HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-04 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of August 4, t999
August 6, 1999
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to order.
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
· Ms. Irene Jordan distributed to the Board written comments
addressing Morgantown Road.
5.1 Authorize purchase of two acres of Edison Jackson property
(TM121, P58) for Keene Landfill buffer. ADOPTED
RESOLUTION. (Note: Ms. Thomas asked staff to determine
how much money the County has been spent on the Keene
Landfill to-date.)
5.2 Road Name Change Request - Greenbrier Drive (off Hydraulic
Road) to Townwood Drive. APPROVED REQUEST and
granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change.
5.3 Resolution to accept McLane Road in McLane Ridge
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION.
5.4 Resolution for State Disaster Designation for Albema~e County.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION.
5.5
Resolution requesting LEOS retirement benefits for Correctional
Officers at the Charlottesville/Albemade Regional Jail.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION.
5.6 Adopt Resolution authorizing the issuance of Industrial
Development Authority for Region Ten Community Services
Board, Inc. ADOPTED RESOLUTION.
5.7 Proclamation proclaiming August 26, 1999 as Women's
Equality Day. ADOPTED PROCLAMATION.
5.8 Appropriation: Criminal Justice Planner Grant 00-D9168,
$64,900 (Form #99009).
5.9 Appropriation: Cdme Analysis Unit Grant 00-D9169, $36,808
(Form fffi9011).
5.10 Appropriation: Department of Social Services Foster Care and
Adoption Services, $77,864 (Form #99001).
5~11 County Funding for Improvement to Skatebeard Park on
Mclntire Road. APPROVED FUNDING.
5.13 Game and Inland Fishedes final resu!ts from expanded
hunting-related enforcement. ACCEPTED REPORT and
requested additional information.
(cont.)
Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present except
Bowerman.
Clerk: None (no address available).
Clerk: Send signed Resolution (see attachment A)
to the County Attorney. Original deed and
agreement were already forwarded to County
Attorney.
County Attorney: Record documents at the Circuit
Court Clerk's office. Provide Clerk to BOS a copy
of the recording receipt.
Engineedn.cl Staff: Provide the Board information
on how much money the County has been spent
on the Keene Landfill to-date.
Clerk: !nciude in VDOT letter. Copy T. Weaver on
action letter.
Clerk: Send odginal Resolution (see attachment B)
and VDOT addition form to G. Brooks.
Clerk: Forward copy of Resolution (see
attachment C) to L. Tucker at Chamber of
Commerce. Ella to draft letter for C. Martin's
signature to local and state legislators.
Clerk: Forward copy of Resolution (see
Attachment D) to Mitchell Newman and J. Isom.
Copy B. Brandenburger on action letter.
Human Resources: Forward to State.
Clerk: Forward copy of Resolution (see
Attachment E) to Ella.
Clerk: Forward copy of Proclamation (see
attachment F) to D. Conkiln at Charlottesville
NOW.
Clerk: Include in appropriations latter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include copy of B. Tucker's memo in
appropriations letter to Melvin Breeden.
County Executive's Office: Inform G. O'Connell.
County Executive: Wdte Lt. Moore requesting
additional information.
7.a Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway. CONSENSUS of Board
to discuss items at a September Board meeting when all
Board members are present.
7.b Other Transportation Matters.
· , Mr. Marshall asked that VDOT install signs to indicate where
Rt. 20 South narrows from two lanes to one just past Rt. 53.
· Ms. Thomas questioned why VDOT had recommended wider
pavement markings on Morgantown Road as a traffic calming
measure. Ms. Thomas said some citizens have requested that
the entrance at the west end of Morgantown Road be closed off
to reduce through traffic. She mentioned that heavy truck
traffic has been reduced by less than one percent. She also
asked that VDOT work with citizens to determine where to
install "Children at Play" and/or bus stop signs.
· Ms. Humphds asked that "puppy tracks' be painted on
Riverbend Drive to assist drivers at night.
· Mt. Martin said if Ms. Tucker receives a call about paving Rt.
606 that he'd like to know. No action needed to be taken at this
time.
· Mr. Marshall noted ongoing problems caused by people
wanting to park and turn around at the Warren ferry. He
thought the County had purchased land for this purpose. Mr.
Tucker said land has not been purchased. Staff is looking into
the matter.
8. Presentation: Annual Report from the Commission on Children
and Families. PRESENTATION was made by J. Peterson.
9. Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional areas
of the Albemade County Service Authority to provide water
service to property described as TM78, P51A, Ashcroft
Subdivision VI. SET PUBLIC HEARING for 10/6/99.
10. School Board Report. PRESENTATION was made by
J. Baker. Comments from Board:
· Mr. Perkins said he still thinks it would be a good idea to see if
students who currently drive to high school would be willing to
attend a different school to redistdbute enrollment.
· Mr. Marshall said he has received complaints from parents of
Monticello High School students about repairs already
becoming necessary at Monticello High School.
11. Public headrig on the proposed tax-exempt financing by East
Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., in the amount not to
exceed $205,000, in order to assist the Fire Company in the
acquisition of a new fire truck. ADOPTED RESOLUTION.
12. Discussion: Water Supply Planning. (RWSA staff and
consultants to group public-suggested alternatives into
viable and less viable categories, including reasons given as to
why some may or may not be viable.)
13. Closed Session: Legal and Property Matters.
14. Certify Closed Session.
15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
· Ms. Thomas reported on her recent tdp to Italy and said the
local government there is interested in pursuing an educational
exchange.
County Executive: Wdte letter to City Council
informing them of the Board's decision.
Clerk: Include all items in VDOT letter.
County Executive: Ask P. Mullaney status of
purchasing land at Warren.
None.
Clerk: Advertise public headng for 10/6/99.
None.
Clerk: FoPNard originals to County Attorney (see
Resolution, attachment G).
Clerk: Notify A. Petrini.
None.
None.
None.
(cont.)
· Ms. Humphris said a cell tower at Boyd Tavern/Keswick
appears to have an unauthorized microwave antenna installed
on it.
· Mr. Martin said he received a letter from Bell Atlantic about None.
PSAC maintenance to equipment. Mr. Tucker said he had
forwarded the'l letter to the Emergency. Communications Center.
· Mr. Perkins noted he heard that poles to be used by VDOT to None.
install cell towers were 135' tall, not the 80' that was indicated
by VDOT.
· Mr. Martin said he received a letter from the Cdminal Justice
Board which was a request for funds at the next budget
hearing. Mr. Tucker said this will be included in the next
budget review process.
16. Adjourn. None.
Planning staff Look into the matter.
County Executive staff: Include in next budget
review process.
COU~ O~ ~i ~E~ia~i F-
Office of Board of Supevisors
401 Mcl~re ~
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296,S800
August10,1999
Ms. angela g. Tucker, Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Dear Ms. Tucker:
At the August 4, 1999 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board took the following action
regarding transportation matters:
Item No. 5.6. Road Name Change Request - Greenbrier Drive (off Hydraulic Road) to Townwood
Driv,e. APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 7.a. Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway. CONSENSUS of Board to discuss
this matter at a September Board meeting when all Board members are present.
Agenda Item No. 7.b. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Marshall asked that VDOT install signs to indicate where Rt. 20 South narrows from two lanes
to one just past Rt. 53.
Ms. Thomas said some' citizens have requested that the entrance at the west end of Morgantown
Road be closed off to reduce through traffic. She.mentioned that heavy truck traffic has been reduced by
less than one percent. She also asked that VDO:f' work with citizens to determine where to install
"Children at Play" and/or bus stop signs in this area.
Ms. Humphris asked that "puppy tracks" be painted On Riverbend Drive to assist drivers at night.
Mr. Martin. said if you receive a call about paving Rt. 60 that he would like to know. No action
needs to be taken at this time.
Printed on recycled paper
Letter to Angela Tucker
August 10, 1999
Page 2
Mr. Marshall noted ongoing problems caused by people wanting to park and turn around at the
Warren ferry. He thought the County had purchased land for this purpose. Mr. Tucker said staff will look
into this matter.
/Ibh
CC:
Robert TuCker
_ Sincerely,
'~aar.~e C~
INTER
OFFICE
MEMO
To-'
From:
Subject:
Date:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
Appropriations Approved on August 4, 1999
August 10, 1999
Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following items which were approved by the
Board at its meeting on August 4, 1999:
1)
2)
3)
Appropriation: Criminal Justice Planner Grant 00-D9168, $64,900 (Form #99009).
Appropriation: Cdme Analysis Unit Grant 00-D9169, $36,808 (Form #99011).
Appropriation: Department of Social Services Foster Care and Adoption Services, $77,864
(Form #99001).
In addition, the Board approved County funding for improvements to the skateboard park on
Mclntire Road (see attachment A).
Finally, the Board adopted a resolution in authorizing the tax-exempt financing by East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $205,000, in order to assist the Fire
Company in the acquisition of a new fire truck (see attachment B).
Attachments
CC:
Roxanne White
Robert Waiters
Jokr. I .... ~
Carl Pumphrey
John Miller
Kathy Ralston
Pat Mullaney
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99/00
NUMBER
99009
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL PLANNER GRANT. (00-D9'168)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1520 29409 300000 PURCHASED SERVICES $64,900.00
TOTAL $64,900°00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1520 19000 190207 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $3,971.00
2 1520 19000 190216 CENTRAL VA REGIONAL JAIL 8,853.00
2 1520 19000 190217 COUNTY OF GOOCHLAND 1,483.00
2 1520 19000 190218 COUNTY OF NELSON 730.00
2 1520 33000 330408 DCJSGRANT 45,892.00
2 1520 51000 512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 3,971.00
TRANSFERS
TOTAL $64,900.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 NUMBER 99001
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEVV
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND LOCAL MATCH FOR FOSTER CARE.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 53013 110000 SALARIES $ 52,616.00
I 1000 53013 210000 FICA 3,945.00
I 1000 53013 221000 RETIREMENT 5,766.00
I 1000 53013 231000 HEALTH 5,432.00
I 1000 53013 232000 DENTAL 165,00
1 1000 53013 270000 WORKMAN'S COMP. 420.00
I 1000 53013 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 1.000.00
I 1000 53013 520302 LONG DISTANCE 250.00
1 1000 53013 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 250.00
1 1000 53013 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 250.00
I 1000 53013 520100 POSTAL 250.00
1 1000 53013 601700 COPY SUPPLIES 250.00
1 1000 53013 800200 FURNITURE 2,250.00
1 1000 53013 800700 COMPUTERS/PRINTERS 5,000.00
TOTAL $ 77,864.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $ 15,573.00
2 1000 24000 240114 62,291.00
TOTAL $77,864.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99~00
NUMBER
99011
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
CRIMINAL JUSTICE CRIME ANALYSIS GRANT. (00-D9169)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
trt'~'.t-'A'~'l~ ~I1i'i"A'i'~t"/t'tttr t¢'.lt~-'et'.t~'~'i"l~'.l~'~t"A';.t~'.t~'i'te"~~~ 'l~'~,t'ttt"l~./e,~t~'~'i"/~',t'el"lt'/~'~ ',~.t-'k'~'/~i'~'~"lt"A'~'~'t'
1 1520 29411 110000 SALARIES $29,658.00
I 1520 29411 210000 FICA 2,269.00
1 1520 29411 221000 VRS 3,328.00
I 1520 29411 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 600.00
1 1520 29411 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 953.00
2 1520
2 1520
2 1520
2 1520
TOTAL $36,808.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
19000 190207 CITY $3,067.33
19000 190219 UVA 3,067.33
33000 330405 CRIME ANALYSIS GRANT 27,606.00
51000 512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 3,067.34
TOTAL $36,808.00
TRANSFERS
· /¢"/t'~./,..'.,t~'i..A.'/t~'lti../~'/~,t~.A",i'~'.~~~ ./~.'.t',-~../~i.~.~t-li~,t.i~.,I-~.ltW./~t~.k~ ~.tn,t.A.~.l.'tnt~.lt"i~t.~.A-.llrt.~.!~i·
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO X
GENERAL
CONTRIBUTION TO CITY FOR MCINTIRE SKATEBOARD PARK.
99037
X
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 79000 567650 CONTRIBUTIONS MCINTIRE SKATEBOARD PARK $23,400.00
TOTAL $23,400.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $23,400.00
TOTAL $23,400.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
/
OCT ~ /
/
/,
/,
/
/
/
/
/'
When the State built Rt 250 the county forgot to abandon this little stretch of Morgantown Rd
that it replaced. I'm referring to Abandonment of Roads from the Secondary System of State
Highways code 33.1-151. In section 2.2 it clearly states that this is done when "the safety and
welfare of the public would be served best by abandoning the section of road". Abandoning
Morgantom Road like it was supposed to in the 1950's would definitely eliminate the dangers at
the Owensville Rd intersection with Rt 250 in Ivy. The money saved could be more appropriately
applied to the VL Murray school zone. Since moving here three years ago to my husband' s home
place I've witnessed three ear accidents at my comer up near the school. The current motor
vehicle use on Morgantown Road prohibits any pedestrian use so that boarding the school bus is a
complete act of faith. One example: April 21, I reported a car passing Harold Barber driving the
school bus at about 7:30AM to Officer Scipolletti of the Albernarle County Police Dept.
Preston Ave., Vinegar Hill, Tenth St., Ridge Road and Fifth Street, and Grady Ave are excellent
examples of what I hope to avoid in my neighborhood by the good judgement of the Board. In
fact, I guarantee that you, the board, could transform your own neighborhoods by widening the
pavement right up to your front doors and raising the speed limit to 45 miles an hour. The 135
years of service provided by Mount Calvary Baptist Church, an Historical Site with its own
elevation marker set by the state, has already been adversely affected by the anonymous traffic
that uses our road as a shortcut yet at highway speeds. For instance on Sat. March 20 of this year
we were vandalized with splat paint. Yes, the paint washed off but the fear it invoked is a
permanent stain. To aggravate those fears, we were then denied the right to file a police report
until the news media showed up. Then, at our neighborhood meeting on Monday, May 10m we
were notified by Police Chief that we weren't going to receive police enforcement of traffic laws
and instead we should take down the licence plate numbers of illicit road users and submit them to
his office which would write the speed fiends a friendly letter. Yet, given the logistics of today's
society, working class families like ours here on our road don't have time to enforce the law.
We're diligently paying our taxes in order for such services to be distributed back to the public
equitably.
Most current commuters who drive disrespectfully through our neighborhood live in recently
developed communities that were intentionally planned to prohibit thru traffic. Our reconstrue-
tion era neighborhood, on the other hand, was created with access in mind for people who had
been legally and systematically denied equitable health, education and legal services. Under the
present conditions we continue to struggle against some of the same forces. Commuters who
pass through our neighborhood jeopardize our health, education and legal rights. With increased
traffe our wells will be further contaminated and with only one car loan per working family we
can't compete with multi-ear families to get our kids to school, nor can we safely board them on
the school bus. The present illegal use of our road by ears and trucks proin'bits the exercise of any
other use by pedestrians, eyelists, horse enthusiasts, joggers and neighbors walking for the
physical and emotional benefits. Besides we aren't guaranteed access to elite medical care if we
get creamed by a motor vehicle.
I'm sure the county is willing to correct the oversight committed by not abandoning the road once
Rt 250 was opened. We here in Ivy are willing to overlook the risks we've endured on our one
and only accessible right-of way once the illicit use is completely eliminated.. Ivly mother always
used to say that life isn't fair. In my presentation to you today I take beart that, luckily, people
are.
I/UZ
LakeI
marie !
675
1615 1618
1617
676 601
lO I )
I
677
738 /
Farmington
Country Club
679 IL,,
7 6 163
708 1633
177
1631
mmm mm mmmm
637
1632
1640
677
I
i
I
i
I
i
25O
7.09
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Purchase of Keene Landfill Buffer Property
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Recommendation to Purchase 2 acres from A. E. Jackson
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer, Letteri, Muhlberger
ATTACHMENTS: Map of Keene Landfill
Deed nd Purchase Agreement
REVIEWED BY: ~
BACKGROUND:
The Keene Landfill is an inactive municipal solid waste landfill located on Route 704 in Southern Albemarle County. The
property includes approximately 56 acres, 38 of which is filled with municipal, commercial and construction wastes. The landfill
operated from 1968 until it officially ceased accepting waste in 1991.
DISCUSSION:
The Board of Supervisors authorized negotiations with owners of Keene Landfill buffer properties during an Executive Session
on February 3, 1999. Staff has successfully negotiated the sale of two acres of the A. Edison Jackson property, Tax Map 121-
58, for a purchase price of $3,000.00.
The subject property is located on the western boundary of the Landfill. This is an undeveloped, wooded property. Purchase
of this property will improve our ability to maintain and protect the waste disposal areas of the landfill.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public Works Division recommends purchasing 2 acres of the A. E. Jackson property for $3,000.00 with funds from the
Keene Landfill Closure CIP Account and adopting the attached resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
99.134
RESOLUtiON
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is the owner of record of certain
property identified as the Keene Landfill, Tax Map 129-2A, located in Southern
Albemarle County;
WHEREAS, the County has determined that a n~.~-"J exists to acquire
certain real property adjacent to the Keene landfill;
WHEREAS, the County intends to utilize the acquired property for buffer
and related purposes in connection with the closure of the Keene landfill;
WHEREAS, the County has conveyed a written offer, memorialized in the
Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate attached hereto, to purchase approximately 2
acres of privately-owned property adjacent to the Keene landfill for the fair market
value of the property, contingent upon approval by the Board of Supervisors; and
offer.
WHEREAS, the property owners have accepted the County's conditional
NOW THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the purchase of the above-referenced
property according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and Deed
attached hereto.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certi~ that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County by vote of 5 to 0 on August 4, 1999.
"e~rk,~Board of Coun~Su~~isors
THIS DEED is dated this~y of ,1999 by and between A. EDISON
JACKSON, JR. and SUSAN H. JACKSO~,~~~t rs, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSt~TH:
That for and in consideration of the total sum of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($3,000.00), and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY
AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the Grantee the following described property:
All that certain real estate located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and described as that
portion of land containing 2.00 acres, more or less, being a portion of Tax Map Parcel 121-
58 located off State Route 704 south of Keene, as described further as Parcel "X" on the plat
made by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc. dated July 6, 1999 (the "Plat"), attached
hereto and to be recorded herewith.
Being a portion of the property conveyed to A. Edison Jackson, Jr. and Susan H. Jackson,
by deed from Alfred E. Jackson and Kathleen Beach Jackson, husband and wife, dated
March 1, 1977, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia in Deed Book 618, Page 97, and described as that certain tract of land
approximately one-half mile west of "Glendower" containing 69-1/4 acres, more or less,
bounded on the east by .State Route No. 704 and on the south by "Old Limestone Road" and
more particularly described on plat of R. E. Shaw recorded with deed of W. Gordon Metrick
and Anne Dwight Merrick dated December 5, 1910, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 144, page 162.
Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the land conveyed hereby.
