, i997. I look forward to hearing
your legislative agenda for the 1998 session. I also have one item of business thz, t I
would like to discuss with you.
For the fifth year in a row, I am introducing a bill to establish a Public Defender
Office for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. This measure
has been passed by the General Assembly for the past four years only to be vetoed
each year by Governor Allem Because my constituents have asked me to, and
because I believe the office is fair and necessary, I am going forward again this year
with hope for better results with a new Governor and new administration~ Supporl
[rom the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors may encourage Governor
Gilmore to give this bill full consideration.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Jim Hingeley, Public Defender in the
Lynchburg office which is of similar size to the one which would be established in
our community. Since all costs are paid by the state, Jim makes the case for the
savings created by his office. Through the use of a full-time investigator, usually
not available to a court appointed attorney, the Public Defender office also provides
consistent, competent representation for indigent defendants, a desirable goal for
Virginia's judicial system.
Again, t look forward to meeting with the Board on the 3rd.
~inc~3~ours~
Mitchell Van Yahres
MVY/jb
Enclosure
JAMES HINGELEY
PUBLIC DEFENDER
COMMON TEALTH of ¥IRQIN A
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
CiTY OF LYNCHBURG
SUITE 401 - THE KRISE BUILDING
203 NINTH STREET
LYNCHBURG. VA 24504
September 19, 1997
TELEPHONE
(804) 947-2244
VOICE CALLERS:
TEXT TELEPHONE:
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres,
57th District
223 West Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Delegate
Dear Mitch:
Today I received a report, prepared by the Virginia Supreme
Court Executive Secretary's office, assessing the financial impact
on the state budget of ~he Lynchburg public defender program. The
report compares the costs of the public defender office with the
costs of court-appointed counsel from the private bar over the last
three fiscal years.
For the three fiscal years surveyed by the Supreme Court,
Lynchburg's public defender office was counsel in from 73% uo 76%
of misdemeanor cases. This nearly achieves the goal that public
defenders should serve in 75% of indigen5 criminal cases. W-ith
respect uo ~he more serious felony cases, you can see ~hat we
served from 83% to 87% of the time, well above the goal.
Our office saved the Commonwealth over $140,000 in each of the
first two fiscal years surveyed, and dropped to a $128,682 savings
this past fiscal year. The drop is no£ surprising, considering
that the operating costs for public defender offices have climbed,
due in large part Eo state employee salary increases, while the
compensation for court-appointed counsel has remained the same.
AS you probably know, Virginia's rate of compensation for
court-appointed counsel is the lowesn in the United States. That
makes the cost-effectiveness of the public defender sysuem all the
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres, Delegame
Sepmember 19, 1997
Page 2 ~ ~ r
more remarkable, since public d~fend~ cosns ~re c09par¢~ against
the least~expenslve courm-appoin't~d d~nsel s~temin the cou~K~y.
I thought this information mzght be of interest mo you,
especially if the Legislature may consider again next year the
questzon of establishing a public defender office for
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. As you know, Lynchburg's
public defender office is generally regarded as being close zn
staffing level and caseload to projections for an office which
would serve Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
If you have questions or would like additional information, or
if I can be of any further assisnance concernmng the public
defender sysnem in Virginia, please let me know.
Sincerely
~ames Hingeley
Public Defender
d~
EST. u~.TLy 1,1991
COMPARISON P-~PORT
LYETCI~J~URG
1994-95
PUBLIC DEF.
AVG PERCENT 76~AL AVG
2,.198
2,59& - - ,. 100% :, 3,32~ ' -
35
5,127 478,092 93.25 100% 6,38.] 615,420 g6.4~
1995-96
SUPREHE CCURT
PERCENT PUBLZC DEF.
