Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-06 F I N A L DECEMBER 6, 1995 9:00 A.M. ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1) Call uo Order. 2) Pledge of Allegiance. 3) Moment of Silence. 4) Certificates of Appreciation. 5) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. 6) Consent Agenda (on nexu sheet'. 7) Approval of Minutes: July 5, August 16 and Noveraber 8, 1995. 8) Transportation Matters: a) Other Transportation Matters. 9) Work Session: FY 1996 97 through FY 2000/01 Capital Improvements Program. 10) Authorize County Executive to execuue agreemenus for permanent pump and haul for Randolph and Catherine Lange (formerly Captain's Table~. 11) 10:00 a.m. - Public Hearings: a) To amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include parcel 88B on Tax Map 56 in the Crozet Growth Area for water and sewer service. b) To amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to existing structures only au 1-64 East rest area; for water and sewer service to existing structures au 1-64 West resu area; and for sewer service to the Ivy Landfill. 12) 10:15 a.m. - Public Hearing pursuant co Va. Code Section 30-19.04 for the purpose of considering a request by the Jefferson Area Board on Aging ("J3~BA") for a resolution of support for exemption from taxation of certain property purchased by JABA to be developed as an adult day care center, said resolution required prior to consideration by a committee oi the General Assembly of legisla- tion involving the designation of property to be exempted from taxation. Public Hearing pursuant to Va. Code Section 15.1-504 for the purpose of considering a resolution which would sen a policy for future requests from nonprofit organizations for exemption from taxation of real property. t3) Tourism Council Presentation. 14) Other Matters Hot Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 15) Executive Session: Legal Matters and Personnel. 16) Certify Executive Session. 17) 2:00 p.m., Room 235 - Joint meeting with School Board and State Legisla- uors to discuss the County's 1996 Legislative Program. 18) 3:00 p.m., Room 331 - Reception with School Board and State Legislators. 19) Adjourn to December 12, 1995, 5:30 p.m. for joint meeting with City Council in City Hall 5o discuss reversion. C ON S BNT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Appropriations: a) Stormwater Fund - $897,856.83, (Form %95034). b) d) e) f) Piedmont Regional Education Program - $14,975.90, (Form %95036). Gypsy Moth FY 1995/96 Operating Budget - $24,121, (Form ~95039). United Way Child Care Scholarship Program - $304,768.46, (Form %95040). Rousing Assistance Program - $9,292.90, (Form %95041). Intake Crisis Manager - $32,905, (Form %95042). B. Dan Dickerson Service Road - $21,989, (Form %95044). Resolution to take Berkmar Drive North Extension (Route 1403) and Hilton Reights Road (Route 1438) into the State Secondary System of Righways; and to also guarantee to the Virginia Department of Transportation, for a period of one year from the date of acceptance in the Secondary System of Highways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Rilton Reights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $14,250. Resolution to take Dunlora Drive in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase IA, into the State Secondary System of Highways. Resolution to take roads in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A, into the State Secondary System o~ Highways. 6.5 Authorize Chairman to execute service agreement with North Garden Volunteer Fire Company advancing $70,000 to purchase new pumper truck. 6.6 Approval of Alternative Sentencing Project for Joint Security Complex. 6.7 Set public hearing to repeal Article VII, Regional Jail Board, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the County Code. 6.8 Reappoint Patricia L. Smith 5o the Jail Board. 6.9 Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of October, 1995. FOR INFOR~ATION: 6.10 Copy of letter dated November 15, 1995, from ~-~gela G. Tucker, Resident Engi- neer, Department of Transportation, so David J. Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, re: Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road). 6.11 Letter dated November 21, 1995, from R. R. Corknock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice of a citizen informa- sion/participation meeting to be held regarding the Route 29 Corridor Develop- ment Study, Charlottesville to Warrenton. 6 . 12 Letter dated November 28, 1995, from A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction in Albemarle County. 6.13 Information on proposed joint budget review process with the City of Charlottes- ville for community agencies for FY 1996-97. 6.14 October 1995 Financial Report. 6.15 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November ~ and November 21, 1995. 6.16 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of October, 1995. 6.17 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for October 19, 1995. 6.18 Acme Design Technology Company's October, 1995 operating results (on file in Clerk's office). 6.19 Letter dated November 22, 1995 from Robert E. Martinez, Secretary of Transporta- tion, Department of Transportation, to Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, re: Route 29 Bypass Study. COUNTY OF ALBEMAJ Office of Board of Supervis~ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 (804) 296-58~ FAX f804) I MEMORANDU TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~ December 8, 1995 Board Actions of December 6, 1995 The following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on December 6, 1995: Agenda Item NO. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called ro order at 9:02 a.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Cary Branch was present ~o request that the Board give some help in looking at the name of the new high school and suggested that the school be named for Lawrence Brunton. Agenda Item No. 6.la. Appropriations: Stormwater Fund - $897,856.83, (Form #95034). APPROVED. Original appropriation form sent =o Melvin Dreeden. Agenda Item No. 6.1b. Piedmont Regional Education Program - $14,975.90, (Form #95036). APPROVED. Original appropriation form sent =o Melvin Breeden. Agenda Item No. 6.1c. Gypsy Moth FY 1995/96 Operating Budget - $24,121, (Form ~95039). APPROVED. Original appropriation form sent to Melvin Breeden. Agenda Item NO. 6.1d. $304,768.46, (Form #95040). Melvin Breeden. United Way Child Care Scholarship Program APPROVED. Original appropriation form senm to Agenda Item No. 6.1e. Mousing Assistance Program $9,292.90, (Form $95041). APPROVED. Original appropriation form sen= to Melvin 8reeden. Agenda Item No. 6.1f. Intake Crisis Manager - $32,905, (Form #95042). APPROVED. Original appropriation form sent no Melvin Breeden. Printed on recycled paper Robert W. Tucker, Jr. December 8, 1995 (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 6.1g. B. Dan Dickers~n Service Road - $21,989, #95044). APPROVED. Original appropriation form sent to Melvin Breeden. (Form Agenda Item No. 6.2. Resolution to take Berkmar Drive North Extension (Route 1403) and Hilton Heights Road (Route 1438) into the State Secondary System of Highways; and to also guarantee to the Virginia Department of Transportation, for a period of one year from the date of acceptance in the Secondary System of Highways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Hilton Heights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up ~o a maximum of $14,250. ADOPTED. Original resolution sent to Engineering. Agenda Item No. 6.3. Resolution to take Dunlora Drive in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA, into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Original resolution sent to Engineering. Agenda Item No. 6.4. Resolution to take roads in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase ~A, ~into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Original resolution sen~ to Engineering. Agenda Item No. 6.5. Authorize Chairmanto execute service agreement with North Garden Volunteer Fire Company advancing $70,000 ~o purchase new pumper Truck. AUTRORIZED. Agreement has been signed by the Chairman and sent ~o the fire company for final signature. Agenda Item No. 6.6. Approval of Alternative Sentencing Project for Joint Security Complex. APPROVED staff recommendation to approve the study and payment of the County's share of the cos~ ($7150) from either the complex's current operating budge: or from an unexpended balance from the prior year's appropria- tions to the Joint Security Complex (Jail). I take for granted that the appropriate appropriation form will be forwarded ~o this office for the record. Agenda Item No. 6.7. Set public hearing to repeal Article VII, Regional Jail Board, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the County Code. WIIJ~BEADVERTISED FOR pUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 3, 1996. Agenda Item No. 6.8. Reappoint Patricia L. Smith to the Jail Board. REAPPOINTED TO A NEW TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE ONAPRIL 30, 1997. Letter has been sent. Agenda Item No. 8a. Other Transportation Matters: Angela Tucker noted that there will be a public hearing on the Route 29 North Corridor Study this afternoon in Madison. Mrs. Humphris said the plan she has seen will be hard to implement without extreme hardship being placed on individuals. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that she had met with Angela Tucker in Ivy to discuss the traffic problems there. This was the day after a fatality in Ivy. Ms. Tucker said she does not ye= have any information on that fatality and whether or if it was connected with sight distance. Mr. Tucker said the Police are also investigating the accident, but have not yet completed their work. Robert W. Tuoker, Jr. December 8, 1995 (Page 3) Mr. Perkins asked for information concerning the Mitlington Bridge project. Ms. Tucker said the contractor has stopped work at this time waiting for steel from the fabricator. Mr. Perkins remarked that the bridge project on Route 240 seems =o be nearly completed. Ms. Tucker said the project should be finished this date. Mrs. Humphris mentioned the letter from Secretary Martinez listed as 6.19 on the Consent Agenda. She was surprised that is has taken such a long time to receive a reply to the Board's letter, and that the letter essentially does not satisfactorily answer the Board's concerns. She said the people who were able =o halt building of the interchanges on Route 29 North, are now promoting interchanges on the western bypass, and she finds this very disheartening. Agenda Item No. 9. Work Session: FY 1996/97 through FY 2000/01 capital Improvements Program. Roxanne White made a slide presentation and answered a few questions. Mrs. Humphr~s expressed her concerns about an ~ndoor swimming facility at the new high school, and'the costs/liability that would ~rise from such.a facility. Due to lack of time, the work session stopped, and.no date for a continuation was set. Agenda Item NO. 10. Authorize County Executive to execute agreements for permanent pump and haul for Randolph and Catherine Lange (formerly Captain's Table). Because the applicants were no= present, this item was DEFEPd~ED until January 3, 1995. The County Attorney will contact the applicants again =o see if they wish to pursue this application further. Agenda Item NO. llao Public Hearing: To emend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include parcel 88B on Tax Map 56 in th~ Crozet Growth Area for water and sewer service. ADOPTED motion ~o extend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority =o include parcel 88B on Tax Map 56 for both public water and public sewer service. Agenda Item No. llb. public Hearing: To emend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to existing structures only at 1-64 East rest area; for water and sewer service to existing structures at 1-64 West rest area; and for sewer service to the Ivy Landfill. ADOPTED motion to not extend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service =o the 1-64 West rest stop. ADOPTED motion to approve amending the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for limited sewer service to the existing rest area structures, only, at the Virginia Department of Transportation 1-64 East rest area (Tax Map 54) and at the Virginia Department of Transportation 1-64 West rest area (Tax Map 73). In addition, the service area boundaries for limited sewer service are extended to provide limited sewer service to the Ivy Sanitary Landfill for purposes of leachate management, only (Tax Map 73, Parcel 28). Service to these areas is required to be provided by private sewer lines within existing Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) right-of-way. The expansion of the limited service areas is supported by the findings that it is necessary for existing publicly-owned uses and is necessary to address identified public health, safety and environmental problems. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. December 8, 1995 (Page 4) Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing pursuan~ ~o Va. Code Section 30-19.04 for the purpose of considering s request by the Jefferson Area Board on Aging ("JABA") for a resolution of support for exemption from taxation of certain property purchased by JABA to be developed as an adult day care center, said resolution required prior to consideration by a committee of the General Assembly of legislation involving the designation of property to be exempted from taxa- tion. ADOP~D motion to support a resolution recommending tax exempt statue for JABA on the single p~ese of property described in the staff's report, and only for the new adult day care center to be built on that property. Final resolution will be placed on the consent agenda for December 13 for adoption. Mrs. Thomas suggested that the savings received by various agencies having tax exempt status be included as part of the summary for that agency in the next budget work sessions. Public Hearing pursuann to Va. Code Section 15.1-504 for the purpose of considering a resolution which would set a policy for future requests from nonprofit organizations for exemption from taxation of real proper~y. ADOP~D the attached policy. Agenda Item No. 13. Tourism Council Presentation. Report received. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas noted that all members of the Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Board have been removed, and replaced by the governor. She suggested that all receive a letter of appreciation. Mrs. Humphris mentioned an ~rticle in NACO's County News about the problem of the ~ax give aways to companies moving sround across the country. Agenda Item NO. 17. 2:00 p.m., Room 235 - Joint meeting with School Board and State Legislators to discuss the County's 1996 Legislative Program. DISCUSSION only. Emily Couric was not present. Agenda I~em No. 19. ADJOURNED this meeting until December 12, 1995, sT 5:30 p.m. for a joint meeting with City Council in City Hall ~o discuss reversion. L~N/mms Attachments (3) Richard E. Huff Roxanne White Jo Higgins Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Amelia McCulley Jan Sprinkle Larry Davis Wayne Cilimberg File The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, adopted the follow- ing resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Berkmar Drive North Extension (RIP-92- 001), Route 1403, and Hilton Heights Road (SUB-lZ.Z25), Route 1438 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, 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 re- quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Berkmar Drive North Extension and River ~eights as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1- 229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re- quirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 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 to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a period of one year from the date of acceptance into the secondary system of state high- ways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Hilton Heights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $14,250.00. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by~ Mr. Martin. Yeas: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. Nays: None. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, A Copy Teste: ~a ~W. Carey, C'fe~rk~ CMC Ii The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, ia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, the following resolution: Virgin- adopted RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A} described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, 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 street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Dunlora Sub4ivision - Phase lA as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 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 RESOL~:D that a certified copy of this forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Transportation. resolution be Department of Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by: Mr. Martin. Yeas: Mrs. Thomas, Marshall, Mr. Nays: None. Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Martin and Mr. Perkins. Mr. A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, MC 0 lid 0 0 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, ia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, the following resolution: Virgin- adopted RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Su~dlvislon - Phase ZA (SUB 12.$54 & SUB ~Z.354A) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, ~995, 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 requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Dunlora subdivision - Phase ~A as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated Decea~ber 6, X995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Transportation. resolution be Department of Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by: Mr. Martin. Yeas: Mrs. Thomasr Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. Nays: None. A copy Teste: El'la W. Carey, MC APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95034 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND STORM WATER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM FY 94/95. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1910041000950093 1910041035312400 1910041035800975 1910041036312400 1910041036360000 1910041036800750 1910041036800975 1910041039800S75 1910041040800975 1910041041800975 1910041043800975 1910041049800975 1910041050800975 1910041053800975 1910041054800975 ENGINEERING FOUR SEASONS FOUR SEASONS BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BI1LNAM/WYNRIDGE LICKINGHOLE BERKELEY LYNCHBURG FOUR SEASONS WOODBROOK WINDHAM/JARMAN PEYTON DRIVE RICKY ROAD DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN PROF. SER. ENG. STORM WATER CONTROL PROP. SER. ENG. ADVERTISING PURCHASE OF LAND STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL STORM WATER CONTROL $136,188.15 12,164.54 75,085.70 1,546.45 300.00 3,000.00 85,100.00 207,800.41 685.98 17,500.00 20,000.00 60,000.00 82,075.60 156,515.00 39,895.00 TOTAL $897,856.83 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2910051000510100 FUND BALANCE $897,856.83 TOTAL $897,856.83 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINikNCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION REQUEST 95/96 NUMBER 95036 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM FLUVANNA COUNTY REIMBURSING EXPENSES INCURRED WITH SETUP OF BURGESS LANE SCHOOLI EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1243362420600700 BUILDING SERVICES-MAINT. SUPPLIES $14,975~90 TOTAL S14,975~90 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018000189900 MISC REVENUES $14,975.90 TOTAL $14,975190 REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOA-RD OF SUPERVISORS EDUCATION S I GNATURE DATE FISCAL YEAR TYPE OF APPROPRIATION APPROPRIATION REQUEST 95/'96 NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X 95039 ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X GYPSY MOTH FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION; FY 95196 OPERATING E~UDGET, EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUN"r $29,500.00 11,400.00 1,157.00 2~00.00 2,600.00 1,800.00 60.00 55.00 1,703.00 350.00 9,000.00 125.00 1,500.00 1 ~00.00 800.00 500.00 50.00 350.00 2,500.00 100.00 100.00 3.000.00 1,071.00 250.00 1123084010110000 1128034010180000 1123084010160900 1128034010210000 1123034010221000 1123034010231000 1128034010232000 1128034010241000 1123034010270000 1123034010360000 1123034010390000 1123034010520100 1123034010520300 1123034010550100 1123034010550110 1123034010550400 1128034010580100 1123034010600100 1123034010601400 1123084010601700 1123034010800100 1123034010800700 1123034010800701 1123034010800710 SALARIES-REGULAR SALARIES - PAR'I-rIM E SALARY RESERVE-BONUS FICA VRS HEALTH INS DENTAL INS VRS LIFE INS WORKERS' COMP. INS ADVERTISING OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES POSTAL SERVICES TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL-MILEAGE TRAVEL- POOL CAR TRAVEL-EDUCATION DUES & MEMBERSHIPS OFFICE SUPPLIES OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES MACHINERY & EQUIP. ADP EQUIPMENT ADP EQUIP.-REPLACEMENT ADP SOFTWARE TOTAL $72,371.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2123016000160502 2123016000160526 2128018000189913 2123024000240900 2123083000330001 2128051000512004 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PRIVATE PROPERTY SPRAYING MISC. LOCAL REVENUE MISC, INCOME-STATE GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND $8,500.00 18,000.00 100.00 650.00 21,000.00 24,121.00 TOTAL $72,371.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS; DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION REQUEST 95/96 NUMBER 95040 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TR3kNSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 95/96 UNITED WAY PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155053110390055 ADM FEE-ALBEMARLE COUNTY $7,818.46 1155053110390056 ADM FEE-UNITED WAY 39,390.00 1155053110567910 UNITED WAY DAY CARE PROGRAM 257,560.00 TOTAL $304,768.46 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155033501160502 2155033501160503 2155033501160525 2155033000330001 2155051000510100 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE UNITED WAY MATCHING FUNDS FEDERAL PASS THRU FUNDS FUND BALANCE TOTAL $68,400.00 44,305.00 38,800.00 151,505.00 1,758.46 $304,768.46 REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE / DATE FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION REQUEST 95/96 NUMBER 95041 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SECTION 8 HOUSING PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1122781900800710 DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE $9,292°90 TOTAL $9,292.90 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2122751000510100 FUND BALANCE $9,292.90 TOTAL $9,292.90 HOUSING SIGNATURE REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95042 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1152029407110000 SALARIES $30,565.00 1152029407210000 FICA 2,340.00 TOTAL $32,905.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2152033000330407 DCJS-INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER $32,905.00 TOTAL $32,905.00 COURT SERVICES SIGNATURE REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE -?~-~.~ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95D44 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A T WILLIAMS/DICKERSON SERVICE ROAD ON ROUTE 29 NORTH. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1901041000950030 SERVICE ROAD-WILLIAMS/DICKERSON $21,989.00 TOTAL $21,989.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 290101800~189908 SERVICE ROAD-WILLIAMS/DICKERSON $21,989.00 TOTAL $21,989.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE / DATE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virglnia General Assembly requires qualifying entities desiring property tax exemptions under state law to first seek a resolution of support from the local governing body, and WHEREAS, the number of requests to the Board of County Supervisors for such resolutions supporting tax exemptions are likely to increase in these times of budget cuts, and WHEREAS, many of the applicants seeking such tax relief already are subsidized by the county through its regular budget funding, and WHERE~S, this Board, to be fair and orderly in its treatment of all organizations, both those that have been granted property tax exemptions under Virginia law, and those which do not have property tax exemptions, would prefer that most of all of its subsidies be analyzed as part of the budget process rather than piecemeal during the entire fiscal year through the tax exempt process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors shall not adopt resolutions supporting tax exempt status for organizations under state law unless there are compel- ling circumstances, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during its annual budget process this Board will take into account whether a funding applicant has a property tax exemption, and if so, its nature and extent, and then shape the aggregate County funding amount accordingly, all with the goal of treating every applicant fairly. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December 6, 1995. ~er~k ,~Board~o f ~Coununty~upervisor s CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPF~RVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REQUEST FOR AGENDA OF Agenda Item No. ~--. /~OG. ~dg~ (Note: This number does not change if this item is deferred to some future date. This sheet is moved forward with all of the paperwork. ) Item Name ~ ~ ~~[~,~ Presentor (For County Executive's information, please note name of person who will be making presentation to the Board.) Request Made By On (Date) INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: This form is to be used when Scheduling an item for a Board of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk in scheduling the agenda. Please fill ou~ one copy of this Work sheet (it may be handwritten) and re=urn with the orig- inal of any paperwork yo~ wish no have forwarded to the Board. For Clerk's Use: Appointment Confirmed with (name) On (Date) By (Name) Telephone? Mail? Materials Received with Request? Materials Photocopied? Note: On appeal of site plans or to include (Yes) (No) subdivision plats, be sure Planning Commission minutes with paperwork. Form.2 7/29/86 ~/~TTY JABA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING NEWELL, August 19, 1987 to June 1, 1995 ~/LAWRENCE D. CABOT, JR., JEFFERSON AREA BOARD ON AGING September 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995 JOSEPHINE M. BLUE, MONTICELLOAREA COMMUNITY June 13, 1990 to September 6, 1995 ACTION AGENCY~ SHIRLEY B. DORRIER, LIBRARY BOARD September 9, 1987 to June 30, 1995 CYNDY CAUGHRON, LIBRARY BOARD February 1, 1989 to June 30, 1995 CHRISTINE K. BAKER, LIBRARY BOARD September 2, 1992 to June 30, 1995 JOHN STEWART DARRELL, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY November 11, 1981 to January 19, 1995 ARTHUR H. BAKER, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY March 20, 1991 to June 30, 1995 SCOTT B. PEYTON, PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY September 13, 1989 to December 13, 1995 1. Lawrence A. Brunton 2. Born 11/7/10, Jackson, MS 3. Paragon of community leadership friend of hundreds, helper of thousands. 4. Moved to WV~then to Charlottesville in approximately 1920. 5. Gradua,te Lane High School 1930. 6. Lived on Rio Road then to the City - Lexington Avenue. 7. Joined 1st Church 1928-1930. Served approximately 50 years on Session of Church in six different times - 39-47, 49-55, 57-63, 65-70, 81-83, 91-93. 8. Employed as buyer with Charlottesville Luncher Co. Later with Earl Vaughan Plumbing & Coal Co. 9. Married Laura Short approximately 1941. 2 children living in California. 10. Entered service 1943. Member Combat Engineers. Won Bronze Star for Valor. Returned to Charlottesville in 1946 and resumed employment with Earl Vaughan Co. 11. Started Brunton & Hicks in 1962 where he was employed until 1975 retirement. Spent the next 20 years doing anything to help anybody. 12. Was a calm voice in the area of school closings in 1958 in our area. Also duringfhe civil disobedience during the t960's Lawrence's wise council calmed the waters. 13. Helped i~Lmensely in the organization of Meadows Church in 1962. Much time and effort was saved by Lawrence's wise council. .14. He and wife are presently located in Westminster Canterbury Home on 250 East. 15. Member of the Boy Scouts for 60 years achieving every honor scouting can bestow on a male. 16. Member of the Mason's Widows Lodge ~60. Also very active in the Rotary Club in area for years. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclnfire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804'~ 296-584~ FAX (804) 296-5800 Char~s S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thoraas I'iEI, fO ~0~ FROM~ DA~E: SUBJI~C~I Melvin Ao Breedent Director of Finance Ella W. carey, Clerk, CMC December 8t 1995 Appropriations Approved on December 6, 1995 At the Board's meeting on December 6, 1995, the following appropriations were approved: 1) Stormwater Fund - $897,856.83, (Form #95034). 2) 3) 4) 5) 8) 7) Piedmont Regional Education Program - $14,975.90, (Form #95036). Gypsy Moth FY 1995/96 Operating Budget - $24,121, (Form ~95039). United Way Child Care Scholarship Program - $304,768.46, (Form #95040)° Housing Assistance Program - $9,292.90, (Form #95041). Intake Crisis Manager - $32,905, (Form #95042). B. Dan Dickerson Service Road - $21,989, (Form ~95044). LEN/mms Attachment (7) c: Kevin Castner A1 Reaser Jo Higgins Steven Meeks Roxanne White Ginny McDonald Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A~E1VI')A 'lTl'fJf~4 ^~o~dation - Sto~ Wat~ Fu~l SI/RI~[~T/PROPO~ AL/REQI1E RT: Request re, appropriation of unexpended FY 94/95 funds in the amount of $897,856.83 for tmcompleted Storm Water projects. STAFF 12.fg~f lift (~l)~. Messrs. Tucker, Brecden, Ms. White A C~F~NTI~ A DATE; December 6. 1995 ~,0NRENT AGENDA: 3TTA CH]VIE~NT~: ITEM INFORMA'FIiDN: RA CK~ROITBI~: Virginia Code requires the re, appropriation of unexpeMod fm~ from a prior year for projects that are uncompleted. The Storm Water Fund completed FY 1994/95 with uncompleted projects totaling $897,856.83, which are itemized on the attached appropriation form. RECOMMENVDATION.' Staff recommends approval of this request as detailed un attached form//95034. 95034 95.190 DO*.RD OF SUPERVISORS FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION REQUEST 95/96 NUMBER 95034 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND STORM WATER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM FY 94/95. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1910041000950093 1910041035312400 1910041035800975 1910041036312400 1910041036360000 1910041036800750 1910041036800975 1910041039800975 1910041040800975 1910041041800975 1910041043800975 1910041049800975 1910041050800975 1910041053800975 1910041054800975 ENGINEERING DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN FOUR SEASONS PROF. SER. ENG. FOUR SEASONS STORM WATER CONTROL BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE PROF. SER. ENG. BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE ADVERTISING BIRNAM/WYIqTRIDGE PURCHASE OF LAND BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE STORM WATER CONTROL LICKINGHOLE STORM WATER CONTROL BERKELEY STORM WATER CONTROL LYNCHBURG STORM WATER CONTROL FOUR SEASONS STORM WATER CONTROL WOODBROOK STORM WATER CONTROL WINDHAM/JARMAN STORM WATER CONTROL PEYTON DRIVE STORM WATER CONTROL RICKY ROAD STORM WATER CONTROL $136:188.15 12,164.54 75,085.70 1,546,45 300.00 3,000.00 85,100.00 207,800.41 685.98 17,500.00 20,000.00 60,000.00 82,075.60 156,515.00 39,895.00 TOTAL $897,856.83 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2910~51000510100 FUND BALANCE $897,856.83 TOTAL $897,856.83 REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINANCE S I GNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA P.R.E.P. Appropriation Reques~ SUBJECTfPROPOSAL/REOUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95036 in the mount of $14,975,90 for reimbursement from Piedmont Regional Educational Program to Building Services STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tuclrer, Ms. tliggius AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: DISCUSSION: The~n~o/neo~gDepartment and Building Services were the project managers for the site work and set up of the five mobile classroom units installed this past ~m~mer at the Burgess Lane Project at CATEC School (Piedmont Regional Educational Program). Funding for thisproject was provided fl~rough Fluv,~m~ County, tl~ FiscalAgent. F~neonng functioned as a general contractor by hiring and coordinating the various subeonlrsetors to complete this work. The vast majority of the materials and supplies used by these subcontractors were charged to store and veaxlor acconnt~ of Building Sea'vices v, dth file agreement that PREP/Fluwnn~ would reimburse Building S~iees for these expenditures, Two r¢imburseananls hav~ bean received to date, made out to the County of Albemarle and turned over to Ed Koonce, Clxief of Financial Manageme~ Theywere for$2,131.55 and $12,844.35, for atotalralmbursement of $14,975.90. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecomrnena~ att~oval of Appropriation #95036 for $14,975.90 to the Department of Building Services Cost Canter for reimbursement of expenditures made on behalf of the Piedmont Regional Educational Progran~ CATECEXE. SUM 95.191 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95036 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM FLUVANNA COIINTY REIMBURSING EXPENSES INCURRED WITH SETUP OF BURGESS LANE SCHOOL. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1243362420600700 BUILDING SERVICES-MAINT. SUPPLIES $14,975.90 TOTAL $14,975.90 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018C00189900 MISC REVENUES $14,975.90 TOTAL S14,975.90 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Gypsy Moth FY 95/96 Operating Budget SUB JE CT/PROPOSAL/RE QIYE ST: Request approval of Appropriation # 95039 in the mount of $24, 121 for the Crypsy Moth FY 95/96 Operating Budget STAFF CONTACT(S): M~srs. Tucker, Breeden, Meeks AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: .INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ~he Gypsy Moth program was iniliated in 1988 to address the encroaching infestation o£ gypsy moths into the County of'Albemarle. A fi~II-time coordinator, one part-time aide, 12 part-time surveyors, and the operational cost of pest management have bean ftmded by Federal grant funds, local tax funds, and fees from landowners. The current fee level is $10 per acre of land sprayed. DISCUSSION: The local share of $24, 121 was approved in the 1995/96 Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95039 for $24, 121 as detailed on attached form. GYPSY. WPD 95.194 ~D,O ~,RD OF SUPERV~SO~Si APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? 95/96 NUMBER 95089 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X FUND GYPSY MOTH PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 95/'96 OPERATING BUDGET. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1123034010110000 1128034010180000 1123034010160900 1123034010210000 1123034010221000 1123034010231000 1123034010232000 1123034010241000 1123034010270000 1123034010360000 1123034010390000 1123034010520100 1123034010520300 1123034010550100 1123034010550110 1123034010550400 1123034010580100 1123034010600100 1123034010601400 1123034010601700 1123034010800100 1128034010800700 1128034010800701 1123034010800710 SALARIES-REGULAR SALARIES-PAR'i-i'IM E SALARY RESERVE-BONUS FICA VRS HEALTH INS DENTAL INS VRS LIFE INS WORKERS' COMP. INS ADVERTISING OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES POSTAL SERVICES TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL-MILEAGE TRAVEL- POOL CAR TRAVEL-EDUCATION DUES & MEMBERSHIPS OFRCE SUPPliES OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES COPY SUPPUES MACHINERY & EQUIP, ADP EQUIPMENT ADP EQUIP.-REPLACEMENT ADP SOFTWARE REVENUE DESCRIPTION TOTAL $29.500.00 11.400.00 1.157.00 2.900.00 2,600.00 1,800.00 60.00 55.00 1.703.00 350.00 9,000.00 125.00 1.500.00 1.500.00 800.00 500.00 50.00 850.00 2.500.00 100.00 100.00 3,000.00 1,071.00 250.00 $72,871.00 AMOUNT 2123016000160502 2123016000160526 2123018000189913 2123024000240900 2123033000880001 2123051000512004 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PRIVATE PROPERTY SPRAYING MISC. LOCAL REVENUE MISC. INCOME-STATE GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND $8,500.00 18,000.00 100.00 650.00 21,000.00 24,121.00 TOTAL $72 371.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF AI,BEMARLE EXECUTWE SUMMARY w,a AGENDA TITLE: Approprimion - United Way Child Care Scholarship Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95040 in the mount of $304,768.46 United Way Child Care Scholarship Program STAFF CONTACT(S): lvk. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. Ralsten AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: .ACTION: X .INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Child Care Scholarskip Program helps low and moderate income working fanfilies in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District maintain employment through direct fee-anbsidies to pay for child care. The program promotes quality child care for children, especially "at-risk' children, by allowing the parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee ~x4th parents paying a portion of the cost. DISCUSSION: tn an agreement aigrted in May 1992 bet~vcen the Albemarle Deparmient of Social Services (DSS), Charlottesville DSS. and Virginia DSS, lhe United Way is administering a local pool of funds. The 1995196 program will expend $257,560 for scholarships, $39,390 for United Way administrative fees, and $7,818.46 for Albemarle County administrative fees, a total of $304,768.46. The pool is funded by $ t 51,505 in Federal funds, $68,400 in Charlottesville funds, $38,800 in United Way funds, and $44,305 in Albemarle County funds, and a fund balance of $1,758.46. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval of Appropriation #95040 in the amount of $304,768.46 as detailed on attached form. UNITED WY.APP 95A97 BOffRD OF SUPERV~SO!