As evidenced by its acceptance and recordation of this deed, Grantee covenants and agrees,
on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, that the property conveyed hereby will not be used for
the expansion of the landfilling operation at the Keene Sanitary Landfill or as a new landfill; this
This document prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney's Office
July 14, 1999
covenant shall be deemed to run with the land and is for the benefit of (and may be enforced by) the
Grantors, their successors and assigns.
This conveyance is made subject to all easements, reservations, restrictions and conditions,
if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice
in the chain of title to the above-described property which have not expired by a time limitation
contained therein or have otherwise not become ineffective~
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the conveyance of the interest
in real estate made by this Deed and on the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein.
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1'801,
pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-811 (A)(3).
GRANTORS:
GRANTEE:
Approved as to form:
A. E S J A_C~
SUSAN H. JACKSON
yUNTY~~ALB~~d,i,~MARLE,VIRGINIA ,
2
STATE OF//O/{ /
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~:~19 day of
~' O t ~/ ,1999 by A. Edison Jac~ Jr. //j'~
Notary, blic t' "'&-.. -. .... - - - - .- - ~
My Commission Expires: ~t
C TWCO TY OF XJ
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this cz~ C) day of
Notafy~lic r ~'L ' N~'~IC'~llONS ....
My Commission Expires: !~Xi~ ~gi'~ua;~~c~4a°
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '~/~ day of
Vir~ ,1999 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, County of Albemarle,
My Commission Expires: ~/,]~/dt~ /
Notary Public
3
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
d t ' ,1999 by and between A.
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereafter referred to as "Buyer").
//
1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate with all improvements thereon
and appurtenances thereto (the "Property"), located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and described
as all that certain real estate located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia containing 2.00 acres, more
or less, being a portion of Tax Map Parcel 121-58 located off State Route 704 south of Keene, as
described further as Parcel "X" on the plat made by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc. dated July
6, 1999 (the "Plat"), attached hereto.
2. Purchase Pricb. The purchase price for the property is Three Thousand Dollars
($3000.00), and shall be paid by Buyer to Seller at closing.
3. Title. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by appropriate deed containing general
warranty and English covenants of title, which title shall be good, marketable, and insurable, free and
clear of all liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and tenancies, and subject only to such easements,
covenants, and restrictions of record which do not adversely affect marketability and insurability of title.
In the event Buyer's attorney finds title to be defective, and should Seller fail to remedy any default
within sixty (60) days of notice thereof, this Agreement may be declared null and void by Buyer, and
all funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
4. Expenses and Prorations. Buyer agrees to pay the expenses of preparing the deed, and
Seller agrees to pay the recordation tax applicable to grantors. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all
other expenses incurred by Buyer in connection with the purchase, including, without limitation, title
examination, survey costs, preparation of a plat of subdivision, environmental reports, and recording
costs shall be borne by Buyer. All taxes, assessments, interest, and rent, if any, shall be prorated as of
the date of closing and paid by Seller.
5. ' Inspection. The Buyer and its agents shall have the fight to enter upon the Property at
any time prior to closing for purposes of engineer'ing, surveying, site analysis, and such other work, so
long as the studies do not result in a change in the character or topography of the Property. This
Agreement is contingent upon the Property being free of hazardous waste or other dangerous
environmental contamination. If the Buyer determines, in its sole judgment, that such contamination
exists, Buyer may declare this Agreement null and void and all funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be
refunded within thirty (30) days.
6. Subdivision Plat. The Seller agrees to execute upon request all plats and other legal
documents necessary to subdivide the land owned by it to transfer the Property. The Seller may retain
any development rights applicable to lots of less than Twenty-one (21) acres.
7. Time is of the Essence. The Seller agrees that, with respect to all obligations specified
herein, time is of the essence.
8. Closing. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle County Attorney's Office on or
before August 30, 1999, or earlier if Buyer and Seller agree, or as soon thereafter as title can be
examined and papers prepared.
9. Risk of Loss. All risk of loss or damage to the Property by fire, windstom, casualty or
other cause are assumed by, and shall be bome by the Seller, until closing. In the event of any material
loss, destruction or damage to the Property, Buyer may declare the Agreement null and void and all
funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
10. Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Property shall be in substantially the
same condition at closing as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement.
2
11. Construction. Benefit and Effect: This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and may not
be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all parties.
12. Agreement Survives Closing. It is expressly understood and agreed by Buyer and Seller
that all agreements, promises, stipulations and representations contained herein shall survive closing and
shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, agents, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
13. This Agreement is expressly contingent upon its approval by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors (hereafter referred to as "Board"). If the Board fails to approve this Agreement
within 60 days of its execution by Seller, Buyer or Seller may declare this Agreement null and void and
all funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day first above
Vqri~fl~eno .~O/ON .J~ ,~
SELLER:
A. EDI ,
'
BUYER:
Approved as to form:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF
The fore oing Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate was acknowledged before me this
day... of ~U l y ,1999 by A. Edis n J kson, Jr.
My Commission Expires: ~o~~c r ..... , ....-.-- -'- -
STATE OF/'~',/~,~,//d2
CITY/COUNTY OF/t='7' flk/qg~fd4./f__
The foregoing Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate was acknowledged before me this
__~_ day of --~'t.) /y , 1999 by Susan . Ja on. ~ ~ ~d
STATE OF VIRG~IA
CO~TY OF ALBE~E:
The foregoing Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate was acknowledged before me this
day of ~ ,1999 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, County of
Albemarle, Virginia.
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
4
60'
f
2
,' ' COMMONW~.AT_TH OF V!RGINT~
DEED RECEIPT
DATEe 0G/13/99 TINE: 10:57:~1 ACCOUNT: 003CLR99001~5~!
CASHIER: PXN RE6: ADO! TYPE: DEED
INSTRUNENT : 99001ESH BOOK:
GRANTOR. NAHE :JACKSONy A EDISON; JR
GRANTEE ~i~IE: COUNTY OF ALBENARLE, VA
AND ADDRESS ~:
RECEIVED DE: HARK A TRANK
CHECK:
DESCRIPTION 1:~,00 ACRES
CONSIDERATION: 3,000.00
CODE DESCRIPTION
30! DEEDS
038 DEEDS OF CONVEYANCE
2~0 GRANTOR TAX
RECEIPT: 99000018~!
PAYMENT: FULL PAYNENT
PAGE.: RECORDED: 08/13/99 AT lO:SE
EX: N LOCALITY: CO
- - EX: Y PERCENT: lO0~
ASSUNE/VAL: ,00 NAP:
PAID CODE DESCRIPTION PAID
l&O0 '1~ VSLF I.O0
1.50 EI~ TRANSFER FEES 1,00
1.50
TENDERED : ~4.00
AHOUNT. PAID: ~1.00
CHANGE AHT: 3.00
CLERK OF COURT: SHELBY L XARSHALL
; DC-18
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEED RECEIPT
DATE: 08113/99 TINE: 10:50:~6 ACCOUNT: 003CLR99001~5~0
CASHIER: PI~ REG: A~Ol TYPE: CPS
INSTRUHENT : 99001E510 DOOK~
GRANTOR NANE: aLUE RIDGE FARN CREDIT
GRANTEE NANE: ~AC[SON, ALFRED E
AND ADDRESS:
RECEIVED OF: HARK A TRANK
CHECK: $16,00
DESCRIPTION 1: DB ~30 PAGE 5~1
CONSIDERATION: .00
CODE DESCRIPTION
301 DEEDS
106 TECHNOLOGY FUND FEE
RECEIPT: 990000180~0
PAYHENT: FULL PAYNENT
PAGE: RECORDED: 08t13/99 AT 10:50
EX: N LOCALITY: CO
EX: N PERCENT: 100~
ASSUXE/VAL: .00 ~AP:
PAID CODE DESCRIPTION PAID
I~,00 1~5 VSLF 1.00
3.00
TENDERED : 16.00
AMOUNT PAID: 16.00
CHANGE AHT: .00
CLERK OF COURT: SHELBY ~. NARSHALL
D0-18 (3/99)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Road Name Change
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Road Name Change Request
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Weaver
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY~
BACKGROUND:
Staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project in accordance with the
Board's road name change policy. The Board's policy states that after this phase of the project has been completed, no
further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. Staff has been made aware of a situation for
which a road name change should be further considered.
DISCUSSION:
Request to change the name of Greenbrier Drive (off Hydraulic Road) to Townwood Drive at the request of the Townwood
Property Owners Association (see attached letter). Staff concurs with the reasons for this change as outlined in the
attached letter. Staff has confirmed that all abutting property owners are in favor of the change. (signatures are
represented on the attachment). A map indicating the location of this road is attached. Due to the opportunity that this
request presents to eliminate a duplicate road name (consistent with the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance
and Manual guidelines), costs associated with new signage (approximately $150) will be the responsibility of Albemarle
County. The Greenbrier Drive signs that are replaced can be used at other Greenbrier Drive locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Should the Board. approve the new road name as requested, the ~Board should grant
coordinate/implement the above referenced change.
staff the authority to
99.135
TOWNWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
1675 COOL SPRINGS ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
May 10, 1999
Mr. Tex Weaver
Albemarle County
Department of planning and
Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Changing the Name of Greenbrier Drive to Townwood Drive
Dear Mr. Weaver:
We would like to request that the section of Greenbrier Drive, off Hydraulic Road into
the Townwood Subdivision, be changed to Townwood Drive. We are making this
request for several reasons:
1. The plans to connect this road through to Route 29 have been eliminated.
2. It is in the best interest of the general public. Citizens who see the sign
"Greenbrier Drive" pointing into Townwood Subdivision, turn onto this road
thinking-they can get to the Greenbrier Drive off Route 29. They drive around
our subdivision very confused as the mad ends in cul-de-sacs.
3. It would also caus~ less confusion for emergency response personnel as it
would eliminate duplicate road names.
Please find enclosed approvals from the two connecting land owners supporting this
change.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. If you need any additional
information, or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 973-7273.
Sincerely,
E. Alice Keys
Vice-President
RECEIVED
MAY it .~ 1.qOq
PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
support the change of Greenbrier Drive (Townwood Subdivision) .to Townwood Drive.
do not support the change of Greenbrier Drive (Townwood Subdivision) to Townwood Drive.
f~I support the change of Greenbrier Drive (Townwood Subdivision) to Townwood Drive.
I do not support the change oi Greenbrier Drive (Townwood Subdivision) to Townwood Drive.
Signature
ROSLYN FOREST LN
!
/
}
I
HE 1 OH T~
07-
EARLYSVILLE'
RD
FOUR
SEASONS
DR
~YNR1DGE LN
N
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Glen Brooks
Department of Engineering
Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
Road Resolution
August 9, 1999
At its meeting on August 4, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached
resolution:
(1)
to add the road in McLane Ridge as described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(a) dated luly 27, 1999, to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to § 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
DepartmenUs Subdivision Street Requirements. The Board guarantees
a dear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats.
Attached is the original adopted resolution and VDOT additions forms.
Attachments (2)
The Board of County Supervisors of Aibema~e County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 4th day of August,
1999, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in McLane Ridge described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 27,
1999, 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 Reauirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation. '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that fie Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the mad in McLane Ridge as described on the attached Addffions Form SR-5(A)
dated July 27, 1999, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Re<iuirements; 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 cerlffied copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation,
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:.
Charlotte Y. Humphds
Sally H. Thomas
Yeas:
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Sally H. Thomas
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Charles S. Maffin
Walter F. Perkins
Nays:
Absent:
-None.
David P. Bowerman
A Copy Teste:
11117
ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A) -
Attachment to (check one only)
PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
Board of Supervisors Resolution ~ Surety Instrument
Dated: 27 July 1999
Attachment i of I
Name of Subdivision: McLane Ridqe Albemarle County
Ref. Name of Street Street Addition Termini R-O-W Miscellaneous Notes Addition Length
No. Width(ft.) Centerline Miles
I McLa~e Road From= Intersection of Rt.600 50 0.13
TO: cul-de-sac at station 6+88
Plat Recorded Date:6-21-89 Deed Book: 1055 Pages: 047
Deed Book: 955 Pages: 282
2 From:
TO:
I Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Pages:
3
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page:
4 From:
PXat Recorded Date~ Deed Book: Page:
5 From~
Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book= Page:
Notes: Ouaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage.
CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT
This attachment is certified as a part of the document indicated above:
(Name and Title)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department &Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer
27 July 1999
McLane Ridge, road acceptance resolution
The road serving the referenced subdivision is complete and ready for VDOT acceptance. At the
next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the roads specified
in the attached VDOT SR-5(A) forms. After the adoption of the resolution, please provide me
with the original of the signed and dated resolution and SR-5A.
Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Copy: construction file
File: Highlandslc.ResolutionRequest.doc
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
McLane Road from the intemection of Route 600, to the cul-de-sac at Station 6+88, as shown on
plat recorded 6/21/89 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
955, page 282; and Deed Book 1055, page 047, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0. 13 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.13 mile.
David P. Bo~ernmn
Chm'!otte Y. Humphris
ForrestR. Marsh~l, Jr.
COUNTY OF Ai -I~EMA~i F-
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, X~Lrginia 22902-4~596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
W~lter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Isom
Jail Administrator
FROM:
Laurel B. Hall L~
Senior Deputy Clerk
RE: Resolution
DATE: August 9, 1999
At its August 4, 1999 meeting, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors adopted the
attached resolution to extend LEOS retirement benefits to Jail Correctional Officers and the
Superintendent at the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail. I have attached a copy of the
resolution for your records.
Enclosure
cc: Mitchell Neuman, Chair of Jail Authority
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision
currently participating with the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail, acting by and
through its Board of Supervisors, does hereby concur that the Jail, participating in the
Virginia Retirement System under provisions of Title 51.1, Chapter 1, Article 5 of the Code
of Virginia, as amended, may elect to have such employees of the Jail who are employed
in positions as full time salaried Jail Superintendents and Jail Officers and whose tenure
is not restricted as to temporary or provisional appointment, to become eligible, effective
January 1, 2000, to be provided benefits in the Virginia Retirement System equivalent to
those provided for State police officers of the Department of State Police, and Albemarle
County Police Officers and Firefighters, as set out in Section 51.1-138 of the Code of
Virginia, in lieu of the benefits that would otherwise be provided as such code has been
or may be amended from time to time.
I, Ella W. Carey, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of resolution passed at a
lawfully organized meeting of the Board of Supervisors held at 401 Mclntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, at 9:00 a.m., on August 4, 1999.
Given under my hand and seal of the County of AIbemarle, Virginia, this 4t" day of
August, 1999.
Clerk, Board of Sup~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Retirement Funding for Correctional Officers
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSAL/REQU EST:
Request approval of LEOS retirement benefits for
Correctional Officers at the Albemarle/
Charlottesville Regional Jail.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACH M E NTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INF, ORMATION:
Yes
~ACKGROUND:
'r he General Assembly approved an enhancement for Correctional Officers retirement (LEOS) during the last
s ~ssion, which allows for retirement after 25 years of service after reaching age 50. The LEOS retirement also
ps'ovides for a supplement for anyone who served at least 20 of the last 25 years in what would be deemed a
h~zardous position. All the sworn officer positions at the jail would be considered hazardous positions.
D~SCUSSION:
THe Jail Board approved the enhanced retirement package for the Correctional Officers at their July14t~
mt;eting, but it must also be approved by the participating political subdivisions of the jail. The Jail Board
es :imates that the annual cost of increasing their VRS rate to cover the additional benefits will be $90,048. They
ha re approved the additional costs of the LEOS benefits effective January 1, 2000 at a cost of approximately
$4~ ~,000. The additional costs will be funded by the Authority's FY00 budget.
Th,! Board approved LEOS retirement benefits for all AIbemarle County law enforcement personnel in 1976,
wh :h includes all police officers and the Sheriffs Department. The Board also approved the enhanced LEOS
retj 'ement benefits for the Albemarle County Firefighters in May, 1999.
The attached resolution provides the County's approval to extend LEOS retirement benefits to full-time salaried
Cor 'ectional Officers and the Superintendent.
RE(: OMMENDATION:
St~nfl:recommends approval of the attached Resolution granting the Board's approval to extend LEOS retirement
~e fits to Jail Correctional Officers and the Superintendent at the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail.
Chadotte Y. Humphfis
Forrest R Mar~ha~, Jr.
COUNTY OF AI REMA~i F
Office of Board of Sul:e'visors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesvffie, V~rginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
August 11, 1999
Charles S. Martin
Waiter E Perkins
~ FL Thomas
Ms. Cynthia I. Hendren
Legal Assistant
McGuire, Woods, Batde & Boothe
One James Center
Richmond, VA 23219-4030
./
Dear Cindy:
At its meeting on August 4, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted the proposed resolution
authorizing the issuance of Industrial Development Authority revenue bonds for Region Ten Commu-
nity Services Board, Inc..
Enclosed please find an orginial signed and sealed resolution. If I can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ella W. Carey, Clerk
/ewc
Enclosure
co:
James M. Bowling, IV
James R. Peterson
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemade County, Virginia
('Authority'), has considered the application of Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc.
("Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to
e~ceed $5,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist the Company in refinancing and financing acquisition,
construction and equipping of the various projects (collectively, the "Project") listed on Exhibit A
attached hereto, and has held a public hearing on
July 22, 1999;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code"), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity
bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds
in located must approve the issuance of the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemade, Virginia
("County"), a portion of the Project is to be located in the County; and the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemade, Virginia ('board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of
the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the
Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution appreving the issuance of the Bonds,
,subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the
Company, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code
of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code").
=
The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the
Company.
Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section
5f. 103-2(f)(1), this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date
of its adoption.
,
August, 1999.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia this 4th day of
[SEAL]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iAGENDA TITLE:
Industrial Development Authority Resolution for Region Ten
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 22, 1999, the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) held a public hearing and approved the issuance of revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000. The issuance of the bonds was considered by the IDA at the request of the
Region Ten Community Services Board to:
(1) Refinance $2 million in revenue bonds on the agency's current facility;
(2) Refinance loans on four current residential facilities for adults with mental retardation; and
(3) Finance the construction of three new facilities to provide services for persons with mental disabilities.
DISCUSSION:
In addition to expanding services through the planned construction of new facilities, the proposed financing will result in a
savings to the Community Services Board by refinancing current debt at more competitive interest rates.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the enclosed resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds by the IDA.
99.133
July 22, 1999
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle, Virginia
401. Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
Proposed Financing for Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc.
Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc. ("Company") has requested that the"
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"), assist the
Company in refinancing and financing the acquisition, construction 'and equipping of various
projects (collectively, the "Project") listed on Exhibit A, by the issuance of its revenue bonds in
an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 ("Bonds").
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the
Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public
hearing on the proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the
issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the
action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia
approval. Zlry ~n '
S c ~ndus t Authority
er ,
of Albemarle County, Virginia
EXI~I[BIT A
1. The refmancing of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Fluvanna,
Virginia' s $2,000,000 Facility Revenue Bond (Kegion Ten Community Services Board, Inc.),
Series 1996, issued on November 1, 1996 to finance the acquisition, renovation and equipping of
the Company' s facility at 800 Preston Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
2. The refmancing of certain loans of the Company used to finance the purchase of the
following facilities used as supervised residences for adults with mental .retardation, located at
(a) 1907 Cedar Hill Road, in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, (b) 43 12 Dickerson Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (c) 720 Highland Avenue, in the
City of Charlottesville, Virginia and (d) 719 Shamrock Road, in the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia.