AVG PERCENT AVG
APPEAL 26% 20 1~ 913., 645 65' ' 7~% - 56
1996-97
6,383 7S5,949 118.43
140,529
TOTAL
AVG
CHARGES COSTS COST
2.906
2.338
76
5,320 573,212 107.75
76 49,069 645.65
5,320 715,086 134.50
SAVINGS(COST)
142,874
8UPR~E COURT
PUBLIC DEF. TOTAL
PERCENT AVG PERCENT -'
AVG PERCENT AVG
FEL 16% 538 88.037 163.64 84% 2,848 I00~ 3,38a
TOTAL 22% 1,El& 179,741 118.72 78% 5.458 571,300 104.67 100% 6,97~ ~'~J1,041 107.7'2
EAVENGS(COST)
00-50-
COMMONWEALTH
O F VI RG~i~D OF SUPERVISORS
SENATE
September 26, 1997
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
As the 1998 General Assembly session approaches, I am writing to seek any commems,
suggestions, and legislative requests you rmght have for Albemarle County.
I try to limit the bills I introduce each year to a manageable number so I can dedicate as
much attention as possible to each one. I also believe that the most effective way to serve as an
advocate for my bills is to begin working early to gather support from my colleagues and to
anticipate any potential problems. Please pass on your requests and ideas for legislation as soon
as possible, so I can begin the draft'mg process, build consensus, and develop strategies for
passage.
In addition to my personal preference for advance preparation of all bills, the Code of
V~requires that the following categories of bills be filed by the first day of session, which
is January 14. 1998:
Charter bills, including those that affect any optional form of county government.
2. Personal relief (claims) bills.
3. Property tax exemption bills.
4. Sales tax exemption bills.
Any bill that mandates an additional expenditure by any county, city, or town. A mandate
has the effect of (i) requiting the performance of a new or expanded service or
maintaining an existing service at a specific level, fib assttming administrative costs in
support of state-related programs, or (iii) ,furnishing capital facilities for state-related
activities..
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
September 26, 1997
Page Two
All bills requiring a statement of fiscal impact on the operating costs of state correctional
facilities. A fiscal impact statement is required for any bill that would result in a net
increase in periods of imprisonment in state correctional facilities, including those bills
that (i) add new crimes for which imprisonment is authorized, (ii) increase the periods of
~mprisonment for existing crimes, (iii) impose minimum or mandatory terms of
~mprisonment, or (iv) modify the law governing the release of prisoners in such a way
that the time served in prison will increase.
Any bill that amends, repeals, or modifies any provision of the~Virgirda Retiremem
System, the State Police Officers' Retirement System, or the Judicial Retirement System.
The Board of Trustees of the VRS shall submit to the Clerks' offices, the Commission on
Local Government, the House Committee on Appropriations, and the Senate Committee
on Finance a statement of (i) the financial impact of the proposed bill on the general fund
and on the local governments that have opted to be part of VRS and (ii) the policy
implications of the bill on the various systems admin/stered by the Board of Trustees.
I look forward to hearing from you and learning about legislative initiatives you feel
would benefit Albemarle County and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Thank you for your early
attention to these matters.
Q~er,ely, /~
Emily CoulSc
Senator, 25th District
BO AR D OF SUPERVISORS
oN ,~
1-14-9/A1 ,:DS ~CVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
ChartottesviIl¢~ Virginia 22902-4696
(804~ 296-5841 FAX (804 972-4060
November 13, 1997
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres
House of Delegates - 57th District
223 West Main Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-5055
The Honorable Paul C. Harris
House of Delegates - 58th District
P. O. Box 1276
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Delegates Van Yahres and Harris:
I ara writing to invite you to meet with members of both the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
and the Albemarle County School Board on Wednesday, December 3rd at 4:30 pm in Room 235 of
the County Office Build'mg. We vdll be discussing the County's legislative program for the upcoming
General Assembly, which is developed in conjunction with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission. We would also like to hear from you about the critical legislative issues you foresee for
the 1998 session.
Prior to the meetin~ we will be sending you our approved legislative program. Should you have any
questions in the meantime regarding our legislative issues, please do not hesitate to call.
We would appreciate it if you would call our office (296-5841) to confirm your attendance at this
joint meeting of the two Boards. We look forward to your participation.