-~_ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95©40 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUArD GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 95/96 UNITED WAY PROGRILM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155053110390055 ADM FEE-ALBEMARLE COUNTY $7,818.46 1155053110390056 ADM FEE-UNITED WAY 39,390.00 1155053110567910 UNITED WAY DAY CARE PROGRAM 257,560.00 TOTAL $304,768.46 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155033501160502 2155033501160503 2155033501160525 2155033000330001 2155051000510100 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE UNITED WAY MATCHING FUNDS FEDERAL PASS THRU FUNDS FUND BALANCE TOTAL $68,400.00 44,305.00 38,800.00 151,505.00 1,758.46 $304,768.46 REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE / DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUT E SUM RY AGENDA TITLE: Fund Balance Appropriation - Homing Assistance Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAIJREQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95041 in the mount of $9,292.90 for Housing Assistance Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Ms. McDonald AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: ITEM NLTMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Seat/c~t 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8-001 program provides housing assistance with 178 subsidies and is funded through June 2002. The Section 8-002 progran~ provides 34 housing vouchers. The Section 8-003 program provides housing assistance for 35 units. DISCUSSION: A $9,292.90 ~ balance exists fi.om prior year adm/distrafive stm~ funds received fi.om HUD and not expended by the County of Albemarle. The County Department of Housing wishes to appropriate the fund balance m complete the computerization of the Section 8 Re~tal Assistance program by purchasing software, a computer, and a printer RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval of Appropriation #95041 in the amount of $9,292.90 as detailed on attached form. MODFUNBL.APP 95.199 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SECTION 8 HOUSING PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY NUMBER 95041 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER X NEW YES NO X GRANT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1122781900800710 DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE $9,292.90 TOTAL $9,292.90 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2122751000510100 FUND BALANCE $9,292.90 TOTAL $9,292.90 REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA 'tITLE: Appropriation - Intake Crisis Manager SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95042 in the mount of $32,905.00 for Intake Crisis Manager STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Brecdert Ms. Carroll AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMJSER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes¢ ~ BACKGROUND: Currently there are no services in the CharlottesvillegAlbemarle community that deal with del/nquent youths a~r normat working hours other than eanergancyintake that results in detention. Th/s grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services funds a crisis intake manager to provide mediation, referral and counseling services to delin~ant youths needing immediate crisis intervention in lieu of detention. The dmp-m center case manager will be an Albemarle County employee and will be located after hours in the Albemarle County Police Department. Supplies, training, travel, and other expenses will be funded by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court budget. DISCUSSION: Grant No: 96-BS040JE95 was approved byfiae Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services for the period July 1, 1995 through Jonc 30, 1996 and the position has just recently been filled. The grant was approved in the mount of $32,905 for a total of $32,905.00. The County serves as fiscal ageat~ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95042 in the mount of $32,905.00 as detailed on the attached form. 1NTAKB.APP 95.198 ~D OF SUPERVIS?~S~ cc: Ms. MarthaD. Carroll APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95042 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1152029407110000 SALARIES $30,565.00 11520294G7210000 FICA 2,340°00 TOTAL $32,905°00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2152033000330407 DCJS-INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER $32,905~00 TOTAL $321905.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: COURT SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE / / DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AC~NDA TITLE.' B. Dan DickersaR Sex-dee Road (Route 29) Appropriation STAFF CONTACT(q): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Ms. Higgins CON~: ACTIO3t: X ITF3~q NIIIVIBER: Tho Cenmy ~esed ~ an ag~me~t with B. Dan Did~on d~te~l 7 June 1994 for th~ construcfio~ of certain improveraents in ¢o~a~tion with tho servi~ ro~d to a~ss TIvlP 45Bl-05-0A-00900. Tbese improvoments ~re to be 1~rformad by VDOT as part of tha Rout~ 29 Improvemoms. B. DaR D~kerson is to pay tho ~onstmetion cost for ~is work as stfC~d in the 6/7/94 agmoment. DIgCUSSIO~: VDOT awarded a contract on 31 May 1995 for tho Route 29 (Rio to River) Improvements which includes the B, Dan Dickerson service road. The ceaificate of deposit provided by Mr. Diekersen as part of the 6/7/94 agreement has been redeemed and the County has received the fimds ($21,989) to cover the cost of coastmetiaR for the service road improvements. RECOMMENDATIO~I: Request approval of Appropriation g95044 in the amount of $21,989 for funds to be placed into an expenditure account to pay VDOT. 95044.WPD 95.~08 BOARD OF SUPEBV SOPS APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95044 TYPE OP APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A T WILLIAMS/DICKERSON SERVICE ROAD ON ROUTE 29 NORTH. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1901041000950030 SERVICE ROAD-WILLIAMS/DICKERSON $21,989.00 TOTAL S21,989a00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2901018000189908 SERVICE ROAD-WILLIAMS/DICKERSON $21,989.00 TOTAL $21,989.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE / / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of SuperVisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804} 296~5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sall~ H. Thomas MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~ December 8, 1995 Road Resolutions adopted on December 6, 1995 Attached is the original the Board on December 6, following roads: resolution (plus four copies) adopted by 1995, requesting acceptance of the 1) Berkmar Drive North Extension (RIP-92-001), Route 1403, and Hilton Heights Road (SUB-12.225), Route 1438. 2) Dunlora Subdivision - Phase iA (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A) 3) Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A) EWC:len Attachments (3) Printed on recpcled paper The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, ing resolution: RESOLUTION County, Virginia, in adopted the follow- WHEREAS, the streets in Berkmar Drive North Extension (RIP-92- 001), Route 1403, and Hilton Heights Road (SUB-12.225), Route 1438 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated Dece~aber 6, 1995, 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 re- quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors reqUests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Berkmar Drive North Extension and River Heights as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1- 229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re- quirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 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 to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a period of one year from the date of acceptance into the secondary system of state high- ways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Hilton Heights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $14,250.00. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by: Mr. Martin. Yeas: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mro Perkins. Nays: None. A Copy Teste: Akl~Ia ~. Cagey, Cler~ CMC The roads described on Additions Form SR-5CA) are: 1) Berkmar Drive North Extension from the end of existing Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive/Woodbrook intersection), 3664 linear feet to the end of Berkmar Drive Extension right edge of pavement where it intersects with Hilton Heights Road as shown on plat recorded 2/2/94 in Deed Book 1380, pages 490- 491 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way with additional right-of-way and drainage, sight and guard- rail easement plats recorded in: Deed Book 1427, page 613; Deed Book 1428, pages 550-552; Deed Book 1429, pages 126- 127; Deed Book 1439, page 198; Deed Book 1446, pages 129- 130; Deed Book 1446, page 136; Deed Book 1447, page 668; Deed Book 1454, pages 412-413; Deed Book 1454, pages 420- 421; Deed Book 1480, page 34; Deed Book 1484, page 658; Deed Book 1484, page 662; Deed Book 1488, pages 695 and 698; Deed Book 1499, page 212; Deed Book 1499, page 207; Deed Book 1499, page 224; Deed Book 1499, page 217; Deed Book 1504, page 687; and Deed Book 1504, page 693, for a length of 0.07 mile. 2) Hilton Heights Road, Route 1438 from end of existing Route 1438 (center of Wal-Mart/Sam's entrance), 540 linear feet from edge of pavement of Berkmar Drive North Extension end (Route 1403) as shown on plat recorded 2/2/94 in Deed Book 1380, pages 490-491, in the office the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a right-of-way width varying from 50 feet to 120 feet with additional right-of-way way, signal pole easement and easements in Deed Book 1133, page 678; Deed Book 1174, pages 343-344 and Deed Book 1484, page 658 for a total length of 0.1 mile. Total length - 0.8 mile. TO COUNT~ OF ALBEMARLE Albemarle Cdunty Engineering & Public Works Department 401 HcIntire Road, Room 211 Charlottesville, Va 22902-4596 WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Shop drawings [] Copy of letter m/~Attached [] Under separate cover vis [] Prints [] Plans [] Change order [] , the following items: [] Samples [] Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION b, THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval For your use / [] As requested r- For review and comment ~] FOR BiDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Resubmit ~ Approved as noted [] Submit [] Returned for corrections [] Return 19 copies for approval cop~es for distribution corrected prints [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM BO.,'~RD OF SUP~RVIS(-,~ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors Andrew Sterling, Project Manager November 21, 1995 Berkmar Drive North Extension (RIP-92-001), Route 1403 Hilton Heights Road (SUB-12.225), Route 1438 The above roads are ready for acceptance by VDOT. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form for the resolution, which I request be prepared and taken to the Board for adoption at your next opportunity. Please add the following section to the resolution: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation, for a period of one year from the date of acceptance into the Secondary System of Highways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Hilton Heights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up m a maximum of $14,250.00. Once the resolution has been adopted, date and sign the SR-5(A) and please provide me with the original and four (4) copies. Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at Extension 3025 if you have any questions. AJS/ctj Attachment The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, adopted the follow- ing resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Berkmar Drive North Extension (RIP-PZ- 001) s Route 1403, and Hilton Heights Road (SUB-12.225), Route 1438 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5CA) dated December 6, 1995, 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 re- quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Berkmar Drive North Extension and River Heights as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1- 229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re- quirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 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 to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a period of one year from the date of acceptance into the secondary system of state high- ways, Berkmar Drive North Extension and Hilton Heights Road against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $14,250.00. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin- ia~ in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.$54A) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, 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 street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state hfghways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 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 forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Transportation. resolution be Department of Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by: Mr. Martin. Yeas: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. H~mphris, Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. Nays: None. Mr. A Copy Teste: Ella W. Care~, Cler~k~/CMC The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Dunlora Drive from Station 10+25, right edge of pave- ment of State Route 631, 1775 linear feet to Station 28+00 as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in Deed Book 1078, pages 565-574 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way. Total length - 0.34 mile. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM ~¢O,'~RD OF SUPERVlSOP~S TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors Mark B. Henry, Civil Engineer/I ~ November 29, 1995 Dun/ora Subdivision (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A) The roads serving the referenced subdivision are substantially complete and ready for a VDOT acceptance inspection. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form for a resolution which / request be taken to the Board for adoption at your next opportunity. Once the resolutions have been adopted, please date and sign the SR-5(A) and provide me with the original and four copies. Thank you for your ass/stance. MBH/ct~ Attachment Please contact me if you have any questions. The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, 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 street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervi- sors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase lA as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to § 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reouirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as describec, 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 Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Dunlora Drive from Station 10-t-25, right edge of pavement of State Route 631, 1775 linear feet to Station 28 +00 as shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in Deed Book 1078, pages 565-574 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way. Total length ~ 0.34 mile. David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forr~st R. Marshall Jr, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottes'ville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584~ FAX (804) 296-5800 June 21, 1995 Charles S. Marnn Walter F. Perkins Sa~y H. Thomas Mr. Scott A. Williams Project Manager Robert Hauser Homes 2401 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Williams: Your request to have roads in Dunlora Subdivision, Phases I-A, II-A and II-B taken into the State Secondary System of Highways was received and has now been referred to the County Engineer. When she has certified that all work has been completed in accordance with approved plans, this request will be placed before the Board of Supervisors for adoption of the necessary resolution. EWC:mms Sincerely, ~Carey cc: Jo Higgxns, County Engineer Printed on recycled paper Ha u s 6 Homes June 14, 1995 JUN 2 G Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk of the Board Cotmty of Albemarle Board of Supervisors 401 M¢Infire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: Duntora Phases I-A, II-A, and II-B Dear Ms. Carey: I am writing this letter to ask that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution to allow the following roads to be accepted into the Xftrgluia Department of Tramportafion~s secondary highway system: Dunlora Drive (up to intersection with River Brook Court), Blackburn Bluff, Blackburn Way, River Oaks Lane, River Oaks Ridge and River Brook Court. Should you have any questions, please feet free to contact me at 979-7334. I thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Sincerely, Scott A. W~liams Project Manager SW:lgh 2401 Hydraulic Road o Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 ° 804-979-7334 o Fax 804-979-'7443 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin- ia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, t995, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A (SUB 12.S54 & SUB ~2.354A) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, 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 requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, ~995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 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 to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by: Mr. Martin. Yeas: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. Nays: None. Mr. A Copy Teste: E~la W. Carey, Clerk,~MC 121 I !_- The roads described on Additions Form SR-5[A) are: 1) Dunlora Drive from Station 28+00, 2750 linear feet to Station 55+50 as shown on plat recorded 12/11/92 in Deed Book 1276, pages 704 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, show- ing a 50 foot right-of-way. Additional plats were recorded 6/3/94 in Deed Book 1408, pages 344-353, and on 11/20/95 in Deed Book 1504, page 560, for a length of 0.52 mile. 2) River Oaks Drive from Station 10+11, right edge of pavement of Dunlora Drive, 1165.87 linear feet to Station 21+76.87, edge of pavement at the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/21/93 in Deed Book 1370, pages 615-619 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, show- ing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a length of 0.22 mile. 3) River Oaks Ridge from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of River Oaks Drive, 517.48 linear feet to Station 15+27.48, edge of pavement at the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/21/93 in Deed Book 1370, pages 615-619 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, show- ing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a length of 0.10 mile. Total length - 0.84 mile. The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of December, 1995, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A (SUB 12.354 & SUB 12.354A) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, 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 requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reeuirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervi- sors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Dunlora Subdivision - Phase 2A as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 6, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 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 cer1~ified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. .Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Dunlora Drive from Station 28 +00, 2750 linear feet to Station 55 + 50 as shown on plat recorded 12/11/92 in Deed Book 1276, pages 704 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, show- lng a 50 foot right-of-way. Additional plats were recorded 6/3/94 in Deed Book 1408, pages 344-353, and on 11/20/95 in Deed Book 1504, page 560, for a length of 0.52 mile. 2) River Oaks Drive from Station 10 + 11, right~ edge of pavement of Dunlora Drive, 1165.87 linear feet to Station 21 +76.87, edge of pavement at the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/21/93 in Deed Book 1370, pages 615-619 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a length of 0.22 mile. 3) River Oaks Ridge from Station 10+ 10, left edge of pavement of River Oaks Drive, 517.48 linear feet to Station 15 + 27.48, edge of pavement at the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/21/93 in Deed Book 1370, pages 615-619 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a length of 0.10 mile. Total length - 0.84 mile. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~C~ENDA 'ITl Service Agreement with North Crarden Volunteer Fhre Company SI TR_TECT/PR OPO,q AL/REQI1E~qT: To authorize tbe Chairman to sign the service agreement with North Garden Volunteer Fire Company advancing $70,000 to purchase a new pumper track. Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Pumphrey AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTIONT: RE~ NUMBER: II~ORMATION: INFORMATION': Several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and ~escne companies in the County. This fund, cur~nfly funded at two million dollars, provktes the volunteex companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting eqnipme~ and buildings, interest free, ~ repayments be'rog deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by the ~[offerson Countty Fire and Rescue Association (~CFRA). T~T,q~II,R,RTON: The current amount available for loan in the revolving fim~ JCFRA has approved, an advance of $70,000 to purchase of this agreement. Repayment of the loan will be over an Staff recommends author/zing the Chairman to execme tbe is $260,559.13. North Garden Volunteer Fire Company has requested, and ~w pumper track, This advance will be paid upon request after the execution ight year period begin FY 96/97. ~erviee agreement. NGARDEN.WPD 95.200 suPE WSO s: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this day of ,1995, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("North Garden"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County has previously entered into service agreements with North Garden, dated July 19, 1985; September 14, 1988; and March 22, 1993, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to North Garden, as set forth in said agreements, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A,B, and C; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreements, the outstanding indebtedness now totals $63,580.37; and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to receive from the County Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00) to be used toward the purchase of a new pumper track, and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by North Garden of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to North Garden Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00), which payment shall be made when needed from the County's fire fund. Thereafter, the sum of Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($16,697.50) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to North Garden for a period of seven (7) years beginning July 1996 and extending through July 2002, with a balance of Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Seven Dollars and Eighty-Seven Cents ($16,697.87) due in the eighth year (July 2003). Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars and Thirty- Seven Cents ($133,580.37) will have been wiflxheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of prior service agreements with North Garden dated May 7, 1987; September 14, 1988; and March 22, 1993. If at any time during the term of this agreement, North Garden is no longer in the business of providing fire fighting services or the firefighting vehicles are no longer used for firefighting purposes, North Garden covenants that it will convey its interest in the fire-fighting vehicles, or the property known as Albemarle County Tax Map 99 Parcel SA, as the case may be, to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for fire-fighting purposes. All covenants set forth in the agreements dated May 7, 1987; September 14, 1988; and March 22, 1993 remain in full force and effect. North Garden further covenants that it shall not convey the new pumper truck or any interest therein to any party during the term of this agreement. A copy of the title to the new pumper truck shall be delivered to the County within 60 days of the purchase of the new pumper track. WITNESS the following s~gnamres and seals: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By . (SEAL) Walter F. Perkins, Chairman Board of Supervisors NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY By (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ~-(0ea)q~r , 1995, by Walter F. Perkins, Clmirman of the Board of Supervisors of~bemarle County, Virginia. My Commission Expires:,~ ~0., Notary Public ,1995, by of the North Garden Volunteer Fire STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing inslrument was acknowledged before me this day of Company. My Commission Expires: Notary Public THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for purposes of identification, this 2~ day of ~c~ , 1993, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEr VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEE~ FIRE COMPANY ("North Garden"); WI TN ~S SETH: WHEREAS, the County. has previously entered into service agreements with North Garden, dated July 19, 1985 and September 14, 1988, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to North Garden, as set forth in said agreements, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A~ and B; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreements, the outstanding indebtedness now totals $61,280; and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to receive from the County Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) to be used for the purchase of land adjacent to the current fire station, identified as Albemarle County Tax Map 99 Parcel 5A, to allow for addition to the current building; and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by North Garden of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire and the purchase of firefighting vehicles during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to North Garden Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50~000.00), which payment shall be made when needed from the County's fire fund. Thereafter, the sum of Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($15,900.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to North Garden for a period of six (6) years beginning July 1993 and extending through July 1998, with a balance of Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Dollars $15,880.00) due in the seventh .~ear (July 1999). Thus, at the end of the seventh year, which, is the terra-of this service agreement~ a total of One Hundred Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars ($111,280.00) will have. been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of prior service agreements with North Garden dated May 7, 1987 and September 14, 1988. If at any time during the term of this agreement, North Garden is no longer in the business of providing fire fighting services or the firefighting vehicles are no longer used for firefighting purposes, North Garden covenants that it will convey its interest in the fire-fighting vehicles~ or this property known as Albemarle County Tax Map 99 Parcel 5A, as the case may be, to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for fire-fighting purposes. All covenants set forth in the agreements dated May 7, 1987 and September 14~ 1988 remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: CO~ AL~E, VIRGINIA By / /~/ ~f/~ (SEAL) t-/D~vid P. Bowel-man, Chairman Board of Supervisors NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instrument ~'as acknowledged before me this -' -' - ~ _ ~ _r?~f Alb~r. arl~ Ceunty, V~rginia. . ( - Nogary Public STATE OF UIRGINIA CO~TY OF ALBE~LE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '~' da~, of,/~ , l~, by /hr~'CL h. ~v'~,, ~Ccmp~_ny. My Commission Expires: Notary Publ: . Exhibit B THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of September, 1988, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County")° and the NORTH GARDEN FIRE CO., INC. ("North Garden"); W I T N E S S E T }{; WHEREAS, the County previously has entered into a service agreement with North Garden, dated July 1985, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to North Garden~ as set forth in said agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals Sixty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-one Dollars ($68,571.00); and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to receive from the County Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00) to be used for the purchase of a new tanker pumper; and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires %o enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by North Garden of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire and the purchase of a new tanker pumper during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to North Garden Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00), which payment shall be made from the 1988- 89 advance allocation to be drawn as soon as this agreement has been approved and executed by both parties. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to North Garden for a period of seven (7) years, beginning with fiscal year 1989-90 and extending through July 1996, with a final payment of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-one Dollars ($18,571.00) due and payable by July 1997. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of One Hundred Fifty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-one Dollars ($158,571.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior service agreement with North Garden dated July 1985. If at any time during the term of this agreement, North Garden is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services, or the tanker pumper is no longer used for fire- fighting purposes, or the fire engine purchased per the July 1985 agreement is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, North Garden covenants and agrees that it will convey its interest the tanker pumper and the fire engine to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for fire-fighting purposes. All covenants set forth the agreement dated July 1985 remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By ,~;7~'.~-~v/~ (Seal) Guy ~B;/~gnor, ' ~. , ~ounty Executive NORTH GARDEN FIRE CO., INC ! President STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoin9 I['?~ day of ~-~.~.,~©.,.~. , Executive of Albemarle County, instrument was acknowledged before me this 1988, by GUY B. AGNOR, JR., County Virginia. My com~,ission expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this !~,- may of ,.~-,.~%\~ , 1988, by President of Nort~ Garden Fire Co., Inc. ' My commission expires: _ - ~ ~-..~ Notary Public Exhibit C SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this /~w~ day of July, 1985~ (the "County" ) , ("North Garden" ); THIS by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA and the NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. W I TN E S S E TH: That for and in consideration of the operation by North Garden of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement and the purchase by North Garden of a new engine for use during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to North Garden One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00), which shall be paid in July, 1985 from the County's capital fund° Thenceforth, the sum of Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Forty-three Dollars ($17,143.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to North Garden, for a period of six (6) years, beg!nning with the fiscal year 1985-86 and extending through the fiscal year 1990-91~ and the sum of Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Forty-two Dollars ($17,142.00) shall be withheld in the seventh fis- cal year (1991-92) from the County's annual grant to North Garden, so that a% the end of the seventh year, which is the te-~m of this service agreement, a total of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) will have been'withheld. This withholding is in addi- to any other withholding as a result of prior service agreements with North Garden: If at any time durin? the term of this agreemenT, North Garden is no lonaer in the business of providing fire-fighting services involving the use of the engine to be purchased by North Garden, North Garden covenants that it will convey its interest in the engine to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns use the engine for fire-fighting purposes. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ATTEST: Clerk, Board o~"Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEF~ARLE, VIRGINIA erald E7 Fi~r, Chairman, Board of Supervisors (Seal) NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ' J 0'd es nt STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of July, 1985, by GERALD E. FISHER, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. My com~issmon expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEF~ARLE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day o~ July, 1985, by ,~¼~ M. ~,~t~ ~r. , President of the North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, I~c. My commission expires: Notary Pub 1 i~ -2- COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~C'ARD OF SU~ERV~$©~i AGENDA TITLE: Alternative Sentencing Project: Joint Security Complex SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of the Jail Board's proposal to proceed with the Alternative Sentencing Study. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION.: ATTACItMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ,/~'~~ / BACKGROUND: In response to concerns about the cost of incarceration and expansion, in October the Albemarle/Charlottesville Jail Board forwarded a request to the City end County to fund a study of Alternative Sentencing Program~. Since that time, the Jail Board will be exploring the possibility of a regional study with other localities md/or jails. DISCUSSION: One firm, The Sentencing Project of Washington D. submitted a proposal with a project cost D.C. $15,300. The scope of work will include review of data on historic and prejectedjail populations, crime and arrest rates, pretrial release populations, jail length of stay, court case data, interviews and site visits where appropriate, and an analysis of sentencing end pretrial release practices in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The final product will include recommendations for alternative programs and policies that might reduce the jail population without adversely affecting public safety. The Sentencing Project will exam]ne programn currently in place, e.g., alectromc monitoring and work release, and could recommend modifications or changes to these programs dependent on their findings. The firm's stated objective is to identify programs and procedural changes that will have maximum impact at minimum cost, address the needs of the defendant and jail population, build on existing resources, while remaining politically realistic. Following is a list of alternative programs and procedural recommendations that may be considered. While many alternatives are listed, the fLrm usually recommends implementation of only a few new programs m any jurisdiction. - Program Alternatives: * Pretrial release or bail advocacy; program development or modification * Day reporting * Community service programs, either within an existing agency or through an independent program * Work release * "House arrest", electronic or personal monitoring; program development or modification * Day frees Drug screening and monitoring; TASC (treatment aitemativas to street crime) programming * Drag Courts/Drug preliminary hearing courts * Drug treatment; program development, expansion, or modification; integration with private or state programs * Mentoring programs for youthful offenders Sentencing advocacy, community resource developmem, or social worker support for the defense bar/public defender office Public Defender mental health/forensic unit Increased use of forensic or social support services Restitution programs Victim-Offender Restoration Program (VORP) Intensive probation supervision Procedural Recommendation Alternatives: Creation of a staff Criminal Justice Council or Coordinating agency * Modification to procedures for setting bail bond; scheduled bail review for detained defendants * Procedures to expedite violation of probation or parole holds or warrants from other jurisdictions * Review and revision of arrest/prosecution policies * Changes in case processing within a public defender office, including greater uso of bail advocacy and defcme pre-trial investigations * Training for pre-trial, bail, sentencing and jail staff to introduce new programs, changes or procedures on advocacy concepts * Voluntaw misdemeanor sentencing guidelines * Public guidelines * Steps to assure prompt removal of state-sentenced jail inmates RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomds approval of the study and paymev, t of the County's share of the cost ($7,150) from either the Complex' s current operating budget or from an unexpended balance from prior year's appropriations to the Joint Security Complex. ALTSENT.SUM 95.203 Form. 3 ?/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-~596 (804) 29fi-5843 FAX '804) 296-5800 December 11, 1995 Char~s S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Ms. Patricia L. Smith 100 Boulder Spring Court Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Smith: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on December 6, 1995~ you were reappointed to the Jail Board with this term to expire on April 30, 1997. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Walter F. Perkins Chairman WFP:len c: Jeanne Cox Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive DATE: RE: December 1, 1995 Jail Board Appointment - Pat Smith You will recall that a couple of months ago we mended the County Code to allow for an additional term for Pat Smith on the Jail Board. At the time of this amendment, no official action to appoint Ms. Smith was takerL I am requesting that you take this offidal action through Consent Agenda Approval retroact'we to April, 1995 which will extend Ms. Smith's term through April, 1997. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWT,Jr/dbm 95.184 TO: STATE COMPENSATION BOARD FOR: MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1995 STATEMENT OF EXPENSES DEPARTMENT COUNTY STATE TOTAL SHARE SHARE Department of Finance 1,953.36 1,953.37 3,906.73 Sheriff -0- 863.57 863.57 Commonwealth' s Attorney -0- 805.56 805.56 Regional Jail -0- 4,275.82 4,275.82 Clerk, Circuit Court -0- 2,884.30 2,884.30 NOTE: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in which the State Compensation Board has agreed participane, and are not the total office expenses of these departments. ~OARD OF SUPERVlSOFi$ November 15, 1995 Route 614 Sugar Hollow Road Albemarle County Mr. David I. Hirschman Water Resources Manager County of Albemarle DeparEmen5 of Engineering & Public Works 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Hirschman: Thank you for your letter dated November 10, with respect to proposed road work on Route 614. individually as listed mn your report. 