3. The financing of the acquisition, construction and equipping of the following
facilities to provide prevention, treatment and/or rehabilitation for persons with mental
disabilities: (a) "Blue Ridge House" consisting of a 10,000 square foot center to be located on
approximately 1.4 acres of land on Elliot Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia on Lot
A, commonly known as the Bumett Nursery property, (b) "Meadowcreek Center" consisting of a
10,000 square foot center to be located on approximately 4.78 acres of land in the northeast
corner of Hydraulic Road and Michie Drive in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and (c)
"Fourth Street Station" consisting of a 10,000 square foot office building to be located at the
southwest corner of 4th Street NW and Preston Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies as follows:
1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on July 22, 1999, at 4:00
o'clock p.m. in the Fourth Floor Conference Room at 401 McIntire Road, in Charlottesville,
Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority before such meeting.
The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting
was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be
heard.
2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public thenring on the application
of Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc. and that a notice of the hearing was published
once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the County
of Albemarle, Virginia and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia ("Notice"), with the second
publication appearing not less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days prior to the
hearing date. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is
attached as Exhibit A.
3.. A summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B.
4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution
("Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at
such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such
meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed,
revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on this date.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authoi7 this 22~OJuly 1999
Secretary," st~al Devel6' thorityln
of Albemarle County, Virginia
[SEAL]
Exhibits: - A - Copy of Certified Notice
B - Summary of Statements
C - Inducement Resolution
-2-
07/16/99 10:48 FAX 8049787214 DALLY PROGRESS
l'fiE DAILY PROdRESS
635 WZST R/O I~Oiz_D
CPL~_RL OTYES'v~L, LE: ~O~!~ 22906
~]002
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION
I hereby ce.~y ~:~.al ~he snached malice w~ pub~hed ~ "~ Ddy Pm~sR a
newspiDer ~ ChsIo~e~c, V~ md ~upe~ed ~ ~e issues(s) d~md
Given Under My H~ud ~s
.. ~ ~ Day o~ ~~ . I~, .
Publishing Fee $ BO,~ ,. ----_ _
NOTICE OF PUBL C HEA.q ~IG '
· ON. PROPOSED REVENUE :.'
.~BOND FINANCING BY -
INOUSTRfAL DEVELOPMENT
AIjTHO~ITY OF N_ISEMAR~.
'~""""""""'~:OUNTY, .VIRG|NIA
Nonce LS hereby ~'~n Ih~
InduslTial Deve/opmen[ Authc~_ty
or Aidemarie C~nty. V'a'gini~,
CAuUru3rffir) wfil .hol~ m public
~eaflrl9 ~n IMe app ',"ati-n of
wllose address iS liO0 Preston,
Avenue, Cr~,,~,.sv,l~e. 22903-I
.4420 mquus~ing the Author~
Coml:)any wilh the
projects: ' .. '. - .
- :. . .
1, The rerlnancSng 0.r ttle InGt~s.
tdal D,civ~lopmen~ AuthoriN
',.ha C,',unty of Fluv.a,qf'm,, Vitgin,~
· ' ServfceS Board, ,:
Satlee 19Q6, 15-SUeO o'r~ Novem-
ber f, '1tt96 fo ITnanoe. Ihe sO-'
(lulaFiO&" rsnovatl0n '. and
eq~pplriO' ~f ~lle Company=
'¢tity a( 600 'Preston Avenue
'the:iN ~ Cz"~'lollesville. Vir-
· SlnSa;',.,::%'.'- · .:.. ::<__.', :.: .:-
.':~r:': ~,' =:' :~..:-,.~..-:h : ;:.~;:~%,
· 2. e"refinanctng o,
loans or the c:ompa.,'~ 'u~ad m
' llnanm Ih! ~ult:tic~ of ~'~ o1.:
Iowir~' ~lct~.es. ~d I~ sLIper-~
v~smd rMid~r~."'~si br adults;
'. men~l retard~o. fl.' .lacked. at
(D) ~1312 Dickerson Road/, ~gt~..~'
.719 Shamr~:~ RGed,'M'
,6r Lr'otlesvt~e. V'iTtJ~ia: &ud -
:=.;. -" :,.. ..:' ' ...: '.
Credit
l'ac Da~ly
:~-.q"h."""e' Ilnartch.q .~[ the mcquif.
tlo~'>~:~,stmcljon and equip~ng [
aff~'~lowing ta~l~ie~ ~ pra.
vi~e preveettion.
and/at mhab~alioa Mr per~ns
wi|R mental disabilit~er.. (a)
· 'Blue Bid · :Hogsa" carsdialing
to be localeft on app rodmealy
'1.~ acres gr land on E~l,rot
A, onmmonly
NutSdry preparty, (b)
· Meadowcreek Gont~r' · COn-
sistjnd 6f e~ 3d.~ sqham root
cen~r M be 'h:x:al. ed c~ app oxi-
r
rt~te~y 4.'7~ acna~ of ~and in the
norllqaiS~ COrner o~ Hydrauti~
Road am:l Mienl~ C~'I~B In the
CRy o[ 'Charl,,U~SviUa, Virginia.
an~ [c) 'Fourm S|ree~ $ta ',,n'
0 II
conslmmg el a:~(~,000 square
· t.~e so~lhwesi corner er ,~
8~'ee[ NW ahri Preston Avgnue
i~ the CRy ot Crlenor~esville, Vir-
g|n.~., . ': ·
Tr~ [Es~e'.e~ re;yen. us
a~ requested by the Company
~itll not' eonslilule
pleclcj'0 61 !ailh an~ crecil
GemmonwearLh ar Virginira or
In6 Counht of Albemads Vkgin-
ta,:'iand .i~either.ffib
chldir:-nor:Zit tax~g o~mr
the Commonwealth a~'V]rginia
or' ltty. p~lil~ , suDtlivie[otl
theN01 wlD 0e ~)ledgtd to ·the
payment ~,.6~_ bOn~S..
. :., .:..'-;~:;%::, ::..:.,;..-::...;.~
July 22, 1999, bebm ths.,Au:
thori~'l"t~ ',t111 Floai' Confer:
enc~ I~m. ,C~u~Ly'-.Offlce
BU~dingo' .401.' Mclnlt~e
Cherto~t sd]le,".:V[rg'nia. -Any
~
" ...... ,"':':-
ar me bonds or me Ioc;lt~k
nature ': oi . me · propo~,e~l
prc~ect mW a~ar m
ing ~d'presedl ~ .mr.-her-
vie~. ~arm~ ~i~.~e
c~mp~ts ~On ~ on
~d i~ ~pen ~r [.~pe~.mt-~e.
AUl~'s a~e at 4ol
. Road, Ghatl~(tssvJtle,
during b~in~s hours., ,
Indus~ D~lopment ~-
A~orl~ of ~m~re .
EXHIBIT B TO CERTIFICATE
Summary of Statements
Representatives of Region Ten Community Services BOard, Inc. and McGuire, Woods, Battle &
Boothe LLP, bond counsel, appeared before the Authority to explain the proposed plan of
financing. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed bond issue.
EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AUTHORIzING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $5,000,000
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
REGION TEN COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD, INC.
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), is empowered by the
Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended ("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing facilities for
use by organizations described in Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), which are exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to Section
501(a) of the Code and whose primary purpose is to promote the health and welfare of the
citizens of the Commonwealth through the provision of services or assistances;
WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from Region Ten Community Services
Board, Inc., a nonprofit, nonstock Virginia corporation ("Company"), requesting that the
Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist in refinancing and financing the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the various projects listed on Exhibit A (collectively, the
"Project");
WHEREAS, such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the
promotion of their health, welfare, and the provision of services and assistances;
WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the Authority and a
public hearing has been held as required by Section 147(0 of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, ("Code") and Section 15.2-4906 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Company has represented that the estimated cost of the Project and all
expenses of issue will require an issue of revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $5,000,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE iNDUSTR/AL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF ALBEMAKLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
I. It is hereby found and determined that (a) the refmancing and financing of the
Project will be in the public interest and will promote the health and welfare of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and (b) the County will derive a substantial benefit from the Project.
2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist the Company by undertaking the issuance of
its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 upon terms and conditions mutually
agreeable to the Authority and the Company. The bonds will be issued pursuant to documents
satisfactory to the Authority. The bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from
time to time.
3. It having been represented to the. Authority that it is necessary to proceed
immediately with the Project, the Authority agrees that the Company may proceed with plans for
the Project, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment for the Project,
and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection with the Project, provided,
however, that nothing in this resolution shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obligate the
Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance
of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that the Company may be
reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all expenditures and costs so incurred by it,
provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable
federal laws.
4. At the request of the Company, the Authority approves 'McGuire, Woods, Battle &
Boothe LLP, Richmond, Virginia, as Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the bonds.
5. All costs and expenses in connection with the refinancing and financing and the of"
the Project, including the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be
paid by the Company or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, 'from the proceeds of the
bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall
be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
6. In adopting this resolution the Authorky intends to take "official action" toward the
issuance of the bonds and to evidence its "official intent" to reimburse from the proceeds of the
bonds any expenditures paid by the Company to retinanee and finance the Project before the
issuance of the bonds, all within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue
Service pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150 and related sections of the Code.
7. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, approve the issuance of the bonds.
8. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time as the issuance
of the bonds has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia and by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
9. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
-2-
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of
a resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a
meeting duly called and held on July 22, 1999, in accordance with law, and that such resolution
has not, been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date.
WITNESS the following signature and Seal)ihe~is 22nd day of July, 1999.
Secretary of the Industn~'alD~eeiopment Authority
of Albemarle County, Virginia
[SEAL]
EXHIBIT A
1. The refmanci ng of the Industrial DevelOpment Authority of the County of Fluvanna,
Virginia' s $2,000,000 Facility Revenue Bond (Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc.),
Series 1996, issued on November 1, 1996 to finance the acquisition, renovation and equipping of
the Company' s facility at 800 Preston Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
2. The re~nancing of certain loans of the Company used to finance the purchase of the
following facilities used as supervised residences for adults with mental retardation, located at
(a) 1907 Cedar Hill Road, in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, (b) 4312 Dickerson Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (c) 720 Highland Avenue, in the
City of Charlottesville, Virginia and (d) 719 Shamrock Road, in the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia.
3. The financing of the acquisition, construction and equipping of the following
facilities to provide prevention, treatment and/or rehabilitation for persons with mental
disabilities: (a) "Blue Ridge House" consisting of a 10,000 square foot center to be located on
approximately 1.4 acres of land on Elliot Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia on Lot
A, commonly known as the Bumett Nursery property, (b) "Meadowcreek Center" consisting of a
10,000 square foot center to be located on approximately 4.78 acres of land in the northeast
comer of Hydraulic Road and Michie Drive in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and (c)
"Fourth Street Station" consisting of a 10,000 square foot office building to be located at the
southwest corner of 4th Street NW and Preston Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING
Date: July 22, 1999
To the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
Applicant:
Facility:
Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc.
Facilities for the Care and Treatment of Persons with Mental Disabilities
Maximum amount of financing sought.
5,000,000
Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property
to be constructed in the municipality.
5,480,000
,
Estimated real property tax per year using present tax
rates.
60,000
Estimated personal property tax per year using
present tax rates.
N/A
Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using
present tax rates.
N/A
6. (a)
Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the
locality.
6,200,000
(b)
Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within the
locality.
700,000
(c)
Estimated dollar value per year of services that will
be purchased from Virginia companies within the
locality.
4,000,000
(d)
Estimated dollar value per year of services that will
be purchased from non-Virginia companies within
the locality.
500,000
Estimated number of regular employees on year
round basis.
345
Average annual salary per employee.
22,425
*Includes
information regarding all projects subject t the bond ~nancin
' '(, ' ' " ' ority
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
held on the 4th day of August, 1999, the following members of the Board of Supervisors were
recorded as present:
PRESENT:
On motion by , seconded by
, the attached Kesolution was adopted by a majority of the
members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the votes being recorded as follows:
MEMBER VOTE
EXHIBIT A
1. The refmancing of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Fluvanna,
Virginia's $2,000,000 Facility Revenue Bond (Kegion Ten Community Services Board, Inc.),
Series 1996, issued on November 1, 1996 to finance the acquisition, renovation and equipping of
the Company' s facility at 800 Preston Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
2. The refmancing of certain loans of the Company used to finance the purchase of the
following facilities used as supervised residences for adults with mental retardation, located at
(a) 1907 Cedar Hill Road, in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, (b) 4312 Dickerson Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (c) 720 Highland Avenue, in the
City of Charlottesville, Virginia and (d) 719 Shamrock Road, in the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia.
3. The financing of the acquisition, construction and equipping of the following
facilities to provide prevention, treatment and/or rehabilitation for persons with mental
disabilities: (a) "Blue Ridge House" consisting of a 10,000 square foot center to be located on
approximately 1.4 acres of land on Elliot Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia on Lot
A, commonly known as the Bumett Nursery property, (b) "Meadowcreek Center" consisting of a
10,000 square foot center to be located on approximately 4.78 acres of land in the northeast
comer of Hydraulic Road and Michie Drive in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and (c)
"Fourth Street Station" consisting of a 10,000 square foot office building to be located at the
southwest comer of 4a' Street NW and Preston Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
David P. Bowlman
Charlot~ Y. Humphris
Forn~ R. IvY-shall, Jr.
COUNTY OF/M RE1VI/~I F.
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mc|ntire Road
Charlotiesville, V'wginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804} 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
$Rd]y H. Thomas
August 9, 1999
Ms. Dolores Conklin
Charlottesville NOW
110 George Rodgers Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Ms. Conklin:
At its meeting on August 9, 1999, the Board of Supervisors August 26, 1999 as Women's
Equality Day. Attached is the signed proclamation.
Sincerely,
· Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Attachment
Printed on recycled paper
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, many decades of effort by workers for women ~s rights were required to give women the
right to vote; and
WHEREAS, citizens must always be willing to work to assure that the laws and policies in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America, and this County do not unjusby discriminate against
females, and any other group; and
WHEREAS, unjust treatment based on views of inequality is often subtle; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates the passage of the
19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the amendment that gave the right of sufrage to
American women;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarie County, Virginia,
does hereby proclaim
August 26, 1999
as
WOMEN'S EQUAL/TY DAY
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable community that
acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women and men; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors urges a~ citizens to eliminate a~ unjust
discrimination and prejudice against women, and ensure equality of rights, privileges, and responsibili~es for
all women and men.
Signed and sealed this 4th day of August, 1999.
Charles S. M h
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, many decades of efforts by women and men were required to give
women the right to vote; and
WHEREAS, 151 years ago in Seneca Falls the need was proclaimed for
protection in the U.S. Constitution for women against sex discrimination, but there
is yet none; and
WHEREAS, ktws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia have unjustly
discriminated against girls and women, in matters of reproductive rights, sexual
assault and harassment, and marital property, and although some laws and policies
have eased, profess can be, has been and is being reversed; and
WHEREAS, some so-called neutral policies, such as those dealing with
insurance, pensions, family medical leaves, job promotions, occupational choices,
recreational opportunities, access to medical care (including reproductive and
abortion services), and business opportunities, still have inequitable effects for
women; and
WHEREAS, girls and women still must contend with sexual and verbal
assaults, rape, and being objecti~ed by men; and
WHEREAS, most of the care of the young and the elderly is given primarily
by women, many of whom must also work at other jobs inside and/or outside the
home; and
WHEREAS, in many other ways women are not provided with equal
opportunities and still bear burdens which fall unjustly on them,
NO~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle, Commonwealth of Virginia, does hereby proclaim August
26, 1999, WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY, in remembrance of all those women and men
who have worked to develop a more equitable community in which all people share
burdens and benefits in tru& equal partnership, acknowledging both the similarities
and differences between women and men; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors urges all
citizens to suspect all distinctions and classifications according to sex and examine
all so-called neutral criteria, including physical stature and other occupational
qualifications, to determine whether they have disparate impact on women; promote
affirmative action in the public and private (including non-profit) sectors; eliminate
all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women; and ensure equality of
rights, privileges and responsibilities under equitable principles for all women and
men.
Signed and sealed this day of August, 1999.
Charles S. Martin, Chair
NA*FIONAL
CW~eaZAT1ON
FC21~ WOMIN
Charlottesville NOW
P.O. Box 5082
Charlottesville, VA 22905
July 23, 1999
The Honorable Charles S. Martin
Chair, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
200 Pineridge Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. Martin:
In commemoration of the ratification of the 19r" Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution giving women the right to vote, August 26 is observed nationally as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY.
Since, however, real equality of rights and responsibilities has yet to be
achieved in the 79 years since ratification, in recent years the Charlottesville regional
chapter of National Organization for Women has issued a Proclamation for annual
official endorsement by local governments.
As our chapter has members in several of the surrounding counties, we are
presenting your Board with an opportunity to endorse the Proclamation along with
Charlottesville City Council and the Supervisors of Louisa and Nelson Counties. A
copy is enclosed. While it is a fairly long statement, we believe that this is what our
communities need and we would be pleased if you would use it in its entirety.
We appreciate your support and your efforts to improve and strengthen our
communities.
Sincerely yours,
Dolores Conklin
110 George Rodgers Road, Charlottesville 22911 (~z~---',~ 2'/~
Katherine Ballard Hoffman
President, Charlottesville N.O.W.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Criminal Justice Planner Grant 00-D9168
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 99009 in the amount of
$64,900.00.
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Waiters, MSs. White
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
/
Grant funds are being requested to fund a criminal justice planner for the Jeffersdn Area Community Criminal Justice Board
(CCJB) serving the nine participating localities under the Community Corrections Options Program. This grant has been
approved for a third year. This position will collect data, assess criminal justice needs in the nine-county area and assist the
CCJB in developing a strategic plan for community criminal justice services. Although the position is housed and supervised
at the planning district, the position serves as staff to the CCJB. Project Director for the grant is Jim Camblos, Commonwealth
Attorney.
DISCUSSION:
The criminal justice planner will be funded by a $45,892.00 Department of Criminal Justice Service Services (DCJS) grant and
$19,008.00 in local match for a total of $64,900.00. The local match will be provided by the nine participating localities. The
match for the County of Albemarle is being funded by current budgeted expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99009 in the amount of $64,900.00.
99.129
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Crime Analysis Unit
Grant 00-D9169
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST:
Request approval of Appropriation 99011 in the amount of
$36,808.00.
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs.Tucker, Breeden,Walters,Miller,Ms.White
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has approved a grant to establish a crime analysis unit providing multi-agency
services. Funding is requested for a crime analyst, crime analysis software, and computer equipment. This position will collect
data and assess criminal justice needs for the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia. This
is the third renewal of this grant.
DISCUSSION:
A $27,606.00 Department of Criminal Justice Service's grant and $9,202.00 local match will fund the crime analyst. The local
match is funded by $3,067.33 each by the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia and $3,067.34 by the County
of Albemarie. The County of Albemarle's match of $3,067.34 is funded from current operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99011 in the amount of $36,808.00.