Sincerely,
RWT, Jr/dbm
97.121
pc: X~bemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County School Board
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Off~ce of County Executive
401 M¢Intire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4696
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 9724060
October 17, 1997
The Honorable Emily Couric
25th State Senate District
P. O. Box 5462
Charlottesville, Virginia 22905
Dear Senator Coudc:
[ am writing to confirm Albemarle County's invitation to meet with members of both the Board of
Supervisors and the School Board on Wednesday, December 3rd at 4:30 pm in Room 235 of the
County Office Building. We look forward to discussing the County's legislative program for the
upcoming General Assembly, as well as heating from you and our delegates about the critical issues
you foresee for the 1998 session.
Prior to the meeting, we will be sending you our approved legislative program. Should you have any
questions in the meantime regarding our legisl.ative issues, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
~ounty Executive
RWT,Jr/dbm
97.110
pc:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County School Board
David E Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Forr~ R. Mamh~ll, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMAR! ,E
Office o/Board of Supervmors
401 Mdntim Road
Charlottest~e. V'u'~inia 22902-4.596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles $. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Mi~a
January 26, 1998
The Honorable Mitch VanYahres
Delegate
223 West Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Delegate VanYahres:
At its meeting on December 3, 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
voted to support your efforts to create a Public Defender's office for the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. If you need any additional informauon.
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Clerk
/ewc
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL~OA~D OF SUPER¥1~tg~
Office of County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060
December 10, 1997
M. Donald C. Borwhat, Jr.
Senior Vice-President
Human Resources and Public Relations
GE Fanuc Automation
P. O. Box 8106
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
Dear Mr. Borwhat:
As we have discussed earlier, under the provisions of the Loan Commitment Letter dated April 25, 1995 and note
dated April 25, I995, the County was to receive "(A)nnual reports on hiring rafios.....at the time the'loan was
repaid and in January of each year thereafter for 30 months or until 250 new employees are hired, wh'chever
comes first." The interest; due April 1, 1999, was to be adjusted to 0% if"prior to April 1, 1999, Borrower has
provided compelling evidence to Noteholder, and Noteholder has determined in its sole discretion, that greater
than 80 percent of Bon'ower's new[v-hired employees resulting l~om the expansion of mamffacturing and training
facilities in Albemarle County beginning in 1995 and continuing for 24 to 48 months, were at the time of their
application residents of the Thomas Jefferson Pl~nning District."
As you know, the employment report was due when the principal was due on October 1, 1996. To date, this
report has not been received, although we have anticipated it for some time based on our conversations.
In order to resolve this issue, t-would ask that the report be delivered per the agreement by December 23, 1997
so that action to declare GE Fanuc in default can be avoided.
Ifyun would like to meet to discuss this issue and/or the report, I would be happy to do so.
R. WT,Jrldbm
97.133
po: vA~bemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Larry W. Davis, County Attorney
Mr. Larry E. Pearson, Senior Vice President, Finance, GE Fanuc
Sincerely,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McInfire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060
FAX: (804) 296-5800
December 8, 1997
Kirby M. Bowers, County Administrator
County of Loudoun
1 Harrison Street, S.E., 5th Floor
P. O. Box 700
Leesburg, Virginia 20177-7000
RE: Growth Management Issues
Dear Kirby:
Thank you for your recent letter inviting Albemarle County to participate in a forum to address and develop
strategies £or growth management issues in our respective jurisdictions. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Coumyis very interested in participating in this forum and we hope to be able to attend the conference steering
committee meeting on December 19th from 10 a.m. to 2 p,m. in Richmond. The Cha/rman of our Board and I
unfortunately have a previous commitment wh/ch may requ/re us to leave the steering committee meeting early,
but we will make every attempt to attend on December 19th.
We look forward to heating more about the upcoming committee meeting and forum in the near fi~mre and, again,
thank you for including us ia the plmming phase of this important forum.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
RWT,Jr/dbm
97.132
pc:
,~he Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Ms. Linda Neri, Deputy County Administrator
County of Loudoun