1995, detailing issues of concern I would like 5o address each item Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Reservoir Clean-Out: RWSA advises that a project showing was conducted on Friday, November 10, 1995, and that award of the contract will likely be around December 1, 1-995. Debris removal is estimated to take approximately 180 days. It ~s our intent to coordinate the remainder of our road work as closely as possible with ~WSA'S proposed work. Stormwater Runoff: this office will work with the County to place and maintain BMP'S that adequately address the "first flush" Df storm~ater runoff where needed. However, due to nzme restraints, it is appreciated that s retrofit option zs available in order to address these concerns. We will begin reviewing the conceptual ideas submitted as Attachment 1 for future discussion. Leaching of Pollutants From Plant Mix: Serious and due consideration will be given to addressing stormwaner runoff as discussed zn Item #2. The Depar5men5 will need to consider cost, maintenance responsibilities and potential liability issues as specific BMP'S are reviewed. Mr. David J. Route 614 Hirschman Page 2 November 15, 1995 Vegetation on Fill Slopes: An annual/perennial rye mzxture zs being used 5o provide immediate erosion protection. This mixture will allow for easy takeover of naelve vegetation as subsequent growing cycles occur. Stream Channel Restoration: Further communication with respec5 to future work in the ~eream channel is appreciated. Work in the Vicinity of the Buxton's Low-Water Bridge: We will provide hardwood plantings along the Cabell property frontage in place of mature cedar tree removal. The exact 5ype and number of plantings will be discussed with the Cabell's. The appropriate planting season will be coordinated. Please find attached a copy of the report from Van Yahres Tree Company with respect to the sycamore tree. We will request additional inspections 'fertilizations as deemed necessary uc insure the prolonged health of this tree. The rock berm will be lowered Eo provide for sheet flow through a grass shoulder ~s previously discussed. Upper Cabell Property: We will address in similar fashion as mentioned in Item ~6. Section Along Puppy Run Farm: We ~re requesting a design exception for the pavement and shoulder width along the section of road in front of Puppy Run Farm. It is expected that this exception will be granted with the understanding that should safety issues arise over time (documented by accident statistics a full 18' pavement width with minimal shoulder would be pursued within available right of way. We have received no formal report which indicates that this grading would adversely impace the river, however it seems prudent to work with all parties to reach a compromise along this area. Page 3 November 15, 1995 Mr. David J. Hirschman Route 614 Stormwater runoff will be sheeted no the south side of the roadway and directed back no the river channel by way of a new crosspipe ~t the bottom of the hill, approximately 300' or so ease of the Brigg's ennrance. This will likely be an area designed for BMP installation ro address concentrated runoff. It will also preserve the lnnegrlEy of the north slope of the road/south slope of the river bank which is severely eroding. We intend co install a crosspipe 5o carry run off from the Brigg's properny under Route 614 an their entrance. This pipe would be installed such that properEy run off would be carried no the river, non road sEormwaEer runoff. Since little/no change is Dccurrlng on the Brigg's properny with respecE co this runoff, it is our opinion tha~ we are noE increasing pollutants toxins aE this location with the installation Df a crossplpe. We will address both the inlet/outlet ends Eo insure uhat erosion is minimized'halted. We will obtain formal concurrence from the Briggs that their proper£y discharge can be addressed in this way. 10. 11. 12. Will Additional Toxins Enter the River Due to Paving? We agree with your response. Will Paving Encourage More Development and Increase the Value of Road Frontage? No comment. Will Paving Diminish the Safety of Non-Vehicular Traffic (Pedestrians, Bicycles, etc.) Along Route 614 Due to Increased Traffic and Higher Speeds? There is nc conclusive evidence that paving roads diminishes the safety of non-vehicular traffic. We will review this road for appropriate signing, speed limit posting, e~c. making safety the hop priority. What is the Position of Shenandoah National Park on this Issue, Considering Recreational Use and the Related Lands Study? No commen5. How does Paving the Road Relate to the Comprehensive Plan? NO commenE Page 4 November 15, 1995 Mr. David J. Hirschman Route 614 How Will Paving Alter the Qualities of the Area Which Led to Its Designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? No commen~ 15. How Will Shoulder and Graded Areas Be Stabilized? We agree with your response. 16. Can Flood Relief Funding be Used for Restoration of the River and Its Edge Vegetation to a More Natural State? We will discuss this potential with the appropriate agencies and share details. 17. What About a Public Hearing or Meeting? A public hearing is hoe required under the process of restoring roads with respect uo maznnenance funding. The DeparEmenn has considered all Dpinzon submitted formally for review. Thank you for your thorough response 5c the issues raised regarding our work on Route 614. I wholeheartedly agree with your penultimate paragraph and have learned much from the experience. I will strive Eo enhance the relationship that VDOT shares with the County and apply wisely the wisdom mnam hindsight has provided. Sincerely, AGT. ldw Attachment cc: Albemarle Board of Supervisors Mr. Robert W. Tucker Ms. Loretta B. Cummings Mr. John Kaufman Mr. Jack Marshall Ms. Marcia Joseph Mr. David Vanaman Dr. and Mrs. Jim Bennett Ms. Jo Higgins A. 3. Tucker Mr. & Mrs. Richard Cabell Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. Bruce Woodzell Mr. D. R. Askew Mr. D. S. Bywaners Mr. Rick Woody Mr. Jeff Hores VAN YAHRES TREE COMPANY 10/26/9§ Virginia Dept. of Transportation c/o Ms. Angela Tucker P.O. Box 2013 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Ms. Tucker, Thank you for the opportunity ko help with the restoration of the area around the Sycamore located on Route 614 in White Hall. I stopped by to check on the tree on Tuesday. Parham has done a good job of returning the grade back to it's original level before tile flooding this summer. Their willingness to work with our arborists on the excavation made for a smooth efficient operation. Removing the added soil and debris in a timely manner is important to minimize the effeots on the root system. We still have the dormant fertilization to do, but once that is done I think we have done all we can to improve the tree's chances of surviving the stresses of the past few months. The tree is hollow at the base but appears to be in good health for a tree that size. I have confidence that the tree will be resilient enough to out grow any set backs from the flooding and subsequent clean up. I would suggest a reevaluation of the tree next summer and another fertilization next winter. If there is anything further that you need please don't hesitate to call me at 293-3134. Dave Rosene Certified Arborlst November 15, 1995 Route 614 Sugar Hollow Road Albemarle County Mr. David J. Hirschman Water Resources Manager County of Albemarle DeparnmenE of Engineering & Public Works 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Hirschman: thank you for your letter dated November 10. 1995, detailing issues of concern with respecE Eo proposed road work on Route 614. I would like Eo address each item individually as listed in your reporE. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Reservoir Clean-Out: ~WSA advises Lhat a projecE showing was conducted on Friday, Noven~er 10, 1995, and Lhat award of the con~rac5 will likely be around December 1, 1995. Debris removal is estimated Eo take approximately 18£ days. It is our intent coordinate the remainder of PUt road work ~s closely as possible with RWSA'S proposed work. $tormwater Runoff: This office will work with the County no place and maintain BMP'S that adequately address the '~first fiush~ of sEormwaEer runoff where needed However, due ~o Ezme restraints, it is appreciated tha~ a retrofit option is available in Drder 5o address these 2oncerns. We will begin reviewing the conceptual ideas submitted as Attachment 1 for future discussion. Leaching of Pollutants From Plant Mix: Serious and due consideration will be given no addressing seormwaner runoff as discussed in Item ~2. The Department will need 5o consider cosE, malnEenance responsibilities and potential liability issues as specific BMP'S are reviewed. ~r David J. Route 614 Hirschman Page 2 November 15, 1995 Vegetation on Fill Slopes: Am annual/perennial rye mlxuure is being used to provide immediate erosion prouecslon. This mix5ure will allow for easy takeover of native vegetation as subsequen5 growing cycles occur. Stream Channel Restoration: Further communication with respec5 mo future work in the s5ream channel is appreciated. Work in the Vicinity of the Buxton's Low-Water Bridge: We will provide hardwood plantings along the Cabell proper5y frontage in place of manure cedar tree removal. The exacE Llrpe and number of plantings will be discussed with the Cabell's. The appropriaue planting season will be coordinated. Please find attached a copy Df the repor~ from Van Yahres Tree Company with respecE to the sycamore nree. We will requesE additional inspectlonsZfertilizations as ~eemed necessary to insure the prolonged health Df this Eree. The rock berm will be lowered ~o provide for sheet flow through a grass shoulder as previously discussed. Upper Cabell Property: We will address in similar fashi9n as mentioned Item 56. Section Along Puppy Run Farm: We are requesting a design exception for the pavemenu and shoulder width along the section of road in front of Puppy Run Farm. It is expected that this exception will be granted with the understanding that should safety issues arise over time documented by acciden5 statistics a full 18' pavement width with minimal shoulder would be pursued within available right of way. We have received no formal repor~ which indicates that this grading would adversely impacu the rmver, however it seems p~udent no work with all parties uo reach a compromise along this area. Page 3 November 15, 1995 Mr. David J. Hirschman Route 614 StormwaEer runoff will be sheeted co the south side of the roadway and directed back Eo the river channel by way of a new crosspipe aE the bottom Df the hill, approximately 300' or so ease of the Brigg's enErance. This will likely be an area designed for BMP installation Eo address concentrated runoff. It will also preserve the integrity of the north slope of the road/south slope of the river bank which is severely eroding. We intend to install a crosspipe to carry run off from the Brigg's property under Route 614 ac their enErance. This pipe would be installed such that properEy run off would be carried Eo the river, nor road sEormwaEer runoff. Since little/no change is occurrln§ on the Brigg's property with respecE Eo this runoff, it is bur op~nzon Ehat we are increasing pollntants~toxins aE this location with the installation of a crosspipe. We will address both the inlet outlet ends to insure that erosion is minimized'halted. We will obtain formal concurrence from the Briggs that their properEy discharge can be addressed in this way. 10. 12. 13. Will Additional Toxins Enter the River Due to Paving? We agree with your response. Will Paving Encourage More Development and Increase the Value of Road Frontage? No commenE. Will Paving Diminish the Safety of Non-Vehicular Traffic (Pedestrians, Bicycles, etc.) Along Route 614 Due to Increased Traffic and Higher Speeds? There is no conclusive evidence that paving roads diminishes the safeEy of non-vehicular traffic. We will review this road for appropriate s~gning, speed limit posting, eec. making safety the Eop priority. ~rnat is the Position of Shenandoah National Park on this Issue, Considering Recreational Use and the Related Lands Study? No commenE. How does Paving the Road Relate to the Comprehensive Plan? NO comment. Page 4 November 15, 1995 Mr. David J. Hirschman Route 614 14. How Will Paving Alter the Qualities of the Area ~qhich Led to Its Designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? NO commenE 15. How Will Shoulder and Graded/treas Be Stabilized? We agree with your 16. Can Flood Relief Funding be Used for Restoration of the River and Its Edge Vegetation to a More Natural State? We will discuss this potential with the appropriate agencies and share details. 17. What About a Public Hearing or Meeting? A public hearing is no5 required under the process of resuoring roads with respecu 5o maintenance funding. The Department has considered all opinion ~ubmitted formally for review. Thank you for your thorough response to the issues ramsed regarding put work on Route 1614. I wholeheartedly agree with your penultimate paragraph and have learned much from the experience. I will strive to enhance the relationship that VDOT shares with the County and apply wisely the wiBdom that hindsight has provided. Sincerely, AGT/ldw AttachmeTm _~c : Albemarle Board of Supervisors Mr Robert W. Tucker Ms Loretta $. Cummings Mr. John Kaufman Mr. Jack Marshall Ms. Marcia Joseph Mr David Vanaman Dr. and Mrs. Jim Bennett Ms. Jo Higglns A. G. Tucker Mr. & Mrs. Richard Cabell Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. Bruce Woodzell Mr. D. R. Askew Mr. D. S. BywaEers Mr. Rick Woody Mr. Jeff Hores VAN YAHRES TREE COMPANY 10/26/95 Virginia Dept. of Transportation c/o Ms. Angela Tucker P.O. Box 2013 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Ms. Tucker, Thank you for the opportunity to help with the restcratlon of the area around the Sycamore located on Route 614 in White Hall. I stopped by to check on the tree on Tuesday. Parham has done a good job of returning the grade back to it's original level before the flooding this summer. Their willingness to work with our arborists on the excavation made for a smooth efficient operation. Removing the added soil and debris in a timely manner is important to minimize the effects on the root system. We still have the dormant fertilization to do, but once that is done I think we have ~done all we can to improve the tree's chances of surviving the stresses of the past few months. The tree is hollow at the base but appears to be in good health for a tree that size. I have confidence that the tree will be resilient enough to out grow any set backs from the flooding and subsequent clean up. I would suggest a reevaluation of the tree next summer and another fertilization next winter. If there is anything further that you need please don't hesitate to call me at 293-3134. Dave Ro~ene Certified Arborist COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depar~mem of Engineering 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5861 November 10, 1995 Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Post Office Box 2013 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Report on Route 614 Road Improvements - Sugar Hollow Dear Ms. Tucker: This letter is follow-up onall previous correspondence related to this matter, including the County Executive's October 6 letter to you and me, my October 12 letter to you. and your October 30 letter to the Board of Supervisors. UPDATE OF PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS First, I would like to update my October 12 comments in light of your letter to the Board. I wilt address each ifem in turn. 1. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Reservoir Clean-Out: I know that you have been in touch with RWSA about their reservoir clean-out plans. My current understanding is that a contract for debris removal will be in place by the end of the year, and that the ~work is expected to take approximately 180 days. 2. Storrnwater Runoff: My October 12 letter suggests Capturing and treating the first one-half inch of road runoff in areas where runoff must be concentrated (as opposed to spreading it into vegetated buffer areas). The objective is to filter or infiltrate the "first flush" of stormwater runoff, which is understood to carry the heaviest concentration of pollutants~ As you and I have discussed, these BMP's can be retrofit into stormwater conveyance systems after the construction of the systems are completed. Design considerations are site-specific. Important factors include flood plain elevations, depth to water table, slope, and-soil. The placement and maintenance of the BMP's are also critical factors to address. Attachment 1 contains some conceptual ideas on how to accomplish this first flush treatment. 3. Leaching of Pollutants From Plant Mix: As with many environmental issues, one can fmd scientific research to reinforce opposing points, of view. After weighing the literature, it is my professional opinion that wash-off of pollutants in stormwater, as addressed above, far outweighs the potential of pollutants leaching from plant mix as a water quality concern. Based on this judgement, the best way to protect water quality is to address seriously the previous comments about stormwater runoff and the implementation of BMP's. FAX (804 972 4035 Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Two 4. Vegetation on Fill Slopes: Your letter adequately addresses this topic. I will continue to inspect these areas and make' additional site-specific recommendations if warranted. 5. StreamChannelRestoration: The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) wil[n°~ be doing any additional channel projects on the Moormans. Other agencies, including the Virginia Department of Forestry, may be interested in offering technical assistance. We will continue to communicate about any further work in the stream channel. 6. Work in the Vicinity of the Buxton's Low-Water Bridge: It is not clear in your letter whether the cedar trees to be removed wil/be replaced with hardwoods, as previously recommended. Please provide clarification of this point (see my October 12 letter for more details). I understand that the rock berm west of the large sycamore will be lowered to allow for sheet flow from the edge of pavement, and a grass shoulder established between the pavement and the berm. Finally, thank you for your prompt attention to the sycamore tree. I look forward to seeing the report from the contractor. 7. Upper Cabell Property: As previously recommendedz any tree replacement in this area is to be decided between your agency and the property owner. 8. Section Along Puppy Run Farm: I understand that a waiver of the road standard will be necessary to exercise flexibility along this section, as recommended in my October 12 letter. The recommendation to, "fit" the road within existing topographic, constraints is based on concerns about substantial grading, cutting of trees, and the resultant "daylighting" of the road and river corridor.. The scenic river corridor would best be served by minimizing these impacts. This was the consensus of opinion at our September 19 site visit involving various agencies and interests. At this point, I need m know in specific terms how this "fitting" can be accomplished. I expect that this issue will be resolved prior to proceeding with work along this section. In light of the Board's motion, I feel that items 1, 3.4, 5, and 7 above have become resolved to a satisfactory level. Items 2, 6, and 8 need to be clarified and resolved. Due to the sensitive nature of this issue and its critical timeline, I am requesting a response from you on the outstanding items by Wednesday, November 15. Please ~/dvise me if this is not possible. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Three RESPONSE TO CITIZEN LETTERS As you know, you and I have also been. asked to prepare responses to letters from Loretta Cummings (Commonwealth Em¢~ronmental Consulting, Inc.) and the Friends of the Moormans River. This request came from the Boardof Supervisors at their meeting on October4. I have done my best to-synthesize responses m concerns raised in these letters. I have received input from the Department of Planning and Community, the Department of Finance, and Shenandoah National Park on several of the issues. 9. Will Additional Toxins Enter the River Due to Paving? Both letters raise a concern of toxins entering the river from runoff and from leaching of the pavemem. As we know, various research abstracts and articles have been presented. Of the two water quality concerns (runoff and leaching), I believe that runoff is the primary concern, as discussed earlier in this letter. .It .would be difficult to quantify the difference in runoff quality between a paved surface and a g~avel surface (most comparisOns in the literature are between paved surfaces and grass or fores0. There is evidence that water quality and ecological deterioration does take place once 10-15 % of a watershed becomes covered with impervious surfaces (roads, driveways, rooftops, etc.) (Watershed Protection Techniques, The Importance of Imperviousness, Volume 1, No. 3~ pp. I00-111). At present, the imperviousness of the Moormans watershed (between Route 674 and the reservoir) appears to be less than 1%. This calculation includes the surface area of Route 614. t My conclusion is that we are dealing with an incremental change that is difficult to put a number on. Considering that.this a State Scenic River and a County Scenic Stream, the best re.~ponse:to a change of unknown dimension is to reduce the risk by implementing BMP's for runoff. ~The Moormans River watershed from Route 674 m the reservoir is approximately 5.3 square miles, or 3420 acres. I calculated the road surface as 2.5 miles long and t8' feet wide, for a total of 5.5 acres. Based on recent E-911 maps, there are 27 residences in this watershed. I assumed each residence tO have 2500 square feet of impervious area for the house and 0.25 miles of impervious driveway (12' wide). The total impervious cover for the 27 residences is 11.4 acres. Therefore, the total watershed imperviousness is approximately 16.9 acres, or 0.5 % of the 3420 acre watershed. Analysis of aerial photographs would yield a more accurate result. Ms. Angela Tucker. Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Four 10. Will Paving Encourage More Development and Increase the Value 'of Road Frontage? t received input from the Planning and Finance Departments on this topic. Those responses are contained in Attachments 2 and 3. Typically in Albemarle County, paving of unpaved roads is in response to citizen requests based on development that has already taken place. Theoretically, paving can make areas more attractive for residential development, although there are no records to confirm or deny this. Paving the road will not'increase the number of permitted lots in this Rural Area (RA) zone, and all future development will be subject to County ordinances, including those for reservoir protection. In general, the Rural Area zone is a resource conservation zone, and development is not encouraged. As for the value of road frontage for paved versus unpaved roads, the County Assessor reports that the assessed value of land is based on .data gathered from the real estate sales market. The Assessor's Office is currently assessing road frontages on Route 614 and Route 674. Land along the paved portion of Route 614 (up to its intersection with Route 674) and the partially-unpaved Route 674 is assessed at the same rate. Route 614 beyond its intersection with Route 674 is currently unpaved, and land is assessed at a somewhat lower value. However, it is the County Assessor's opinion that this difference can be attributed more to road narrowness and topography than to whether the road is paved or not. He believes that values may increase slightly, or not at all, due to paving (please see Attachment 3 for more detail). In the end; future real estate sales will be used to reach a final conclusion, although that will be after the fact. A related question that arises from this analysis is the effect of road width on property values. Unfortunately, I am not in a position at this time.to provide any comment on this topic. 11. Will Paving Diminish the Safet~ of Non-Vehicular Traffic (Pedestrians, Bicycles, etc.) Along Route 614 Due to Increased Traffic and Higher Speeds? Again, I polled the Planning Department for a response.~ There are other factors ih addition to paving that will affect safety, including volume of use and the design of the road. I know that VDOT concerns itself very seriously with safety issues. I.feel that additional elaboration on this topic should come from your office as you deem necessary. 12. What Is the Position of Shenandoah National Park on this Issue, Considering Recreational Use and the Related Lands Study? I wrote a letter to the Park asking for their comments. I ascertain from the response (Attachment 4~ that the Park administration does not want to become actively involved in this issue, since it relates to a matter outside the Park's boundaries. The response goes on to say that they anticipate a similar number of visitors to this area whether or not the road is paved. The Related Lands Study raises concerns about land uses adjacent to the Park. However, the Park's letter to me indicates that other factors in. addition to road paving will come to bear on furore development. 13. How Does Paving the Road Relate to the Comprehensive Plan? The area will remain designated a Rural Area, and there is no anticipated change to this stares (see attached memo from Planning Department). The goals of the Comprehensive Plan for Rural Areas will continue to apply. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Five 14. How Will Paving Alter the Qualities of the Area Which Led to Its Designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? This'cuncern led to the Board's motion on September 13 to have the County and other agencies involved in VDOT's process. Our site meeting on September 19 included rel~resentation from the County, the'M6ormans Scenic River Advisory Committee. the City of Charlottesville, the l~epa~hnent'of Game and Inland Fisheries, and local residents. This process - identified some of the 'changes that paving may bring about, as well as specific ways to redt~ce negative impacts. Obviously, one could address this question from many different angles. Since this is not a road that the County has ever considered paving, it has not been fully evaluated by County-staff (Planning Department, etc.) for appropriate design in keeping with the qualities of the area (see attached memo from Planning). 15. tlow Will Shoulder and Graded Areas Be Stabilized? This topic has been addressed in previous correspondence. Stabilization will be inspected to ensure success. The most important aspect of seeding is to stabilize disturbed areas before winter, as most have been. I anticipate that fill slopes will be colonized with native vegetation begnming next spring. 16. Can Flood Relief Funding be Used for Restoration of the River and Its Edge Vegetation to a More Natural State? Flood damaged areas are a natural state. As noted in my October 12 letter, the river valley is very unstable geologically because of all the bedload poised to become resuspended in future floods. Restoration projects should be designed with the g0al of helping the river restore itself by creating s _ruble channels, and should only be undertaken in a very few critical or high-priority areas. This position is based on the belief that the river knows best how to "restore" itself, and :that human interference is likely to botch the matter if undertaken on too grand a scale. In situations Where there were borrow areas in the channel or floodplain or the post-flood chaunel dimensions have been altered; my recommendation would be a multi-agency effort~to assess the feasibility of restoration and m design and carry out projects based on ava'table funding.- Flood relief funding should be explored as one option. 17. What About a Public Hearing or Meeting? Both letters request a:public hearing or meeting. This type of decision rests with the Board of Supervisors. To date, no hearing or meeting is scheduled, although the matter has been addressed at three successive Board meetings. I have tried to address all of the issues raised in the two letters. I apologize to authors of the letters, m the Board, and to you if I have omitted any items. Obviously some of these items could be discussed and debated at great length, as they are complex issues that require a blending of land use planning, transportation, and ecological sciences. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation November 10, 1995 Page Six If I can offer a take-home message from this experience, it is that VDOT and the. County should Work more closely together on issues that effect' the .people and resOurces of Albemarle County. In the future, issues may arise related to the capacity of the bridges along Route 614 o[ how to respond to future flood events It is my hop~ that at those times we Can use guidance~ from the.Comprehensive Plan.and other County initiatives in a more proactive fashion. Please contact me to discuss any of the items addressed in this letter. David J. ~irschman Water Resources Manager DJH/ctj Attachments copy: Albemarle C0,unty Board of Supe~isor~ Loretta B. Cummings, Commonwealth Environmental Consulting, Inc. Friends of the Moormans John Kaufman, Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Jack Marshall, Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee . Marcia Joseph, Albemarle County Zoning Department David Vanaman, City of Charlottesville Engineer Donna and Jim Bennett, Sugar Hollow residents Richard and Hayden Cabell, Sugar Hollow residents Jo Higgins, Director of Engmeering & Public Works Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & CommnniBj Development Bruce Woodzell, County Assessor ATTAChmENT 1 ~apturing the Water Quality Volume The WQV may be computed using data from Calculations Work- sheets A or B from Chapter 1 as follows: WQV = Ia x 43,560 x 0.0417 (2-1) where: WQ~ is the Water, Quality Volume. in. cubic feet, Ia is the Area of impervious surface on the contributing watershed in acres, 43,560 is the number of square feet in an acre, and 0.0417 feet is the first half-inch of runoff. Reducing the constants yields: WQV = 1816 Ia (2-2) capture and isolation of the WQV is typically achieved by isolation and diversion baffles and weirs. A typical ap- proach for achieving isolation of the WQV is to construct an isolation/diversion weir in the stOrmwater channel or pipe such that the height of the weir equals the height of the water in the BMP when the entire WQV is being held. When additional runoff greater than the WQV enters the stormwater channel or pipe, it will spill over the isolation/diversion weir, and mixing with water stored in the BMP will be mini~ mal. Figure 2-2 shows two examples of these structures (Source: City of Austin, Texas~(1~ In many instances, it may be more efficient to build a flow splitter/bypass facility into the structure .of the BMP itself by providing an overflow weir or orifice or a bypass pipe which conveys overflow from a collection/sedimentation chamber to a clearwell and thence to the storm sewer. Where retention of hydrocarbons is a concern, provision of a hooded (inverted elbow) pipe or orifice or the use of a commercial catch basin trap is usually required. Inverted elbows orcatchbasin traps should penetrate the pool surface by 1/3 of the pool depth but at least one foot. In Alexandria, bypass weirs, orifices, or pipes shall be designed to pass the peak flow rate of the 10-year storm (7 in./hr., 10 min. TOC). BMP SUPPLEMENT (REVISION 1) 8/1/93 Page 2-3 PIPE INTERCEPTOR ISOLATION/DIVERSION STRUCTURE SURFACE CHANNEL INTERCEPTOR ISOLATION/DIVERSION STRUCTURE FZGURE 2-2 -- EX~Z~LES OF T~OL~TZON/D'rVERSZON STRUCTURES BMP SUPPLEMENT (REVISION 1) 8/1/93 Page 2-4 AREA /% /k. .:,. I /, PL'*.N V~,,V SEC~ON A-A' NGT TO I To: David Hirschman From: Wayne Cilimberg Date: November 7, 1995 RE: Response to David Hirschman's Questions About the Moormans River Loretta B. Cummings' Questions: Wi.Il paving encourage more development in Sugar Hollow by increasing the value: of road frontage? Will a greater populatibn in the valley put more stress on the watershed? The question of whether increased value of road frontage resuks from paving of unpaved roads should be posed with Bruce Woodze11. (David I understand you are doing that.) Our department has nor kept records as to development trends on unpaved roads that are paved, so I cannot say whether or not development activity increases. Theorectically, public improvements can make areas more attractive for residential developmem. Typically in Albemarle County, however, unpaved roads get paved in the Rural Area at citizen request which usually is a result of new development (and thus new residents) demanding such improvements. In other words, paving of roads many times is a result of increased growth that has already taken place. The Rural Areas zone (RA) development right provisions are no different for unpaved roads than for paved roads in the RA, so paving of the road will not increase the number of permitted lots. Should development activity increase, it will be subject to the Runoff Control Ordinance az this area is in the water supply watershed. In general, developmens in any part of the Rural Area zone is nor encouraged as this is considered a resource conservation zone rather than a residential zone. Will paving diminish the safety of non-vehicular traffic along Route 614 because of increased traffic and higher speeds? I cannot say if paving alone would result in increased traffic and higher speeds. Other factors such as recreational use of Sugar Hollow and the Shenandoah Park and roadway geomeuics are going to affect traffic and speeds. Roadway design with adequate shoulders in mm affects overall safety, includingthat for pedestrians and bikes. How does paving the road relate to County plans for development (Comprehensive Plan), considering the fact that paving was not a priority before the flood? I anticipate no resulting recommendations for changing the Comprehensive Plan designations and recommendations for this area that would result from paving. As with other Rural Areas of the County where roads have been paved, this would remain designated Rural Areas. Friends of Moorma~Ts Questions: What is the likelihood that paving SR 614 would lead to increased development of this area, and is that in the County's best interests? See above responses -.I believe they cover this question. What insights can the Related Lands Study provide (I am also asking the Pork to respond to this)? I think the Park can best respond'to this. I believe there greatest concern would be with the possibility of increased development near the Park if it were to result. Laiso know the Parkis interested in having suitable points of access to the Park from adjacent lands. This ~s one of those points. How will paving alter the qualities of the area which led to its designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? I think the State Scenic River Committee for the Moormans should ,and I believe have) commented on this. Any man-made alteration of the natural features of the area would be of concern. This is not a road that the County has ever considered for paving so it has not been evaluated from a planning standpoint for appropriate design in keeping with~th~ area should it be paved. Normally that would result from the public hearing process for a road project. It needs to be recognized, of course, that the natural features of this area have already been significantly altered by the flooding. However, road improvements should not be an excuse for further alteration. 15GENERAL\SHARE\CILIMB\RT614.ANS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Financ~ Rea] Estate Division 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4.596 (804} 296-5856 ~EMO TO: FROM: D ATE: SUBJECT: David Hirschman, Water Resource Manager Brace Woodzell, County Assessor '~q November 9, 1995 PavedRoads You have inquired as to whether property values will increase after semMmproved roads (dirt & gravel) are converted to hard surface. First, let me emphasis that the AssesSOr's office creates value based on dam gathered from the real estate sales-marker. For example, if property on semMmp, roved roads sells for less than proprty on hard surface roads, this office will reflect that in our assessmem. To specifically address your questiOn;the assessor's office ~s currently assessing road frontages on Rt. 614 (hard surface) and-Rt. 674 (hard surface from Rt. 810, then changing to serm-improved from intersection with Rt. 673 to intersection wi~ Rt. 614) at the same rate, $5500 per acre. Commencing with the intersection of State Rt. 674 & 614, to the end of Sugar Hollow Road, the frontage.is assessed-at $5000 per acre. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that this reduction in value fromm5500 to~5000 is more ora result of the road narrowness & the topography of the land rather than the paved road vs. the unpaved road issue. Thus, if the decision to pave a road causes property to increase, the increase in this case would be slight, or may not materialize at all. Again sales would be used to determine whether property owners would pay more for parcels on parcel vs. unpaved loads. .N._~.V~2-95 THU 14:54 SIMMONS G~? t74 P, O1 Mr. David~J. Hirschman Water Resources Manager County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-5496 Dear Mr. Hirsckman: Superintendent Bill Wade has asked me to respond to your recent letter to the park regarding the pav!ng of route 614 along the North Fork of the Moormans River below the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. This area is outside the boundaries of Shenandoah National Park, and as I indicated in my recent presentation to the board at the October meeting, it is not one that we feel we should become actively involved in. We feel that the same or similar number of visitors will continue to visit =his area to the park whether the road is paved or not. AlsO, while your letter indicated tha~ the paving of the road may 10ad to increased development along the boundary of the park, paving of the r~ad is not the only factor which could increase this possibility. we ~appreciate your keeping the park informed of this activity near the park, and providing us the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free'to contact me at 804- 985-7293. · ¢"~---""7 / '¢'/"% Sandy Ri~s District Leader November 15, 1995 Route 614 Sugar Hollow Road Albemarle County Mr. David J Hirschman Water Resources Manager County of Albemarle DeparEmenE of Engineerzng & Public Works 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Hirschman: Thank you for your letter dated November 10, 1995, detailing issues of concern with respecm mo proposed road work on Route 614 I would like mo address each item individually as listed in your reporn. Rivarina Water and Sewer Authority Reservoir Clean-Out: RWSA advises that a projec5 showing was conducted on Friday, November 10, 1995, and that award of the conErac5 will likely be around December 1, 1995. Debris removal is estimated no take approximately 180 days. It zs our intent 5o coordinate the remainder of our road work as closely as possible with RWSA'S proposed work. Stormwater Runoff: This office will work with the County Eo place and maintain BMP'S that ade~dately address the "first flush" of sEormwaEer runoff where needed. However, due no nmme restraints, it is appreciated that a retrofit o~5ion ms available in order to address these Concerns. We will begzn revmewlng the conceptual ideas submitted 5s Attachment 1 for future discussion. Leaching of Pollutants From Plant Mix: Serious and due consideramion will be given ~o addressmng sEormwa5er runoff as discussed in Item ~2. The DeparEment will need Eo consider cos5, mainnenance responsibilities and potential liabiliny rssues ~s specific BMP'S are reviewed. Mr. David Route 614 J. Hirschman Page 2 November 15, 1995 Vegetation on Fill Slopes: An annual/perennial rye mixeure zs being used 5o provide immediate erosion protection. This mixture will allow for easy takeover of naEive vegeEarlon as subsequent growing cycles occur. Stream Channel Restoration: Further 29mmunication with respect uo future work in the scream channel is appreciated. Work in the Vicinity of the Buxton's Low-Water Bridge: We will provide hardwood plantings along the Cabell properuy frontage zn place of macure ~edar nree removal. The exacE uype and number of plantings will be iiscussed with the Cabell's. The approprzaEe planting season will be coordinated. Please find aunached a copy of the reporn from Van Yahres Tree Company with respecn to the sycamore 5ree. We will requesn additional inspections/fertilizations as deemed necessary co znsure the prolonged health of this 5ree. ?he rock berm will be lowered no provide for sheet flow through a grass shoulder as previously discussed. Upper Cabell Property: We will address in similar fashion as mentioned zn Item ~6. Section Along Puppy Run Farm: We are requesting a design excepnion for the pavemenc and shoulder width along the secEion of road in front of Puppy Run Farm. It is expected that this exception will be granted with the understanding that should safety issues arise over czme documented by accident statistics a full 18' pavemenc width with minimal shoulder would be pursued within available right of way. We have received no formal reporu which indicates that this grading would adversely impact the river, however it seems prudent uo work with all parties ~o reach a comprommse along this area. Page 3 November 15, 1995 Mr. David J. Hirschman Route 614 Stormwater runoff will be sheeted to the south side of the roadway and directed back to the rmver channel by way of a new crosspipe aE the bottom of the hill, approximately 300' or so east of the Brigg's entrance. This will likely be an area designed for BMP znstallation Eo address concentrated runoff. It will also preserve the integrity of the north slope of the road'south slope of the rzver bank which is severely eroding. We intend Eo install a crosspipe to carry run off from the Brigg's property under Route 614 aE their entrance. This pipe would be installed such ~hat property run off would be carried Eo the river, not road stormwater runoff. Since little/no change is occurring on the Brigg's property with respec~ to this runoff, it is our opinion that we are not increasing pollutants, toxzns aE this location with the installatzon of a crosspip~. We will address both the inlet'outlet ends Eo znsure that erosion ms minimizedlhalted. We will obtain formal concurrence from the Briggs that their property discharge can be addressed in this way. 12. 13. Will Additional Toxins Enter the River Due to Paving? We agree with your response. Will Paving Encourage More Development and Increase the Value of Road Frontage? No comment. Will Paving Diminish the Safety of Non-Vehicular Traffic (Pedestrians, Bicycles, etc.) Along Route 614 Due to Increased Traffic and Higher Speeds? There is no conclusive evidence that paving roads diminishes the safety of non-vehicular traffic. We will review this road for appropriate signing, speed limit posting, etc. making safety the top priority. What is the Position of Shenandoah National Park on this Issue, Considering Recreational Use and the Related Lands Study? No comment. How does Paving the Road Relate to the Comprehensive Plan? No comment. Page 4 November 15, 1995 Mr. David J. Hirschman Route 614 14 How Will Paving Alter the Qualities of the Area Which Led to Its Designation as a State Scenic River and County Scenic Stream? No comment 15. How Will Shoulder and Graded Areas Be Stabilized? We agree with your response. 16. 17. Can Flood Relief Funding be Used for Restoration of the River and Its Edge Vegetation to a More Natural State? We will discuss this potential with the appropriaue agencies and share ds~ails. What About a Public Hearing or Meeting? A public hearing is nos required under the process of restoring roads with respecu to maintenance funding. The DeparEmenE has considered all opinion submitted formally for review. Thank you for your thorough response Eo the issues raised regarding our work on Route 614. I wholeheartedly agree with your penultimate paragraph and have learned much from the experience. I will strive Eo enhance the relationship that VDOT shares with the County and apply wisely the wisdom that hindsight has provided. Sincerely, AGT ldw AttachmenE CC: Albemarle Board of Supervisors Mr. Robern W. Tucker Ms. Loretta B. Cummings Mr. John Kaufman Mr. Jack Marshall MS. Marcia Joseph Mr. David Vanaman Dr. and Mrs. Jim Bennett MS. Jo Higgins A. G. Tucker Mr. ~ Mrs. Richard Cabell Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. Bruce Woodzell Mr. D. R. Askew Mr. D. S. Bywaners Mr. Rick Woody Mr. /eff Hores VAN YAHRE$ TREI~ COHPANY Virginia Dept. of Transpor~aulon c/o Ms. Angela Tucker P.O. Box 2013 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Ms. Tucker, Thank you for the opportunity to help with the restoration of the area around the Sycamore located on Route 614 in White Hall. I stopped by to check on the tree on Tuesday. Parham has done a good job of returning the grade back to it's original level before the flooding this summer. Their willingness to work with our arborlsts on the excavation made for a smooth efficient operation. Removing the added soil and debris in a timely manner is important to minimize the effects on the root system. We still have the dormant fertilization to do, but once that is done I think we have done all we can to improve the tree's chances of surviving the stresses of the past few months. The tree is hollow at the base but appears to be in good health for a tree that size. I have confidence that the tree will be resilient enough to out grow any set backs from the flooding and subsequent clean up. I would suggest a reevaluation of the tree next summer and another fertilization next winter. If there is anything further that you need please don't hesitate to call me at 293-3134. Dave Rosene Certified Arborlst DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 -ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER. 22701-3819 DONALD R. ASKEW DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR November 21, 1995 Project 6029-967-F01,PE-100 Fed. Proj. DPS-037-2[120) Desc.: U.S. 29 Corridor Development Study Counties of Albemarle, Greene, Orange, Madison, Culpeper, Rappahannock, and Fauquier Towns of Culpeper, Orange, Madison, Warrenton, & Remington City of Charlottesville Members Albemarle Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Board Member: Citizen Information Meetings will be held for this project on Wednesday; December 6, 1995 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at'the Madison County High School on Route 29 near Madison, and on Thursday, December 7, 1995 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Cedar-Lee Middle School on Route 17 near Bealeton. These meetings will use the open forUm concept. The purpose is to present alternatives under consideration and to discuss traffic issues. This study is a major undertaking that will help plan for the future transportation facilities, including rail, air and automobile travel for people and freight. A copy of the public notice is attached. Sincerely, R. H. Connock, Jr., P.E. District Construction Engineer RHCjr:lcs Attachment TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE OFFICE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STUDY Charlottesville to Warrenton Citizen Information/Participation Meeting Meetings: ?o be held betwevn the hours of 4:30 pm and 7:00 pm Yednesday, December 6, 1995 Madison County., High School Route 29 south near the Town of Madison Purpose: Thursday, December.7, 1995 located off`Route 17 at Bealeton To present alternatives under consideration and to discuss traffic issues. The lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), identified U. S. 29~ a high priority transportation corrittor. This study is a major undertaking that will help plan for the future transportation facilities, including rail, air and automobile travel for people and freight. Open Forum: There will be no formal presentation, however you will be afforded the opportunity to make both oral and written statements for the official record. Written Statements: Writt*n statements and other exhibits relative to the proposed project may also be submitted to the Department at any time within 10 days after the meeting. Soeciai Assistance: If you require additional information or special assistance to attend and participate in this meeting please contact: D. R. Askew (Culpel~r District Administrator): 540-829-7500 ~[~ Virginia Department of Transportafio~ Device for the Hearing lxnpalred CFI)D): 1-800-307-4630 Project: 6029-967-F01,PE-100 WARRENTON RAPPAHA~ % / FA UQ UIER MA ~ ~ CULPEPER \ ~ GREENE < .--f" ./ ... ..j' l ORANGE ARLOTTESVILLE 9 ALBEMARLE NORTH ~ NOT TO SCALE STATE PROJECT: 602,.9-967-F01, PE-100 FEDERAL PROJECT. DPS-037-2 (120) rllll? U.S. 29 CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STUDY VIRGINIA DEPARTI~flENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GEHR COMMiSSiONER COMMONWEALTH o] VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219 November 3, 1995 JACK HODGE CHIEF ENGINEER Route 29 Proj: 6029-967-F0t, PE-100 Fed. Proj. DPS-037-2 (120) Desc. U. S. 29 Corridor Development Study Counties of Albemarle, Greene, ~ Orange, Madison, Culpeper, Rappahannock, and Fauquler Towns of Culpeper, Orange, Madison, and Remington Clerk of the Court Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Attached is a public notice and map advising of a proposed highway improvement project. Should you desire additional information or have any questions or comments concerning this highway matter, please refer to the above project number and desoription when you contact this office. ~incerely, J- S. Hodge Chief Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STUDY Charlottesville to Warrenton Citizen Information/Participation Meeting Meetings: To be held between the hours of 4:30 pm and 7:00 pm ****************** Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I~ Thursda December 7 1995 MadisonSchool II C -, ec Schoo, []Route 29 south II local~l offRoute 17 Inear the Town of Madison II at Bealeton [[l'nrpose: [[To present alternatives under consideration and to discuss traffic issues. The Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), identified U. S. 29 as a high priority transportation corridor. This study xs a major undertaking that will help plan £or the future transportation facilities, including rail, air and automobile travel for people and freight. Open Forum: There will be no formal presentation, however you will be afforded the opportunity to make both oral and written statements for the official record. Written Statements: Written statements and other exhibits relative to the proposed project may also be submitted to the Department at any time ~ithin 10 days after the n~eting. ]pecial Assistance: If you require additional information or spec',al assistance to attend and participate in this meeting please contact: D. IL Askew (Culpeper District Administrator): 540-829-7500 Virginia Department of Transportation Dev~c~ for the I~aring hnpaired (TDD): Project: 6029-967-F01,PE-100 WARRENTON FAUQUIER CULPEPER ./ .../'! ORANGE SVILLE NOT TO SCALE STATE PROJECT: 6029-967-F01, PE-100 FEDERAL PROJECT: DPS-037-2 (120) VIRGINIA E)EPARTIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R, GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHARLO~I'ESVILLE, 22902-2013 November 28, 1995 A. G. TUCKER RESID~NT ENGINEER Current Projects Construction Schedule Ms. Ella W. Carey, 21erk Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 McIntlre Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear MS. Carey: Attached find the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under consErucElon zn Albemarle County. Please see that this information is forwarded £o the Board of Supervisors men, ers. I will be prepared to discuss this ma5ner with them at the nexn meeting if they sc desire. Sincerely, smk attachment cc: R. W. Tucker, Jr. w/attachment David Benish w attachment TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Projects Under Construction Albemarle County November 1, 1995 Route Location Status Estimated No, Compl Date 29 From Hydraulic Rd. (Rte. 743) Construction 92% Complete Dec 95 To N. of Rio Road (Route 631) 240 Route 240 Bridge Replacement Construction 61% Complete Dec 95 Near Int. Route 250 29 From N. of Rio Road (Route 631) Construction 36% Complete May 97 To S. Fork Rivanna River 671 Bridge Replacement Construction 45% Complete Dec 95 At Millington * Revised Date ** New Project COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY oi~i~ ~ ~r~: ~ 2 ~/- ~-~ AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY1996.97Community Agency Budget Review Process SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Information on the proposed jo'mt budget review process with the City of Charlottesvile for FY 1996-97. AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White REVIEWED BY: DISCUSSION: Attached for your information is a brief description of the proposed plan for combining the City's and County's budget review process for community agencies for FY 1996-97. RECOMMENDATION: This is provided for the Board's information and reqmres no action_ ~&RD OF SUPERVISORS BUDINFOR. SUM 95.204 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Agency Budget Review Team Roxanne W White, Assistant County Executiv~V~ Linda Peacock, Budget AdministratorL~ November 27, 1995 FY1996-97 Community Agency Budget Review In the spirit of collaboration and streamlining government, the County and the City are proposing a joint agency budget review process for Fiscal Year FY 1996-97. The common process includes one agency application, a combined review team, joint agency interviews and joint funding recommendations to the respective jurisdictions. The proposee review team will include representatives from the city, the county and the general community in the areas of budget, social services, education, neighborhood services, Social Development Commission, Social Services Board, CACY Commission, United Way and the Thomas Jeffersor~ Planning District Commission. The goal of the budget review team will be to simplify the budget process for both community agencies and government staff, as well as to expand our understanding of human service needs and programs through a more collaborative and comprehensive approach to funding requests. The agency review process and team member responsibilities for the joint team are similar to those of the. County's Program Review Committee, which has been in operation for several years. The process, the team composition and the proposed schedule for meeting dates are outlined in more detail on the attached sheet. A FY 1996-97 agency application is also attached for your information. Please let us know if you have any questions on the budget review process, your role or responsibility in this process, or if you have any concerns on the proposed meeting schedule. Knowing that this will be an extremely busy time for many people, please put these dates on your calendar or let us know if you will not be able to attend: Attachment RVVVV/rvvw CITY/COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES REVIEW TEAM Current Situation Currently community human servtce agencies request funds from the City, County and United Way on a common application format, although programs are still evaluated, interviewed, and funded separately with only partial collaboration between the three funding bodies. Although the County's Program Review Committee has in the past few years incorporated representatives from the Planning District Commission and the Children and Youth Commission in their agency review, community representatives and City staff have not been part of the process. The Social Development Commission represents City residents and has had representation from the CACY Commission in the last several years, but has not had county or regional input into their human services review. Duplication of effort and a cumbersome review process has been the result for both community agencies and county and city staff. Proposed Mission for Joint Budget Review Team To improve and expand the City and County's analysis of human service funding requests through a collaborative review process and to simplify the budget application process for community agencies. Goals · To gain a better perspective of community service needs that cross jurisdictional boundaries. - To increase the depth of understanding and analysis of agency funding requests by expanding the composition of the budget review team. · To target funding to community human service needs through a more collaborative effort. · To increase citizen participation in the funding process. · To simplify the application process for community agencies by providing a common application submittal deadlines, joint interviews and collaborative funding decisions. · To provide a better understanding of local share distribution formulas and their impact on shared services. · To enable the city and county to present common funding recommendations and budget increases to both City Council and the Board of Supervisors Review Team Composition The proposed agency review team will representation: be composed of the following functional Function2 County City Community At-Large Social Services Karen Morris Buzz Cox School Division Tom Nash F~ep. on Soc Devel Comm Neighborhoods Lee Catlin Rep. on Soc. Devel Comm Sen Govt/Budget Roxanne White Linda Peacock United Way Jim Kennan CACY Commission Rory Carpenter Citizen Representative Social Services Board Soc Devel Comm 'JPDC Nan y O c 'Brian Total 5 5 3 Agency Budget Application and Review Process Community agencies will receive one application to submit to Albemarle, Charlottesville and United Way for FY 1996-97 funding requests. Completed applications will be sent to the City for collating and distribution to team member at an organizational meeting on Thursday, December 21. At that meeting, team members will be assigned to review a specific program in depth, to clarify any obvious issues and/or questions on the request, and to report back to the full team at the review session Although each team member will be responsible for reading and reviewing each application, the assigned team member will be responsible for a more in depth review and analysis of their assigned agency. Two review meetings are scheduled for January 4th and 5th, at which time the team will discuss agency requests, review materials, and evaluate the program requests based on agreed upon evaluation criteria. Questions raised during the review meetings will be put in writing and sent to the agencies on January 8 with a written response due back to the team by January 17, The team may decide to interview all requesting agencies or may decide, as the city and county have done in the past few years, to interview only selected programs~ These interviews will be held on January Subsequent to the questions and the interviews, team members will then be responsible for writing a brief analysis of their agency's budget request, which forms the basis of a draft report document. The final draft approved by the budget review team will be submitted to each of the governing bodies for their budget review process. 2 Proposed Review Schedule DATE TIME PURPOSE · A/ednesday, November 8 Applications sent out to agencies Monday, November 20 2:00 - 4:00 PM Program Application Training Session (optional) Friday, December 15 Applications submitted to County and City Thursday, December 21 4:00 - 5:00 PM Applications distributed to Review Team members/assignments given Thursday, January 4 9:00 - 2:00 PM Team meets to review applications Friday, January 5 9:00 - 12:00 PM Team meets to review applications Monday, January 8 Questions prepared and sent to agencies Wednesday, January 17 Questions due from agencies Friday, January 19 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Interviews with selected agencies Friday, January 26 9:00 - 12:00 pm Team meeting to finalize recommendations (if needed) Friday, February 2 Rough drafts due from Review Team Friday, February 9 Draft Review report completed and distributed Friday, February 16 Final report completed RWVV/rww COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Distributed EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TtTLIg: October 1995 Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAl/REQUEST: October 1995 FinancialReport for the Genecal and School Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters A GEI~D A DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATYACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMB ER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Attached is the October 31, 1995 Monthly Financial Report for the General and School Funds. Projected General,Fund revenues were revised as of September 30, 1995. Projected General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time, Projected School revenues have not been rcwised at this time. Projected School expenditures have been revised to reflect the School Board 7.5% holdback policy. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends the acceptance of the October 1995 Financial Report. 95OCTR_PT.WPD 95.205 or~,~D OF sUPERV~SORSi Z LU m>- I-. 0zLu ,,,0 ._~ co Z Z ~- n- UJ <.~- ,,, = ,,,~ ,,z, n"OZ >z~ ~:- ...o< ~ ~ o.- ~ <~-< ~ <,-,~- .-~ .-~ I'- o'3 ~'- ~0 0030 ~ <<~ ,,'fi, o~o ~ ~j n-- X ~ X mmm mmm 0 mmm Z mmm mmm 0 Z ~o ~o~ ~oO~ ~ ~ ~o<oo~ 0 LU Z L.IJ 0 ~J z 0 ,m m m ~ Z~ ~0 o ~ ~ ~ W -- Z X LU Z I- I.IJ x W 0 I.LI 0 W 0 ABGx FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. November 15, 1995 Mr. G. Robert Richardson Corporate Trust Department Nations Bank Pos~ Office Box 26904 Richmond, Virginia 23261-6904 · AVA P.O. BOX 334 ~ ,. ~ t 410-575-7412 ~*~ ~f. ~'~. ~__~--. (g20~. - . 1~/~ FAX 410' 273 - 9524 BOARD OF SUPER~ Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Ap~s.) Dear Mr. Richardson: Enclosed please find the Pursuant to Section 7(a) of October 1995. Bond Program Report and Monthly Report of the Deed Restrictions for the month If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 410-575-7412. Sincerely, Project Monitor /shm enclosures cc: MS. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Effective October 31, 1995 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ABG Associates, Inc. 300 E. Lcrahard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest Apa~_nts Charlottesville, Virginia Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed Restrictions'), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the 'Authority'), and your bank, as trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership (the "Purchaser'), hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project'), that as of the date shown below: 1) The number of units in the Project occupied by lower income tenants is 17 2) 3) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower InCome Tenants is -0- The number of units rented and the number of units held available for rental other than as described in (1) and (2) is 49 . 4) The percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of units in the Project is 26Z 5) The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof. 6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WI~ESS WHEREOF. the undersigned has signed this Report as of november 6, 1995 RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership Authorized Representative ~,~nl~ Ootober Y~r T Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Charlott esvil.1, e, VA Loretta Wyatt ~¥: I. LOW'ER 051-35371 NumberolUmln _ 66 Fovgmber 6t 1995 Effective 10/31/95 Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 17 1 2 Arbor Crest Dr_ 21 ~etty Meador 41L ~ 4 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Beverly T Lane 42 6 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Wilma M..Atkinson. 43 . ~__ ~ Arbor Crest Dr_ ~4 Florence Lee Carey M $ 9 Arbor Crest Dr 25 Virginia Burton 4~ ~ 12 Arbor Crest Dr ~ G. Robert Stone 4~ 7 14 Arbor Crest Dr 27 B~tty L. Reed . 4Z 67.. 8 20 Arbor Crest Dr 28 Evelyn Mandeville 48_ 9 30 Arbor Crest Dr 29 Mary Cox Allen 4~ . 10 44 Arbor Crest Dr 30 Sam Atherton f~ %1 56 Arbor Crest Dr ~! ~olet DuCharme ~ , ,. ~l. ., 12. 76 Arbor Crest Dr. ~ Ann G. Saylor ~2 ,, 72 1~ 78 Arbor Crest Dr 33 Ernest M. N~ase $3 73. 14 84 Arbor Crest Dr 34 Juanita Boliek $4 74. I$ 90 Arbor Crest Dr 35 Betty B, Elliott .. ~$ 75.', ~6 94 Arbor Crest Dr ~$ M.. Eileen. Knick ~ 76 _ ~? 106 Arbor Crest Dr 37 Katherine T. Nowlen 57 ~7. t8 ... 38 58. 78.. ~9 39 59 7~, 20. 40 ~ t ~1 · 1 __ 11.. 2 12 ._ 2 12. 4 14 4. 14 $ ,_ IS $ I~ 6 16 .... 6 16_ 7 · 17 7 . 17. e l& 8 18. t Ig g 1~. 10 20 10 ...... 20. Acme Tel: 804-823-4351 Fax: 804-823-1625 Design Technology, Co. 1000 Allview Drive. Crozet. VA 22932 November 20, 1995 Ms. Ella W. Carey Clerk of Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBElqARLE 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: The following is Acme Design Technology, Co.'s October 1995 operating results: Sales ~1: lqarketinm Our October bookings were under our plan. Note the following charts for the detail performance to plan and last year. OCTOBER 1995 BOOKINGS Products Plan Actual Variance DataVue $ 6,000 $ 4,084 ($ 1,916) Visible Steel $ 70,000 $ 43,128 ($ 26,872) Product Service $ 50,000 $ 40,383 ($ 9,617) Storage Products $ 45(3,000 $42:3,248 ($ 26,752) Freight/Miscellaneous $ 20,000 $ 20,712 $ 712 OEH $ 200,000 $ 58,545 ($141,455) (3t.9%) (38.4%) (~ 9.2%) (5.9%) 3.6% (70.7%) Totals $ 796,000 $590, !00 ($205,900) (25.9%) OCTOBER ! 995 BOOKINGS YEAR-TO-DATE Products Plan Actual Variance DataVue $ 59,000 $ 48,609 ($ 10,391) (17.6%) Visible Steel $ 710,000 $ 547,642 ($ 162,358) (22.9%) Product Service $ 485,000 $ 446,005 ($ 38,995) (8.0%) Storage Products $4,080,000 $3,542,705 ($ 537,295) (13.2%) Freight/lqiscellaneous $ 205,000 $ 210,574 $ 5,574 2.7% OEM $1,775,000 $ 853,189 ($ 921,811) (51.9%) Totals $7,314,000 $5,648,724 ($1,670,850) (22.8%) TEN MONTHS 94 VS. TEN MONTHS 95 (BOOKINGS) DataVue $ 57,107 S 48,609 ($ 8,498) (14.9%) Visible Steel $ 580,415 $ 547,642 ($ 32,773) (5.7%) Product Service $ 419,040 $ 446,005 $ 26,965 6.4% Storage Products $3,174,508 $3,542,705 $368,197 I 1.6% Freight/Miscellaneous $ t80,500 $ 210,574 $ 30,074 16.7% OEM $1,224,292 $ 853,189 ($37t,103) (30.3%) Totals $5,635,862 $S,648,724 $ 12,862 .23% Products 10 Mo. 94 10 FIo. 9S Variance STORAGE PRODUCTS MONTHLY QUOTE LOG SUHHARY OCTOBER 1995 ENDING Amount Total Outstanding Quotes Dated 10/31/95 238 Total Budgetary 15 Total Quotes Won 54 Total Quotes Lost 56 Remaining Quotes Outstanding 175 Orders Received Hot Quoted by Acme/Crozet 56 Dollar Value $3,961,~71 $1,154,317 $ 373,836 $ 443,695 $3,133,569 $ 51,643 OUTSTANDING QUOTES - PENDING CLOSING DATE 0-30 31-60 61-90 $ 1,480,000 $935,000 $718,568 Our major shortfall again this month was in the OEF'I area. We booked over $60,000 additional business from Hill Phoenix but it wasn't until 11/1/95 which is for November. The year-to-date shortfall is OEI*I, Storage Products, and Visible Steel. These account for 97% of our shortfall with OEI,'I 55% of the shortage itself. I do not see us making the OEI"I forecast in 1995. Enineerln ~r. uali : Engineering work lo{d remains high. We need to charge for our engineering service. As we look fotward, .we need ,to ~ill ,out some of our design work. Iqost customers will have little problem if it is communicated upfront. We seldom attempt to charge for the engineering services we supply. Quality remains high in the field. We are seriously looking at ISO-9000 certification to start in early 1996. We are bidding on projects for GE and AMF that if we had certification we would stand alone compared to the other competition. OE~: I talked about Cougar last month. We completed two orders for them which were 600 sets of parts. We continue to quote work for Hill Phoenix/Excellence and I expect to continue to see orders. 1 just cannot get the major accounts or the large orders. We have shipped our first pieces to Jouan, Inc. from Winchester, VA. I look for this account to become a $25,000 to $35,000 a month account. It will not happen until late 1996. We are committed to growing the OEN business. Our performance in 1995 was terrible, but it will be turned around. Financials: Our over-90-day accounts decreased in October: o~/oayS: 0-30 31-60 61-90 91-999 Total $1,038.691 $215,339 $60,250 $195,814 $1,510,094 68.8% 14.2% 4.0% 13.0% 100% Note Attachment A for complete details of the major over-90-day accounts. Othe_r..- We attended the annual records management show (ARI~IA) during the month and displayed our product lines. We, by far, had the most attractive and functional products that were presented. Our competitors, such as Spacesaver, Tab, Kardex and others, spent a lot of time in our booth looking at the products. We also attended a product meeting for Remstar and they introduced Deanna and myself, and advised the group that Warren Lohr had developed products for them, that we were the owners of Acme, and that we supplied products to them. Sincerely, ACNE DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO. Thomas D. Hall President ahd Enclosures ATTACHlqENT A October 31, 1995 10. 11. 12. Absolute Filing Solutions Alpha Systems Commercial Products Company Hagiazo-Systematic Storage Information Management LFI Associates New England Visible Osborne Office Systems Safe Business Systems Star Production Services U. S. Airforce Weissman-Heller, Inc. Sub Total: Grand Total: $18,228 $1o,52o $21,352 $64,239 $ 7,288 $ 5,353 $ 5,505 $29,891 $ 3,038 $ 9,305 $ 4,280 $ 8,100 $187,099 $195,814 Former master distributor. Will get this down this year. Turned over to collection agency. Have personal guarantee. Has been turned over to a collection agency. Suit in process. Judgment issued for Acme. Earning 10% interest. Slow pay at this time. Slow pay. Turned over to collection. $1000/month plus commissions. Will work out. We have picked up product from this account that has not been credited as yet. Will not cover total due Acme. Ordered wrong system. Should be current shortly. Judgment issued for $16,000. Slow pay. Will pay. Slow pay. 95.6% 100% ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO. COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE Pursuant to the Security Agreement dated as of January 28, 1993, and as ~mended as of August 19, 1994 (the "Agreement") between ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO., (the "Company") and NATIONSBANK OF VIRGINIA, N.A., the undersigned officer o£the Company hereby ceriifies as follows: The Company is in compliance with all terms, covenants, and conditions of the Agreement that are bin~ing upon the Company. Compliance with the financial covenants as of the statement dated October 33 , 1995 is ou~llned below: (a) Quick Ratio. Maint,in a ratio of (i) cash plus accounts receivable to (ii) Current Liabilities of not less than 1.0 to 1.0 as of the end of the Fiscal Month ending July 31, 1994, and at all ~mes thereafter. Cash $ 5e,473 Accounts Receivable + 7 r 3 5 9,2 2 4 Total $ ~,4~5,697 Current Liabilities $ ~,259,435 Ratio: ~. ~ o .Current Ratio. M,~nt2~n a ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities of not less than 1.9 to 1.0 as of the end o£the Fiscal Month ending July 31, 1994, and at all ~mes thereafter. Current Assets Current Liabilities $ 2.647,~85 $ ~289~435 Ratio: ~. 05 Leverage Ratio. Muln~21n a ratio of Senior Indebtedness to Adjusted Tangible Net Worth as of the last day of each Fiscal Quarter, of not more than the ratio set forth opposite such Fiscal Quarter. Fiscal Quarter Endinff ~atio 9/30/94 3.25 to 1.0 12/31/94 3.25 to 1.0 3/31/95 3.00to 1.0 6/30/95 9/30/95 12/31/95 3/31/96 and each Fiscal Quarter end thereafter Total Liabilities Subore]~ ated Debt Total 2.75 to 1.0 2.50 to 1.0 2.25 to 1.0 2.0 to 1.0 ~2,397,815 525,000 ~lr866r875 ~/~'et~torth $ 699,973 Intangibles -. 69,707 Subord~natedDebt + 5~000 Adj. Tang. NetWorth ~lr755r266 7 . 6 2 Debt Service Ratio. Not perm/t its Debt Service Ratio for any period set forth below, end~-g on the last day of each Fiscal Quarter to be less than the ratio set forth opposite such period: Applicable Period 7/1/94 to 12/31/94 1/1/95 to 3/31/95 1/1/95 to 6/30/95 1/1/95 to 9/30/95 1/1/95 to 12/31/95 1/1/96 to 3/31/96 and each respective 6-Fiscal Month, 9-Fiscal Month, 12-Fiscal Month and 3-Fiscal-Month Period thereafter beginning on the first day of the Fiscal Year and ending on the last day of each Fiscal Quarter Ratio 1.0 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 1.15 to 1.0 1.30 to LO 1.30 to 1.0 Net Income $ 353.~ 700 Depreciation & Amort. + 86,242 Other Noncash Charges + 0 Other Noncash Credits o Cash Flow $ 439r342 CMLTD Cap. Lease Pymts Fixed Charges 224~611 6,979 23~,590 Ratio: I . 90 Capital Expenditures. Not make or permit any Subsidiary to make Consolidated Capital Expenditures at any time during the respective applicable periods set forth below, tithe Consolidated Capital Expenditures would exceed the amount set forth opposite each such applicable period. Applicable Period 1/1/94 - 12/31/94 and each calendar year thereafter Amount $50,000 Applicable Period: ~ / ~ / 95 - Net Fixed Assets at start of period: $ 371 Net Fixed Assets at end of period: -336. Depre~a~on ch~ged dung pe~od: + ~4,035 Capit~ E~en~tures dung pe~od $ 28,948 Tangible Net Worth. Maintain a Tangible Net Worth as of September 30, 1994 and December 31, 1994, of not less than the ~mount set forth opposite such date. Date September 30, 1994 December31, 1994 Required Actual $199,000 $ ~9,042 $249,000 $ 254,950 The representations and warranties of the Company set forth in the Agreement and all representations and warranties which are contained in any cer~;~¢ate, document, or Mn ancial or other statement furnished pursuant to or in connection with the Agreement are true and correct on and as of the date hereof with the s~me effect as ffmade on the date hereof. The Borrowing Base (as defined in the Agreemen0 as of october 3~, ~995 calculated in accordance with the Agreemen% is shown on the Schedule annexed hereto and the Borrowing Base is equal to or exceeds to aggregate principal amount of the Tenn Loan outstanding to the Company pursuant to the ~e: President Dated: November 17, 1995 ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO. Schedule to Borrowing Base Certificate Computations are as of ~0/3~/95 COMPUTATION OF NET SECUI{ITY VALUE OF INVENTORY INVENTORY (valued at lower of cost or FMV at FIFO) $ 924,240.31 LESS: Inventory charged off or written down as unsaleable $( Other unqualified Inventory $¢ ELIGIBLE INVENTORY $ 924,240.3~ X .50 NET SECURITY VALUE - INVENTORY $462,120.~6 II. COMPUTATION OF NET SECURITY VALUE OF ACCOUNTS TOTAL ACCOUNTS LESS: Affiliate or Employee Accounts Accounts not Invoiced Accounts more than 90 days past due Disputed Accounts Insolvent Debtor Accounts Foreign Accounts Consignment Accounts Government Accounts Unshipped Accounts ' Other unqualified Accounts ELIGIBLE ACCOUNTS NET SECURITY VALUE - ACCOUNTS $ ~5~0t094.~8 $( $( ) ) · $ ~ $( $( ) ) $( $(. $(. $(. $ ~,3f4,280.0~ .75 $., . 985~10.07 III. BORROWING BASE VALUE Net Security Value - Inventory Net Security Value - Accounts Total Net Security'Value $, 462,120.16 $ 985,710,01 $ 1r447~830~17 o oo~°°°°° o=oooooo~S~S~ooo o o ~goooooooooooo~ooooooo~o~ o ~ ggggggggggoooooooooooggggooooooooooo g o° o g o ~ $ ~°°°°°°°°°°°~~3~°°ooooooooooooo ~ ~o~o~ .... ~o~oo~oo~oooo~o o OJ to .~ ~ ~~°~°°°°°°°°~o~oooooooo ~ ooooooogggggggggg~ggggoooooogg~g ~ ~~~°°°°°°°ooooooo ~ A W : ::°°°°°°°°°:::::D:::D°°°°ooooooooooooo : o ~gZooZo~oooooooooooo~o [ George ~le~ COMMONWEALTH of O ce o£ the Oownor Robert E. Mart/nez November 22, 1995 The Honorable Walter F. Perkins Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22302-4060 Dear Mr. Perkins: Thank you for your letters concerning the proposed Roune 29 Bypass study that currently ms under way. I apologize for the delay mn responding to your request for informatmon and I hope the following will address the concerns expressed mn your letters. The consultant firm of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas has been contracted no provide the Virginia Deparnmenn of Transportation (VDOT) complete engineering services for the proposed Roune 29 Bypass. Included in their scope of work is the developmenn and analysis of traffic data within the entire study area. This information will be used to develop the roadway requirements and intersection configurations based on the level of service; develop data for pavemenm design; and develop traffic data for noise analysis and nomse wall desmgn. For this analysis to be beneficial to both V/DOT and those citizens who will be affected by this projecc, a complete study of several different scenarios is very important. Analyzing the traffic volumes with interchanges along the bypass and without interchanges (except at the termini) will allow everyone involved 5o be better informed of all the impacEs associated with the developmenE of this project. The consultan5 currently is coordinating the devetopmenn of this traffic information with Albemarle County, as well as the City of Charlottesville and once the analysis ms complete it will be provided ~o each jurisdiction for themr revmew. VDOT will then be prepared Eo address the questions if they arise on the need for interchanges as projecn developmenn continues. VDOT ms aware of the sensitivity of the study of interchanges on the proposed bypass at Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road as well as the provisions of the resolution approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on November 15, 1990, but development of this information in no way indicates VDOT's intention Eo consErucE interchanges an these locations. P.O. Box 1475 · Richmond. Virginia 23212 · (804) 786-8032 ,, TDD (804) 786-7765 The Honorable Walter November 22, 1995 Page 2 F. Perkins Thank you for your continued interesE in this project. You can be assured that VDOT will continue to be responsive Eo the concerns of those citizens involved with the developmenc of this and other transportation facilities in your area. Sincerely, REM/ow cc: Mr. David R. Gehr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 4596 (804~ 296~58C3 FAX (804) 972-4060 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Rivannz Walter F. Perkins White Hal Sally H. Thomas TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~-~ DATE: December 1, 1995 SUBJECT: Reading List for December 6, 1995 July 5, 1995 - Mr. Bowerman Au~usE 16, 1995 - Mr. Marshall November 8, 1995 Mrs. Thomas EWC:mms Printed on recycled paper November 8, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Cilimberg said this is an exempt facility in terms of State Depart- ment of Welfare licensing requirements. However, it must meet a number of regulations irregardless of its exemp= status, so it is still subject to mos= of the same revie~wA~r~lations. There was agreement by the applicant to well - ~? h~ chloroform. Sand there wasa condition added by the Planning ~ission ~o c~atntenance at the entrance to the site can be taken care of by clearing of vegetation. There w~s s question as to what the ~c~ u~ break even point for number of children is, and staff did not .have an answer ~fS'~L~~%nal result of the Cormmission's review was' making a recommendation for appr6%~a~l~,~s~~._g~nd~tions. He suggested changing condition No. 6 to read: "Ann~~for~testing of ~ater supply with results to be provided to the Virginia-Department of Mealth.' Mr. Marshall suggested that the testing be submitted and approved,by the Health Department. Mr. Cilimberg said that would work, and there could be a' seventh condition added concerning the clearing and grading of sight distance. The public hearing was opened at this time. Pastor Les Rowsey was present on behalf of the church. Me said the vegetation has been taken care of. He addressed Condition ~4. He said when he was asked what their break even point would be on the day care, he guessed at the number of 20 children, but that was at the current location. Since they do not yet know how much it will cost to heat and cool the new building, they do not know what their break even point will be. Since the day care has already been approved twice before, he suggested the actual number on the enrollment be left to the Mealth Department based on adequacy of the septic system. He has furnished the Health Department a copy of their water usage bills for the last year and they are reviewing those bills. The system they planned was for 550 gallons per day, and that should be adequate for 20 chiidren, plus the church, not to exceed 250 people in the church. Mr. Marshall suggested deleting the words "not to exceed 20 children" from Condition No. 4. Mr. Rowsey said that ishis request. Their original ~ request was for 60. At the present time, they can only have 29 children basel on the a~ount of space in the facility. They do not serve meals. The children are two and one-half to twelve years of age, so there is no nursery school in the building. He asked that the latter par= of Condition NO. 4 be deleted, with the actual number being determined by theadequacy of the septic system. Mrs. Thomas said the Planning Commission's minutes show that Mr. Rowsey asked for 20 children, and said that if they went over 20 children they would have to redesign the whole drainfield system. She asked if that has changed. Mr. Rowsey said they have asked the Health Department to look at water usage because they had based the number on 25 gallons per child. He said they do no= use that amount of wa=er at the present day care even with the parsonage being on the same system. He said they will be glad to do whatever the Health Department requires in order =o get more children in the facility. Since the church did not request approval for a church plus day care at the new loca- tion, the Mealth Department has said that 20 is the largest ~umber of children they can have without redesigning the septic system. That system is no= yet installed. They will be putting in a Class 2-S well which is suited for this type of situation. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thomas said the Planning Commission's approval was based On this day care being for 20 children. She thinks the record is very clear on that point, and does not believe they would have approved it for a larger number. There wa~ discussion a.s t~. whether scale of the facility is of importance. Mr. citimber~ said o~e C~missioner expressed concern over a number as high as 60,-which had been approved on two prior occasions. This number is not in keepin~ with the rural areas district. He does not think the Planning Commissioners indicated what other number might be acceptable. Mrs. Humphris said the statement was made that the facility would be for 20 children, so there would have been no reason for them to discuss a higher number. She said the :Hoard is being deprived of the thinking of the Commis- sion as to a larger number. To change Condition No. 4 as Mr. Rowsey has requested would make it open-ended. The septic system is not the only thing in question. There is the intrusion in the rural area, the traffic, etc. which were not discussed by the Commission because of the proposal for 20 children. Mrs. Thomas said at least four members of the Planning Commission commented on the 'number. She thinks Mr. Viscotti is not presen~ tonight because he was satisfied at what the Planning Commission approved. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Viscotti attended the second meeting of the Commission on this petition, but he did not speak. Mr. Martin said he knew there was public opposition, and he felt they were not present tonight because they were satisfied with the number of 20. Mr. Bowerman said it may be that the septic system can handle 35, but he would like to hear comments from the staff and the Commission on that number. November 8, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 1) Mockernut Lane, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, from the edge of pavement of State Route 665, 0.41 mi to the end of the cul-de-sac as shown on plat-recorded on 11/30/88 in Deed Book 1025 on pages 60 to 70 in the office of the_Clerk to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Revised drainage easement plats in deed book 1382, pages 370 ~o 372, and deed book 1392, pages 207 to 209. Item 5.2. Copy of letter dated october 26, 1995, from A. G. Tucker Walter D. Pilkey re~ Route20 North Pedestrian Traffic near the Pantops Shopping area, received for information. Item 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Planning Commission for October t0 and October 24, 1995, received for information. Item 5.4. Copy of letter dated October 31, 1995, from H. Odell Minnix, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ref report on the Urban Partnership, received for information. Mrs. Humphris announced that this matter will be discussed at VACO's General Government Con, nitres meeting on next Sunday. afternoon at the annual conference. Item 5.5. Copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, for the Year Ended June 30, 1995, from the Albemarle County Service Authority, received for information. Agenda Item~No. 6. SP-95-29. Christopher M. Yates. For a Home Occupation-Class B for a cabinet shop on approx 2.6 ac zoned RA & EC. Located on N side of Rt 250 approx 600 ft E of Rt 744. TMS0,P59B. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1995.) Mr. cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a par= of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He noted that the Planning Corm~ission on October 10, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of SP-95-29 subject to five conditions. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was present but did choose to speak. The public hearing was-closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve' SP-95-29, subject to the following conditions: Use shall be limited to existing garage structure; No employees other than family members residing on the premises; No signage shall be permitted; Nooutdoor activities involving power equipment nor storage of materials shall be permitted; and Hour~ of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., seven days a week. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: Nonev ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-30. To establish day care cermet on approx 5 ac zoned RA & EC. Located in SE corner of inters of Rt 25D/!-64. TM55~P96A~ Samuel MillerDist. (Adve~t~ss~/~_n_theDaily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff'B report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said there had been two prior approvals given to the church, o~e in 1986 and one in 1989. There are now about 25 children at the existing day care in Crozet~ ~ The Virginia Department of Transportation recommended that adequate sight distance be created at the en=rance, and that was done along with construction of the church. Mr. Cil~erg said a major question that arose for the Planning commis- sion was adequacy of the septic system and well and testing of well wa=er. The septic system has not been sized to accommodate the day care facility. There may be enupgrade necessary to accommodate the requested number of "up to 60 children". Staff feels 60 children may be excessive, and the Planning Commission discussed whether the on-si~e facilities could handle a 60-child day care center. This request was before the Planning Commission in early October, but .was deferred to answer questions brought up at that meeting. One question had to do with septic capacity and limitations. It was determined that the facilities being installed as par= of the church construction can accommodate 20 children. The water demands for a 20-child day care are about the same as those for a four-bedroom dwelling. July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) way, twice an hour. Mr. Bowerman then asked if the eight minutes were separated between Albert Court and the Colonnades, what the time differentia- tion would be for each. Mr. Jusndiego Wade, Transportation Planner for the County Planning Department, said CTS started an University Hall with a bus going to the Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments, and a'bus going on its regular route without stopping at the Colonnades. Each route was run noting people entering and exiting the bus which stopped at the Colonnades and went on around the loop. It nook eight minutes for the entire route. He does not' know if Albert Court., specifically, 'cnn be identified. The ni~e for Albert. Court was counted as parn of the entire route which went to the Rio Hill Shopping Center and back. He estimates that it would take two to three minutes to go no Albert Court, turn around and gO back. Mr. Bdwerman said even if Albert Court is eliminated, CTS would still be five to six minutes over the hour by adding the Colonnades. Mrs. Thomas said Albert Court is within the hour and adding the Colonnades adds eight minutes to the hour, so apples and oranges are being compared~ Mr. Bowerman noted Mrs. Thomas's comment and asked how long the route would take if Albert Court is dropped and the Colonnades are added. Ms. Poore said it would take an hour. Mr. Bowerman said it takes an hour now. It does not seem reasonable that adding Albert Court would be the same as adding the Colonnades because of the distance the bus must travel between the two. Ms. Poore said it is not s great distnnce between the two, but part of the time involved is that the roadway into the Colonnades is easier to negotiate with fewer turns and traffic lights. This is not so with the Atbert Court route which is more time consuming. Mr. Bowerman said the Albert Court route ms growing and there will be a need eventually for a bus stop. There needs to be some allowance for routes that are longer in terms o~ headway. It is lust as-effective to do this now versus later. Albert Court does not serve many people now, but he thinks there is a perception message being senn that the County ms adding one thing and droppmng another andthis concerns him, the Whitewood Road and Albert Court communities. Hedoes non supporn this change. However, he understands from a management viewpoint why CTS is doing this, but it is an unacceptable change. Mrs. Thomas said she is sympathetic to Mr Bowerman's viewpoint. She asked if Jaunt had an opinion on whether people at the Colonnades would ride the bus. In the CTS survey, people said.they would like to ride the bus, but they have their own private transportation which they ~o not use. Instead, they use Jannt which isa convenient appointment and demand system. She asked if anyone knew how often people planned to use CTS. Mr. Wade said this is a tough call In the survey, people.seemed interested and said they may use CTS. If CTS receives some of the decrease in fundin~ that is being paid to Jaunt, then it may be worth CTS pursuing furtheu. Mrs. Thomas said if CTS receives this decrease in funding, she hopes it is used fo~ increasing services and improving transportation as Mr. Bowerman suggests. She does not want the funding used for anything else. If the Board supports this proposal, it makes dollars and sense because it is costing the County no use Jaunn. Mrs Humphris said it seems to her that the Board needs no establish additional decision-making criteria. She asked if the decision should be based on the number of riders or dollars. It ms costing the County to use Jaunt services for the Colonnades. The Colonnades cost $18,000 over the measured period for 118 people served. There is a need for bus servmce at Albert Court and at the Colonnades. If the Board finds that people at the Colonnades, which includes Old Salem, are not utilizing the bus service, then the Board will need to revisit this issue. Also, %f the number of riders in Albert Court are not enough to substantiate the need for service, then the Board will revisit this issue as well. She supports the change, but she thinks this situation needs to be monitored. If this change will save the County Jaunt money, then it should be allocated to CTS. ~Mr. Bowerm..~n said he is not arguing the point that the Colonnades and Old Salem ~hould not be included in the routes, they should be included. A person can walk from the bus stop at Albert Court to the bus stop 'on Common- wealth Drive in three minutes. Th~~ =~? ~cc~!c ~: /- ~ ~11pnr C.-TS-£ He hates to see stops moved or changed around --fi especially when there are stops along the route that are expanding. A~ some point, a longer route will need to be investigated and mad~ to work with tr_nsfers. He wants to-see as many citizens served Ss possible by CTS. and he wants to see them added and not subtracted from routes. Ms. Poore said CTS and staff can develop a bus servzce plan for any level of service that the Board~feels is necessary. If the Board is interest- ed in expanding services along Route 29, this can also be investigated. Other modes of transportation need to be examined on a periodic basis and not on a route to rouue examination. She encourages the Board's input in this process. Mr. Bowerman said he does not support the change. He supported it initially but after revmewing the circumstances and being approached by the community he changed his mind. He wants to keep Albert Court, Old Salem and the Colonnades on line with bus service. Motion was off,red by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the change which removes Whitewood Road/Albert Court from Route 9, and adds the Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments, and removes the south leg of Berkmar July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Mrs. Humphris said she attended a public hearing in which the Meadow Creek Parkway was addressed. Representatives from South Wes~ Virginia also attended the hearing who had a 54.0 million mountain-slide that exhausted their road improvement funds. The representatives were given five ~Linutes to make a' presentation on how they intended ~o come up with 54.0 million. She did not feel that it was in the public's interest to allow only five minutes ~ for such an important event. Mr. Myers said the public hearing process is bein~ reviewed. There seems uo be feedback regarding an open forum concept and the ne~d to allow for additional commenus. However, there are some people who feet a part of the public hearing should be held ina meeting format In some public hearings, two days of open forums are held with one day as a meeting. If there has been a public hearing on a particular assue, the CTB Board does not like to make the CTB meeting a public forum. There are nine allocation meetings around the State where people can attend and make presentations. Also, direct contact with the CTB Board is recommended. Mrs. Humphris said she attended the CTB's public hearing in Richmond about the Meadow Creek Parkway which is the County's first priority. She also attended the public hearing in Culpeper. In Culpeper, the Chamber of Com- merce, Senator Ed Robb, Delegate Mitch Van Yahres and City representatives provided their support regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway being made a part of the primary road system However, when VDoT staff gave their report to the CTB Board in Richmond, none of this broad-based support was mentioned. This was a disappointment to her and a disservice to the people who worked hard on having Chis issue heard. This is one of the glitches that she finds wrong with the public hearang process. Mr. Myers said he is aware that the Meadow Creek Parkway has broad-based support. However, there was not enough time spent or data gathered to bring the Meadow Creek Parkway's cost in line to an acceptable level. He is hoping that within the nexu year, the Meadow Creek Parkway's cost will be lowered to an acceptable level, and at the March preallocation meeting the Meadow Creek Parkway can be upgraded to a primary designation. The problem with the Meadow Creek Parkway as cost. A task force is working to lower the cost to $25.0 million (or lower) and to go back to the CTB with a figure that can be approved. Agenda Item No. 7c. Discussion: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) changes to Whitewood Road/Albert Court Bus Stop on Route 9. Mr. Cilimber9 said on January 4, 1995, the Board approved the replace- ment of the Albert Court bus stop with a new bus stop.au the Colonnades, which would also serve the Old Salem Apartments, along with 5wo other changes to Route 9. On May 3, 1995, the Board requested the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) to see if iu was possible to keep the Albert Court bus stop along with establishing the new bus stop. Mr. Cilimberg said staff and CTS made actual test runs that incorporated both the Colonnades and Albert Court stops. The test runs were done au differen5 times during the day and cook timing for passengers to board into consideration. When compared with the original Route 9 bus that did not stop at the Colonnades, the bus that stopped at both the Colonnades and Albert Court took an average of eight additional minutes. If the delay is compounded for each Route 9 run during a full day, it would a~d to 64 minutes, the equivalent of another bus in order to keep up with the printed schedule. This delay may be longer when the students at the University of Virginia returns. Mr. Cilimberg said Route 9 is already the long,sc CTS route. In con- structing routes, consideration must be given to both moderate and heavy traffic conditions. Creating a schedule problem on Route 9 would also affect other routes in the bus system. Many passengers transfer from Route 9 to other CTS rouues. Thgse Sransfer~ mu~bq closel~ ti~ed A la~e bus_arriving ~would-either caus~ anotherro~t~ ~0 h~ld up to wait' f~r a passenger, or would require the passenger to wait a full hour to transfer to another bus. The first option would cause other buses to be late; the second option would deter people from using the sysuem. Staff continues to recommend the original (January 4, ~995) proposed changes in bus servace in the County. details of this proposal. Ms. Poore said there is a bus on Route 9 which makes at least sa× rounds that includes the stop at the Colonnades. This stop takes eight minutes longer per hour and sometimes exceeds eight minutes. This route is critical. It runs west of Route 29 and serves a densely populated area which ~s growing. Originally when the Board heard this issue, it was requested that CTS serve the Colonnades and so CTS said "yes." However, in order to do accommodate this request, something needs =o be eliminated from the route. CTS would like to serve both locations, but it is impossible to do so within a one hour headway. Many of the Route 9 riders are transferring to othex rouues in order to get uo destinations that are not covered by routes. A constantly changing schedule for each stop would be confusing and impossible to convey to riders. Mr. Bowerman asked how much cime the Albert Court run took by itself. Out of the eight minutes, Ms. Poore believes that it took three minutes each COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 1996/97 - 2000/01 Recommended CIP Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Board of Supervisor workseSSion on FY 1996/97 - 2000/01 Recommended Capital Improvement Program AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: yes / STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: ~ff[ Messrs. Tucker, White . / / BACKGROUND: The enclosed FY 1997/97 - 2000/01 Recommended Capital Improvement Program was developed from department and school division requests by the CIP Technical Committee, which began its review of capital requests in September. The Committee's recommended 5-year program w~ reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 7 followed by a public heating held last Tuesday, November 28. Attached also for your review is a memo from Ron Lflley, Senior Planner, stating the Planning Commission's approval of the plan with revised descriptions and a copy of the Planning Commission's minutes from their November 7, 1995 CIP worksession. DISCUSSION: The recommended FY 1996/97 - 2000/01 Capital Improvement Program totals 5;80 million dollars, $69 million of which is allocated fo~ school divisiun projects, $10-5 million for general government projects and approximately $.5 million for stormwater fund projects. Summary information on the proposed revenues and project expenditures is provided at the beginning of the document followed by specific project descriptions under the/r functional areas. Summary information on the recommended school division projects is included at the end of the main CIP document and individual descriptions of the school projects are found in the separate Albemarle County School Approved Capital Improvements Program_ The school division projects, which were approved by the School Bo~d in July, were part of the Technical Committee's review, although no changes have been made to the School Board' s request Debt Service informmion is included within the school division section in the main document RECOMMENDATION: The FY 1996/97 - 2000/01 Recommended Capital Improvements Program is submitted for your review Wednesday. A brief overview will be presented by staff prior to the discussion. CIP. SUM 95.207 MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Ronald A. Lilley, Senior Planner ~ November 30, 1995 Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Year 1996/97 Through Fiscal Year 2000/01 The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28. 1995, reconuuended approval of the Capital ImproVements Program for FY1996/97 through FY2000/01. This approval included amended descriptions and justifications as presented by staff in the attached memo. Minutes of the November 7, 1995 Planning Commission work session on the CIP are attached. If available, minutes from the November 28, 1995 Planning Commission meeting will be provided to you ar your December 6, 1995 meeting. If you should have any questions, please do got hesitate to contact me. RAL/jcf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire. Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ~804~ 296-5823 MEMO TO: FROM: SUB J: DATE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Ron Lilley, Senior Planner CIP Work Session follow-up November 28, 1995 At your November 7th work session on the proposed Capital Improvements Program, a few questions were raised about specific projects. Those questions and responses to them follow: Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund (P. 28) - What is meant by '~the number of'no response' calls are increasing"Z_ This is somewhat misleading. "No response" refers to the first response unit, meaning that the first response unit cannot respond to a call, so the second response unit is summoned to respond, which can take considerably !onger to respond than the first response unit normally would. The semence in the justification section regarding "no response" calls should be changed to: As a result, the number of calls to which the first response unit cannot respond is increasing, especially during daylight hours, and the second response unit may take considerably longer than is desirable to respond. Swimming Beach Playground Structures (p. 61) - The description leads one to think that these structures will be some sort of sandbox -- would this project be spending $10,000 each for three sandboxes? This is the same as in previous CIPs. The proposed structures are basically playground-type structures, with slides, various decks and climbing areas. They would be on the sand, but not sandboxes. A better project description would be: "Playground structures for toddlers..." rather than "Small playground structures in a boat/sandbox design for toddlers...' County Land Athletic Field Study (p. 66) - Couldn't the County staff perform such a study rather than spending $20,000 on a consultant? The Parks & Recreation Director indicates that most of the expertise for such a study is available CIP Memo 11/28/95 page 2 in-house, but that outside help may be necessary due to County staff workload. The Director agreed that the project justification could be clarifi6d with the following sentences added: To the extent possible, County staff will be devoted to this project to help defray project costs. The amount requested is an estimate of the cost for a consultant to perform such a study if sufficient County staff is not available. Landscaping Projects, such as Route 29 North (p. 40) and Ivy Road (p. 47) - Since the maintenance costs are so significant, is there a way to increase private participation in the maintenance of these areas, such as tlxrough the VDOT "Adopt-a-Spot" program? To what extent would VDOT participate in the maintenance of these areas? The Route 29 project includes funding of $10,000 per year for five years from ihe Route 29 North Business Council, which could go towards either landscaping installation or maintenance costs. The VDOT "Adopt a Highway" program requires minimal participation and is mostly geared towards litter control, so funds for appropriate maintenance of the landscaping would still be needed. VDOT indicates that they would not likely be able to do more than their normal mowing and litter pick up. Copy to: Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive I:\general~share\lilley\cip.mem 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 WORK SESSION November 7, 1995 - 5:,15 Present: Commissioners - Blue, Imhoff, Nitchmann, Dotson, Huckle, Vaughan and Jenkins Staff- Lilley, Cilimberg, White, Higgins Topic: Capital Improvements Program/1996 - 2001 Ms. Roxanne White explained the process which had been followed by the Technical Review Committee in its review and prioritization of the CIP projects. She explained the format used in the presentation of the requests. She said all projects requested were funded. Commission questions and concerns on individual projects were as follows: Hydraulic Road Sidewalks - Ms. Vaughan asked about the $25,000 figure. Ms. White explained the project cost has been reduced. County Technology Upgrade - Ms. Imhoff asked if there was any possibility there will be "more and better funding" for GIS included in this project. She said the description on- page 24 did not seem to mention the GIS system nor any plans to assist the Planning and Cbmmunity Development Department in analyzing informatio_n. Ms. White said that need is recognized and "hopefully, that is a planned project." Ms. Imhoff said she would attend the Board meeting to stress the importance of the GIS system being available to the Planning Department. Ivy Road/Bypass Streetlights and the Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Streetlights - Ms. Imhoff recalled Commission discussions about the importance of having streetlights whicn are shielded and are respectful of the Observatory. She wanted it to be a part of the record that the County is asking the development community to used shielded streetlights. She thought it was important for this to be mentioned now because shielded lights may be more expensive. Fire and Rescue Projects - Ms. Huckle called attention to the statement which said "if the stations are not funded, response times will rise and the number of no-response calls will continue to increase." She asked for an explanation of what is meant by "n0- response calls." Ms. White did not know the number of no-response calls. Ms. Huckle 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 suggested if the Fire Department did not respond to every fender-bender, they might be able to respond to all other calls. North Rt. 29 Landscaping (pg. 40J - Ms. Huckle said'this appears to be much more expensive than she had understood it would be. She recalled a figure of $10,000 to $15,000.vs. $101 000 which is shown here: She.pointed out that.the 250 Bypass through the City was landscaped by private funds. Mr. Ci. timberg said there has been a commitment from the business community for half the amount ($50;000), making the County cost $_51 000. Ms. Imhoff suggested the County COnsider contracting with the City for landscaping projects. (Ms. Higgins said this has been discussed with the City and they are not interested.) Ms. Imhoff pointed out that there have been staff changes in the City and she suggested the idea could be brought up again SWimming Beach Playground Equipment (page 51) - Ms. Huckle thought this project was "amazing," i.e. "a sandbox that is going to cost $30,000.' Ms. White explained that the amount will cover sandboxes and other play structures within the sandbox area at three different locations. Ms. Hucklethought tax dollars could be better spent. Mr. Blue agreed the explanation could be clearer. Keene Landfill (page 70) - Ms. Huckle thought this had been planned for a couple of years ago and now it is moved to fiscal year '98. Ms. Higglns said money had been pulled from this project for other projects in the past but data is being gathered. She said the money shown is for "corrective action." The magnitude of corrective action is not known at this time. Ms. Huckle thought this project, which is to protect groundwater, was more urgent than the '98 schedule indicates. Ms. Higgins described the work that has been on this project to date. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that even when the current set of DEQ regulations have been met, new ones are being developed which will have to be met. County LandAth/etic Field Study (pg. 66) - Ms. Imhoff asked why this was not an "in- house" assessment. She thought a study to determine recreational needs, by an outside consultant, was hard to justify given the fact that the County has Planning and Recreation staff. Mr. Dotson thought it was very surprising that all the projects submitted were able to be funded. He thought departments might not be looking far enough in the future and might onty be requesting projects they feel have a good chance of being funded. Therefore, he did not think the fact that all the projects can be funded means that all capital needs are being met. He suggested that the next CIP process might include a "front piece" which says "what we think we are going to be doing in terms of growth and revenues and costs in the future years and (saysl we'll have these kinds of demands' and this is what we think we can afford." In terms of trying to direct growth, he recalled some of Mr. Nitchmann's suggestions that "we should at least be thinking about 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 whether there is some way we should be providing some of the public facilities to draw growth to certain areas." Mr. Dotson also thought it would be helpful to have a '~consolidated summary," which incorporates all the projects. He suggested a map showing the location of projects would be helpful in the'future, includinga five-year map showing what has been done in the last five years. Ms. Imhoff said James City County is being veryaggresslve in using their CIP and funding it heavily for read improvements in order to direct growth in areas they want.it to go, including building collector roads and making read connections long before these projects would show up on VDOT's list. In response to Ms. Imhoff's comments, Mr. Cilimberg said: '~/Ve've takep some shots at that in the past and it's been Deep-Sixed. I guess some of the agencies that might be proposing to do that five years out and beyond have just gotten to the point that they focus on what they think absolute needs are going to be and I think there needs to be a message that's sent to broaden what you're thinking, to meet the County's ability to accommodate and make growth areas attractive. There are a lot of projects we could have put in. here that we may have put here in the past, if that was politically feasible, but we seem to be, from a political standpoint, focusing on a particular level of per $100 real estate tax rate and revenues for the future that just aren't going to pay for those sort of things .... If that's something this Planning Commission feels strongly about, having looked at the Comp Plan and knowing what your focus is for the next five years to try to do, the in-fill ideas, etc., that message needs to be sent on to the Board and it needs to be tied to Capital Improvements planning for the future." Mr..Nitchr0ann explained how the current process had evolved over the past few years, it being the result of a desire "to be more focused and to make sure that the requests made by the departments are not wish lists." He did not think these wish lists should be included as part of the CIP program, but perhaps they could be included as an addendum with the statement that "we, as a Planning Commission or Staff, feel, if we are going to accomplish the visions of the County, this is what it is really going to cost." If there is extra money, the Board could then look at that liSt and decide if other projects could be funded. He did not want to see the process "take a step backwards" by asking departments to submit all the requests they were submitting at one time. Mr. Dotson approved of the more streamlined CIP document, but he thought an introductory section would be helpful which says: "This is where we're going, how we're doing, what the need is what our ability is--now do these projects in that context." Long Term Debt (pg. 78) - Ms. Huckle asked why the debt rises 83% when the population is projected to rise only 10% Ms. White explained the debt is going up, over the next five years, because of the new high school (a $25,000,000 project). 5:15 Work Session 11-7-95 Ms'. Higgins brought the Commission up-to-date on the work on a Consolidated Stormwater Ordinance. Mr. Nitchmann asked why the Community Recreation Facilities, which he assumed were in the new high school, were separate from the new high school funding. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We have, for the last several years, separated recreational facilities that are to serve the community and district park. purposes, from those facilities that are absolutely required as part of the high school itself." Also referring to the new high school, Mr. Nitchmann asked who will determine what the road will ultimately be. Ms. Higgins said the road was originally planned to be "an urban collector road--a four-lane divided road." That description has been used in the CIP for the last five years. Ms. Higgins said new studies have been done and she intends to present a proposal to downgrade the road to a three-lane cross section. She compared it to "something like a Berkmar Drive but a rural section," She said this change could potentially cut one-half million from the cost of the road. Mr. Nitchmann asked,if there was any chance of working with VDOT to have Rt. 20 widened to a four- lane highway up to the school. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the proposed Land Use Plan calls for some urban density development and floating commercial areas in this area She cautioned: "Be careful when you are downgrading these roads that you don't find yourself not following the Comprehensive Plan. I don't think we are talking about a rural section any longer. We are, hopefully, creating a community which is part of the urban area down there, She envisioned a roadway with "curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides." She hoped the Comprehensive Plan would be more detailed about how we want things-to look and function. The was a discussion as to whether or not the Commission would hold a public headng on the ClP. Ms. White said the Board will likely hold its own public hearing. It was decided the Commission would schedule a'public hearing on the CIP on November 28th, with the meeting to begin at 6:00 p.m. The work session ended at 6:45 p.m. DB ~ I~I~I ~ I)EFERRt~ II~I'IL Form. 3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request for Amendment of the Service Authority- Jurisdictional Areas for Tax Map 56, Parcel 88B. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Amend Jurisdictional Areas to water and sewer (to correct a staff mistake). STAFF CONTACT(S/: Messrs. Cilimberg, Lilley AGENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On April 5, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer to include parcels 88, 88A, 89, 90, 90A and 93 on Tax Map 56 in the Crozet Growth Area. Recently, in the course of revieWing a development proposal including Parcel 88B, adjacent to those parcels, it was realized that Parcel 88B was inadvertantly omitted from the request to be included in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer. Parcel 88B had been ~ncluded in the applicant's request for amendment of the Jurisdictional Area, but staffhad thought that parcel was already included in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer. Upon closer inspection, it is now realized that Parcel 88B was included in the Jurisdictional Area. but only for "water only to eXisting structures." Staff is now requesting official action to correct this mistake. DISCUSSION: The Board's action in April allowed for the Highlands West development and some associated development along Route 240 to be served by water and sewer. The staff report for that action noted that it is not clear why the parcels west and east of parcels 88 through 90 are designated for water only to existing structures, but that may have resulted from some uncertainty about what areas would drain naturally to the Licldnghole Creek until the Regional Sedimentation Basin design was completed. Since Pacel 88B is a very small parcel and the Service Authority Jurisdictional Area maps are at a small scale, it was difficult to see that Parcel 88B was one of the parcels designated as "water to existing structures only." A copy of the reduced-scale tax map and of the Jurisdictional Area map and key is included as Attachment A. The Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that water and sewer lines are reasonably accessible to all of these parcels and that sufficient capacity exists to serve reasonable development of them. RECOMMENDATION: Appro'bal of this request to include Parcel 88B on Tax Map 56 in rite Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer will correct the inadvertant omission of this parcel from the request approved in April 1995. The County Attorney advises that a public hearing for this action is necessary. Attachments: A - Trax Map and Jurisdictional Area map/key copy to: Paul Shoop, ACSA t:\generaI\share~iilley~highland.con ALBEMARLE 40 COUNTY 57 72 WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION 56 Revised 1-10-90 ALBEMARLE 40 GOUNTY IATTACHMENT A1 Page 2 · . .,,. 