99.130
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Foster Caro/Adoption Services
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ITEM 'NUMBER:
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSAL/REQ U EST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99001 in the
amount of $77,864 for Department of Social Services
Foster Care and Adoption Services
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Tucker, White, Ralston
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
/
BACKGROUND:
During FY00 budget worksessions, the Board approved an additional $23,200 in local match funds for
the Department of Social Services to leverage $92,800 in state funds for new foster care workers. This
additional money from the state was the result of a comprehensive study of foster care caseloads and
staffing levels in local agencies that found that 172 FTE social workers were needed statewide to achieve
the recommended staffing levels.
DISCUSSION:
Upon finalization of the State allo~:ation formula, Albemarle was advised that it would receive a total of
$198,864, which is an additional $77,864 over the anticipated $116,000. Based on the 20% match rate,
Albemarle will draw down $62,291 in state funds for an additional local match of $15,573.
The $198,864 will be used to fund a second Foster Care/Adoption Supervisor, two foster care workers,
and either an eligibility or clerical worker. Since the department has taken in 25 additional children
in the last two months, the additional staff made possible by these funds is crucial.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation # 99001 in the amount of $77,864, $62,291 in state funds
and $15,573 in local matching funds from the County's ge~neral fund balance.
99.139
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive ~JT"'~""""""
July 28, 1999
County Funding for Improvement to Skateboard Park on McIntire Road.
The City of Charlottesville has recently requested that the County share in the cost of improvements
to the skateboard park currently located on Mclntire Road on the old Mclntire tennis courts. They
are proposing several safety and appearance improvements which are listed in the attached letter.
The cost estimate for these improvements is $68,560. A recent survey revealed that 40% of the users
were County residents and the City is requesting that we share in funding a comparable amount.
Discounting a grant of $ 1 0,000 that the City has recently received, the County's 40% share would
equal $23,400. Our Parks and Recreation Department supports this investment of County funds into
the Mclntire site, as the skateboard parks provides a recreational outlet for a number of County youth
who may not be involved in other types of sport programs.
If the Board is supportive of sharing in the cost oi'these improvements, I would recommend that we
use carry-over funds for an amount not to exceed $23,400 from last fiscal year which will be
included in a recommendation to you in September.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RWT,Jr/dbm
99.041
Attachment
pc: Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney
!i'i~C>.ARD OF SUPER!/ISORS
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the City Manager
P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902
Telephone (804) 970-3101
Fax (804) 970-3890
July 13, 1999
Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive
County of Albema~e
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: County funds for improving the skateboard park on Mclntire Road.
Dear Bob:
The City is preparing to embark on improving the skateboard park on Mclntire Road. The
improvements being proposed eliminate some of the immediate safety and appearance problems.
Specific improvements include:
Resurfacing the old tennis court surface.
New wind screens.
Lights with timers.
Fix and improve the restroom facilities.
Construct several new ramps and remove some the make shift ramps and jumps
which are currently in place. These new ramps will be covered with a new
material called Skatelite which has a life span of over 20 years compared to the
3-4 month life span of plywood.
The cost estimate for these improvements is $68,560. We are also exploring the possibility of
fundraising and/or private donations, thus the total public cost is not yet known.
As you know, in addition to City youths, many County youths use and enjoy the skate board park on a
regular basis. During a one week period last September, City Recreation staff surveyed users of the
park. The survey revealed that 40% of the users were County residents. Would the County be willing
to financially participate in this project and share 40% of the public cost? Any assistance will help
make this project happen.
I look forward to hearing your response. . l~
go/cvc . . ~
cc: Johnny Ellen, Cha~ottesville .Recreation and Leisure Services TY OF ALBEMARLE
Pat Mullaney, Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution for State Disaster Designation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Resolution for State Disaster
Designation for Albemarle County.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
August 4th, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATI ON:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The attached letter from Dave Vaden, Extension Agent, provides some vital information on the impact of the
recent drought conditions on agriculture in Albemarle County. The total fiscal impact is estimated to be
approximately $8.5 million.
DISCUSSION:
To obtain state and federal disaster relief to address this critical situation among Albemarle County farmers,
the attached resolution asks the Governor to seek disaster designation and federal relief for our jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution requesting state disaster designation from the Governor
for Albemarle County.
99.137
Vi nia
Virginia Cooperative Extension
Virginia Cooperative Extension
Shipping Address: 168 Spotnap Road
Postal Address: 401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4579
Telephone: 804/984-0727 FAX: 804/984-0735
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
July 26, 1999
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Robert W. Tucker Jr., County Executive
David H. Vaden, Extension Agent, Albemarle/Charlottesville Office<~~;
Impact of Drought Conditions on Agriculture in Albemarle County
Crop and livestock producers in Albemarle County are presently facing financial losses as a result of lingering drought
conditions. Rainfall data obtained from the State Climatologist Office indicate the county received 2/3 of its normal
cumulative rainfall for the July, 1998 through June, 1999 period--16.28 inches below normal. Rainfall during the current
growing season (April 1 through July 23) is 8.16 inches below normal. Coupled with this dry weather pattern are
extended periods of extreme daytime temperatures. The combined effect of these events include a drastic reduction in
hay and pasture production and reduced sale weights of area beef cattle. Several beef herds will likely liquidate or
partially liquidate due to shortages of winter feed supplies and many calves and yearlings are being marketed early as a
result of limited pasture growth.
Fortunately, much of the major row cropping areas of the county received very timely rainfall. Although some fields will
receive severe drought damage, near normal yields are expected for com, soybean, and small grain crops at this point.
To date there have been no significant fruit crop losses reported.
The following table summarizes loss estimates for the major crops produced in Albemarle County.
Initial projected gross revenue losses
Crops Affected
Pasture
Mixed Hay
Alfalfa Hay
Corn Silage
Corn Grain
Soybeans
Beef Cattle
Amt. Affected
64,932 Acres
32,873 Acres
1,443 Acres
2,000 Acres
1000 Acres
500 Acres
10282 Head
Percent Loss Dollar Loss
60% $ 573,479
60% $6,666,644
30% $ 432,900
20% $ 192,000
20% $ 49,600
20% $ 22,000
75 Lbs/Hd $ 544,946
$ 8,481,569
Total Estimated Loss:
Land-Grant Universities--The Commonwealth Is Our Campus
Extension is a joint program of Virginia Tech, Virginia State University, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and state and local governments.
Virginia Cooperative Extension programs and employment are open to all, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age,
veteran status, national origin, disability, or political affiliation. An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
!!
Charlottesvi ·
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bob Tucker
Linda Tucker
Director of Economi~ Developm ~nt
August 3, 1999
FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF F ~ESOLUTtON
The Chamber wishes to add our support for the Federal Disaster Re ief Resolution.
The drought losses will be high this year and we want to support os lr agribusiness
community in any way possible. We understand the issue will cc me before our
supervisors as a consent item at tomorrow moming's County Board >f Supervisors
Meeting.
Once-your resolution is passed, please forward a copy to us so we may forward a letter
ofsupport to Governor Gilmore.
Thank you,
C:
Bob Hauser, Chamber Chair
Frank Keplinger, Agribusiness Chair
Page Wi!liams0 Econ. Dev. Vice Chair
Jar~e Dittmar, President
P. O. B0x 1564
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(804) 295-:t141
oacooQe~w.com
http:l/www.ovllle=hambar,ore
David P. Bo~nnan
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
COUNTY OF AI REMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Vu, ginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
August 1 I, 1999
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, IiI
Govemor of Virginia
State Capitol, Third Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Governor Gilmore:
Albemarle County is presently facing finandal losses due to lingering drought conditions. As a
restfit of these conditions and in accordance with the State Code, the Board of Supervisors is requesting that
Albemarle County be designated as an Agricultural Disaster.
Attached please find a copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors. If you need any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Maxtin
Chairman
CSM/ec
Attachment
CC:
The Honorable John W. Wamer
The Honorable Charles S. Robb
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
The Honorable Virgil H. Coode, Jr.
The Honorable Emily Couric
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres
The Honorable Patti Harris
Linda Tucker, Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION
Declaring Albemade County an Agricultural Disaster
Due to Drought Conditions
WHEREAS, the drought conditions in the County of Albemarle have
severely affected farmers; and
WHEREAS, dudng the growing season of this year the County of
A!bemarle has received considerably less rain than normal while experiencing
unseasonably high temperatures; and
WHEREAS, the Chadottesvi!le/Albemade Extension Agent of the Virginia
Cooperative Extension has reported that approximately 102,748 acres of
pasture, hayland, corn and soybean, and 10,282 head of caffie have been
adversely affected within the County at an estimated loss of $8,481,569;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemade,
Virginia be designated as a drought disaster area as recommended by Virginia
Cooperative Extension and in accordance with the State Code as an Agricultural
Disaster due to drought conditions and that the County Executive is hereby
'instructed to file notification of this action with the Governor of Virginia.
Adopted this
4th day of August, 1999.
'e~rk.~o~ard~o~ervi ors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Municipal League "Virginians to Virginians"
Program
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSAL/REQ U EST:
Information on the Virginia Municipal League's
"Virginians to Virginians" program.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
August 4th, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION: X
BACKGROUND:
The goal of VML's Virginians to Virginians program, similar to the international Sister Cities program, is to give
local officials an informal opportunity to visit and learn from each other. To date, fifty localities chose to participate
in this opportunity to experience first hand how another community implements a program, deals with a common
challenge or plans for the future. We were not part of the program last year, but VML is offering Albemarle another
chance to participate.
DISCUSSION:
The 1999-2000 Virginians to Virginians program will match local governments for one or two years depending
on the wishes of the localities. Local officials may choose to establish their own partnership or can ask VML
to assist them. After a partnership is formed, the only requirement is that local officials visit each other at least
once during the year.
We understand that Fauquier County has requested that Albemarle County partner with them', although the
County could also request to partner with another locality or add another locality to Fauquier. Another option
is to elect not to participate at all in the program.
RECOMMENDATION:
This information requires no action, but is provided for the Board's information only. If the Board has no
comments or recommendations, the County will accept the request to partner with Fauquier County next year. If
the program proves to be worthwhile, other partnership possibilities can be explored in future years.
99.136
VML
VIRGINIA ~IUNICIPAL LEAGUE
OFFICERS
June 17, 1999
PRESIDENT
[V[ARTINSVILLE CITY HANAGER
EARL B. REYHOLDS JR
PRESIDENT-ELECT
: DANVILLE COUNCIL IV[EMBER
JOHN C. HAMLIN
VICE PRESIDENT
WY'fHEVILLE r~AYOR
TRENTON G, CREWE
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
FAIRFAX COUNTY CHAIRMAN
KATHERINE K. HANLEY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
R. MICHAEL AMYX
MAGAZINE
VIRGINIA TOWN "~ CITY
P~O. Box 12164
13 EAST FRANKLIN STREET
RICHMOND, V[RGINIA 23241
804/649-8471
FAX 804/343-375B
E-MAtt vrnl~i2020.net
www. vrnl.org
Ms. Ella Washington-Carey
Clerk
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22902-4596
Dear Ella:
Last year there was an enthusiastic revival of the successful Virginians to
Virginjan program. Similar in concept to the international Sister Cities
program, its goal is to give local officials an informal opportunity to visit
and learn from one another. Fifty localities chose to participate in this
opportunity to experience first hand now another community implements a
program, deals with a common challenge or plans for the future.
Unfortunately, the County of Albemarle was not one of them. So, we're
going to give you another chance.
The 1999-2000 Virginians to Virginians program again will match local
governments for one or two years, depending on the wishes of the
participating localities. Local officials may choose to establish their own
partnership or can ask VML to assist them. After a partnership is formed,
the only requirement is that local officials visit each other at least once
during the year.
Schedule for the program is:
ca September 1, 1999 - VML begins pairing communities that wish to
participate.
October, 1999 - Virginians to Virginians gathering at annual
conference in Williamsburg. During a casual beer and pretzels reception
on Monday afternoon, local officials will be able to meet the officials
and staff in their sister locality.
October, 1999 - September, 2000 -Participating localities will visit
each other and exchange information and ideas as their needs dictate
throughout the year.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WORKING TOGETHER SINCE tgo5
June 17, 1999
Page Two
Localities will be asked to provide information about their visits on a form
provided by VML. Articles in Virginia Town & City and blurbs in Update,
the league's newsletter, will keep all members informed on the progress of
the program and the benefits communities have derived from participating.
If you would like to be included in this opportunity to learn from other local
governments as well as to share innovative practices used in your
community, please complete the enclosed form and return it to me no later
than August 31~t. Forms may be mailed to: ' Virginians to Virginians
PO Box 12164
Richmond VA 23241
If it is more convenient, your responses may be faxed to 804.343.3758. Do
not hesitate to call me at 804,649.8471 if you have.questions. Or you can
e-mail me at bmacdonald_vm!@i2020.net.
The Virginians to Virginians program stresses that cooperation is an
essential component of good government and sound leadership.
Communities that realize they don't have all the answers will benefit from
this exchange of ideas. We hope you wil! choose to participate.
Beth MacDonald
Director of Marketing and Member Services
Enclosures
'I/irginians to 'l/irginia.ns
.... -':.-,:--::;"'1998-1999
· '7_~: .:-,-: , - . , -:., ,,,
virginia Municipal League
"1, irginians to 'I/irginians
Locality Albemarle
Contact person Lee P.
Title Community'Relations Manager
Mailing address 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
Community Profile
County
Catlin
22902
Phone (8o4) 296-5841 Fax
(804) 296-5800
E mail address lcattin@albemarle.org
Popul~ion 80,000
Land area 740 sq. miles
Year established 1745 _ Annual budget $130 million _
Form of government (mayor-council, council-manager, etc.) County Executive
We provide the following services for our citizens or operate the following facilities:
Municipal Airport
Water/wastewater treatment
Municipal gas or electric utilities
School system
Parks and recreation
Municipal swimming pool
Municipal golf course
Municipal trash collection
Street maintenance
x Public safety
x Public transportation
x Public health; mental health
x Jail or court
Port
Industrial park
x Economic development
x Tourism development
Other (please list)
Our community would be classified as (check all that apply):
Rural
Urban
Agricultural x
Industrial (manufacturing) x
Industrial (high-tech)
Strong service industry
Historic
Tourist destination
continued on back
x
College community
Member of Main Street Program
Not member of Main Street
Program but engaged in.
downtown revitalization efforts
X
Built out; little if any
undeveloped land
Still growing
Other (please list)
Our locality would like to be teamed with
Fauquier County
('name of locality)
We would prefer to be teamed with a locality within:
100 miles
200 miles
No preference
(region)
Our primary interests are:
Other requests to be considered in selection of sister locality:
We have been requested to pair with Fauquier County
to accept that gequest.
and would
Please return this form to:
Virginians to Virginians
VML
P.O. Box 12164
Richmond, VA 23241
You may fax this form to 804/343-3758. Team pairings for the program will begin
September 1st.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 2~902-4596
(804) 2966841 FAX (804) 972-4060
FAX: (804) 296-5800
August 4, 1999
Lieutenant Jim Moore
Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fishcries
1320 Belman Road
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
Dear Lt. Moore:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors and my office, I want to thank you for the cooperation you
and your game wardens have shown as we have developed an increased hunting enforcement effort
for Albemarle County. We feel that the additional resources we have dedicated to local enforcement
efforts have helped us meet our original goals of heightened law enforcement visibility, more timely
response to hunting-related calls for service, and more proactive enforcement activities.
I appreciate your time and effort also in making arrest and disposition information available to Lee
Catlin and Jeff Blank as they have requested it during the last several months. In putting together
our final baseline report before gearing up for this year's program, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors has requested some additional information which we have made available to them for
the cases initiated by the County police and the Sheriffs Department: If such information is
available in your data, I would like to request it for the 63 arrests you recorded. What we would like
to track for each arrest is:
All charges placed against each person taken into custody or issued a summons;
The disposition of each charge, including whether the charge resulted in a conviction, a
dismissal or a nolle prosequi, and whether any charges remain pending; and
For each conviction, the sentence imposed by the Court or the fine prepaid by the individual
(if applicable).
The attached spreadsheet shows how we are tracking information for County arrests.
I would appreciate hearing from you whether the above information is available from your data so
that we can include it if possible in our final report. If there is a way we can assist in gathering this
Lt. Jim Moore
August 4, 1999
Page 2
data, wc would bc happy to do so. We will also bc contacting you soon to plan out and coordinate
our efforts for the upcoming deer-hunting season for which the Board has appropriated $15,000.
Again, thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance with this program. Please give me
a call if you have any questions about the above request.
RW~T,Jr/dbm
99.643
Attachment
pC.'
Since ely,
xA'l"bemarle County Board of Supervisors
Ms. Lee P. Catlin
Mr. Jeffrey D. Blank
ALBEMARLE COUNTY POLICE ARRESTS DURING DEER HUNTING
SEASON FY 98-99
CHARGE DISPOSITION COURT RNE
COS'~
Kill a dear by use of certain lights
Kill a deer by use of certain lights
Discharge of weapons in roadway or across
Discharge of weapons in roadway or across
Discharge of weapons in madway or across
Failure to tag deer
Trespass on posted property
Trespass on posted property
Trespass on posted property
Guilty
Not guilty
Guilty
Dismissed
Not Guilty
Pre--paid
Guilty
Guilty
Not guilty
$1oo $2
$,50 $,50
$60
$,5O
$50
Discharge of weapons in roadway or across* Guilty
$50
$50
· Sheriffs Department case
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Final Results of Hunting Enforcement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Game and Inland Fisheries data results from expanded
hunting-related enforcement.
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION: X
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Blank, Ms. Catlin
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the 2/3/99Board meeting, Board members received a preliminary report from Lieutenant Jim Moore of the
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries regarding the results of expanded hunting-related enforcement which
occurred during the 1998/99 deer hunting season. The Board had authorized additional county resources to
supplement the effort of the game wardens during deer hunting season. The Albemarle County Sheriff's
Department provided specially trained auxiliary and off-duty deputies to heighten law enforcement visibility in the
field, speed the response of officers to calls and respond to routine calls for service so that game wardens could
concentrate their efforts on responding to more serious hunting-related incidents. Information regarding calls for
service, contact with hunters and arrests was presented at the 2/3/99 Board meeting. Various Board members
and citizens expressed an interest in hearing the final results of the legal disposition of the arrests after the cases
had an opportunity to work their way through the court system. Lieutenant Moore agreed to forward that
information to the Board as it became available. The attached is a summary of the data provided by Game and
Inland Fisheries regarding hunting-related activities in AIbemarle County during the most recent deer hunting
season, including the disposition of court cases.
DISCUSSION:
Although a comparison with early years is not possible as this type of data was not collected until this year,
Lieutenant Moore expressed his belief that the increased enforcement program allowed game wardens to work
more effectively since deputies were covering the more routine calls, particularly on weekends and holidays which
traditionally are busier hunting days. The availability of the deputies enabled game wardens to focus on more
serious violations and also to conduct more proactive enforcement efforts. Data on the attached sheet shows the
number of calls for service responded to by game wardens, the number of arrests made by game wardens, the
average fine that was charged to violators per arrest category, and the conviction rate for what Lieutenant Moore
considers the most serious offense types.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
GAME WARDENCALLS. FOR SERVIC'E',DUP, INGr.iDEER;H'UNTING..SEASON ('!998'99)
Calls For Service
Trespassing
Hunting out of Season
Road Hunting
Shots Fired
Spotlighting
Illegal Calls
Felon w/Firearm
Number
33
'4
10
11
4
6
1
69
Arrests Number Avg. Fine
Blaze Orange 7 $25
Trespass 13 $50
Tagging 3 $25
Shooting from Vehicle 1
Shooting from Roadway 2 $50
Illegal Firearm Transport 15 $25
Spotlighting 8 $25*
Possession of Illegal Game 2
Convicted Felon w/Firearm 3
License Violations 4 $50
illegal Sale of Wildlife 4
Hunting Out of Season _1.
TOTAL 63
* SOURCE: State Game Warden's Office
Conviction
Rate
100%
100%
90%
* a $500 fine was assessed in one case by a substitute judge
CHESAPEAKE FARM BUREAU
200 N. Battlefield Blvd., Suite 4 · Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 · (757) 549-4401 · FAX (757) 549-4305
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Farm Bureau Board of Directors & Producer Members
Rodney Foster, President
July 12, 1999
High Growth Coalition Agenda
Several weeks ago, Chesapeake Farm Bureau had the opportunity to go before Senator
Keatings sub-committee to ask for State funding for an Agriculture Conservation
Program that could help protect farms in Chesapeake as a growth control tool. Shortly
thereafter, Councilman Gene Waters wrote a letter to Virginia Coalition of High Growth
Communities (copy enclosed) in which he said no funding is needed because Council has
the ability to control agriculture land.
I have shown this letter to some of my neighbors and Farm. Bureau members. They like
myself, felt there was a need to write a response. The response which is to follow as
written by Phillip Foster who farms and is a member of Chesapeake Farm Bureau. I
would have to say I agree with him:
"Please refer to the third paragraph of attached letter written by Councilman Gene Waters
to Scott York.
This statement concerning the ability of the city council (we) to "manage" A-1 or
agriculturally zoned land causes me great concem.
This individual must consider hi.'mself as having the right to dictate how others will be
able to use their property as he deems necessary. He appears to think highly 0fhis
having all the knowledge of what is important and the only way to accomplish goals (his
goals).
I urge each of you to do all that ~an be done to ensure this man cannot accomplish
anything which will undermine the rights of property owning individuals who have
worked hard for many years to build their retirement in land. Each of you knows that in
the future you will have to have some way to provide for your senior years. There are
only three ways: 1) continuing farming, 2) sell development rights, or 3) subdivide
property and sell as a subdivision.
Gent Waters is very clearly trying to dictate your future and not in a way to support and
help you."
As you can see Councilman Gene Waters is no friend to agriculture in Chesapeake. His
way of control shows he has no idea what farmowners need and go through each year to
make a living and what they need when it becomes time to retire.
I have no doubt that Councilman Gene Waters' comments are his own. Thank God for
the eight other members of City Council, because they have more respect, admiration,
~nd common sense, when it comes to Chesapeake fanning community and their needs.
Sincerely,
K'~o~ey~~Fster~
Chesapeake Farm Bureau
C,c: Mayor William E. Ward and Members Chesapeake City Council
John Pazour, City Manager
OFFICE OF THE CIT~' COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 15225
CHESAPEAKE, VA 23328
CITY
OF CHESAPEAKE
PHONE 1-757-382-6153
FAX 1-757-382-6678
T0: ·
The Honorable Scott York, Chairman
Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities
FROM:
Council Member Gene Waters
DATE:
June 16, 1999
SUBJECT:
High Growth Coalition Agenda
FAXED AND MAILED
The citizens of our city greatly appreciate the work the High Growth Communities are doing to help
deal with rapid growth throughout many communities in Virginia. Most of our citizens are disappointed
in the actions taken last year by our General Assembly in not only providing the legislative tools we
desperately need but eliminating existing tools with the passage of House Bill 2324. To encourage the
Governor to take appropriate actions and veto House Bill 2324, I sponsored a resolution that our City
Council unanimously passed. Our citizens were encouraged by the unity of other communities who also
took similar actions.
i will be unable to attend Thursday's meeting but would like to encourage the High Growth
Communities to stay the course and continue to educate our Legislature on the need to pass Adequate
Public Facilities legislation. Managed Growth tools are desperately needed to allow localities the ability
to manage their communities locally.
In reference to the Agricultural Reserve program, at our City Council meeting on June 15th, Vice
Mayor Edge introduced to Council his efforts on forming a committee that will be comprised of a
number of citizens to review the merits of this program and it's applicability to Chesapeake. 5'Dwe
ctl't' ill the begillllillg s/ages c.>f reviewi,g Agric,lt,ral Reserl,e o/' similar t}i'Ogl'allhV, Oltl' ('ill.' ("tilttic:i/
has t/r>/lakeIt (tll.}}.[blVlla/acliot/stq>porting lhis l}rogrtti,. In light or our very limited funding in dealing
with Growth, at a recent Chesapeake City Council meeting with our Legislators, I encouraged our
representatives to focus on funding for our immediate needs, i.e. roads, schools and public safety needs.
Less fbcus should be provided for funding the purchase of development rights on land that we already
have the ability to manage, i.e. A-1 or agriculturally zoned land.
Thank you once again for your continued work towards the goal of Managed Growth for our
commtinities. Please continue to keep me informed and forward any minutes of the meeting. If you
have any questions, please give me a call at (757)547-8885.
cc. Honorable Mayor Ward and Members of Chesapeake City Council
Members, High Growth Communities
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
Ic:~. O. BOX 18 · CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902-00!8 I (804) 0'77-2~,70
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Water Supply Project
Preliminary Alternatives Public Information Meeting Minutes
April 20, 1999
A public meeting of the Rivanna Water and Sexver Authority (RWSA) was called to order on
Tuedsay, April 20, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director, RWSA, in the
Council Chambers, City Hall, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Mr. Petrini opened the presentation with a special thanks to the League of Women Voters for their.
assistance in the preparation of materials and for advertisement of this meeting. Mr. Petrini then
introduced Ms. Nancy Barker, Project Manager, for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB).
Ms. Barker stated that the members of the VHB team were all pleased to be there to describe the
permit process that RWSA is embarking on and to present information gathered to date on the
preliminary list of alternatives. Ms. Barker introduced the VHB team members: Ms. Karin Ertl,
who is responsible for the environmental evaluation, and Mr. Larry Welford, who is responsible for.
the demand analysis. Ms. Barker introduced the O'Brien and Gere Engineers team members: Mr.
George Rest, who is responsible for the supply analysis and oversight of the engineering analysis.
and Mr. Thomas Dumm, who is responsible for the engineering investigations. Ms. Barker
introduced Mr. Bill Ellis, ofMcSweeney, Burtch and Crump, who is the RWSA's legal counsel.
Ms. Barker stated that Mr. Ellis is very familiar with water supply projects and is providing input on
regulatory issues and permitting requirements. Ms. Barker stated that there are also several other
members of the team including the consulting firm of Gray and Pape, Inc. who are conducting the
cultural resources investigations and several independent consultants who are assisting VHB with
threatened and endangered species surveys.
MS. Barker then gave a brief explanation of the agenda [attached]. Ms. Barker turned the
presentation over to Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis noted that he appreciated the opportunity to work with RWSA and to speak with the
public about their water supply needs. Mr. Ellis said that depending on the alternative that is
selected, there may be no permits required or there may be many permits that are required. He said
that at this point, their job is to gather the necessary information that will be needed to satisfy the
regulatory agencies and any legal requirements that might be applied to the alternative or
combination of alternatives that may be chosen. Mr. Ellis stated that one of the most important parts
of this project is the complex inter-relationships between all of the local, state, and federal agencies
that may be involved. Mr. Ellis stated that his job is to make sure that all the agencies and legal
requirements are satisfied so that the RWSA only goes through this process once. With respect to
alternatives, Mr. Ellis said that he believed the most challenging, restrictive and demanding
standards to satisfy are those administered by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the United
Stated Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies can only issue a permit for the
-1-
H:\XVaterx/~,'~,'SA Public Meeting minutes04-2e~-99 updated 6-17-99
SERVING 'CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Mr. Ellis said that when considering'
"practicability", technical feasibility, cost and logistics are all reviewed
Mr. Ellis said that tonight, summaries of the alternatives developed to date would be presented.
With respect to each alternative, the basic questions to be addressed would be: what are its
environmental effects; what are its costs; what are its logistical considerations; is it technically
feasible; and to what extent, if any, will the alternative assist the community in meeting its water
needs? Mr. Ellis stated that the study team. has been assembling information and preparing
documentation for each alternative and is now presenting this information to the community so they
can provide RWSA with their input. This information will also be presented to the regulatory
agencies for their review and comment. Mr. Ellis stated that the alternatives are currently being
evaluated and that the team hopes that the community will be a part of this evaluation process. Mr:
Ellis turned the presentation over to Mr. Rest.
Mr. Rest said that the study began by looking at what sources of supply are providing raw water to
the Urban Service Area. Mr. Rest stated that there are currently three source of raw water: 1) the S.
Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, 2) the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir System, and 3) the
N. Fork, Rivanna River. He said that their task was to determine the safe yield (the amount of water
that can be supplied in a severe drought situation) of this water supply system through 2050, the
planning period that was selected for this study. Mr. Rest discussed the process of sedimentation
which gradually silts in reservoirs and how this decreases the productive life of a reservoir,
particularly the S. Fork Rivarma Reservoir. As a result, the safe yield of the water supply system is
actually decreasing over time. Mr. Rest turned the presentation over to Mr. Welford.
Mr. Welford said that in late 1997, the VHB team produced two reports, one of which documented
the supply analysis and the other which documented the demand analysis for the Urban Service
Area. [The Supply Analysis Report and the Demand Analysis Report are available from RWSA].
Mr. Welford stated that the reports were presented to the public and were also submitted to the
regulatory agencies for their review and comment. To examine water demand, Mr. Welford
explained the fact that the Authority has two customers, the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) and the City of Charlottesville (which includes the University of Virginia). The City and
the ACSA then retail the water to the end users. Mr. Welford said that the system here is unique in
that the water is metered in only two general locations. The raw water intake into the system is
metered at each of the water treatment plants and then also at the end user (the residential home,
business, etc.). Mr. Welford described how four approaches were used to predict future water
demand for this system: 1) projecting historic trends in raw water volumes, 2) projecting population
trends and per. capita water consumption, 3) prediction of consumption based on full build-out as
defined in the City and County Comprehensive Plans, and 4) projecting historic trends in demand
for each individual component of the system. For purposes of analysis, the system was broken
down into 5 primary components: 1) the City of Charlottesville, 2) the University of Virginia, 3) the
ACSA, 4) water uses currently outside of the Urban Service Area, and 5) unmetered water use
(includes fire fighting, street washing, etc.). Mr. Welford defined "water uses outside of the Urban
Service Area" as residential developments that rely on wells for their water supply but which are
expected to be brought into the Urban Service Area in the future. In fact, subsequent to the Demand
Analysis Report release, one of those communities was brought into the RWSA's Urban Service
-2-
H:\~,Vater'4~WSA Public Meeting minutes04-2q-99 updated 6-17:99 doc
Area system. He stated that when the information from the Demand Analysis and the Supply
Analysis are brought together, one can understand why we are here: the demand for water is
growing and the supply offwater'is decreasing. It was important for the Authority to move forward
with identifying solutions to this problem and that is what this team has embarked on, on behalf of
RWSA. Mr. Welford turned the presentation back to Ms. Barker.
Ms. Barker noted that the Authority, for the last 20 years or so, has had several studies done to
evaluate potential water supply alternatives. She stated that the VHB team went back through those
studies and reviewed and re-evaluated the alternatives that had been identified previously. In
addition, the study team developed a wide range of new potential alternatives. Ms. Barker explained
that what they have done is compile a series of alternatives that can be broken down into two
primary categories. One category of alternatives represents some sort of improvement to the
efficiency of the existing resources. This includes modifications to existing reservoirs, drought
management, water conservation, and reducing sediment loads into the S. Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir. The second category represents physical additions to the existing water supply system
and includes options such as the construction of a new reservoir or surface water withdrawals. Ms.
Barker said they will describe the 30+ alternatives that have been identified, each of which falls into
one of those two categories. Ms. Barker indicated that these alternatives were evaluated from both
an engi.neering and an environmental perspective. She said that they had made preliminary
evaluations of the projected cost, the potential safe yield, feasibility, and potential environmental
impacts to sensitive resources such as wetlands, threatened and endangered species, historic sites
and residential displacements. Ms. Barker stated that those items are the groundwork for the
evaluation of each alternative.
Ms. Barker went over the assumptions used to develop and cost each alternative, which is located in
the draft Water Supply Project Preliminary Alternatives document. [attached]
Ms. Barker turned the presentation over to Ms. Ertl and Mr. Dumm both of whom then summarized
the available information compiled and developed on each alternative to date. Mr. Dumm
addressed the safe yield, cost and technical feasibility of each altemative while Ms. Ertl addressed
the environmental issues associated with each alternative. All of the information presented ~vas
included in the preliminary alternatives document available at the meeting. Following the review
of alternatives, Mr. Dumm turned the presentation over to Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Ellis described another alternative under investigation aimed at reducing future water demand:
growth management within the Urban Service Area. Mr. Ellis reminded everyone that a large part
of the future water deficit occurs as a result of a decrease in existing supply, not a result of increase
in demand. The population in the City of Charlottesville is not projected to grow significantly
through the year 2050. In Albemarie County, this alternative looks at projected growth within the
Urban Service Area portion of the county.' He noted that it has been the policy of the county to
intentionally channel and direct growthinto the Urban Service Area, a policy which has been
successful over the last 20 years at least. The growth management alternative would restrict growth
in the Urban Service Area and essentially reverse the existing policy. He said that if this was done
and was effective, that it would probably result in greater growth in the present rural areas of
Albemarle County outside of the Urban Service Area. Mr. Ellis stated that some of the effects of
this alternative would be the need for infrastructure improvements in the rural areas, such as
-3-
H:\WaterxRWSA Public Meeting minutes04-20-99 updated 6-17-99 doc
additional roads and utilities. If the policy were successful, the study team estimated the reduction
in demand within the Urban Service Area might reach as much as 1.5 MGD.
Mr. Ellis described another altemative that looks at cooperating with other ~vater service providers
in the region. He explained that "Regional Cooperation" is the Sharing of resources among
neighboring jurisdictions in order to reduce the environmental effects of each jurisdiction pursuing
separate projects. He said that geography is such that, for the most part, this is not a very promising
alternative. He said that in general, the public suppliers in the area are far away and they serve a
dispersed population with no great demand. He said that the only real opportunity identified for
possible regional cooperation is with the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA), which serves four
isolated areas in Greene, Madison, Orange and Louisa counties. The closest these two systems come
to one another is approximately 4 miles - - RWSA has a pipeline that proceeds noah adjacent to
Route 29 and comes within about 4 miles of a smaller RSA line to the north. Mr. Ellis stated that
the existing pipes might need to be replaced if the two systems were interconnected. Based on
recent information, the Rapidan Service Authority is also expecting an unmet future demand and
does not yet know where their 2050 water supply will be coming from. He said that the study team
is trying to do the best they can to identify what opportunities do exist for regional cooperation in
order to satisfy regulatory requirements.
There vjere comments, questions and answers after the presentation. The public was asked to send
written comments to either VHB or RWSA and to feel free to call if they had any other questions,
comments, or concerns.
Ms. Barker thanked the public for their questions, comments and input and noted that the study
team looked forward to hearing from the community. ,Mr. Petrini thanked the public and adjourned
the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
H.\Wat~'RWSA Public Meetinl~ mim$tes04~2,9-99 u~'.dated 6-17-~
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ......
Water Supply Project: Permit Process Update and Alternatives Presentation
Sponsored by: Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Tuesday, April 20, 1999
LOCATION: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TIME: 7:00 PM TO 9:30 PM
AGENDA
III.
IV.
INTRODUCTION
~ Introduction .of Study Team
PERMIT PROCESS OVERVIEW
0 General Phases of permit Process
SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY NEEDS
~ Existing and Future Water Supply
~ Existing and Future Water Demand
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
0 Structural Alternatives
~) Non-structural Alternatives
NEXT STEPS
0 Where We Go From Here
PUBLIC INPUT/QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
\\willva\projects\30502\wp\misc\P1042099agenda
'5-
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
COMMENTS -QUESTIONS -ANSWERS
Public Meeting April 20, 1999
7:00:P,M.
Attendees Study Team:
Art Petrini - Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Bill Ellis - McSweeney, Brutch & Crump
Larry Welford - Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Nancy Barker - Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Karin Ertl - Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
George Rest - O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Thomas Dumm - O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Comment: For the Growth Management alternative, recommendation that a
reduction in growth in the Urban Service Area not necessarily result in increased
growth in the rural area.
ColillIlent:
·
·
·
·
The following four alternatives should be implemented in the near term:
Growth Management
Demand Management
Water Conservation
Leak Detection
Comment: Additional land may be needed around Buck Mountain due to proposed
road around mountain shown on a map available from the RWSA, causing an impact
to residences.
Comment:. Support designation of county owned land near Preddy Creek as a
Natural Area. A reservoir in this location would be compatible with such a
designation.
Comment:
·
·
·
Four fundamental principles to keep in mind:
Optimize instream flows; impact to Moormans River is unacceptable.
Water conservation is a must.
With 45" of rain/year, the community should be able to live within limits of the
watershed - no regional cooperation.
Leverage what already have:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Strongly support reducing siltation into reservoir
Strongly support aggressive water conservation
Ought to keep in the retrofit option
Support Reuse option'
-6-
H:\Water\Public Meeting Question and Answers for 04720-99.doc
April 20, 1999
Page 2
Comment: In addition to the macroscale level of reuse, it may be useful to also
consider a more microscale reuse option; i.e. the treatment of
residential/commercial wastewater from landscaping, golf course irrigation, etc.
Comment: The groundwater safe yield is accurate; maybe even too generous.
Comment: Look hard at water conservation and retrofit options.
Comment: Complimentary 'of the wide range of alternatives under consideration.
Comment: It would be beneficial to also see the operations/maintenance costs
associated with the alternatives.
Question: Is the study team looking at the potential for sedimentation associated
with new reservoirs?
Answer: Yes
Question: Is the cost of dredging the S. Fork Rivanna Reservoir reduced if the
reservoir is put off-line during the dredging event?
Answer: The cost would be reduced only minimally.
Question: Is it true that the City of Richmond has exclusive water rights to the
James River?
Answer: No
Question: Did the study team do their own groundwater investigation? Safe yield
of 0. lmgd sounds low. ·
Answer: The study team did not perform groundwater investigations; information on
groundwater was obtained from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Question: Why is there a range in safe yield of 4.1 to 4.8 mgd for the existing
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir system?