1118 19A WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION 56 J ATTACHM ENT SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER ONLY WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTI.NG STRUCTURES These are existing structures as of the adopted date, either 10-1-82 or 8-10-83 Please see "List of Existing Structures OR Development Rights" for specific structures and, dates. LIMITED SERVICE Please see"List of Existing Structures OR Development Rights" for specific limitations. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request for Amendment of the Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas for Tax Map 56, Parcel 88B. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend Jurisdictional Areas to water and sewer (to correct a staff mistake). STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Cilimberg, Lilley AGENDA DATE: November I5, 199 A{~TION: CONSENT AGEN _ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS; Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 5, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer to include parcels 88, 88A, 89. 90, 90A and 93 on Tax Map 56 in the Crozet Growth Area. Recently, in the course of reviewing a development proposal incIuding Parcel 88B, adjacent to those parcels, it was realized that Pamel 88B was inadvertanfly omitted from the request to be included in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer. ParceI 88B had been included in the applicant's request for amendment of the Jurisdictional Area, but staff had thought that parcel was already included in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer. Upon Closer inspection, it is now realized that Parcel 88B was included in the Jurisdictional Area, but only for "water only to existing structures., Staff is now requesting official action to correct this mistake. DISCUSSION: The Board's action in April allowed for the Highlands West development and some assodiated development along Route 240 to be served by water and sewer. The staff report for that action noted that it is not clear why the parcels west and east of pamels 88 through 90 are designated for water only to existing structures, but that may have resulted from some uncertainty about what areas would drain naturally to the Lickinghole Creek until 'the Regional Sedimentation Basin design was completed. Since Pacel 88B is a very small parcel and the Service A~,athority Jurisdictional Area maps are at a small scale, it was difficult to see thai Parcel 88B was one of the parcels designated as "water to existing Structures only." A copy of the reduded- scale tax map and of the Jurisdictional Area map and key is included as Attachment A. The Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that water and sewer lines are reasonably accessible to all of these parcels and that sufficient capacity exists to serve reasonable development of them. RECOMMENDATION: Approval'of this request to include Parcel 88B on Tax Map 56 in the Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer will cbrrect the inadvertant omission of this parcel from the request approved in April 1995. The County Attorney'a4vises that a public hearing for this action is necessary. Staff recommends setting this item for public hearing 6n December 6, 1995. Attachments: A - Tax Map and Jurisdictional Area map/key copy to: Paul Shoop, ACSA I:\generat\shareXlilleyhighlanckcon ALBEMARLE COUNTY 57 WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION 56 ALBEMARLE COUNTY {ATTACHMENT A { SECTIDN 56 WHITE HALL 'DISTRIOT I ATTACHPIENT A ! SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER ONLY WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTI.NG STRUCTURES These are .existing structures as of the adopted date, either 10-1-82 or 8-10-83 Please see ~List of Existing Structures OR Development Rights" for specific structures and. dates. LIMITED SERVICE Please see "Li'st -Development Rights" of Existing-StrUctures OR for specific limitations. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Item EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Service Authority Jurisd/ctional Area Request - VDOT Albemarle County Rest Areas and Ri,~anna Solid Waste Authority Ivy Landfill Request for Sewer to Existing Structures at 1-64 East Rest Area, Water and Sewer to Exisfmg Structures at 1-64 West Rest Area and Sewer to the Ivy Landfill ,qTAFF CONTACT(q): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg AC~ENDA DATE: December 6, 1995 ACTION.. X ACTICtN.~ ATT A C~HMENT,q'. RF~VTEWE1) RYe' mi 'EM NIIMRF~: INF()RMATH'IN: R A C. K C~R C~IIND: The Albemarle County Board of Supen~ors considered this request ca November 1, 1995 (staff repo~t attached as Attachment I) and agreed to set this public hearing for the request. In its recc~ for the November i considera~m of the request by the Board, staff recommended additional information be provided before public hearing. The applicant has responded in two areas - fu~her information has lieen provided regarding the feasib'fl/ty of alternative non-discharge systems and the feasibility of re-locating the rest areas closer to public utilities. (See attachment I1) No additional informatica has been provided regarding verification of existing well flow or alternative well site potential at the west bound rest stop. The Water Resources Manager has provided comment in response to the applicant's additional infomaetion. (See Attachment m) The Department of Env/ronmcatal ~ (DEQ) has also provided comment. (See Attachment IV) RF, COMMENDATW)N~. Based ca the comments of staff's November 1, 1995 report and informat'wn s'mee provided by the applicant, our Water Resources Manager, and DEQ, staff recommends the following for appmvah 1) Limited Service - Sewer to Existing Rest Area Structures Only - VDOT 1-64 East Rest Area (Tax Map 54, 1-64 Right of Way) and VDOT 1-64 West Rest Pwea ~rax Map 73, 1-64 Right of Way) - Service by private sewer lines following existing VDOT right of way only. l.im'-~ed Service - Sewer to Ivy Sanitary Landf'di for Leachate Management Only (Tax Map 73, Parcel 28) - Service by private sewer lines following VDOT right of way only. cc: Taylor Tumor, 11I, R. Stuart Royor & Associates, Inc. 3at Petrini Bill Brent David Hirschman In addition, based on lack of information justifying.need, staff does not recommcad ame~ing the jurisdictional area for water to the 1-64 West Rest Area. BOARD 0~F SUPE~V~SO~ VDOTRES2.EXE 95.206 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT I AC~ENT)A TITLE.. Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Request ~ VDOT Albemarle County Rest Areas and R/vanna Solid Waste Authority Ivy Laedfill Request for ~wer ~ ~g S~ ~ I~ ~ R~t ~, W~r ~ Sewer W E~ ~ ~ I~ W~t R~t ~ ~ Sew~ W ~ I~ ~ ,qT Alq'le CON'TACT(,q): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg A C~IU~IDA I~ATE,: November 1, 1995 ACTIOIq: X ACTION: ITEM INFORMATIt~Nt R A ~gtr~Rl~l U~T~: The Virginia ~ of Tronspe~afion (VDOT) ~ W ~ea ~e~ly o~g ~re disc~ge mi~ o~ sewage w~te sys~ ~ ~ ~o ~1~ C~ rest ~ on I~ ~ co~fio~ to ~ Crez~ htesce~or ~, ~e~oro, ~o replace ~e e~t~g on~ito w6H wi~ a coition to ~c w~er ~ ~ I~ W~ R~ ~. ~ ~t ~ ~Hy descn~ ~ just~ ~ A~c~ent A.) ~ ~v~ ~ W~ A~ ~WA), ~ ~c~tion of ~e ~ss~l~ n~ to ~s~se of l~c~te from ~e I~ ~, des~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ Cm~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ for ~e I~ W~t Rest ~ co~tion. ~e r~t ~ ~y descn~ ~ ~s~ ~ A~c~e~ B.) ~ co~fio~ w~ be via pfiv~e se~ice ~es not av~le W o~or pretties. DIgCII,q,RICIN: The Water Resources Manager and Albemarle County Service Authority have both provided comment. (Sea Attachments C and D) VDOT's consultant notes numerous problems with the mineral oil sewage waste system, attempts to remedy some of the problems and systero demands that have made the system malodorous at its current and anticipated levels of usage. While several alternatives to this system are possible, tho Water Reseoreas Manager supports connection to public sewer as much preferable to package treatment, pump and haul or spray '.mi.'gation. Another type of non-discharge waste recycling system is a possibility, but has not been explored by the applicant as of this writing. Non-discharge systems do require some level of pump and haul. RSWA currently has leachate waste hauled and consklers connection to the Crozet Interceptor to be a desirable future alternative. Again, other alternatives exist, but are either not desirable (point source discharge/nd treatment and pump and haul) or limited in their utility (in-sim treatment of groundwater through bio- reroediation). As to water at the 1-64 West Rest Stop, the VDOT consultant cites reported inadequate capacity to meet future demands, A dmwqlown test for this well is expected to verify flow, but results have not been made available as of this writing. Additional wells have not bean drilled to determine if adequate groundwater exists elsewhere on the site. The aforementioned requests are all for propeffies located in the Rural Areas ~ designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding provision of public utilities, the Coroprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available (p. 146): OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities. STRATEGIES: Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines: and, (2) public health or safety is endangered. Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that "such utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase develolmaem pressores" (p. 146). In addition, the Crozet Interceptor was eonstmeted and has existed with the intent to serve only growth area properties, particularly the Community of Crozet, without intervening connection to Rural Area properties. AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: Page 2 Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Request -iVDOT Albemarle County Rest Areas and Rivanna Solid Vfaste Authority Ivy 12ndfill November 1, 1995 Tho subject requests in each case lie several miles from existing lmblic utilities. {It is not known if re-location of tho rest areas closer to public utilities near fha Cmzet interchange would be a feas~le alternative.) Connection would either be constructed along existing VDOT right of way or cross country. The sewer connections would involve pumping and force mains. Although intended to be via private lines, such connections have the potential of creating additional pressure for connection and setting a precedent for connection in the Rural Area, perficuhrly to the Cmzet Interceptor. The requests do not satisfy the.adjacent to existing lines requirement. The malodorous condition of the existing rest area waste systems is characterized by the applicant as "unsanitary", although it is of some question that public health en~ safety is endangered. Tho landfill leaehate can pose a public health concern ifnot properly disposed of. In hoth cases it should be noted that as water supply watershed properties, peckage ~t and point source discharge is undesirable. (The County Attorney believes that VDOT could install peckage treatment plants without County approval should the permitting agencies allow.) Regarding water to the 1-54 West rest area, there is no evidence of endangerment to public health and safety. The reliability of water in tho area has been of some question and cnnnectian of the rest stop would bring public water in close proximity of subdivisions currently on central well systems that have expressed concerns about reliability. This is a very unique yet potentially precedent-setting consideration. The sewer connection aspect seems to deserve particularly careful comideration in'that, while not meeting the Comprehensive Plan intent for such service in the Rural Area, it is to address existing waste disposal problems in tho Rivanna Reservoir watershed that can only be expected to increase in volume unless tho facilities are shut down and waste flow ~aded. Short of alternative non-discharge systems which still involve some pump and haul, connection to public sewer seems to be tho preferable way to address these problems. For this reason, it is recommended that this aspect of the request proceed to public heating for sewer to existing structures only. In the interim, further information should be provided regarding the feasib'ffity of alternative non-discharge systems. Reganting the request for water, the necessity for public water does not seem to exist based on information provided to this point. Should the Board decide to proceed to public hearing for this request, it should be for water to existing structures only. Verification of existing well flow and information on alternative well site potential should be provided. Regarding the rest areas, the Board may also want information regarding the feasibility of re-locating them closer to public utilities near the Crozet interchange. cc: Taylor Turner, 11I, R. Stuart Royer & Associates. Inc Art Petrini Bill Brent ~ David Hirschman VDOTREST.EXE 95.182 APPLICATION TO AMEND TI~ SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ATTACHMENT A Coumy of Albemarle Department of pl~-.i.$ and Corem,miry Developm~t a01 Mclntir~ Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 SO4 296-5823 Signattffe: Kenn A. Harr~p_~_~r~ ~ J~D~--_ ~. Pho.e: (804) 692-0390 Address: 1401 East Broad Sf_reet? Richmond, Virginia 23219-1939 -~_ ' :-~-_-'.~- . 2: R. Stuart Royer and Associates, Inc. Signa~re: Taylor F. Turner, III ,..~..~.~-~4~nz~'~--- Phone: (804) 281-0901 Address. 1503 Santa Rosa Road,~ 2~/ Richnx)nd, Virginia 23229 JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: [] Water and Sewer to Existing Structures [] Water Only to Existing Structure(s) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) See Attached Tax Map(s)/Parcel Number(s): CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): [] Water and Sewer [] Water Only'to Existing Structures JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: see Attached [] Water Only [] Limited Service (Describe'in Justification below) [] Water Only · [] Limited Service - For Staff Use Only DATE SUBMfI'fED: DATE $130 FEE PAID: PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate): [] Inside or []Outside a Growth Area? [] Adjacent to SAJA? [] Inside or [] Outside a Water-Supply Watershed? [] Adjacent to a Growth Area? Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide service REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes [] No Date of Action Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas VDOT Rest Stop Modifications 0064-002-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle) Project No 9518 BACKGROUND The VirginiaDepartment of Transportation (VDOT) owns and operates the Virginia Interstate Highway system which includes rest areas throughout the state. These facilities were constructed with Federal assistance and major improvements are normally performed on a cost share basis. One of the Interstate Highways (I-64) crosses the southern portion of Albemarle County. Two {2) rest stops are located along this portion of 1-64- one on the west bound lane [WBL) approximately 1.4 miles west of the Ivy exit and one on the east bound lane (El]L) approximately 0.2 miles west of Route 691 .~ These rest areas provide tourists and travellers the opportunity to break from their travels and use the rest room facilities. Governor George Allen has stated the interstate rest areas are a key to Virginia's tourism since they create the tourist's first impression of the state. Therefore, the overall appearance and cleanliness of the rest areas is an important part of promoting tourism ~n Virginia. EXISTING SYSTEM - DESCRIPTION Sewage handling is provided at each of the Albemarle County rest areas by zero discharge mineral oil systems. Oil transports the waste material from the rest rooms to a separate facility for separation of the oil and waste matter. The solids are held in a sludge tank and transported to the County wastewater treatment plant (wwtp) several times each week. EXISTING SYSTEM - PROBLEMS The mineral oil systems were manufactured by a subsidiary of the Chrysler Corporation which is no longer in business. The systems have experienced numerous problems over the years, The problems include inadequate filtration of the recycled oil, odor, aesthetics, incompatibility of the mineral oil with system components, capacity limitations, and limited availability of spare parts. As system demands increase during high usage, the filtration system efficiency decreases; The poor efficiency of the filtration system results in recycling of fecal matter, which results in odors and unsanitary conditions. Incompatibility of the mineral oil with the system components has resulted in deterioration and replacement of the plumbing on three occasions, The EBL rest stop is approximately 3.4 miles from the and of the Crozet Interceptor. The WBL rest stop is approximate[v 1.5 mi[es from the Crozet Interceptor. EXISTING SYSTEM - ATTEMPTS TO REMEDY PROBLEMS The systems were originally installed in 1979. A corn plate overhaul was performed in 1988, at which time the largest possible system was installed. In addition, VDOT has-replaced the plumbing three times with different type materials due to deterioration by the mineral oil. EXISTING SYSTEM - FLOWS The average daily flows (1994) were 19,904 gpd for the EBL and 20,266 gpd for the WBL. The maximum day flows were 60,080 gpd and 53,933 gpd respectively. VDOT estimates traffic on 1-64 to increase approximately 69% by the year 2015. Therefore, the corresponding estimated average flows are 33,638 gpd and 34,250 gpd respectively with maximum day flows of 101,535 gpd and 91,147 gpd respectively. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Three alternatives were considered for alleviating the current problems - Natural Treatment methods, Conventional wastewater treatment plants {wwtp), and discharge into the Crozet Interceptor. Natural Treatment systems are land application methods which include spray irrigation, rapid infiltration overland flow, and systems such as aquatic ponds, constructed wetlands, and other aquatic plant systems? The severe ground slope and the soils preven~ the use of natural systems at the WBL rest stop. The ground is more gently rolling at the EBL rest stop. However, the slope, depth to rock, moderately permeable clayey subsoil, and seepage are the main limitations of the soils for natural treatment systems at the EBL rest stop? Construction of a conventional wwtp is feasible. However, the discharge will flow into the watershed management area which is contrary to the efforts by the County to eliminate point source discharges. The third alternative, discharge into the Crozet Interceptor, is the preferred alternative. This would allow conversion of the rest areas to a conventional wastewater system, kee a all discharges out of the watershed management area, and allow for a cleaner more sanitary rest area. This would also provide additiona revenue for the County in the form of a connection fee and Jn monthly treatment fees. It is noted, water is also required at the WBL rest stop with any of the conventional Natura~ tre~tr~ent systeras as stated Jn the Virginia Department of Health Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. VR 355-17-120 Article 15 - Natural Treatment Systems. Page 357~378. The soils in the vicinity of the EBL rest stop include Ashe Loam, Braddock Loam, Chester Loam. and Thurmont Loam. Soil Survey of Albemarle County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Pages 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, ' 18. alternatives. The capacity of the EBL well is 72 gpm based on a 48 draw down test.4 While additional storage capacity may be required, this well appears capable of meeting the demands. The reported ca pacity of the WBL well is 15 gpm? The 2015 average'day demand is approximately 24 gpm at each rest stop, with maximum day demands of 71 gpm, and intermittent peaks greater than 71 gpm. Therefore, the WBL well is not capable of meeting the average demands. COMMENTS ON THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The above alternatives were reviewed based on the Comprehensive Plan. Two of the Comprehensive Plan states: Chapter "Res/dent/a/ development in the rural portion of the County has adverse effects, .... Commercial land uses in the rural areas also impact agricultural and forestal activities, '~ The VDOT rest stops are existing state owned and state maintained facilities. The sludge produced by these facilities is currently treated at the Charlottesville wvvtp. Therefore, modifications to these systems do not conflict with the stated objective of protecting the County's agricultural and forestal lands but rather support the County's objectives.7 Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan also states: "WA TER RESOURCES GOAL; Protect the County's surface water and groundwater supplies for the benefit of AIbemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests. '~ Both natural treatment methods and conventional wwtps could impact the water quality of the watershed management area. While the distance of the facilities from the water withdrawal is significant, point discharges are contrary to the County's long term effort to eliminate point source discharges. Discharge into the Crozet Interceptor Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 1979. Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 1979. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning & Community Develooment. Page 49. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle CounTy, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July t2, 1.989, Department of Planning & Community Development. Page The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning & Community Deve[epment. Page 57. would minimize risk of contamination to the watershed management area. Chapter.Three of the Comprehensive Plan states: "OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities. STRATEGIES: · Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. · Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area Boundaries in cases where property is: (1] adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safety is endangered. · Prohibit access to the Crozet Interceptor between the boundary of the Crozet Community and the Urban Area. ,4 Regarding the first point, both rest stops are outside of the jurisdictional area and therefore are not part of the designated growth area. However, these are existing VDOT facilities which have attempted to provide their own water and sewer since inception. They do not represent growth in the rural area and they are not associated with residential or commercial facilities. Regarding the second point, the WBL rest stop is not adjacent to, but is close to the existing jurisdictional area. The EBL rest stop is not adjacent to the existing jurisdictional area. However, there is a public health issue associated with both of the existing facilities as previously noted Regarding the third point, both rest areas are outside of the Crozet Community. The Comprehensive Plan also states: "The Urban area interchanges ..... serve as gateways to Charlottesville and the urban area and deserve particular attention to desirable visual impact, ,~o This is consistent with the Governor's statement. The rest areas provide the first impression to travellers of the Charlottesville area. Therefore, it is beneficial to Albemarle County and Charlottesville to assisz VDOT in alleviating the current problems. The wording and intent of the Comprehensive Plan appear directed at limiting growth 9 10 The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning &.Community Development, Page 146. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2015, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning & Community Development. Page 203. of residential and commercial development which could have an adverse impact on the environment. The VDOT rest stops are existing facilities, not new development. The force main and water line for the EBL rest stop would be located in VDOT right of way;to the extent possible. Constructing the water and sewer lines for the WBL in cross country easement is preferred due to cost. Water and sewer lines for both rest areas would be sized for VDOT use only. An agreement can be drawn to stipulate no :additional~connections are allowed. VDOT would own and maintain the lines and pump stations. REQUEST Based on the above stated problem, the implications of this problem, and the alternatives available, the Virginia Department of Transportation respectively requests an amendment to the Service Authority Jurisdictional Area to allow discharge of the rest stop wastewater into the Crozet Interceptor and connection to public water as needed. Your favorable response is greatly appreciated. R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS September 12, 1995 RECeiVED 1995 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: VDOT Rest Stop Modifications 0064-063-F07. PE 101 (Albemarle) RSR&A Project No: 9518 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: Please find enclosed, as per our September 11,1995 meeting, County maps indicating the rest stops, landfill, and proposed force main alignments. In addition, we request a delay in our presentation to the Board of Supervisors from October to November, 1995. This is to allow time for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to study the feasibility of their discharging into a common system with VDOT. If this is a feasible alternative, VDOT and RSWA would prefer to meet together with the Board of Supervisors to discuss connection to the Crozet Interceptor. If you should have any questions, please call. Very truly, R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES,/NC. ~//'T~3'f .~_~;FCrner, III, P.E. Project Manager ENCLOSURES CC; Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT, Special Operations and Facilities Manager (W/Encl) Mr. Arthur Petrini - RSWA, Executive Director (W Encl) 1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD. SUITE 211 · RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23229 · (804) 281-0901 FAX (804) 281-0962 I ilI R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS September 22, 1995 o r_ _ 2 6 1995 Mr. V, Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community D~l~JaDm,e, nt County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional AJeas VDOT Rest Stop Modifications 0064-065-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle) RSR&A Project No: 9518 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: We request the above referenced Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas be amended to include a third possible force main alignment to serve VDOT's west bound lane rest stop. This atignment follows the west bound lane of 1-64 to Route 637 and then north along Route 637 to its intersection with l~he Crozet Interceptor (See attached map). This alignment, while longer, has two advantages over the initial alignments. First, the pump station costs (equipment and power consumption) would be less due to the substantially lower static head. Second, it avoids easement requirements associated with a cross country alignment. Thank you for your assistance. We look forward to meeting with you and the Board at the November 1, 1995 meeting. If you should have any questions, please call. Very truly, R STUART RO YER AND ASSOClATES. INC. Pr6ject Ma~a'ger ENCLOSURES cc: Mr. Kann A. Harris - VDOT, Special Operations and Facilities Manager {W/Encl) 1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD SUITE 211 · RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23229 ° (804) 281-090i FAX r804~ 281-0962 REST STOP RIVANNA P_O. BOX 979 ATTACH[4ENT B SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA 22902-0979 (804) 977-2976 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: WAYNE CILIMBERG, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ agTmm o. r TmN , x curlv .nmcTog REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL AREA OCTOBER 24, 1995 The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), at their October 23, 1995 regular meeting, has directed me to proceed with a jurisdictional area request for the Ivy Sanitary Landfill located at 6876 Dick Woods Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903. This request is for a sewage force main that would run from the landfill to the Crozet sewage interceptor. As addressed in the accompanying memo from Joyce Engineering (our consultan0, the health and safety of the area will best be served by a pump station and force main. Per our conversation with R. Stuart Royer & Associates. Inc., which firm is representing the VDOT Rest Stop Modifications, the RSWA would like to process its request along with the VDOT request. Both projects could use part of the same route and therefore some economic savings could occur. Equally important would be the acquisition and/or use of existing right-of-ways once instead of twice/ Please call me should you require further information. ADP/Idb 10:44AM JOYCE EMGIMEERIMG Memorandum To: Art Petrini - Rivanna Solid Waste Authority From: Ron DiFraucesco - Joyce Engineering Inc. Date: October 18, 1995 Subject: Iurisdictional Area designation for the Ivy Sanitary Land.fill This memo addresses the reasons why the Ivy Sanitary Landfill property should be considered a ~urisdic. tionat Area by the Albemarle County Plannin~ Commissior~ This request is a result of the meeting which we attended on Monday, October 16, 1995, at the CounW's Planning Department. In an effort to plan for a long-term solution for leachate management st the Ivy Sanitary Landfill, the Rivanna Sol~d Waste Authority (RSWA) is requesting consideration as a 1urisdlctional Area so that a possible future connection to the Crozet Interceptor can be made. The RSWA ~s considering and es alunt~ng several long-term solutions to lcachatc management at the Ivy Sanitary Landfill. These solutions include, but may not be limited to, the following: 1. Transport by pump ~tation and force main to the Crozet Interceptor. 2. Transport by tank truck to the Pdvanna Wastewater Treatment Facility. 3. On-site u'eaunent of leachate with a point source discharge to an adjacent stream. 4. In-sim ~reatment of contaminated groundwater through bio-rcmediation. The first option may be the most attractive solution. By installing a pump station and force main, the RSWA will be able to ~afely u'ansport leachate through the County to the Rivanna Wastewater Treatment Facility for ultimate treatment and disposal. We feel tMs option may be feasible if the RSWA is able to join with the proposed VDOT Rest Area Improvement Project,to install a paralbl force main connecting to the Crozet Interceptor. However, it is our understanding that the Iv3, Sanitary Landfill must first be designated as a Jurisdictional Area, This request is primarily based upon the following concerns relating to public health and safety. Page 1 of 2 with the remaining options. The second option, ~hich is currently being used, has the associated risk of transporting leachate wa tsnk truck over interstate high~W. The current ~ransport vehicle has already been struck once by a motorist, It is our opinion that continuing this practice will present a greater risk to the public,than ~ranspo~ leachate through a:buried force main. The third option of on-eke treatmem ofleachate may be the most expensive and controversial. Th/s would include $ state-of-the-art treatment process with a point sore,ce discharge. The facility has already come under scrutiny relating to the state waters surrounding the facility. This option would require a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Cv'PDES) permit. At this time, it is uncertain if this peanit would be obtainable from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or i/the RSWA could feasibly treat the leachate to desirable dlschazge limits, The fourth option ofin-$itu treatment of groundwater through bio-remed/ation is limited to the treatment of groundwater. This does not account for the leachate currently being collected and stored through the leachate collect/on and removal system. This option would have to be used in conjm~ction w/th one of the others to treat and dispose of leachate generated at the facility. Although ~-~is technology may prove to be safe and effective ki treating groundwater, it does not solve the long-terra problem of disposing generated leachate. At this time, the RSWA is requesting the Jurisdictional Area designation so if the solution of transporting leachate via force main is determined to be the safest and most cost effective, approval will have been granted so the Authority may design and construct the transport system. Please review and contact me if you have an>, questions os need additional information. Thank you. Page 2 of 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT C TO: FROM: DATE: Wayne Cilimberg - Planning & Community Development David Hirschman - Water Resources Manage~ October 20, 1995 VDOT Jurisdictional Area Request I spoke with Ron Conner of the Virginia Deparanent of Health (VDH) in Lexington about this request. He had an interesting spin on the issue. Apparently, back in the 70s, VDOT had a discharge certificate to put in package plants at the rest areas. Due to all ~e efforts to restore the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir at that time, the Health Department basieall.Y told them they needed non~dischargingzystems. Mr. Conner said that VDH couldn't at that time support point source discharges at the rest areas when all the efforts had been expended, through the Crozet Interceptor and other means, to remove existing point source discharges in the rest of the watershed. In that sense, VDOT was trying to comply with reservoir protection ideals by installing the mineral oil systems in the first place. There are only two locations in Virginia where rest areas have mineral oil systems: Albemarle County and New Kent County. Mr. Conner did not have much good to say about these systems. They have had problems with odors, leaking valves (and oil getting on the floor - a health hazard in itsel0, and many maintenance headaches. He also said that these systems are prbbably nearing their useful life expectancy. Apparently, VDOT is just doing what they can to keep these things going, but they aren't operating as designed. I discussed the following alternative solutions with Mr. Conner: Construct Alternative Zero-Discharge System: There are some systems that recycle wastewater. However, Mr. Conner suggested that these need a complete treatment plant on-site and are very operator-intensive, not to mention expensive. They require careful signage to separate potable water from recycled wastewater. Most likely, the operation of one of these plants would also entail the periodic hauling of sludge. The public safety of a system like this depends heavily on the reliability of the operator and the Smooth operating of the plant. Spray Irrigation: This probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) be permitted because it's still a discharge in the reservoir watershed. MEMORANDUM Wayne Cilimber, Planning & Community Development October 20, 1995 Page Two Package Plants: Mr. Conner said VDH probably wouldn't recommend that a permit be granted because of the reservoir issue/VDH would probably tell VDOT to just limp along with the current system (if no other alternatives existed). 4. Mass Drainfield: There is too much flow at the facilities and the soils aren't suitable. If reservoir protection was the guiding principal when the mineral oil systems were developed, it seems that this philosophy should prevail to decide what should replace the faulty systems. The only alternatives to hooking to the Interceptor that respect this are: an on-.site recycling plant, permanent pump and haul, or spray irrigation on land outside the reservoir watershed (this would also entail hauling of waste on County roads). It is my opinion that pipelines are much preferable, from a public health and safety point of view, than hauling waste around the County in tanker macks. This reasoning eliminates pump and haul and spray irrigation; While Mr. Conner did not sound optimistic abOUt the feasibility of a recycling plant, perhaps this alternative should be explored a little more thoroughly. I discussed this With Taylor Turner III of R. Stuart Royer and Associates, and he may be looking into it. It will be particularly important to evaluate whether these systems (1) require the hauling of sludge, and (2) pose operation and maintenance issues that diminish their attractiveness. Let me know if you need any additional information at this time. DJH/ctj 'AL BEkXARLE COUNTY IP.O BCK IOO6 168 SPQTNAF RD OHARLOTTES/ILuF- ,..C}EIRVICE VA 22902 · 804 ATTACH[4ENT D AUTHORITY o77-451i FAX (804 979-O698 October 20, 1995 ~'~' L'~.-~ ? ''~ ~ ...... Mr. Wayne cilimberg Director Of Planning and Community Development Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Interstate 64 Rest Areas Dear Wayne: You have asked for comments from the Service Authority concerning Virginia Department of Transportation's request for water and sewer service to the.Interstate 64 rest areas. It is my understanding that their application has been amended and they now seek water and sewer to existing structures for the westbound facility and sewer only to existing structures at the eastbound rest area. The Service Authority offers the following comments. Sewer Our engineering staff sees no technical problems with VDOT connecting to the Crozet Interceptor. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, VDOT would have to design, install, and operate at its expense all facili- ties from the rest area to the interceptor. Connection would have to be made at a point acceptable to this authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The effect of these connections on the capacity of the interceptor is insignificant. You and I have discussed the prospect of VDOT building sewage treatment plants at these facilities if they are unable to connect to public sewer. Allowing that to happen would be contrary to one of the primary purposes for the Crozet Interceptor - ELIMINATION OF POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES FROM THE WATERSHED. Wate~ Water service could be provided to the westbound lane rest area. The connection point would be at the intersection of Route 250 and West Leigh Drive. In studying the question of water service to this rest area, you should know that there are several existing subdivisions now served by central well systems which could potentially be served by further extensions of a water main which would serve VDOT. These are Peacock Hill, Langford Farm, and Glenair. Residents of Peacock Hill and Glenair have previously expressed concern about the reliability of their water systems and have made inquiries to ACSA about the possibility of service. If we can provide you with any additional information concerning this matter please let me know. Very tru~!y yours, J.W. Brent Executive Director JWB/lbt Board of Directors Paul Shoop Arthur Petrini I ATTACHMENT II [ R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 17, 1995 CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle Department of Ptanning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: VDOT Rest Stop Modifications 0064-063-F07. PE 101 (Albemarle) RSR&A Project No: 9518 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: Please find enclosed, as requested, additional information regarding alternative systems for the above referenced project. As noted in the enclosed, our research did not reveal any alternative systems applicable for the VDOT Rest Areas. This is consistent with our original report and Mr. David Hirschman's comments (October 20, 1995). We plan to have results of the draw down test by the public hearing. If you should have any questions, please call. Very truly, R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CC: Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT Ms. Angela Tucker - VDOT 1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD. SUITE 211 · RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23229 · (804) 281-0901 FAX (804) 281-0962 R. Stuart Royer & Associates MEMO To: Mr. V. Wayne Citimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development From: Taylor F. Turner III, P.E, Date: 11/17/95 Re: VDOT Rest Areas - Albemarle County PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to address comments stated in the Executive Summary presented at the November 1,1995 Board of Supervisor's meeting and to provide additional information to the Board of Supervisors. These items include Alternatives, Relocation of Rest Areas, Sanitary Conditions, and Water Request, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Various treatment systems including Conventional, Natural, Innovative, and Off-Site were reviewed in an at-tern pt to determine cost effective, feasible alternatives for replacing the current VDOT Rest Area wastewater systems. Conventional wastewater treatment is not recommended due to the requirement for discharge into the watershed management area and high present worth cost. Land application is not possible due to soil conditions, bedrock, and potential for run off into the watershed management area. Natural systems (constructed wetlands, etc) are not recommended due to the requirement for a discharge and additional land requirements. Innovative systems (recycle-reuse) are not recommended due to the requirement for e discharge, pump and haul for sludge disposal, and the high present worth cost. Connection to the Crozet interceptor avoids discharge to the watershed management area, eliminates the potential for contact with recycled wastewater, and provides the lowest estimated r~resent worth of the alternatives reviewed. Therefore, based on the above, connection to the Crozet. Interceptor is the recommended alternative to alleviate the situation at the VDOT Rest Areas. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES There are two methods to handle wastewater from any facility - on site and off site treatment. On site treatment methods include conventional wastewater treatment systems, natural treatment systems, and innovative treatment systems. Off site treatment utilizes a public wastewater system. Transport of wastewater to a public system is accomplished by piping (force main and or gravity sewer).~ Conventional Treatment Conventional treatment, while possible, requires discharge of treated wastewater into the watershed management area. A discharge into the watershed management area is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and County efforts to eliminate all point source discharges. VDH stated they would oppose a discharge at either Rest Area.; Therefore, conventional wastewater treatment is not recommended. As per conversation with Mr. Ron Conno~, Virginia Department of Health [VDH). Pump and haul is not allowed by VDH as a long term alternative. Various conversations with Mr. Ron Connor, Lexington Office, VDH. R. Stuart Royer & Associates Natural Treatment Natural Treatment includes spray irrigation and systems such as aquatic ponds, constructed wetlands, and other aquatic plant systems,a The severe ground slope and the soil types prevent the use of natural systems (spray irrigation and land application) at the WBL rest stop. The slope, depth to rock, moderately permeable clayey subsoil, and seepage are the main limitations for natural treatment systems (spray irrigation and land application) at the EBL rest stop.4 Aquatic ponds, constructed wetlands, and other aquatic plant systems require a discharge permit. Therefore, Natural Treatment systems are not recommended. Innovative Systems Innovative systems include those systems referred to as zero discharge and recycle-reuse. All recycle-reuse systems identified require off-site sludge disposal and a discharge permit for at least 5% of the wastewater flow. Therefore, there ara no true zero-discharge or 100% recycle systems capable of meeting the demands of the VDOT Rest Areas. As requested, innovative/alternative systems were raseamhed to determine availability and applicability. This research included calls to the Virginia Department of Health (VDH),se the National Science Foundation (NSF),7 the National Small Flows Clearing House (NSFCH),s the National Park Service,9 Albemarle Countyfi°manufacturer's representatives, manufacturersfi ~ 5 a 7 8 Natural treatment systems as stated in the Virginia Department of Health Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. VR 355-17-120 Article 1 $ - Natural Treatment Systems. Page 3S7-37S. The soils in the vicinity of the EBL rest stop include Ashe Loam, Braddock Loam, Chester Loam, and Thurmont Loam. SCl[ Survey of Albemarle County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Pages 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, 118. 11/1/95 call to Mr Ron Conner, Lexington office VDH. Mr. Conner was not aware of any innovative alternative systems. Mr. Conner supports connection to the Crozat intercepter. 1113195 call from Mr. Con Alexander, Richmond Office, VDH. Mr. Alexander was not aware of any zero discharge or ether innovative systems. 11/2/95 call to Mr Tom Bruursema, Program Manager, National Scier~ae Foundation (NSF). Mr. Bmurserna is not aware of any alternative/innovative systems app~ical~e for the VDOT Rest Areas. IO/24/95 call to Mr Brock McCracken, Technical Assistant Specialist, National Small Flows Clearing House (NSFCH0, West Virginia University (WVU). Mr MoCrarken was not aware of any applicable systems. 11/3/95 call to Mr. Tom Harrington, Teohnioal Expert Environmental Engineering, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Harrington serves as the nationwide trouble shooter for the 1900(+) water systems and 19OO(+) sewer systems owned and operated by the national park service. Mr. Harrington also serves on the NSF Drinking Water Treatment Committee and the NSF Wastuwater Treatment Committee. The National Park service has at least one of ever~ available system. Mr. Harringtun is not aware of any feasible systems for the VDOT Rest Areas. 1 I/2/95 call to Mr. David Hirschman. Water Resources manager, Albemarle County. Mr Hirsohman ~tas not aware of any other systems. 11/2/95 conversation with Pure Stream, a manufasturer of small packaged treatment systems. Their systems are not applicable for the given conditions. They are not aware of any feasible systems. They recommended a manufacturer's representative in PA who was unable to offer any assistance. R. Stuart Royer & Associates and publications.~ VDH was not aware of any alternative systems applicable for the Rest Areas in Albemarle County. VDH is opposed to a discharge at either Rest Area. VDH supports connection to the Crozet Interceptor.~3 The National Science Foundation (NSF) stated they were not aware of any alternative systems suitable for the VDOT Rest Areas.~4 NSF developed a standard (NSF 41) to address public health issues associated with potential public contact with the recycled water in recycle-reuse systems,ts NSF stated there are no recycle-reuse systems certified NSF 41. Most systems certified NSF 41 are for flews tess than 1,500 gpd and are either chemical or compost t oilets.~S The National Small Flows Clearing House (NSFCH) was contacted regarding alternative/innovative treatment systems for remote facilities. A periodical search was performed resulting in seven (7) articles addressing zero discharge or recycle-reuse systems.~7 ~s ~9 20 2~ 22 29 There were only four different systems identified in the seven papers. Three 20 22 23 The Water Environment Federation's Yearbook Buyer's Guide w~s re~ewed. Supply House Times, a wholesale buyer's source, was alao consulted. Neither source was beneficial. 11/1/95 cenversafion with Mr. Ron Conner, Lexington Office, VDH. The National $cier~e Four~ation (NSF) is a not-for-profit organization devoted to ~esearoh, education, and service. The NSF serves as a neutral medium in whi=h businass and industry, official regulatory agencies, and the publle come together to deal with problems involving products, equipment, procedures, and services related to health and the environment. NSF International (NSF), Standard 41, WASTEWATER RECYCLE/REUSE AND WATER CONSERVATION DEVICES. Adopted by the NSF Board of Trustees, November 1978. Revised May 1983. 1112/95 call to Mr Tom Bmursema, Program Manager, National Science Foundation (NSF). Mr. Bruursema is not aware of any alternative/innovative systems applicable for the VDOT Rest Areas. "Water Reuse Plans and Demonstrations'. AWWA Research Foundation, No 19, April 1979. Pages 21- 23. Parker, Clinton E.. "Treatment of Water Closet Flush Water For Recycle and Reuse", Paper presented at the 54th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation. "Water Reuse at Highway Rest Areas: Evaluation Phase", Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, December 1977, PB-278-542. Etzel, J.E., "Treatment of Sanitary Wastes at Interstate Rest Areas". Joint Highway Research Project, FHWA/IN/JHRP-8 I/8. April 1982. Ackerman. Roy A. and Cosentino, I.A., "Recreational Area Water Reuse System". Presented at Water Reuse Symposium, March 25-30, 1979, Washington, DC. "A Study of Highway Rest Area Waatewater Disposal", Public Works for December 1972, Pages 70-74, Sylvester, Robert O. end Seabloom, Robert W., "Rest Area Wastewater Disposal - A Study Prepared for the Washing[on State Highway Commission Department of Highways", January 1972. R. Stuart Royer & Associates papers addressed VDOT's Fairfield/181 Rest Area.24 2s 2e Two additional papers addressed the same system.27 2s Each of the systems required some form of treatment' prior to recycling the water with discharge of at least 5% of the treated wastewater. In addition, each of the systems required vehicular transport (pump and haul) of the sludge and in some cases for wastewater also. ~,Most of the systems apt~ear to operate satisfactorily for small systems (less than 3,000 gpd) that can be cleaned frequently. However, their application for larger systems such as Rest Areas is not proven.~9 VDOT Recycle-Reuse Additional information is provided on the VDOT (I-81 ) recycle system due to Albemarle County staff interest. The basic components of this system include rest room facilities, treatmentfi° recycle pumping, sludge holding, and discharge to stream or holding for pump and haul.31 The Fairfield Rest Area was converted from a 10,000 gpd extended air activated sludge system to a recycle-reuse system.3= Water can be recycled approximately 20 times without problems. While there was no reason given for the limit on recycle, it probably deals with the concentration of toxins,s3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 AWWA Research Foundation, No 19. Parker, Clinton E. Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council. Pub~cWorks. Sylvester, Robert O. and Seabloom, Robert W. One system, designed for flows up to 3.000 gpd, involved flushing into nylon filter bags. This was a research project. The authors stated the system was worthy of further conside~'ation and evaluation. This system req~res pump and haul or treatment of westewater and solids disposal. A second system utilized physical, chemical, and biological processes with equalization, gross particulate removsi, trickling filter, screening, filtration, activated carbon adsorption, disinfection, and storage tank. System requires pump and haul of sludge. The basic system capacity is substantially less than required by the Rest Areas. The systeminsiuded a sewer system to t~ensport wastewater to a remote tertimy ww~p with discharge by spray irrigation. Contact was attempted throug~ PA Directory Assistance and WEF Buyer's Guide Yearbook. It is assumed this company is out of business, A third system, typically used on aircraft, utilized recycle with a hold'rog tank. Based ~n information in paper, the test areas wouid require cleaning ever~ four (4) days with pumping and haurmg at this time. The authors stated, "Operation of present day wastewator treatment units in a recyois system is not considered practicable for Rest Areas." The VDOT system is addressed in the body of this repe~t, Treatment includes blologicsi process, filtration, and disinfection, This system started with a VPDES Permit which has been cancelled due to low wastage rates. The reoycis-reuse system was placed in earvioe in 1976 after five years of bench scale testing. The extended air treatment syste~ is still required to treat the wastewater prior to recysie~ 11/2/95 conversation with Tom Bruursema, Program Manager, NSF. R. Stuart Royer & Associates The system operates on a preset volume of water. Therefore, water is wasted as needed to maintain the desired amount of recycle water.~ Water is released to an evaporation/holding pond. Sludge (15,000gallons per year) is transported from the pond to a conventional wwtp for treatment. The estimated present worth cost of a similar new system is 93,000,000. This is three times the present worth of connecting to the Crozet Interceptor (91,000,000). This system requires a discharge permit and pump and haul of sludge to the Charlottesville wwtp.35 VDH is not supportive of this system.~ Therefore, this system is not recommended. The National Park Service (NPS) was contacted due to their extensive knowledge of alternative wastewater treatment systems.37 NPS has over 3,800 water and sewer systems across the country. NPS was not aware of any feasible alternative systems and stated, under the circumstances in Albemarle County, connection to the public system was the best alternativefi5 Based on our research, Zenon Municipal Systems Inc. appears to manufacture one of the better recycle systems. However, a discharge is required with this system.33 The Zenon system is a recycle system (90-95%) with biological treatment and membrane filtration. VDH stated one of the Zenon Systems is operating in Virginiafi° We note, NSF stated there are no NSF 41 certified recycle-reuse treatment systemsfi~ The NSF 41 certification is not critical but does address health and safety issues associated with recycle systems. The approximate present worth of constructing one Zenon system ($2,000~000)is twice that of connecting to the Crozet Interceptor ($1,000,0OO).42 Based on the requirement for a discharge permit, pump and haul, and high cost, the Zenon System is not recommended. 35 37 38 39 40 To account for the addition of wasted potable water from sinks and water fountains. A VPDES Discharge Permit is required at startup. 1 I/I/95 esi! to Mr, Ron Connor, Lexington Office, VDH. Mr. Connor stated the Fairflsid Rest Area wwtp is not desirable. 11/3/95 call to Mr, Tom Harrington, Technical Exp~rt Environmental Engineering for the National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Harrington stated alternative systems are used when public sewer is not available. Mr. Harrington worked w~th the experimental mineral oil system installed at Mt Rushmore. This is the same system instsiled in Albemarle and New Kent. Mr Harrington stated the problem with this system is the coalescing fBter. As per eonversations with Mr. Ed Jordan, President and Mr. Herschall Winfrey, V.P. Engineering and Operations, Zenon Municipal Systems. inc. 1113/95 call from Mr. Don Alexander, Richmond Office, VDH. There is a Zenon s~tem installed in Great Falls, Virginia that appears to operate satisfactorily. It has a drain field for disposal of the treated 1 I/2/95 call to Mr. Tom Bruursema, Program Manager, NSF. Mr Bruursema stated there ere no recycle systems certified NSF 41. Based on i = 6% and n = 20 year project life. R. Stuart Royer & Associates Off-She Connect to Crozet Interceptor The Crozet Interceptor was originally designed to serve the Community of Crozet. However, the'Albemarle County Service Authority LACSA) stated, "there are no technical problems with VDOT connecting to the Crozet Interceptor" and "the effect of these connections on the capacity of the interceptor is ir~significant."4= A possible location for connection to the water system was also provided.4~ Connection to the Crozet Interceptor is the most cost effective alternative identified. It allows conversion of the Rest Areas to a more reliable system, maintains the County's position of No Discharges int0 the watershed management area, ano allows for a cleaner more sanitary Rest Area, This alternative also provides additional revenue for RWSA in the form of monthly treatment fees. We recommend sewer and POssibly water for existing VDOT structures only. The lines would be sized for existing Rest Area structures only and no other connections would be allowed. Connection by others to this line would adversely impact operation of the VDOT system. RELOCATION OF REST AREAS The construction cost associated with relocation of the Rest Areas is approximately $5,000,000(+) per Rest Area. Relocation to an interchange is potential competition with (preset or future) private businesses. As per FHWA and VDOT guidelines, Rest Areas are to be located where they would not compete with private businesses. Relocation of the Rest Areas does not eliminate the need for water and sewer. In addition, it would be difficult for VDOT to justify to the taxpayers why they relocated two Rest Areas two miles to connect to public utilities. Therefore, relocation of the Rest Areas is not feasible. SANITARY CONDITIONS The current mineral oil treatment systems were originally installed as experimental systems to assist Albemarle County eliminate point source discharges into the watershed management area. These systems were overhauled in 1988 and the largest possible systems installed. The mineral oil is not compatible with the various piping materials inetalled.45 The oil deteriorates the piping, fittings, and valves resulting in leaking. Major leaks have occurred requiring shut down of the Rest Areas and disinfection prior to opening. WATER REQUEST As stated in the Executive Summary, there is no endangerment of public health associated with the well system at the WBL Rest Area. However, the need for water at the rest areas is due to the fact conventional wastewater systems require water to operate, Our statement of inadequate water supply was originally based on discussion with RSWA, water demands at the WBL Rest Area, and Iow reported WBL well capacity. However, it is supported by ACSA's comments regarding capacity problems at Peacock Hill, Langford Farm, 10120/95 letter from Mr. Bill Brant to Mr. V. W. Cilimberg I0120/95 letter from Mr. Bill Brant to Mr. V. W. Citimberg The piping in the rest areas has been replaced three times with different materials. R. Stuart Royer& Associates and Glenair which are adjacent to the WBL Rest Area.4° The capacity of the EBL well is 72 gpm (based on a 48 draw down test).47 The reported capacity of the WBL well is~ 15 gpm:4s The 2015 average day demand is approximately 24 gpm at each rest stop, with maximum day demands of 71 gpm, and intermittent peaks greater than 71 gpm.4~ Therefore, the WBL welt is not capable of meeting the average day demands of.a conventional system. A draw down test to determine actual WBL well yield is currently being performed. It is VDOT's intent to provide water from the site if possible - whether from the existing or new wells. Conversion to Iow flush toilets and urinals is recommended. This reduction in demand combined with an actual well capacity greater than previously reported should satisfy the water requirements. However, if water is not available in sufficient quantity, connection te public water is recommended. IMPACT ON TOURISM The director of the local Board of Tourism stated the rest areas do have an impact on public perception. If Rest Area aesthetics are poor lie odors, unclean, etc), tourists immediately form an opinion of everything in the state including the Charlottesville area. If bad odors are present, everything is considered dirty, regardless of appearance,so 48 5O 10/20/95 letter from Mr. Bill Brant to Mr. V. W. Cllimberg. Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 19'/9. Virginia Depart~ent of Health Description of Byatem. January 38, 1979. Current flows based on actual flow data provided by VDOT. Estimated flows based =n current flows and estimated 20 year increase in Raffia. 1119/95 meeting with Barbara W. {Bobbye) Cochran, Director, Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau. I ATTACHMENT]II COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Wayne Cftimberg - Director of Planrfing & Community Development David Hirschrnan - Water Resources Manager%~ November 27, 1995 VDOT Jurisdictional Area Request, Alternatives Assessment I have reviewed the additional materials submitted by R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc. concerning wastewater alternatives for the Rest Areas. I feel that the applicant has undertaken a fair assessment of the available alternatives. While alternative zero-discharge systems may be an attractive idea in some cases, it seems that the volume of flows, natural topography and softs, and the desire to eliminate any point source discharges from the reservoir watershed limit their feasibility for the Rest Areas. This leaves connecnon with the Crozet Interceptor as the technical alternative that is most consistent with watershed protection policies (see my October 20 memo to you for more details). With regard to the request for water for the WBL Rest Area, there is not currently enough information available to evaluate the request. Of particular importance for this analysis are: the capacity of the existing wells, opportunities for new wells, opportunities for storage to help meet peak demands, and the influence of water-conserving fixtures on demand projections, hi other similar situations, such as the Clifton Inn, the applicant has exhausted reasonable on-site solutions in order to justify the need for public water from a public health and safety standpoint. Please let me know if you need additional information at this time. DJH/ctj ~ ~'1¢O~1 ~9 '95 13:04 R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS PRGE, 00~ I ATTACItM ,N'I' IV I November 29, 1995 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4596 VDOT Rest Step Modifications 0064-063-F07. PE 101 MlbemarleJ RSR&A Project No: 9518 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: The following information regarding the above referenced project was submitted to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for their review and comments: Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas (Prepared by .R. Stuart Royer & Associates) County of Albemarle Executive Summary (With attachments) (Prepared by Mr. V. Wayne Cillmberg) 11/17/95 Memo to Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg (Prepared by R. Stuart Royer & Associates) Please find enclosed, for your infermation, a copy of DEQ's comments regarding the above information. We note Item 3 of the enclosed letter indicates the Crozet Interceptor was constructed., in part, with grant funds specifically for the purpose of avoiding discharge into the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Our November 17, 1995 letter to you, stated we planned to have results from the well drawdown test by the Public Hearing. Unfortunately the test was delayed and results will not be available for the Public Hearing. The test is rescheduled for the week of December 4, 1995. Results will be forwarded to you when available. 1503 SAN-A ROSA ROAD. SUITE 2ll - RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23229 - (804) 281-0901 FAX (804) 281-0962 If you should have any questions, please call, Very truJy, R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES. INC. u~r, III, P.E. cc: Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT Ms. Angela Tucker - VDOT ~N~U ~B "B5 1B:05 COMMONWEALTH of VIROINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 116 N, Ma{n Stteei P. O. Box 268 Bdd~t~r, Vir~nia 92812 [54O] 828~2595 November 21, !995 Mr. Taylor F. Turner, III, P.E. R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc. 1503 Santa Rosa Road suite 211 Richmond, VA 23229 Re: VDOT Rest Areas - Albemarle CouJaty R, Br~dle~ Chemning. P.E. Rcgiot~l Directo,~ Dear ~r. Turner: At your request, I am providing you with the following comments. Based on the information which you transmitted to me by letter dated November 17, 1995, it appears that service of the referenced facilities by connection to the Crozet Interceptor is the alternative we would consider most desirable, of course, this conclusion assumes that the need for continued operation of the rest areas has been adequately Justified. Connection to the Crozet Interceptor is consistent with long standing agency preferences to: Avoid the construction of several smaller wastewater treatment facilities where regional sewerage and central treatment are feasible, Avoid pump and haul of liquid wastes where other options are reasonably available, and with particular reference.to the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir discharge area, protect the primary water supply for Charlottesville and the surrounding Albemarle County service area by elimination of contributing pointsouroe discharges through central connection. The Crozet interceptor was a grant participation project add undertaken for this purpose. Mr. Taylor F. Turner, November 21, 1995 Page 2 III, P.E. From a strictly environmental perspective, connection tO the Crozet Interceptor would probably result in the least risk to groun~ or surface water resources, assuming no new proper~y developments would result from this connection. /~cerely, ~ - I~rry'M; Simm?ns, .~.E. R~gional Permit Manager co: File - Albemarle County General To: Lettie Neher @ acva (Lettie Neher) From: Larry Davis Subject: Re: ACSA Service no 1-64 E&W, Date: 12/7/95 Time: 14:31 etc. Originated by: Lettie Neher @ acva on 12/7/95 11:11 Replied by: Larry Davis @ acva on 12/7/95 14:31 Lettie: Per your requesE, I sugges~ the following summary: The jurisdictional area for limited sewer service was extended ~o provide limited sewer service no the existing resn area snrucnures, only, at the 1-64 East and 1-64 Wes5 VDOT rest areas. In addition, the lurisdictional area for limited sewer service was extended no provide limited sewer service ~o the Ivy Sanitary Landfill for purposes of leachate managemenn, only. Service £o these areas is required to be provided by private sewer lines within existing VDOT right of way. The expansion of the limited service area is supported by the findings that it is necessary for existing publicly owned uses and is necessary no address identified public health, safety, and environmental problems. If you have any questions, give me a call. Thanks. COUNTY OF AC~ENT~A TH'! Service Authorky Jurisdictional Area Request - VDOT Albemasle County Rest Areas and Rivanna Solid Waste Authox~A'y Ivy Landfill AGENDA DATE4 yI'~M N3-1MRF, R: November 1, 1995 CON.qENT A ~ENVI3A: A U/FION._ INFORMATION: INFORMATION': STAFF Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg I ATTACHM '~T~ ~I~ V~rginia Depamnent of Tramport~un ~O~ ~ to r~laea c~fly o~g z~o ~s~ge ~e~ o~ so~ge w~te sy~ ~ ~ ~o ~lo C~ rest ~ on I~ ~ co~i~ to ~ C~z~ ~e~eptor ~, ~he~m, ~ rop~ea t~ e~s~g on-site web w~ a coition to public wat~ at ~ I~ West Rest ~. ~ r~est is ~y descn~ ~d ~s~ ~ ~c~ A.) ~ne ~vm ~d W~ Aufho~ ~SWA), ~ ~fion of ~ ~ss~le n~ ~ ~se of l~c~e ~om ~e I~ ~, d~k~ ~e ~W ~ ~ ~ Cm~ ~r ~ ~ ~ co~dor ~ ~ for t~ 1-64 West Rest ~ea ~on. ~e r~est is ~y d~cn~ ~ ~ ~ A~c~ B.) ~ co~ti~ wffi be via p~vate se~i~ ~es n~ av~able to o~r pm~ie~ The Water Resotlrces Manager ~ ~le Co~W S~ice Au~ofi~ ~ve b~ p~v~ ~em. (S~ A~c~e~ C ~ D) VDOT's consM~ not~ ~us ~1~ ~ ~e ~e~ o~ sew~e w~e sys~, aR~s to syst~ d~ t~t ~ve ~e ~e system ~us ~ gs cu~t ~ ~iei~ ~vals of ~ge. ~st~ ~ ~le, ~ W~ R~ ~g~ ~ ~fi~ m ~b~c sewer ~ ~ ~y ~n. ~o~ec ~ of non~se~ge w~te r~yc~g system ~ a ~, bm ~ not b~n e~lor~ by ~e a~he~ as of ~ w~Mg. Non~e~ syst~ do r~ some level of ~p ~ ~ul. RSWA ~tly ~ l~c~e waste ~ul~ ~d ~e~ ~fi~ ~ ~ Cro~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~e ~ve. Ag~ ~ ~te~ves e~st, ~t ~ eider not des~able ~o~ s~ ~sc~ge ~d t~nt ~ ~p ~ ~) or ~ ~ their m~W (~-si~ t~me~ of ~dwater ~ou~ bio- rem~fion). As ~ w~or at ~ I~ W~ R~t Stop, ~e VDOT ~u~ cites re~ ~d~e capaei~ ~ m~ ~ de~. A ~w~ ~t for ~ weH h ~M te v~ flow, bet ws~ ~ve not b~n not b~ ~ to de~e ff ~ ~water e~ elsewhere on ~e site. The aforemen~oned requests are all for properties located in the Rural Areas as desig~nated by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective ~nd strategies as to where and under whet circumstances publ/¢ utilities should be made available (p. 146): OBYECT[VE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities. STRATEGIES: Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictioua! areas. Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of des~nated Crrowth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjaeant tn existing lines: end, (2) public health or safety is endangered. Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that "such militias are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase developmeat pressures" (p. 146). rn addition, the Crozet lmereeptor was constructed and has existed with the intent to serve only growth asea properties, particulurly the Cormounity of Crozet, without intervening couneetien to Rural Areh properties. AC~NDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: Page 2 Service Authority turisdictional Area Request - VDOT Albemarle Counvy Rest Areas and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Ivy Landfill November 1. 1995 Tho subject t~luests in eavh.case lie several miles from existing public utilities. (It is not known ff re-loct~inn of the rest arca~ closer to imblic utilities near.the Cmzet interchange would be a feasfole altornalivo.) Connection would either be constructed along existing VDOT right ofway or cross country. The sewer connections would involve pumping and force mains. Although intended to be via private lines, such eounecfions have the potential of creating additional pressure for connection and setting a precedent for connection in the Rural Area, particularly to the Crozet Interceptor. The requests do not satisfy the adjacent to existing lines requircmem. The malodorous condition of the existing zest area v~te sysmms is characterized by the applicant as ~unsanitary~, although it is of some question that public health m~d safety is e~d~ngered. The ha~dffll leache~e ¢~ pos~ a publi~ health eoneern ffnnt properly disposed of. I~ both cases it should he norad that as ~ supply v~rsh~d proporfes, l~ackage tr~tme~t and point source diseh~rg~ is undesirabl~. (Th~ County At~or~y believes that YDOT~x~I~I inst~ pa~g~ tre~mem plants without County approval should th~ l~rmitting ag~a¢ies allow.) Regarding water to the b64 West r~st area, the~ is no evidence of endangewme~t to pub]~ health and safety. Th~ ~eliabilky of water in the area h~s b~n of some que~ion and c~m~fion oftl~ rest stop would br~g public water in close p~ximity of subdivisinns eorr~tly ou ¢~atrai well systems that REC-OMM~.ISIIX& TIOI~: This is a yew ~e y~ ~t~y pr~-s~ing ~midorafion. ~e sewer ~tion as~ s~ to desoto ~ly e~e~ ~i~on ~ ~, w~o not ~t~g ~ ~reh~ive P~ ~t~t for such s~iee ~ &e R~ ~, it ~ to ~oss o~t~g wame ~s~ ~obl~ ~ ~ ~v~ R~o~ w~s~ ~t ~ o~y b~ ex~ m ~e~ ~ volvo ~e~ ~ ~c~t~s ~ s~ do~ ~ flow ~ S~ ~ ~ve ~ ~ ~h ~ ~volv~ some ~p ~ ~, co~tion to ~b~ sew~ s~ W be ~ ~e~ ~ay to ~s t~se problem. For ~ r~on, it ~ ~me~ ~ ~ ~t of ~ r~t ~ W ~e ~ ~r sew~ w e~ ~c~es o~y. ~ ~e ~, fi~ ~o~ s~d he ~o~d~ r~g ~ ~i~ of ~te~ve m~sc~e sys~. Regarding ~ re.est for water, the necessity for public water does not seem to ex/st based on information provided to this point. Should the Boa~ decide to proceed to imblic hearing for this request~ it should be for water to existing stmctoros only. Verifi~tion of existing well flow and information on alternative well site potential should be provided. Regarding the rest areas, the Board may also want information regarding the feasibility of re-locating them closer to public utilities near the Crozet interchange, ce: Taylor Turner, 11I, R. Stuart Royer & Associates. Inc. Art Petrini B/ti Brent David Hirschman VDOTREST,EXE 95,182 ATTAC~ENT A APPLICATION TO AM~END TI~ ,~ SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS County of Albemarle Department of Phnnin~ and Community Development ,i01 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-.4596 804 2965823 Signattlre: Kenn A. Ha_~ri~ ---r~ ~ ~1~_,~ ~_ Ph0Re: (804) 692-0390 Address: 1401 East Broad Street' Richraond, Virginia 23219-1939 ~~ ~ .~ 2: - - 'i: R. Stuart Royer and Associates, Inc. Signature' Taylor F. Turner, III ~~f~ Phone: (804) 281-0901 Address: 1503 Santa Rosa l~oad, k~// Richmond, Virginia 23229 JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: [] Water and Sewer to Existing Structures [] Water Only to Existing Structure(s) PROPERTY LOCATION {Add~ess) See Attached Tax Map(s)fP~cel Number(s): CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): [] Water and Sewer [] Water Only~o Existing Structures /USTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: See Attached [] Water Only [] Limited Service (Describe'in Justification below) [] Water Only [] Limited Servke ' For Staff Use Only DATE SUBMITTED:. DATE $130 FEE PAID: PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate): [] Inside or [].Outside a Growth Area? [] Adjacent to SAJA? [] Inside or I-lOut,side aWater-SupplyWatersbed? [] Adjacent to a Growth Area? Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide ~ervice REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes[] No DateofAction Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas VDOT Rest Stop Modifications 0064-002-F07. PE 101 (Albemarle) Project No 9518 BACKGROUND The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) owns and operates the Virginia Interstate Highway system which includes rest areas throughout the state. These facilities were .constructed with Federal assistance and major improvements are normally performed on a :cost share basis. One of the Interstate Highways (1.64) crosses the southern portion of Albemarle County, Two (2) rest sro ps are located along this portion of 1-64 - one on the west bound lane (WBL) approximately 1.4 miles west of the Ivy exit and one on the east bound lane {EBL) approximately 0.2 miles west of Route 691 .~ These rest areas provide tourists and travellers the opportunity to break from their travels and use the rest room facilities. Governor George Allen has stated the interstate rest areas are a :key to Virginiars tourism since they create the tourist's first impression of the state, Therefore, the overall appearance and cleanliness of the .rest areas is an important part of promoting tou dsm in Virginia. EXISTING SYSTEM - DESCRIPTION Sewage handling is provided at each of the Albemarle County rest areas by zero discharge mineral oil systems. Oil transports the waste material from the rest rooms to a separate facility, for separation of the oil and waste matter, The solids are held in a sludge tank and transported to the County wastewater treatment plant (wwtp) several times each week, EXISTING SYSTEM - PROBLEMS The mineral oil systems were manufactured by a subsidiary of the Chrysler Corporation which is no longer in business. The systems have experienced numerous problems over the years. The problems include inadequate filtration of the recycled oil. odor, aesthetics, incompatibility of the mineral oil with system components, capacity limitations, and limited availability of spare parts. As system demands increase during high usage, the filtration system efficiency decreases. The poor efficiency of the filtration system results in recycling of feca matter, which results in odors and unsanitary conditions. Incompatibility of the mineral oil with the system components has resulted in deterioration and replacement of the plumbing on three occasions, The EE, L rest stop is approximatelv 3.4 miles from the eno of the Crozet Interceptor. The WBL rest stop is appro×imatel¥ 1.5 rrdles from the Crozet ~n~ercep~or. EXISTING SYSTEM - ATTEMPTS TO REMEDY PROBLEMS The systems were originally installed in 1979. A complete overhaul was performed in 1988, at which time the largest possible system was installed. In addition, VDOT has replaced the plumbing three times with different type materials due to deterioration by the minere oil. EXISTING SYSTEM - FLOWS The average daily flows [1994) were 19,904 gpd for the EBL and 20,266 gpd for the WBL. The maximum day flows were 60,080 gpd and 53,933 gpd respectively. VDOT estimates traffic On 1-64 to increase approximately 69% by the year 2015. Therefore, the corresponding estimated average flows are 33,638 gpd and 34,250 gpd respectively with maximum-day flows of 101,535 gpd and 91,147 g;)d respectively. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Three alternatives were considered for alleviating the current problems - Natural Treatment methods, Conventional wastewater treatment plants (wwtp); and discharge into the Crozet Interceptor. Natural Treatment systems are land application methods which include spray irrigation, rapid infiltration overland flow, and systems such as aquatic ponds, constructed wetlands, and other aquatic plant systems? The severe ground slope and the soils prevent the use of natural systems at the WBL rest stop. The ground is more gently rolling at the EBL rest stop. However, the slope, depth to rock, moderately permeable clayey subsoil, and seepage are the main limitations of the soils for natural treatment systems at the EBL rest stop? Construction of a conventional wwtp is feasible. However, the discharge will flow into the watershed management area which is contrary to the efforts by the County to eliminate point source discharges. The third alternative, discharge into the Crozet Interceptor, is the preferred alternative. This would allow conversion of the rest areas to a conventional wastewater system, keep all discharges out of the watershed management'area, and allow for a cleaner more sanitary rest area. This would also provide additional revenue for the County in the form of a connection fee and in monthly treatment fees. It is noted, water is also required at the WBL rest stop with any of the conventional Natural treatment systems as stated in the Virginia Department of HeaithSewage Collection and Treatment Regulations, VR 355-17-120 Article 15 * Natural Treatment SysTems. Page 357-378, The soils in the vicinity of tho EBL rest stop include Ashe Loam, Braddock Loam. Chester Loam, and Thurmont Loam. Soil Survev of Albemarle Countv, U.S. DeDartment of Ai~r[cu)ture. So~l Conservation Service, 1980. Pages 16, 17, 19, 20, 30,118. alternatives. The capacity of the EBL well is 72 g:pm based on a 4-8 draw down test.4 While additional storage capacity may be required, this well appears capable of meeting the demands. The reported capacity of the WBL well is 15 gpm.5 The 2015 average day demand is approximately 24 gpm at each rest sro p, with maximum day demands of 71 gpm, and intermittent peaks greater than 71 gpm. Therefore, the WBL well is not capable of meeting the average demands. COMMENTS ON THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The above alternatives were reviewed based on the Comprehensive Plan. Two of the Comprehensive Plan states: Chapter "Residential development in the rural portion of the County has adverse effects, .... Commercial land uses in the rural areas also impact agricultural and forestal activities. '~ The VDOT rest stops are existing state owned and state maintained facilities. The sludge, produced by these facilities is currently treated at the Charlottesville wwtp. Therefore, modifications to these systems do not conflict with the stated objective of protecting the County's agricultural and forestal lands but rather support the County's objectives? Chapter Two af the Comprehensive Plan also states: "WA TER RESOURCES GOAL; Protect the County's surface water and groundwater supplies for the benefit of AIbemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsvllle, and downstream interests. '~ Both natural treatment methods and conventional wwtps could impact the water quality of the watershed management area. While the distance of the facilities from the water withdravval is significant, point discharges are contrary to the County's long term effort to eliminate point source discharges Discharge into the Crozet Interceptor Virginia Department of Health Description of System, January 18, 1979, Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 1979. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning & Community Development, Page 49. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010. Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning & Community Development. Page 50. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-20~0. Adopted July 12, 1989, Deoar~ment of Planning & Community Development. Page 57. would minimize risk of contamination to the watershed management area. Chapter Three of the Comprehensive Plan states: "OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities. STRATEGIES: · Follow the boundaries of the designated. Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. · Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area Boundaries in cases where property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safety is endangered. · Prohibit access to the Crozet Interceptor between the boundary of the Crozet Community and the Urban Area. '~ Regarding the first point, both rest stops are outside of the jurisdictional area and therefore are not part of the designated growth area. However, these are existing VDOT facilities which have attempted to provide their own water and sewer since 'nception. They do not represent growth in the rural area and they are not associated with residential or commercial facilities. Regarding the second point, the WBL rest stop is not adjacent to, but is close to the existing jurisdictional area. The EBL rest stop is not adjacent to the existing jurisdictional area. However, there is a public health issue associated with both of the existing facilities as previously noted. Regarding the third point, both rest areas are outside of the Crozet Community. The Comprehensive Plan also states: "The Urban area interchanges, .... serve as gateways to Charlottesville and the urban area and deserve particular attention to desirable visual impact. ,,10 This is consistent with the Governor's statement. The rest areas provide the first repression to travellers of the Charlottesville area. Therefore, it is beneficial to Albemarle County and Charlottesville to assist VDOT in alleviating the current problems. The wording and intent of the Comprehensive Plan appear directed at limiting growth The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning & Community Development. Page 146. The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2015 Adopted July 12, 1989, Department of Planning & Community Development. Page 203. of residential and commercial development which could have an adverse impact on the environment. The VDOT rest stops are existing facilities, not new development. The force main and water line for the EBL rest stop would be located in YDOT right of way, to the extent possible, Constructing the water and sewer lines for the WBL in cross country easement is preferred due to cost. Water and sewer lines for both rest areas would be sized for VDOT use only. An agreement can be drawn to stipulate no additional connections are allowed. VDOT would own and maintain the lines and pump stations. REQUEST Based on the above stated problem, the implications of this problem, and the alternatives available, the Virginia Department of Transportation respectively requests an amendment to the Service Authority Jurisdictional Area to allow discharge of the rest stop wastewater into the Crozet Interceptor and connection to public water as needed. Your favorable response is greatly appreciated. R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS ~' ~ September 12, 1995 RECEJVED 1 5 1995 .......... gept, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virg~'nia 22902-4596 Re: VDO T Rest Stop Modifications 0064-065-F07, PE 10I (A/bemarle) RSR&A Project No: 9518 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: Please find enclosed, as per our September 11,1995 meeting, County maps indicating the rest stops, landfill, and proposed force main alignments. In addition, we request a delay in our presentation to the Board of Supervisors from October to November, 1995. This is to allow time for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to study the rea sibility of their discharging into a common system with VDOT. If this is a feasible alternative, VDOT and RSWA would prefer to meet together with the Board of Supervisors to discuss connection to the Crozet Interceptor. If you should have any questions, please call. Very truly, R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ~//~T~O'~ .~.~F~rner, Ill, P.E. Project Manager ENCLOSURES CC: Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT, Special Operations and Facilities Manager (W/Encl) Mr. Arthur Petrini - RSWA, Executive Director [W Encl) 1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD. SUITE 211 . RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23229 o (804) 281-0901 FAX !804~ 281-0962 :ir:::: L Z 0 R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES~ INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS September 22, 1995 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: Application to Amend Service Authority Juris~'ctionaI,Areas VDOT Rest Stop Modifications 0064~063-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle) RSR&A Pro~ect No: 9518 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: We request the above referenced Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas be amended to include a third possible force main alignment to serve VDOT's west bound lane rest stop. This alignment follows the west bound lane of 1-64 to Route 637 and then north along Route 637 to its intersection with the Crozet Interceptor (See attached map). This alignment, while longer, has two advantages over the initial alignments. First, the pump station costs (equipment and power consumption) would be less due to the substantially lower static head. Second, it avoids easement requirements associated with a cross country alignment. Thankyou for your assistance. We look forward to meeting with you and the Board at the November 1, 1995 meeting. If you should have any questions, please call. Very truly, R STUART ROYER AND ASSOC/ATES, /NC. .., P.E. Pr~jec'~M~r~r ENCLOSURES cc: Mr. Kenn A. Harris -VDOT, Special Operations and Facilities Manager (W/EncP 1503 SANTA ROSA ROAE SUITE 211 · R CHMOND VIRGINIA 23229 · f804 281-0901 -AX '804'~ 281-0962 REST STOP FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ATTACHI4ENT B RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 979 CHARLOJ~-ESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902~3979 (804) 977-2976 WAYNE CILIMBERG, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMI~ DEVELOPMENT ~ ARTHUR D. PETRINI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~ ~ REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL AREA OCTOBER 24, 1995 The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), at their October 23, 1995 regular meeting, has directed me to proceed with a jurisdictional area request for the Ivy Sanitary Landfill located at 6876 Dick Woods Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903. This request is for a sewage force main that would run from the landfill to the Crozet sewage interceptor. As addressed in the accompanying memo from Joyce Engineering (our consultan0, the health and safety of the area will best be served by a pump station and force main. Per our conversation with R. Staart Royer & Associates, Inc., which firm is representing the VDOT Rest Stop Modifications, the RSWA would like to process its request along with the VDOT request. Both projects could use part of the same route and therefore some economic savings could occur. Equally important would be the acquisition and/or use of existing right-of-ways once instead of twice. Please call me should you require further information. ADP/Idb OOT ~8 '~5 18:44RM JOYCE EMGIMEERIMG P.i×~ Memorandum To-* From: Date: S~bjeet: Art Petrini - Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Ron DiFrancesco - loyce Engineering Inc. October 18, 1995 Jurisdictional Area designation for the Ivy Sanitary Land.fill This memo addresses the reasons why the Ivy Sanitary Landfill property should be considered Jurisdictional Area by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. This request is a result of the meeting which we attended on Monday, October 16, 1995, at the County's Planning Department. In an effort to plan for a long-term solution for leachate mmaagemant at the Ivy Sanitary Landfill, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) is requesting consideration as a Jurisdictional Area so that a possible future connection to the Crozet Interceptor can be made. The RSWA is considering and evaluating several long-term solut/ons to leachate management at the Ivy San/tm7 Landfill. These solutions include, but may not be limited to, the following 1. Transport by pump station and force main to the Crozet Interceptor. 2. Transport by tank truck to the Rivanna Wastewater Treatment Facility. 3, On-site treatment of leachate with a point source discharge to an adjacent stream. 4. In-sim treatment of contaminated groundwater through bio-rcmediation. The first optlon may be the most attractive solution. By installing a pump station and force main, the RSWA will be able to safely transport leachate through the County to the Rivanna Wastewater Treatment Facility for ultimate treatment and d/sposal. We feel this option may be feasible if the RSWA is able to join with the proposed VDOT Rest Area Improvement Project to install a parallel force main connecting m thc Crozet Intemeptor. However, it is our understanding that thc Iv3' Sanitary Landfill must first be designated as a Jurisdictional Area. This request is primarily based upon the following concerns relating to public health and safety Page I of 2 ~CT ~8 '~5 Z0:45~1~ ZOYCE EHG~HEERIHG with the remaining options. The second option, which is CmTently b¢iug used, has the associated risk of transporting leachatc via tank truck over interstate highway, The current transport vehicle has already been struck once by a motorist. It is our opinion that' continuing this practice will present a greater risk to the public than u'ansporting leachate through a buried force main. The th/rd option of on-site treatment ofleachate may be the most expensive and controversial. This would include a state-of-thc-art treatment process with a point source discharge. The facility has already come under scrutiny relating to thc state waters surrounding the facility, This option would require a Virgin/a Pollutant Discharge Elknination System (VPDES) permit. At this time, it is uncertain if thls permit would be obtainable from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or if the KSWA could feasibly tzeat the [eachate to desirable discharge limits, The fourth option of in-situ treatment of groundwater through bio-remediation is limited to the treatment of groundwater. This does not account for the leachate currently bcin~ collected and stored through the leachate collection and removal system. This option would have to be used in conjunct/on with one of the others to treat and dispose of leaCtmte generated at the facility. Although this technology may prove to be safe and effective in treating groundwater, it does not solve the long-tenn problem of disposing generated leachate. At this time, the RSWA is requesting the Jurisdictional Area designation so if the solution of transporting leachatc via force main is determined tO be the safest and most cost effective, approval will have been granted so the Authority may design and construct the transport system. Pleas¢ review and contact me if you Mve an), questions or need additional information. Thank you. Page 2 of 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT C TO: Wayne Cilimberg - Planning & Community Development FROM: David Hirschman - Water Resources Managerial---' DATE: October 20, 1995 VDOT Jurisdictional Area Request I spoke with Ron Conner of the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) in Lexington about this request. He had an interesting spin on the issue. Apparently, back in the 70s, VDOT had a discharge certificate to put in package plants at the rest areas. Due to all the efforts to restore the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir at that time, the Health Depmm~ent basically told them they needed non-discharging systems. Mr. Conner said that VDH couldn't at that time support point source discharges at the rest areas when all the efforts had been expended, through the Crozet Interceptor and other means, to remove existing point source discharges in the rest of the watershed. In that sense, VDOT was trying to comply with reservoir protection ideals by installing the mineral oil systems in the first place. There are only two locations in Virginia where rest areas have mineral oil systems: Albemarle County and New Kent County. Mr. Conner did not have much good to say about these systems. They have had problems with odors, leaking valves (and oil getting on the floor - a health hazard in itself), and many maintenance headaches. He also said that these systems are probably nearing their useful life expectancy. Apparently, VDOT is just doing what they can to keep these things going, but they aren't operating as designed. I discussed the following alternative solutions with Mr. Conner: Construct Alternative Zero-Discharge System: There are some systems that recycle wastewater. However. Mr. Conner suggested that these need a complete treatment plant on-site and are very operator-intensive, not to mention expensive. They require carefnl signage to separate potable water from recycled wastewater. Most likely, the operation of one of these plants would also entail the periodic hauling of sludge. The public safety of a system Iike this depends heavily on the reliability of the operator and the smooth operating of the plant. Spray Irrigation: This probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) be permitted because it's still a discharge in the reservoir watershed. MEMORANDUM Wayne Cilimber, Planning & Community, Development October 20, 1995 Page Two Package Plants: Mr. Conner said VDH probably.wouldn't recommend that a permit be granted because of the reservoir issue. VDH would probably tell VDOT to just limp along with the current system (if no other alternatives existed). 4. Mass Drainfield: There is too much flow at the facilities and the soils aren't suitable. If reservoir protection was the guiding principal when the mineral oil systems were developed, it seems that this philosophy should prevail to decide what should replace the faulty systems. The only alternatives to hooking to the Interceptor that respect this are: an on-site recycYmg plant, permanent pump and haul, or spray irrigation on land outside the reservoir watershed (this would also entail hauling of waste on County roads). It is my opinion that pipelines are much preferable, from a public health and safety point of view, than hauling waste around the County in tanker trucks. This reasoning eliminates pump and haul and spray irrigation. While Mr. Cornier did not sound optimistic about the feasibility of a recycling plant, perhaps this alternative should be explored a little more thoroughly. I discussed this with Taylor Turner III of R. Stuart Royer and Associates, and he may be looking into it. It will be particularly important to evaluate whether these systems (1) require the hauling of sludge, and (2) pose operation and ma'mtenance issues that diminish their attractiveness. Let me know if you need any additional information at this time. D/H/ctj ,&LBEMARLz BOX 1OO9 i68 SPOTNAF COUNTY ,...qERVICE ~E CHARLOTTESVIL- VA · _~_ 22902 804 ATTACF24ENT D AUTHORITY ~'7,.-4~,1~ FAX (804 979-0698 October 20, 1995 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning and Community Development Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Interstate 64 Rest Areas Dear Wayne: You have asked for comments from the Service Authority concerning Virginia Department of Transportation's request for water and sewer service to the.Interstate 64 rest areas. It is my understanding that their application has been amended and they now seek water and sewer to existing structures for the westbound facility and sewer only to existing structures at the eastbound rest area. The Service Authority offers the following comments. Sewer Our engineering staff sees no technical problems with VDOT connecting to the Crozet Interceptor. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, VDOT would have to design, install, and operate at its expense all facili- ties from the rest area to the interceptor. Connection would have to be made at a point acceptable to this authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The effect of these connections on the capacity of the interceptor is insignificant. You and I have discussed the prospect of VDOT building sewage treatment plants at these facilities if they are unable to connect to public sewer. Allowing that to happen would be contrary to one of the primary purposes for the Crozet Interceptor - ELIMINATION OF POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES FROM THE WATERSHED. Water Water service could be provided to the westbound lane rest area. The connection point would be at the intersection of Route 250 and West Leigh Drive. In studying the question of water service to this rest area, you should know that there are several existing subdivisions now served by central well systems which could potentially be served by further extensions of a water main which would serve VDOT. These are Peacock Hill, Langford Farm, and Glenair. Residents of Peacock Hill and Glenair have previously expressed concern about the reliability of their water systems and have made inquiries to ACSA about the possibiiity of service. If we can provide you with any additional information concerning this matter please let me know. Very tru!y yours, J.W. Brent Executive Director JWB.tlbt Board of Directors Paul Shoop Arthur Petrini }L on the Visitors to Albemarle are attracted by the natural beauty of preservation of the agrarian nature of the county. Albemarle County is one.of desirable places to live in the United States and is considered a pnme.locatio~ seek a beautiful, unspoiled, and healthful environment for raising families an~i relative comfort and security. We are concerned that the county's lateral and vertical expansion of the Ivy Landfill, poses a clear and Albemarle's environment and to its reputation, both of which are essential: to of property values and the economic health of the county. Consequently, we peti Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as follows: Whereas iandfilling as a primary means of solid waste disposal ~nevi~bi) serious immediate and long-term environmental damage, .including pollution df g: pollution of surface water ran-off, and air pollution, which recent studies show e health of citizens living within a 5-mile radius of landfills, especially the health ¢ and elderly persons; and the produces on~d water, adahgers the f cfifldren Whereas the Ivy Landfill has operated without adequate construction of li ned and properly drained waste cells, with inadequate monitoring and control of wast~ br )ught onto the sate, and has frequently wolated state and federal rules desxgned to protec~ th~ environment; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill is located at the headwaters of the Rivanna Riv( Albemarle and Charlottesville's primary water supply, and in an area now POPula hundreds of family homes, a church, and a day-care center; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill is no.w. polluting ground water, on site, threat, s water of neighboH_ng homes, and has discharged toxic leachate into neighborifig s flowing into the Rivanna River; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill contains over 3 million gallons of doeumen? t~ including known eare'mogens, and an unknown amount of other possibly toxacian( carcinogenic chemicals in unlined and leaking cells; and Whereas expansion of the Ivy Landfffi would involve heaping more solid already inadequately constructed and maintained waste cells; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill is clearly visible and unsightly as viewed from ~ homes surrounding the site, from Route 708 crossing Oillum's Mountain~ and fro! GaP on the Skyline Drive; and Whereas an adequate environmental impact study of the Ivy Landfill has completed; and ~ by the ground Lr~h~lllS )xie waste, ~aste atop lmerons Beagle ~ver been Whereas the Ivy Landfill was opened 27 years ago as a temporary solution to solid waste.di~.~.~'~9r ~harlottesville and Albemarle County and has been in continuous operafi6fi: ~.~}y~s contrary to promises made to Ivy residents that it would not be a long- term landfall site; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill produces high levels of noise and odors offensive to homeowners whose properties are in close proximity to the landfill and expansion of the Ivy landfill would markedly increase the level and duration of these assaults on neighbors' environment and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their properties; and Whereas alternative technologies of solid waste disposal are known, such that Albemarle need not continue landfilling at the Ivy site; We ask that: L The horizontal and vetzical expatr~on of_the IW Land. fill be prohibited. 2. The hazardous waste already in the Ivy Landfill be removed and disposed of safely. 3. Alternate technologies of solid waste disposal be found and implemented, removing municipal solid waste from the headwaters of the Rivanna River. 4. The Ivy Landfill site be permanently closed and continuously monitored and remediated to minimize water and air pollution as the waste already entombed there degrades. 5. Final uses of the Ivy Landfill site be implemented per the County's Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle is now faced with decisions about landfitling that will affect its citizens' quality of life and its reputation as a place governed by prudent leaders who are responsive to the health and welfare of its citizens. The actions we request will remove ,the added threats to the Rivanna watershed and to the health of Albemarle's citizens posed by expansion and continaed operation of the Ivy Landfill. We urge the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count3, to act such that Albemarle's citizens and others will say: They are demonstrating wise fiscal management, recognizing the advantages of long-term costs incurred by environmental degradation and later ciean-up of mistakes. They are judiciously avoiding enviromnental hazards and preserving a healthful and beautiful environment by implementing the best alternatives to landfilling. · They are exhibiting a moral commitment to government that keeps faith with the electorate and makes good on its promises to citizens. 'Signed ~ ~ Address ~ Position Statement on the Ivy Visitors to Albemarle are attracted by the natural beauty ~) ~¢ SUPERVISORS i preservation of the agrarian nature of the county. Albemarle County is one desirable places to live in the United States and is considered a prime location for those who seek a beautiful, unspoiled, and' healthful environment for raising families and retiring in relative comfort and security. We are concerned that the county's landfilHng operation, especially the proposed lateral and vertical expansion of the Ivy Landfill, poses a clear and present danger to Albemarle's environment and to its reputation, both of wMch are essential to the maintenance of property values and the economic health of the county. Consequently, we petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as follows: Whereas landfflling as a primary means of solid waste disposal inevitably produces serious immediate and long-term environmental damage, including-pollution of ground water, pollution of surface water ran-off, and air pollution, which recent studies show endangers the health of citizens living within a 5-mile radius of landfills, especially the health of children and elderly persons; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill has operated without adequate construction of lined and properly drained waste cells, with inadequate monitoring and control of waste brought onto the site, and has frequently violated state and federal rules designed tO protect the environment; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill is located at the headwaters of the Rivanna River, Albemarle and Charlottesville's primary water supply, and in an area now populated by hundreds of family homes, a church, and a day-care center; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill is now polluting ground water on site, threatens the ground water of neighboring homes, and has discharged toxic leachate into neighboring streams flowing into the Rivanna River; and Whereas the Ivy l_andfill contains over 3 mimon gallons of documented toxic waste, including known carcinogens, and an unknown amount of other possibly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in unlined and leaking cells; and Whereas expansion of the Ivy Landfill would involve heaping more solid waste atop already inadequately constructed and maintained waste cells; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill is clearly visible and unsightly as viewed from numerous homes surrounding the site, from Route 708 crossing Gillum's Mountain, and from Beagle Gap on the Skyline Drive; and Whereas an adequate environmental impact study of the Ivy Landfill has never been completed; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill was opened 27 years ago as a temporary solution to solid ;~ disposal for Charlot~wille and Albemarle County and has been in continuous operation for 27 years contrary to promises made to Ivy residents that it would not be a long- term landfiIYsite; and Whereas the Ivy Landfill produces high levels of noise and odors offensive to homeowners whose properties are in close proximity to the landtill and expansion of the Ivy Landfill would markedly increase the level and duration of these assaults on neighbors' environment and their fight to peaceful enjoyment of their properties; and Whereas alternative technologies of solid waste disposal are known, such that Albemarle need not continue landfilling at the Ivy site; We ask that: 1. i%e horizontal and vertical expansion of the ~y Landfdi be prohibited. 2. The hazardous waste already in the Ivy Landfill be removed and disposed of safely. 3. Alternate technologies of solid waste disposal be found and implemented, removing municipal solid waste from the headwaters of the Rivanna River. 4. The Ivy Landfill site be permanently closed and continuously monitored and remediated to minimize water and air pollution as the waste already entombed there degrades. 5, l~nal uses of the Ivy Landfill site be implemented per the County's Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle is now faced with decisions about landfilling that will affect its citizens' quality of life and its reputation as a place governed by prudent leaders who are responsive to the health and welfare of its citizens. The actions we request will remove the added threats to the Rivanna watershed and to the health of Albemarle's citizens posed by expansion and continued operation of the Ivy Landfill. We urge the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to act such that Albemarle's citizens and others will say: They are demonstrating wise fiscal management, recognizing the advantages of higher sho~te~m costs of ~temative waste management over the expon~ntially ~ghe~ long-term costs incurred by environmental degradation and later clean-up of mistakes. They are judiciously avoiding environmental hazards and preserving a healthful and beautiful environment by implementing the best alternatives to landfilling. They are exhibRing a moral commlRnent to government that keeps faith with the electorate and makes good on its promises to citizens, Address DATE AGENDA ITF-~M NO. AGENDA 1T~H NAME DEFERRED UNTIL Form.3 7/25/86 When you need assistance in caregiving... Thomas Jefferson Adult Healthcare Center A division of Jefferson Area Board for Aging 1512 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (804)296-7711 Adult Day Healthcare The Right Choice saa!,~oS aagaq;IgaH 'Lnp oql ~m_t. np 0Al~q no£ ol.[dso~ oql Xq pop.mn~ojes oq II!~ qlFeoq u~o moX ptre pommquo oq II!A~ i~mA.hS'0.mO mOX 'slam~o ptm 'sdnoJ~ msnm 'sd.ul plou ~m. pnpu! 'so!l.tA!lO~ o!modmoql .~tmm oq; -Xo.ruo s~. ~oqmom Xl.~umj ~no:~ l, ql ~m~ou-4 spoou ~oqlo jo o~o ~ ~o :,I~OA~ O~ o~ tmo noX '~uoumo.qAUO OJ~S 'olq~lJojmoo ~ t~ 'ootre~s[ss~ In.t~ods jo poou m. slinpu ~oj o.m~ poz!iuuosa~d ott~.lXup s~oJJO DHVLL DMIHVD ~IH& DM1HVHS CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REQUEST FOR AGENDA OF ~¢' not change if this item is deferred =o some future date. This sheet is moved forward with all of the paperwork. ) Item Name ' ~.~ //' g"~/ -- ~-~'~ ~/~-'~/y/--~ ~-~' Presentor (For County Executive's information, please no=e name of person who will be making presentation to the Board.) Request Made By On (Date) INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: This form is to be used when schedulinq an item for a Board of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk in scheduling the agenda. Please fill out one copy of this work sheet (it may be handwritten) and return with the orig- inal of any paperwork you wish to have forwarded to the Board. For Clerk's Use: Appointment Confirmed with (name) On (Date) By (Name) Telephone? Mail? Materials Received with Request? (Yes) (No) Materials Photocopied? Note: On appeal of site plans or subdivision plats, be to include Planning Commission minutes with paperwork. sure Form.2 7/29/86 ~ESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly requires qualifying entities desiring property tax exemptions under state law to first seek a resolution of support from the local governing body, and WHEREAS, the number of requests to the Board of County Supervisors for such resolutions supporting tax exemptions are likely to increase in these times of budget cuts, and WHEREAS, many of the applicants seeking such tax relief already are subsidized by the county through its regular budget funding, and WHEREAS, this Board, to be fair and orderly in its treatment of all organizations, both those that have been granted property tax exemptions under Virginia law, and those which do not have property tax exemptions, would prefer that most of all of its subsidies be analyzed as part of the budget process rather than piecemeal during the entire fiscal year through the tax exempt process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors shall not adopt resolutions supporting tax exempt status for organizations under state law unless there are compel- ling circumstances, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during its annual budget process this Board will take into account whether a funding applicant has a property tax exemption, and if so, its nature and extent, and then shape the aggregate County funding amount accordingly, all with the goal of treating every applicant fairly. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December 6, 1995. ~er~k ,~Boar~o f ~C~o~t y~pervisor s R E S 0 L U T ? 0 N WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly requires qualifying entities desiring property tax exemptions under state law to first seek a resolution of support from the local governing body, and WHEREAS, the number of requests to the Board of County Supervisors for such resolutions supporting tax exemptions are likely to increase in these times of budget cuts, and WHEREAS, many of the applicants seeking such tax relief already are subsidized by the county through its regular budget funding, and WHEREAS, this Board, to be fair and orderly in its treatment of all organizations, both those that have been granted property tax exemptions under Virginia law, and those which do not have property tax exemptions, would prefer that most of all of its subsidies be analyzed as part of the budget process rather than piecemeal during the entire fiscal year through the tax exempt process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors shall not adopt resolutions supporting tax exempt status for organizations under state law unless there are compel- ling circumstances, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during its annual budget process this Board will take into account whether a funding applicant has a property tax exemption, and if so, its nature and extent, and then shape the aggregate County funding amount accordingly, all with the goal of treating every applicant fairly. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December 6, 1995. ~er/~oa~f( y~pervisors CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REQUEST FOR AGENDA OF Agenda Item No. ~-. /~dg~ . ~/~ (Note: This number does not change if this item is deferred to some future date. This sheet is moved forward with all .of the paperwork. ) Item Name ~~ ~~ <~-~~ Presentor (For County Executive's information, please note name person who will be making presentation no the Board.) of Request Made By On (Date) INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: This form is to be used when scheduling an item for a Board of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk in scheduling the agenda. Please fill out one copy of this work sheet (it may be handwritten) and return with the orig- inal of any paperwork you wish to have forwarded to the Board. For Clerk's Use: Appointment Confirmed with (name) On (Date) By (Name) Telephone? Mail? Materials Received with Request? (Yes) (No) Materials Photocopied? Note: On appeal of site plans or subdivision plats, be sure to include Planning Commission minutes with paperwork. Form.2 7/29186 MUiZ[IPLIER EFFECT OF A TOURIST DOLLAR JRIST DOLLAR IS SPENT EIGHT MORE TIMES LOCALLY $1 Motets $1 Retait$1Shops ~ Restaurants $1 tax Gas Dry Cleaning/Laundry $1 Rental Cars, Cabs $1 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TRAVELER SPENDING [] CITY [] COUNTY 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 YEAR SOURCE: Va. Dept. of Tourisrr ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TRAVEL EMPLOYMENT [] CITY [] COUNTY 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 YEAR SOURCE: Va. Dept. of Tourisr ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOURISM CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE COUNTY LOCAL TRAVEL TAXES [] CITY []COUI~ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 YEAR 1994 SOURCE: Va. Dept. of Tourisf COMBINED ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TOURISM CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY $204 MILLION ANNUAL SALES 35% OF ALL CITY/COUNTY TAXABLE SALES $4.35 MILLION IN LOCAL TAXES OVER 4,000 JOBS 3,000% RETURN ON INVESTMENT CLk~K, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REQUEST FOR AGENDA OF Agenda Item No. ~P~-. /~- ~f'/ 7 (Note: This number does not change if this item is deferred to some future date. This sheet is moved forw rd with all of the paperwork. ) Presentor (For County Executive's information, please note name of person who will be making presentation to the Board.) Request Made By On (Date) INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: This form is to be used when scheduling an item for a Board of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk in scheduling the agenda. Please fill out one copy of this work sheet (it may be handwritten) and return with the orig- inal of any paperwork you wish ~o have forwarded to the Board. For Clerk's Use: Appointment Confirmed with (name) On (Date) By (Name) Telephone? Mail? Materials Received with Request? (Yes) Materials Photocopied? Note: On appeal of site plans or subdivision to include Planning Commission minutes with (No) plats, be sure paperwork. Form.2 7/2§/86 DECEMBEr EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE bOard GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT tO SECTION 2. 1-344(A) OF THE CODE Of VirgiNia UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO DISCUSS AN EMPLOYEE EVALUATION AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MAi lEtS CONCERNING rEVErSION. CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REQUEST FOR AGENDA OF Agenda Item No..-b'/~ (Note: This number does not change if this item is deferred to some future date. This sheet is moved forward with all of the paperwork. ) Item Name ~ ~~~ Presentor (For County Executive's information, please note name of person who will be making presentation to the Board.) Request Made By On (Date) INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: This form is to be used when scheduling an item for a Board of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk in scheduling the agenda. Please fill out one copy of this work sheet (it may be handwritten) and return with the orig- ina! of any paperwork you wish to have forwarded to the Board. For Clerk's Use: Appointment Confirmed with (name) On (Date) By (Name) Telephone? Mail? Materials Received with Request? (Yes) (No) Materials Photocopied? Note: On appeal of site plans or subdivision plats, be sure to include Planning Commission minutes with paperwork. Form. 2 7/29/86