Answer: Uncertainty due to 1930's versus 1954 drought of record.
-7-
April 20, 1999
page 3
Question: Are the land costs based on current value?
Answer: Yes; $11,000/acre
Question:. Is consideration being given to a MIF release at the Sugar Hollow
Reservoir?
Answer: The Rivanna and Water Sewer Authority Board's written policy statement
is that consideration of an MIF will be'given when a new water supply is available.
Question: What is the expected time line for completion of the study?
Answer: The time will vary depending on the alternative(s) that is implemented.
-8-
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
"' '1=. O, BOX ltt · 'CHARLOTTI='SVILI'E;VIF~GINIA 22902-0(~,18 · (804)
FUTURE WATERSUPPLY
PROJECT INFORMATION PACKET
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC MEETING
APRIL 20, 1999
PRESENTED BY
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
AND
VANASSE HANGEN BRUTLIN, INC.
B 0ARD OF SUPERVISORS
\\FS2\Shared DocumentsXWatefiCover sheet with contents of VHB CQA sheet.doc
81rRViNG CHARI_C)TTIrBVILL, EC & ALBIrMARLr
CONTENTS
Preliminary Alternatives Public Information Meeting Minutes with Comments,
Questions and Answers ................................................................................1-8
Elizabeth Murray Letter ............................................... ..................................9
Lawrence S. Miller Letter ........................................................................10-13
League Of Women Voters - Marsha Parkinson Letter ........................................... 14-18
Donna Bennett to Sally Thomas E~mail ............................ ; .............................19,23
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) Deborah Murray/Kay Slaughter Letter .... 24-25
Donna and Jim Bennett Letter ......................................................................26-30
William McDonough + Partners Letter ...........................................................31-35.
League of Women Voter and Charlottesville/Albemarle County Rivanna River Basin
Roundtable Letter ....................................................................................36-37
\XFS2\Shared Documents\WatefiCover sheet with contents of VHB CQA sheet.doc
. ~-.~U~. 1.1999 lZ:3?PM SEMT BY VHB MO.t~4
My name is Elizabeth:and I'm the former Co=ordinator at the Ivy Cree~ Natural Ar
assm a.fouknows loUated'%n the ~outh Rivanna Reservoir. I was a volunteer Board
~. me o~eIv7 creek Foundatio~~ ~elped the City and County est&blish and then
mana~e. th=e A~'eas aad.,co-or~tnator for 'ten years~ ..................... -'
Watershed prozection was a big selling point in the establishment of the Area
unfor.=un~!.tely it doesnat do enough, the Area is only round part of the reservoir and hast'
saved it from the problems wew=e all ~ware Of. Pity it doesnst go all the'way round.
I ~estgned partly to devote more time to the es~ablish~nt of theIc~'~'~
o rApublic
Natural Areas, in fifteen years ~here had been none~ e ~
to say no~ ~e have one more in the C~ty/County area~ t ~hich does ~o
all the way round the Ragged Mountain Reservoir.
I started looking &t other public land~ and County staff directed me to-Preddy
Creeks 568 acress bought specifically with future water resources in minds and when I
first raised the ideaof designating it a Natural Areas I was told there might be a rese=v~
there.. Tbatss not necessarily incompatlble with a NaturalArea. In fact as watershed
protections a Natural Area is about the best. thing you could have round a reservoir, plus
the benefit of another public amenity for passive recreation.
In 1985 there was a rumor that P~eddy 'Creek might be sold or logged, and
State For.ester ~nd his Deputy submitted an independent report urging the County to do
neither. This report is in the publlc record.
In 19951 wen~ back to Preddy Cre~tth one of these foresters and we submitted
a fur=he= report re-iterating the same ~k~u~s and also urging that in=he upcoming
Comprehe=rsive Plan revision Preddy Creek be earmarked as m future Natural Area. This
also in tl~epubltc record. And I'm happy to say that early this year, during the heartn-~s
for the Chapter two r&visions ~ the Comprehensive Plan, the wording on Preddy Creek was~
amended to reflect a need to study it for future passive recreation.
I understand it's no~ at the top of your list as'a future reservoir site; but i
would.'.'like to ask you, please~ to remember as you discuss it. that' there is this history
of.'suppor~h ~or Natural Area desi~na=ions so that any reservoir construction ~ould be
compatible ~tth ~utuTe natural area status .....
.... ,.and indeed, on any other sites that you consider for a =esezvoirs please
consider a~lso that public land permanently designated Natural Area is the be.s~ possible
protection for any watershed~ plus providing additional'public smenit7.
Elizabetk Murray
1601 Bentivar Farm Road
Charlottessville VA 22911
(804) 973..6693
Thank You
JUM. 1.1999 12:36PM SEMT BY VHB MO.E04 P.13
AprH 23, 1999
R 'C '!VED
VHS, VA
Lawrence S. Miller
P. O. Box 6
Free Union, VA 22940
Nancy Barker
Vanasse Hangen Brustl/n
477 McLaws Circle, Suite 1
Willfim~sburg, VA 23185
Dear Ms. Barker:.
Thafi: you leading the very informative public presentation on the RWSA's water supply options. I
regret that I missed the prior public meeting on this subject.
A nut. abet of questions and comments have come to mind since lasi Tueschy's meeting:
Comtkarison of Weftand Losses
Wilt fhe relative value ofwetlands inundated by the various alternatives be considered, or wilI only
total acreage be part of the decision? Crest controls for south Fork Rivanna Dam are estimated to
inu~ite up to 39 acres. However, most of those wetlands 'were probably created incidental to the
origins/impoundmerit They are man-made. Their loss wilt be completely mitigated by the new
w~tlands created when the pool elevation is increased. In conWast, naturally occurring wetlands will
be-lo~r: to a new reservoir. These wiiinot be replaced by wethinds of equivalent ecolog/cal or
environmental value. In comparing wetland losses of the various alternative, a distinction should be
· made between natural w~tlancls and ~oncomitant w~!ands.
Property Tax losse~
The F~'oject .assuml~ions niake no mention .ofpote~iaI properly tax losses to Albemarle County.
Some alternatives r~quire the acquisition of large areas of land. For example, RWSA acquired or
· encunbered nearly 2000 acres for the Buck Mottorain reservoir site. Much ofthls land is curreatly
leased,., with lesset~ payi~.g the taxes. A_Pccr impouncknent, wilt RV, rSA pay property taxes? If so, has
this ~n included in the unit cost (S/gallon) or project costs? If not; will the financial impact on the
county 5e consfderecr?
-10-
· ',JUM. ~.1999 12:3GP~ SEMT BY VHB M0,204 P.i4
Land Acquisition for Buck Mountain Alternstive
Contrary to statements ~n the project alescript/on, new Iand acquisition may be necessary. The Iaud
thus I~.r acquired was based on a normal pool .elevation of 464 feet. The project description m~tions
a no:final pool elevation of 430 feet. This pool elevation will inundate land the RWSA does not own.
I bc].iev~ this w/tl only affect land subject to RWSA easements, but the ease'merits do not grant rights
to flood this land.
Development Attraction of New Impoundments
Lakes,; and resenro~rs tend to attract development. AlbemarIe County is already struggIfilg with'.
-grov~t~ issues, and of course th/s is one mason for this project. Although a new impoundment my
be pa~t of the solution for the area' s water needs, it also becomes part of the problem.
rmpact on South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Seve.ral of the alternatives consist ofnew impoundme~s in the exist/ng South Fork reservoir's
wate~r~hed. Do the calculated increases in safe yield quantifies for these impoundmerit alternatives
account for losses they v~ll cause to the existing reservoir, or are safe yields only calculated for the
rettr~nc, nt dace (2050) of the existing reservoir? How will these impotmdments affect the ability to
mmtaln required flowby at.the South Fork dam? New impoundmerits in the existing watershed arc
reaIIyjust add/1/onal storage de~.ices. Wouldn't it be more Iogical to deveIop a new source, Le. a
diffenmt watershed?
Watershed Area and Prolonged Droughts
Is totaI watershed area a Iim/ffng ~ctor fin mect~g demand during prolonged drought? WilI storage
capaciV alone be sufficient to get us through any foreseeable drought? Could global warning
inval. i~hte asstunptions abotit drought duration or sev~x-ity? It would seem that we could increase our
margh of saf~y by lo~atifig any new reservoir 6uts/dc th~ South Fo~k watershed.
Incr~se-in-Safe-Yield Calculations.
In terl~is of~ncrease/n safe. yield, the North Fork R/vavna opt/on exceeds the Buck Mounta~ option
by only 7%: Yet the North FOrk R~servoir would have a storage capacity 9I% greater and a
watershed area 65% greater, Is this anomaly solely the result of the lower percent flowby assreed
· for th,," Buck Mountain option? Can we safely assum~ this favorable flowby req'cdrement will not
ch~ng~,' during the life of the impoundmcnt? How would the yields for these two oldions compare
using the' same percent flowby assrapt/on for each?
~ JUM. 1.1999 12:37PM SEMT BY VHB MO.E04 P.15
Flowby and Environmental Tradeoffs
FIoWby requ/x'ements appear to bc one offfie most s~Sn~ffcant constra~ts ~ producing a fffgh safe
yield from a reservo/r, I how flowby requirements are intended to prevent c~olo~icaI harm to
stremns, but how many miles of stream above the dam are we entirely eliminating to avoid occasiorml
damage tcr the stream below the dam? The. revised flowby regimen al~emat/ve for the South Fork
reservoir yields an additional 9.8 mgd w~thout reduc. ing flow below natural levels du.rLug drollSht,
~ow much more yfefd would Be oSta~ed ffwe were wfiI/ng to accept lower flow rates during drouLafit
events? Any damage sumined by th/s practice wou.ld probably be limited to the J-mile seeneat
betw~;en the South Fork dam and the confiuence w/th the North Fork. Compare this to the
appro.ximately 20 miles of streams and tributaries that would be flooded by any one of the new
resem~oir options.
Recommendations
In ~a~as of cost e~ect/veness, dislocations, and cnv/ronmental impacts, pumpback to the South Fork
Rese'rvoir is clearly the best single-fix opt/on. Recyclin~ wa~er this way will probably be common by
2050, But there m~ght be some problems with public pe~cept/ons today.
Phasblg-in several low-y~ela options may bc next best. I have attach~l a List of the least
objectionable and most practical low-yield ept[ons. I believe that none of these options affect the
practi~ality of the others on the list. Although I have listed six options. notice that the first five options
show .a net yield greater t~an the most cost-effective new reservoir option [Buck Mountain), but at
one h~afthc cost, and without dislocations, acquisitions or si~ni~cant weftand impact.
We ~ould maintain and/or upgrade existing sources to the extent possible to meet future needs. We
shouldn't destroy another stream and its adjacent wc-tlands when the resulting resetvolt wfil ultimateI.v
fill with sealmeat anyway. If a new impoundm~nt/s the only solution~ then it should be built outside
the South Fork watershed.
Your response to my comments will be very much appreciated. Many' of my quest/ons are just
rhetoffcal. but/n the hope you can provide answers to the othei-s, I w~Lt-Iook forward to hearing from
you.
'Sincerely
. Lawrence S. Miller
4o- 7-57s0
cc: Bilit Ellis, McSweency Burtch & Crump
'" Wetland
· : ·: · Safe yield Cost Acres Residential Acreage
Option [mgd] s_u~L4a, a' [millions] sub-t~t~ Impact s,~-~ota Displacements Aquisilions
1. Drought M~nagement.iboth ;side'si . 3.4 3.4 $0.0 0 0 0 0 ' 0
2. WalerConservalion '" :' 1.8 5.2 '$2.5 '$2.E 0 '. 0 0 " 0
3. Revise Release Regin~e .?:~..-.- 3.81 , 9.0 $0.4 $2.9 0
4. 5' Chris_Grea~ D ' ' '~"¥ · .
mw Down..;-.:,:~::,: :,-.. 3.0 12.0 $7.4 $1 0.3 0 0 0 0
5. Rivanna Wilhdrawl "?~;-: 4.7 16.7 $17.8 828.1 " 2 2 0
, :.:-~'i:): )- . .
6, 4'Crest Controls ':;;i~::. 6.0 '22.7 $4.3 $32.4 18 20 2 70
.)
I
I
Recommended Combination of Low*Yield Options assuming 20' Chds Greene Drawdown
....... ' ' "' Wetland ....
Safe yield Cost Acres Residential Acreage
Op,tion , . ,. ,. , , , [~nl~,dl?ub-tota[mi!li.ons] r~b4e~al Impact sub4eta .Displacements Aquisitions
1. Drought Mana~le, ment (both sides) , 3.4 , · 3.4 . $0.0 0 , 0 0 .... 0 , · (~
2. ',Water Conservation. .... 1;8 5.2 $2.5 $2.5 0 0 0 . '0
3.. Revise Re!ease Regime' 3.8 g. 0 ~).4" $2.9 0 0 0 - I~
4..20' Chris Green DmwDownI , . ,.,'. 5.5 ' .1.4.5 $14,0 $16.9'. '0!'i' .. 0 " 0 0
5., R.ivanna iWit. J'[drawI , 4.7 19.2 $17.8 $;34.7 2 2 0 0
6. 4' Crest Controls 6'.0~ 25.2 $4.3 ~39,0[.. 18 20' 2 70
RI~RNN~ RUTHORITIES Fax:804-293-8858 Rag ~9 '99 ' 8:22 P. 02/06
'~4~X~cll~lle: of Wol;~ciett .vtitotetli, of Charlottesville -. Albemarle.
LWV1928 ~|ln~ton BIrd., Room 105, Charlo~eevltle, VA ~2~ (804) 970-1707 Phone ~) 971-1706 F~
Mr. Arthur .Petrinl, Executive Director
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Post Office Box 18
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
May 17, 1999
Dear Mr. Petrini:
We, the Charlottesville/Albemarte Chapter of the League of Women Voters, are writing to
provide our responses to the "Water Supply Project: Preliminary ,Nternatives"meeting held
April 20, 1999, during which your consultants, VHB, presented their analysis of water
demand and supply alternatives for our area. We have long supported water conservation
and stewardship of the natural environment in the Charlottesviile/A!bemarle area. Thus, we
especially! applaud those Alternatives which recommend the rouse and more efficient use of
water. and the protection and recovery of existing water sources. In order to educate the
public on these important subjeds, we have written adicles, prepsreds booklet "Water in the
New Millennium: Balancing the Needs of People and the Environment', recommended the
creation of a Citizen Advisory Board to the RWSA, and invited VHB to speak at a League
meeting early in the "permitting process".
Also, as part of this effort, we have promoted "public understanding and participation in
decision making as essential e/ements and responsive management of our nature/
resources", a National League of Women Voters position. For this reason, we have'
remained integrally involved in the ".permitting process" since It began two and a half years
ago. During that time, one of our top priorities has been to encourage a meeting for
community-wide participation in the analysis of our water demand and supply problems.
Our commitment to encouraging community input arises from our belief that, as a
co~nmunity, we must plan wisely for the future. The future development of water supply
resources is not an issue related only to providing adequate potable water, but rather is an
extremely important component of the overall community .planning process, Our commitment
to informed decision making by our community provides the context for the comments and
questions by League members, which are included below.
Three areas are of special interest to us: 1 ) the nature and extent of the April meeting, 2)
the informational content of the meeting, and 3) the scope of the Water Conservation and
Drought Management Plans presented as Alternatives.
1, The Nature and Extent of the Meeting: The April meeting took place late in the VHB
study process. Until that time. there had been little oppodunity for community consensus
-14-
~ ",. R.~VRNNR RUTHORITIES Fax:804-293-8858 Ms9 19 '99 8:22 P, 03/06
building;" FOr two'and ahalf years; while VHB' Completedan evaluation. of water supply
and demand: and compiled their final report for presentation to reguletory agencies, most
of the public has had only a vague awareness that a "permitting process" for a water
supply was under way. The April meeting represented an important chance to bring
about public discussion regarding which alternative or alternatives our community felt
would be the most practicable, environmentally sound way to meet its future water
demands. The meeting emphasized information, not an open discussion of the VHB
report. During the necessarily short question period, a wide range of citizens' concerns
was introduced. Some comments and questions required additional information or
answers that could not be given to the public at that time. For example, one person
noted that costs were presented as "apples and oranges" and requested a canversion
chart. Another person asked whether the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir would be
abandoned? And if so. what would be the cost? Many asked questions about water
conservation. We think a follow-up meeting should have been scheduled to address
these concerns, in advance of the meeting RWSA and VHB will have with regulating
agencies on May 21, 1999. Since a follow-up meeting did not occur, we hope another
public: meeting will take place before too many further decisions are made. '
2. The InfOrmational Content of the Meeting: The following comments and questions
address those areas we think need either clarification or additional information to assist us
public in making an informed decision among.alternatives:
GRAPHS
bo
A variety of scenarios at the outset of the VHB study. Why did VHB present
only the worst case scenario for demand and not model other outcomes-such as.
population growth with a 10% or a 20% reduction in
water consumption, or limited population growth combined with reduction of
demand? At a February, 1999, RWSA Board of Directors Meeting. a League
member asked the consultants why tipsy didn't Include a variety of graphs at the
outset of their study. VHB representatives answered that they were waiting until
they presented their list of Alternatives to the public, However, these graphs were
not presented at the April 20th meeting.
Demand. The demand figures are based on historical (unregulated) water
demand in our community. Although a formal conservation plan requiring .a
permanent 10% reduction in water use was proposed and approved by
RWSA in 1979, following the 1977 drought, it was never implemented. Our
community would be considered irresponsible if it continued to use water as
excessively as it has up to the present. Why should we assume this high level of
demand will continue for the next 50 years? A serles of graphs projecting water
demand but incorporating 10% and 20 % reductions of water consumption should
have been presented for comparison.
Poloulation Growth. The graph that projects population growth and water
demand depicts continuation of a hyperbolic growth rate in the Albemade Courtly
seNice area, projected to theyear 2050.Why didn't VHB also present more
RIgRNNR RUTHORITIES Fax:804-293-8858 May 19 '99 · 8:23 P. 04/06
conservative models, representing a median between the slower growth: rate that
..: preceded 1990 and the fastergrowth, rate sitlce the early '90's'? Graphs depicting
both a more conservative population growth curve and more conservative water
demand figures should have been offered.
d. Worst Case Drought. The RWSA has utilized a graph titled "Supply and
Demand" to depict the extent of a potential water deficit through the year 2050.
This graph is misleading to all but the most careful observer, and it fails to contain
information which is essential to fully understand and measure potential water
supply deficits. The graph does not depict a decrease in actual water supply
through 2050. It only depicts what the "worst case" water deficit would be for
each year If a most severe drought occurred in that particular year. The
interpretation is further confounded because the demand line depicts the
projected _desire for water rather than the _neeq for water. This is significant,
because it is unrealistic to believe that under any drought cond.ition. the "demand"
for water would (or should) remain at a constant accelerating level, This analysis
ignores the fact that as drought conditions become more severe, more water
would be conserved through voluntary and mandatory measures. At any point on
the supply line, as a severe drought develops, the "demand" line v~uld be
expected to drop substantially. and the amount of any actual deficit would not De
as great as the graph provided would suggest. None of this is meant to imply,
however, that the provided graph does not depict an actual problem. Rather, the
provided graph is presenting the discrepancy between supply and demand when
.0_o droL).Qht ma, nagement policy is in effect. Thus, once the assumptions behind
the provided graph are understood, It is obvious that considerably more data is
needed to enable the public to make judgments on what improvements we should
make (and pay for) in our water supply system.
DROUGHT
All previous studies used the 1950's drought for predictions, which utilized actual
flow data in our reservoir water sources to estimate safe yields. Changing to the
1930's drought for these estimations is limited to use of flow data from surrogate
rivers, which may not be relevant to our situation. Thus, the validity of the
reduced safe yield calculations Is questionable.
GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT DATA IN THe: YHR RFPOR.'E
a. Do the regulatory agencies verify the information given by VHB regarding costs.
estimations of environmental impact, etc.. or is all information assumed to be
correct?
b. At what point will VHB present a more detailed study to the public regarding: the
operation and 'maintenance costs of different alternatives, the costs of buying
parcels of land, and the costs of replacing roadways, etc.?
RIgaNNa aUTHORITIES Fax:804-293-8858 , May 19 '99 8:24 P. OS/06
pATA I N SP FCI F I C ALTE RN._ATIVr_S
Co
do
North Fork-The drainage area of the North Fork is 63 square miles. However,
the report does not indicate that a large portion of the watershed lies in Greene
County, and is not protected by .Aibemarle County's Watershed Protection Policy.
Crest Controls on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir-VHB needs to clarify,
what is meant'by an fncrease of 'safe yield' for 4' and 8' crest. 4' will increase safe
yield bv 6 mgd; I 8'by 11 mgd. Have they considered the loss in mgd
represented by the 8 mud required to maintain aquatic life downstream in the
Rivanna? When Black and Veatch calculated the costs of crest controls for the
SFRR, they incJuded the costs of replacing.the roadway (which would be
inundated), the pumping station and the pipe lines. VHB estimates the 4' crest
control w~uld cost $4 million; Black and Veatch estimated $'19 million. VHB
estimates the 8' crest control would cost $14 million; Black and Veatch estimated
$28 million. These figures are substantially different. Also, Black and Veatch
estimated more homes affected than VHB.
Buck Mountain Reservoir- VHB omits mention of the necessity of replacing two
roads and replacing two of Charlottesvilte's gas lines that otherwise would be
buried beneath the reservoir. Thus, their estimate of cost is likely too low, and the
environmental impact of these additional projects needs to be included in the
analysis of impact of the Buck Mountain Reservoir alternative,
Dredillng the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir- Costs include water treatment
plant improvements, pump station and intake improvements, wetland mitigation,
administrative, and land costs. The source of cost estimate for dredging was a
marine contractor. The unit costs per cubic yard for removal were $4-6. The unit
costs per cubic yard for disposal were $10. VHB considered only large scale
marine dredging instead of small-scale reservoir recovery, dredging, which has
been utilized by many other communities with similar reservoir siltation problems.
Large scale marine dredging would produce substantial turbidity, restricting the
usefulness of the SFRR as a water supply during the dredging process and
adversely affecting reservoir ecology. More cost effective and less invasive
alternatives are available. These dedve from the use of small barges with
suction/auger mechanisms which remove silt and allow it to be pumped several
miles, if necessary, to reclamation areas. These barges work in as little as 21" of
water and do not produce turbidity. A recent reservoir recovery project involving
a 1400-acre reservoir produced a cost analysis of 67 cents oar cubic yard for
removal and transfer of slit. This cost included all labor and materials,
maintenance, and depreciation of the dredge barge. It did not include costs of
land acquisition for the reclamation area. Case studies show that dewatered silt
can be sold for rebuilding landscapes, landfill cover, or road fill. A UVA biologist,
who artended the April 20th meeting, suggested the fill could also 'be considered
a valuable gardening product. A farm, presently located along the South Fork
Rivanna River, produces compost. Perhaps the silt taken from the SFRR would
be valuable to this operation.
-]-7-
RIMRNNR RUTHQRITZES Fax:804-293-8858 May 19 '99 8:24 P. 06/06
Water Conservation and Drought Management
a. More Aggressive Water Conservation Plan Needed - For years, members of
the LVVV have been advocating the adoption of a. serious water conservation
program for the urban area. Early in the permitting process we recommended
that VHB study the v,;ater usage patterns in our community to determine how w~
could reduce our water consumption, Although VHB indicated at RWSA meetings
that they have had experience designing aggressive water conservation plans for
other communities, they were not asked to model a comprehensive conservation
plan for our community as an alternative. We have researched the methods other
communities use to reduce water consumption. By proactively retrofitring
inefficient water fixtures, promoting more efficient outdoor watering practices, and
block pricing, much greater water savings can be gained' than tl'le 10% reported
by VHB.
b. More Aggressive Drought Management Plan Needed - Last summer, our
community ironically reached an all time high tn water demand during a drought
period when total reservoir capacity was approaching the 70% level where
'voluntary conservatiOn would be requested, A water management plan applicable
to evolving droughts should be enacted sooner than when the entire reservoir
system reaches 70%. A long range :more modern drought-management plan
should replace the present short-range plan
In closing, we would like to say that we hope you share with us a commitment to
preserving the natural environment in Aibemarle County and will make every effort to involve
the public in the ongoing decision-making process for a future water source. The impact of
this decision wilt have repercussions for our county for years to come. Every stakeholder,
from individual citizens to members of the Board of Supervisors and City Council. should be
invited to play a role in this important process that will shape our future in such a significant
way.
Sincerely,
Marsha Parkinson
Co-Chair
Natural Resources Committee
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville City Coundl
Col. Allan Carroll, Army Corps of Engineers
Regina Poeeke, E.P,A.
Janet Norman. U. S. Fisl~ and Wildlife Service
-'[8-
..... Original Message .....
From: Donna Bennett [SMTP:MoormansR@email.msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 12:11 PM
To: Sally Thomas
Subject: handouts at NRC Meeting
>
> Sally: The following are some handouts from the LoWV NRC meeting, last
> Thursday. In preparation for Thurday"s meeting, we were to write down
> from the VHB presentation that were of interest or concern to us. I
> looked
> into dredging costs--and called VHB for their sources. I also included
> information from Mud Cat that we took from the WEB. Along the way, I.
> also
> became interested in learning about the storage c.apacity vs treatment
> capacity of our reservoirs. For example, I had wondered what the safe
> yield
> number meant relative to treatment capacity. The SWCB allows (still
> permits) 5.4 mgd safe yield from SH/RM system. However, the treatment
> capacity of the OH Treatment Plant is 7.7. How much can be used? The
> Virginia Department of Health (VDH) says that any available water, up to
> 7~7
> mgd can be used. However, this greatly limits Beaver Creek --where the
> storage capacity is 560 million gallons, the safe yield is 2.8 mgd--but
> the
> treatment plant can only process 1.0mgd. Because of the newspaper
article
> in the DP about sewer hookups and possible leasing/purchase of Camelot
pumping station in Rapidan (RSA)--I included notes from an ACSA Meeting I
attended. Thus the following information is divided into three sections:
1.
Treatment Capacity; 2. Dredging (water conservation and reuse); 3.
Rapidan
sewer expansion. Regards. Donna
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
1 .Treatment Capacity:
Information from VA Dept. of Health
Operating permit, called Waterworks Operation Permit
Additional information, Engineering Description Sheet (Engineering
Description includes a description of raw water sources, the storage
> facilities, the mechanical operation of filtering, and a list Of
chemicals
> used for purification, etc.)
>
> Information from Planning Bulletin #335: Safe Yield of Municipal Surface
> Water
> Supply Systems in VA, dated 1985. (Source for VHB Reports) '
>
> Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir:
> Safe Yield (by $WCB = 5.4 mgd.,
> Treatment Capacity of Observatory Hill Plant = 7.7 mgd.
> Raw Water Flow Capacity of combined
> reservoirs = 8 mgd
-19-
> Additional storage capacity:
> 1. Storage tank near Route 29 and 250 intersection ='3 mg
> 2.Lewis Mountain Storage Tank = 507,580 gallons.
> Sugar Hollow storage capacity = 430 million gallons all of which is
> available for water supply
> Ragged Mountain storage capacity = 513.6 million gallons
>
> Beaver Creek:
> Safe Yield = 2.8 mgd).
> Treatment Capacity = 1.0 mgd.
> ( limited by plant capacity)
> Beaver Creek Storage Capacity = 615 million gallons (total water capacity
> equal to 1,100 gallons of which 520 million gallons are available for
> water
> supply-Bulletin)
> Additional Storage Capacity =
> 1. 500, 000 tank near treatment plant
> 2.200,000 gallon tank near Mint Springs
> 3.2 million gallon tank near St. George Ave.
>
> Totier Creek Reservoir: Scottsville:
> Sage yield = 2.5 mgd
> Design Basis of Treatment Plant = .25 mgd
> Totier Creek Reservoir storage capacity = 182 million gallons, 120
million
> available for water supply
> Additional Storage = 250,000 gallon standpipe
>
> South Fork Rivanna Reservoir:
> Safe Yield =10.4
> (Safe yield of reservoir: is 18.4 mgd. "Water quality models show that a
> release of 8 mgd from the reservoir during dry periods would be required
> SO
> that water quality standards be met at the wastewater treatment plant
> downstream. Were this 8 mgd release to be honored throughout the 120 day
> critical drought period then the safe yield of the Soouth Fork Rivanna
> Reservoir would be 18.4 - 8 = 10.4.")
> Treatment Capacity = 8.0 mgd (Raw Water
> Pumping Capacity 10.0 mgd with single largest pump out of service.
> Filtration = 8.064. "Hence, the design capacity of this treatment
facility
> is limited by the 4 gpm filtration rate and is equal to 8.0 mgd")
> South Fork Rivanna River storage capacity = 1.76 billion gallon
> Storage facilities:
> 1.1.0 mg tank near treatment plant
> 2. 5 mg tank on Pantops Mountain.
>
> North Fork Rivanna Treatment Plant:
> Treatment Capacity = 2.0 mgd (Two phase distribution system). ("The
> above
> mentioned water distribution systems are interconnected to the system
> serving the City of Charlottesville.")
>
> "The 2.0 mgd filter plant was originally designed with the thought that
> water from Chris Greene Lake could be released to occasionally augment
low
-20-
flows in the river."
2. Dredging:
>
>
>
>
> VHB: Karen Ertl (Heads consultant team) Comments on Alternatives:
> Alternatives will be presented to the regulatory agencies on May 21st.
> This
> should not serVe as a deadline for comments; however, they should be ·
> submitted soon after this. The regulatory agencies will pay special
> attention to these comments after they have a chance to discuss the
> Alternatives. Seek information on what the community wants. Karen Ertl
> gave
> the following example: After the April 20th meeting, a citizen wrote
> comments, concluding with strong support for reuse of water. Ms. Ertl
> noted
> that many communities would be opposed to reuse and that strong support
> for
> this innovative concept would enhance its consideration (by VHB and
> agencies) as a serious alternative.
>
> Rapidan Partnership as an Alternative: Asked why this was considered as
> "alternative". Her answer: Regulatory Agencies look for ways to promote
> 'regional cooperation'. They looked at buying water from Rapidan and
also
> Rapidan buying water from RWSA. But, they discovered that buying water
> would increase the demand. (Did Rapidan Authority know about the
proposed
> partnership?)
>
> Dredging as an Alternative:
>
> Cost: $ 300,000 for water treatment plant improvements
> $76,700,000 for dredging
> $1,500,000 for pump station and intake improvements
> $ 790,000 for wetland mitigation
>
> Total: $79,300,000
>
> Other costs: $79,300,000 X 20% = $95,100,000
> $95,100,000 X 15% (Engineering, Legal and Administrative)
> Land costs (300acres X $11,000/acre) = $3,300,000
>
> Total: $112,000,000
Facility improvement costs represent increased amount of water available.
More details: Type of dredging: Marine Contractors
Hydraulic dredging (type used for fine sediments)
National firms.
Unit costs: $4-6 per cubic yard for removal
Dewatering and disposal: Used localities (Denver,D.C., Fairfax) Unit
costs: $10 per cubic yard for disposal.
(Members asked for following quote:)
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1123
_21_
> 'As we approach the 21st century, the limited water supply and
established
> water storage and distribution systems must be mar~aged effectively to
meet
> increasing demands. Evidence abounds, however, that the era of building
> large dams and conveyance systems has ended. Thus, "new" future supplies
> likely will come from conservation, reuse, and improved water-use
> efficiency
> rather than from ambitious water-supply projects."... "the President
> signed
> into law the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102--486), which calls
> for government agencies to take the lead in water-use efficiency measures
> and sets new standards for water-conserving plumbing fixtures. A supply
> that
> has ecological and economic limits cannot be continuously expanded to try
> to
> meet insatiable demands. Comprehensive streamflow data are needed to
> account
> for the water in the Nation's hydrologic systems and to quantify the
> stress
> on existing supplies. Just as managers needed supply information during
> the
> dam-building era, they now need more comprehensive streamflow data to
> aSSeSS
> the effectiveness of various management options and to monitor mandated
> instream flows.
> Recommend: Efficient use of water, Reuse, and Dredging as a way of
> solving Water Demand
>
> 1. Adopt 1979 RWSA Water Conservation Plan (already approved by Board)
> calling for Permanent Reduction in Consumptionof Water.
> 2. Find Creative Solution to Dredging Problem in SFRR
> 3. Seriously consider reuse (including David Hirschman's incremental
> plan).
> Information about Mud Cat Dredging:
> Small scale dredging in contrast to large scale 'marine' dreging.
> Mud Cat is a small barge containing a suction/auger mechanism to channel
> silt long distances(a mile and a half, for example) to holding area.
> Works in as little as 21' of water
> Does not produce turbidity
> Cost for removal = $0.67 per cubic yard
> Dewatered silt used for rebuilding landscape of reservoir (terraced area
> created), taken to landfill for use in daily cover, used as roadfill by
> transportation department. Said to be valuable topsoil when dewatered
> Many communities restore lakes or reservoirs to original pristine
> conditions
>
> Find information (Case Histories) at
> www.dredge.com/cases_mudcat/water.html
-22-
>
> 3. Pumping Station.
>
>ACSA Meeting: March 19, 1998
> From "Other Matters Not on the Agenda"
>
> Rapidan has approached ABSA (RWSA?) about purchasing the pumping station
> that is located just across the county line near Greene County. Rapidan
> is
> anticipating growth in the near future (shopping center???). (For
> Albemarle
> County, a new pumping station will be needed to serve this area,
> anyway-because the present station will not have the capacity to serve
the
> proposed growth that will take place in this sector of AC.)
>
> Rapidan's request is under consideration at this time. Many factors come
> into play as this idea is evaluated. The Four Party Agreement must be
> taken
> into account. Even though the station is located within AC, the other
> members must agree. Also, there is the (political) question of treated
> waste water crossing the county line.
> Question of effluent. Rapidan is located between the Rappahannock River.
> Basin and the James River Basin. if Rapidan builds its own treatment
> facility (which it must do, anyway), the effluent will flow into the
North
> Fork Rivanna River. (Special use permit?). So, either way-whether they
buy
the AC existing treatment plant or whether they build their own-as far as
effluent goes, the outcome will be the same.
AC Growth Area. Route 785, Hollymeade, Camelot, other development
potential
in DGIC, 1100 A. Zoned commercial (available), .'propOsed new elementary
school, Dr. Hurt proj~erty, Advance Mills, (40~30.A..); Industrical Park, W.
Woods, UVA Research Park. This potential for growth must be taken into
consideration now. We need to plan for the future now (even though,
presently, the pumping station is working at only 1/3 its capacity).
In two years, Rapidan will need pumping station.
> Monday, April 3, 1999. DAILY PROGRESS. "As Ruckersville sewer work ends;
> growth may begin" (Patrick Hickerson)
> Ruckersville Area Sewer Project, 10 mile line from Ruckersville Village
> Shopping Center to Standardsville Wastewater Treatment Plant. Plans to
> further increase sewer capacity-"by obtaining use of treatment
> plant-called
> Camelot-in norther AC, or by building a plant in Ruckersville." "The
> Rapidan and Albemarle service authories have been discussing since last ·
> year
> the possibility of the RSA stretching a line to the plant along the north
> fork of the Rivanna River...etc...."
>
-23-
SoLlthelTl
Environmental
Law Center
201 West Main St., Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065
804-977-4090
Fax 804-977-1483
iel~va@selcVa .org'
May 20, 1999
Jack Marshall
3570 BrinningtOn Rd.
Charlottesvii'ie'; VA .22901
Dear Jack:
We are aware that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(~RWSA") is meeting on Friday with representatives from the
varicus regulatory agencies and we therefore would like to
express our specific concerns regarding the ongoing study for
the future water needs of ~he area.
While there have been two public presentations about the
proposed reservoir at Buck Mountain over the past year, there
has been no opportunity for feedback about the proposed project.
There is a corps of citizens who are fairly well informed and
concerned about the issue. We believe that it is important to
obtain feedback on your plans from the community so that future
studies can answer legitimate questions that have been raised.
In particular, we are concerned that there has not been a
concerted effort between City Council, the Board of Supervisors
and the RWSA to understand the l'ong-term ramifications of water
supply planning for our community. Instead, the process .appears
to us to be driven by a team of consultants, who, while
knowledgeable and experienced in the technical details of
reservoir planning, are no substitute for community
decisionmaking.
Over the past several years, there have been questions
raised about, among other things, the demand projections;
efforts to. increase existing supply and storage; the lack of a
meaningful and coordinated water conservation plan, including an
aggressive educational program; the importance of additional
-24-
Carolinas Office: 137 East Franklin St., Suite 404 · Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3628 · 919-967-1450
Deep South Office: The Candiet Building · 127 Peachtree St., Suite 605 · Atlanta, GA 30303- 1 800 · 404-521 -5't)00
100% recycled paper
land use planning measures to protect existing sources;
additional'conservation tools such as recycling or reused water;
~retrofit/rebat~ programs;.and revisions to the rate structure to
discourage wasteful use and encourage conservation.
We understand full well that the environmental studies
related to this project will require public participation, but
we think that it is critical for the RWSA, the City and the
County-to provide additional opportunities for public
participation in advance of these studies. This will better
involve and reflect the preferences of the community and could
prevent subsequent adversarial battles as well.
From our work on the James City County Reservoir and the
King William Reservoir in the Tidewater region,.we have learned
much about the issues that will face the RWSA, and we would be
happy to share the information that we have collected over the
course of the last decade.
We suggest that the RWSA consider a joint public hearing
wit~ the City.and.County governing bodies, at which time the
consultants could present their findings'and the public would
have an opportunityto give input on the plans to date.
We would be glad to discuss this further with you at your
convenience. We look forwardto hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Murray
Kay Slaughter
/cs
cc:
Regina Poeske, EPA Region III
Joe Hassell, Dept. of Environmental Quality
Pam Painter, U.S. Corps of Engineers
w~rt Petrini, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Charlottesville City Council
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
-25-
Sent By: Fn~ends of the Moonmarts; 804 823 2838j Jun-17-99 9:38AM; Page 1'
Donna and Jim Bennett
June 15, 1999
Arthur Petfim~i, Executive Director
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Post Office BoX 18
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Petrinni:
We are writing to provide our responses to the public meeting held April 20, 1999,
during which your consultants, VHB, presented-their analysis of water demand and
supply alten~atives liar our area. Although the report included much valuable information,
we f~cl it is inadequate for our community's needs and that additional meaningful public
input into the permitting process is required.
As you know, we have been campaigning for several years for RWSA to release water
during the summer-fall months from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir into the .begironing of
the State Scenic portion of the Moormans River below' the Sugar Hollow Dam. We have
persisted in this request because of our concern about ecological damage to the
Moorroans riverbed and related wetlands brought about by 'man-made cyclical drying of
the river during these summer-fall dry spells, which in 1998-99 lasted 7 months.
When we first approached you prior to the VHB study process, you suggested that we
make our request known at a public meeting to be held by RWSA and VHB early in the
permitting process--with the idea that release into the Moorroans could be planned for
during the subsequent period of evaluation. Because the public meeting did not take
place until two and a half years later, we appealed to RWSA Board instead. We were told
by the Board that consideration of the 'subject of release of water into the Moormans
could not occur until after an additional water supply is in place. As a consequence of this
decision, no provision was made for water release into the Moormans in the VHB
demand analysis for a new water supply.
As you know', we have recently proposed a voluntary "proportional release" plan
whereby 50% of total inflow into the Sugar Hollow reservoir, measured at weekly.
intervals, be released into the Moorroans during the summer-fall period. Our proposal
includes a cap of l~ngd maximum release, and release would Cease if mandatory water
conservation measures were triggered by a prolonged drought. This proposal could have
been easily modeled by VHB, and should have been included along with more realistic
model ing of demand during drought conditions (see below).
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804-823-2636
-26-
Crozer. VA 22932
eraall: MoormansR(_a)msn. corn
Sent By~ Friendsof the MooPmans; 804 823 2636; Jun-17-99 9:36AM; Page 2/5
Donna and Jim Bennett
As a result of our concerns for the lack of water in the Moormans River, we have
taken a special interest in water supply and demand pr. oblems in our community. Over
the past six years we have watched the level of the Sugar Hollow reservoir fall quickly at
the beginning of June, with no flow over the dam for the next six months (or more).
Reports last summer of the highest demand on record in our area of 14.5 mgd, during the
period of time when a serious drought was evolving, show that peak summertime usage
plays a major role in diverting flow from the Moorroans. Yet, although a laudable
Conservation Plan was proposed to and approved by RWSA in 1979, which would have
required a permanent 10% reduction in water consumption, to date our area has not
utilized any method of controlling demand. Even with the example of an unnaturally dry
river bed, dramatically demonstrating the consequences of RWSA's continuing to meet
unchecked water demands, the same practice of meeting excessive needs of water users
has been incorporated into the demand figures projected by VHB. In addition, no
provision is made in these projections to aIlo~v for water release into the community's
most treasured river, a river accorded the honor of State Scenic status as well as
nomination and unanimous community support for Tier III designation.
Our area is recognized both nationally and locally for its great natural beauty,
including its typical Blue Ridge rivers. The fact that these waterways are much beloved
by those who live here is exemplified by the tbllowing: Two years ago, many residents
volunteered to doctkment and assess the streams of the Rivanna River Basin, as part of a
year long, EPA-sponsored, study. In addition, although Albemarle County is located far
from the coast, we have adopted Chesapeake Bay Protection regulations and have been
the recipient of an award for our efforts to help preserve the Bay by protecting the
drainage area of the Blue Ridge. Thus, it can be seen that our community possesses a
tradition of serious commitment to the preservation of our watershed areas. Yet,
ironically, this concerned community has had no opportunity for meaningful public input
during the two and a half year long permitting process for a new water supply. The recent
t
public meeting, held April 20 h, took place too late ibr true public involvement. The April
meeting functioned only to convey information, not to promote open discussion of the
VHB report. During the question period, which occurred at the end of the report, citizens
. asked a wide range of important questions2 Some of these questions required additional
information.to be. provided .at a later time in a public setting. Unfortunately, no public
meeting is scheduled to take place before the meeting with federal and state regulators.
Thus, as citizens, our only opportunity to ask questions or make comments about the
alternatives must unfortunately occur outside of a public forum, within the confines of
this letter:
1. As mentioned earlier, we feel the demand analysis presented is too limited.
Dentand figures are based on historical (unregulated) usage in our community. There has
been no opportunity for public debate on the important question of whether we should
expect to continue to use water at current rates for the next 50 years, as is represented by
demand figures. Graphs projecting water demand, but incorporating 10% and 20°A
reductions of water consumption, would have given the public an opportunity to study its
options..A series of graphs should have been given for comparison.
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804-823-2636
-27-
Crozet. VA 22932
em ail: bto orm ansR(~m sn. corn
Sent By: FPiends of the Moormans; 804.823 2636; Jun-17-99 9:37AM; Page 3/.5
Donna and Jim Bennett
2~ LikeWise, the presented graph projecting population growth and water demand
utilized continuation of a hyperbolic growth rate in the Albemarle County service area,
projected to the year 2050. Why didn't VHB also present more conservative models,
representing a median between the slower growth rate that preceded 1990 and the faster
growth rate since the early '90's? Graphs depicting both a more conservative population
growth curve and more conservative water demand figures should have been offered.
3. The RWSA has utilized a graph titled "Supply and Demand" to depict the extent
of a potential water deficit through the year 2050. This graph is misleading to all but the
most careful observer, and it fails to contain infbrmation essential to understanding.and
measuring potential water supply deficits.. The graph does not depict a decrease in actual
water supply through 2050. It only depicts what the "worst case" water deficit would be
for each year if a most severe drought occurred in that particular year. This analysis
ignores the fact that as drought conditions become more severe, more water would be
conserved through voluntary and mandatory measures. Thus, the presented catalysis is
biased towards increasing the demand-supply disparity, because it is based on the
inac%urate assumption that water usage would not change during a severe drought. More
data is needed to enable the public to make judgments on "what improvements we should
make in our water supply system.
4. The silting in of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) is given as one cause of
projected deficit of future water supply--assuming a steady rate of loss of storage
capacity over time. Recovery of storage capacity in the SFRR would allow expansion .of
treatment capacity to t6mgd, as recommended by the James River Basin Plan. in fact,
recovery of storage capacity may be critically necessary for our community if xve are to
avoid having to abandon this important reservoir and recreation area. However, the
alternative of dredging the SFRR was presented in such an economically extreme manner
as to appear unfeasible. The source of cost estimate for dredging was a large scale marine
contractor. The unit costs per cubic yard for removal were $4~6; the unit costs per cubic
yard for disposal were $10. Small-scale reservoir recovery dredging has been utilized
effectively by many other communities to solve similar reservoir siltation problems.
Large scale marine dredging would produce substantial turbidity, restricting
usefuh~ess of the SFRR as a water supply during the dredging process and adversely
affecting reservoir ecology. More cost efli~ctive and less invasive alternatives are
available. These derive from the use of small barges with suctiordauger mechanisms
which remove silt and allow it to be pumped up to several miles, if necessary, to
reclamation areas. These barges work in as little as 21" of water and do not produce
turbidity. A recent reservoir recovery project involving a 1400 acre reservoir produced a
cost analysis of 67 cents per cubic yard for removal and transfer of silt. This cost
included all labor and materials, maintenance, and depreciation of the dredge barge. It did
not include costs of land acquisition for the reclamation area. This is about 5% of the
cost presented by VHB. Case studies show that dewatered silt can be sold for rebuildin~
landscapes, landfill cover, or road fill. A UVA biologist, who attended the April 20~
meeting, suggested the fill could also be considered a valuable gardening product. A
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804°823-2636
-28~
Crozet. YA 22932
emaih tVloormat~vRCa)rnsn. corn
~ent B~= Friends of the Moormans; 804 823 2638; Jun-17-99 9:37AM; Page 4/5
Donna and Jim Bennett
farm, presently located along the South Fork Rivanna River, produces compost.' Perhaps
the silt taken from the SFRR would be valuable to this operation..
5. We commend VHB's creative suggestions for reuse of water--including piping
effluent from the Mooms Creek Treatment Plant to the Methums River. The idea.of
rouse of water in the Mechums in tandem with the idea of utilizing the Mechums River
Pumping Station to transport water to Ragged Mountain reservoir represents a further
soltalon for allowing additional biological purification of currently highly treated
wastewater and for creating greater storage capacity. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir is
presently dependent on a very' limited drainage area. Other reuse concepts might also be
utilized--such as reuse on a smaller scale,/br example, within individual developments
and neighborhoods.
6. Several organizations requested that a comprehensive Water Conservation
Alternative be researched and presented. As mentioned above, our community does not
have an ei~bctive, modern water conservation plan. Although VHB indicated at RWSA
meetings that they have had experience designing water conservation plans Ibr other
communities, they were not asked to model a comprehensive plan for our community as
an alternative. We feel that by proactively retrofitling inefficient water fixtures,
promoting more efficient outdoor watering practices, and block pricing, much greater
water savings can be gained then the 10% reported by VHB.
7. Drought Management. OUr Comprehensive Plan states that ground water and
surface water are interdependent, and all water users have a stake in the preservation of
natural water resources. For this reason, our whole community needs a more
comprehensive and thoughtful drought management plan. Ironically, last summer, public
water consumption reached an all time high during a drought period 'when. total reservoir
capacity was approaching the 70% level where voluntary conservation would be
requested. We need a more modern style of long range planning for drought
management. Mandatory conservation should occur sooner than when the entire reservoir
system reaches 70%. Implementation of such a plan would significantly alter the demand
analysis. Another. drought management problem exists, as well. The Sugar
Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir system (sometimes serving more than half the water
consumers) is supplied by a 20 square mile drainage area. The SFRR iS supplied by a
260 square mile drainage area. This disparity is not plarmed for during times of low
rainfall. A more comprehensive drought management plan should be designed which
deals with specific characteristics of individual reservoirs.
In summary, we feel that important community issues are not being addressed as part
of the planning for a new water supply and that meaningful public input into the
permitting process has yet to occur. Although we have written this letter as individuals,
we represent the point of view of many in our area who feel we have an obligation to
thture generations to preserve exceptional rivers, like the Moormarts, and exceptional
natural regions, like Albemarle County. Preservation of important natural resources can
only come about as a result of careful planning where all members of the community--
urban, suburban, and rural--work together to help shape the future. The presentation of
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804:823-2636
-29-
Crozet, VA 22932
email: Moorrnam'R(..&,,rnsn. com
Sent By: Fri'ends of the Moormans; 804 823 2636; Jun-17-99.9:38AM;
,Page 5/'5
Donna and Jim Bennett
Preliminary :Alternatives focussed on meeting the future demands of one sector of our
community, the public water users. Sigrdfieantly, the report did not take into
consideration the vital role community-wide stewardship must play in this planning
process,
Sincerely,
Donna and Jim Bennett
cc:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville 'City Council
Col. Allan Carroll, Army Corps of Engineers
Regiffa Poeske, E.P.A.
Janet Norman, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Joe HasSell, D.E.Q.
6430 Sugar Hollow Road
Phone/FAX 804-823-2636
-30-
Crozet. VA 22932
email.',~IoormansRt,~msn. corn
WILLIAM McDONOUGH + PARTNERS 410 E Water Street Charlottesville VA 22902 804 979 1111 Fax 804 979 1112
June 3, 1999
Mr. Jack Marshall
Chair, Board of Directors
Rivarma Water and Sewer Authority
P.O. Box 18
Charlottesville, VA 22902-0018
Re:
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Water Supply Project
Dear Jack,
Thfnk you for the opportunity to submit written comments on the water supply alternatives
outlined in the Public Information Meeting of April 20 1999. As you 'know, I was the co-chair
of the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable from 1996 - 1998. The Roundtable is citizen group ..
appointed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, wh{ch is charged with
envisioning the future of the watershed. We spent over a year collecting information and data
on the historical and current conditions of the streams and rivers in the watershed and published
a report on our findings, conclusions and recommendations in early 1998.
One of the things that we realized as we pursued our charge concurrently with the Thomas
Jefferson Sustainability Council is that this is a community that ~vishes to define and guide its
future on the basis of carefully considered and articulated core values andprinciples. From the
public presentation, it appears that the Water Supply Project is not based on such a definition of
values. I would posit that there are four principles with wide currency within our community
that ought to form the basis for your effo~s.
I would not for a moment want to suggest that you do not share these values, because I believe
that you do. What I encourage is a public discussion of .what our starting point is and how we
should measure success. '
Let me suggest the following principles:
1. Preserving the biological vitality of our rivers and streams is a fundamental
responsibility of our stexvardship of natural systems.
Optimum in-stream flow in our rivers is a starting point for discussions about water
withdrawal. The word optimum is carefully chosen here - minimun~ in-stream flow is not a
noble goal. Why would we want to define the standard for the health off our aquatic
X:\B [N\U S E RSXRKP\W ~LTR99'd M060399. DOC
ecosystems as the minimum necessary for -the system to function? There is so much that we
do not know about ecosystem function. It would be hubris to suggest that wecan'
accurately define a minimum quantity of flow that would preserve and s~pport healthy,
vital and resilient surface waters. What if we are wrong? We should study the range of
variability of the primary surface waters and err on the side of allowing more water to
course through the system rather than less.
The seasonal deprivation of the Moormans River is unacceptable. We must restore its
historical flo~vs and take all steps necessary to assure that we do not rely on depriving other
rivers in the future for our own inefficient water management practices.
We sh:mld use op.,!y such potable water as is necessary and return it to our rivers and
streams in a form that is healthy and ready for reuse.
We are prisoners of a misguided technology that combines human waste ~vith vast
quantities ofpotable water causing us to expend significant sums of money to remove the
waste prior to release. Over time, this practice will diminish, in favor of more sensible and
less resource intensive solutions. While we work towards this inevitable change in
t.echnology we should aggressively "mine our own inefficiencies" to create nexv quantities
of available water by using only what is necessary in the course of our activities.
As a community we need to wean ourselves from wasteful landscape practices that involve
the planti'ng of climatically inappropriate species that require irrigation with potable water.
We need for the Authority to provide education and leadership in water conservation.
The water that we release is, by most accounts, very clean. It achieves thestandards for
"fishable and swimmable" water and is close to achieving a standard for potable water. We
count on the biological processes themselves for this final cleansing. The river serves us
well in this capacity. We should make use of its capacity for biological cleansing as a
component of our water supply strategy.
3. We should live within the limits of aur own watershed;
Our annual rainfall of 45" is sufficient for the current and future water needs in this region.
We should be able to husband this res.ource in such a way as to assure that our needs are
met without going beyond the Rivanna River watershed for supplemental water. We
currently live within these limits and should continue to do so as a model for those in our
neighboring watersheds.
We 'know that our watershed has inherent characteristics that offer challenges in this regard.
Our region's geology does not provide us wi:th abundant resources of stored grour'~d water.
These need to be reserved for those ~vho live outside the reach of the public xvater supply.
Our region's topography does not give us many good opportunities to impound water
efficiently, that is to say that our shallow valleys with gradual slopes require its tO use art
inordinate land area for a small storage capacity. Understanding these realities will cause
-32-
X:\BI.~xUSERS\RKP\WP\LTI(99',3M060399.1)OC
us'to look to more creative solutions for meeting our water needs w!iile assuring the vitality
of our aquatic ecosystems.
Going down the path of inter-basin transfer is not one of these creative solutions. It
represents a selfish attitude of "getting there first" - staking our claim and letting our
neighboring regions fend for themselves.
4. Leveraging our investment in public infrastructure is fundamentally sensible in the
short and long term.
We now 'know that the same land use practices that have squandered topsoil tbr generations
are also responsible for silting in our reservoi,'s. In the case e.f the South. Fork Rivarma
Reservoir, based on today's replacement cost, this careless siltation has cost our community..
an average of $170,000 per year. If provided with the proper information, our community
would make the smart choice to leverage its assets by investing in reasonable alternatives
such as vegetated buffers to slow this senseless waste. The Authority could provide
valuable leadership in framing this discussion.
All reasonable options for extending the useful life of this reservoir should be implemented
at once.
In the process of evaluating the alternatives presented to the Authority, I find the primary
regulatory criterion, to cause the minimum environmental consequences, to be an instructive
yardstick and one sympathetic with these principles. If one were to accept these principles and
to seriously attend to this regulatory criterion, what course is suggested? I would submit the
following course, in this order:
1. Institute aggressive water conservation now.
This is the most environmentally benign solution available to us and fits well. within our
principles. I was disappointed that the consultants dismissed this strategy by setting their
sights too low. We should aim for a 50% reduction in water use and invest as seriously in
this strategy as we would in one of the enF, ineering solutions that are hvored in the
presentation of options. I would propose that a real study of Conservation be done. At the
risk of misstating some of the numbers due to lack of available information, let me outline a
possible scenario.
If we aim to save 6 mgd (half of our water use) and are willing to invest at the rate of
$4.00/g (roughly the lowest rate for the new dam and reservoir alternatives), we would have
a pool of $24,000,000 available for this venture. Nowhere have I been able to find the
precise number of households served by the Authorit)' nor the mix of commercial to
residential use. However, if we have 36,000 households (I doubt it is this high), we could
spend $750/household to invest in state-of-the-art toilets, shower heads, faucets, washing
machines and dishwashers. Buying in bulk and establishing an efficient network of
plumbers who focussed on retrofitting households, we could replace most of the wasteful
-33-
X:\BIN\USERSXR. KP\WP\LTR99~.IM060399.DOC
fixtures within the Authority's boundaries for this incremental sum, while creating dozens
of jobs.
How would we encourage people to participate? The first step would be public education,
then the carrot and stick. The carrot - it's free, the stick - at the end of two years, institute
a stepped rate schedule with the current rate charged for half of the current use (around 50
gallons/person/day). Then institute "conservation pricing" for any greater use. I do not
know what the right formula is for a program like this. I would expect a lively debate in the
course of developing the program, but first ~ve have to start the discussion. By eliminating
a retrofit program from consideration and dismissing the resulting tepid water conservation
option as ineffective, your consultants are not moving us forward in this venture.
With the on~going growth in this region:and the number of residences under construction,
stringent standards should be applied through the building codes for all permitted
construction.
Here is the best pa,rt ... no regulators and we can start immediately. Every gallon we save
recharges the Moorroans River and builds a buffer against the kind of low rain fall that we
Lave had in the past year.
2. Leverage our investment in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
The Authority should work with Albemarle County to institute land use controls that slow
and eventually stop the siltation of the reservoir. Looking at the cost to all of us of our
inaction on this front, we can hardly afford not to be making this investment as well. This
initiative will take some time so we should start right away to stabilize stream banks,
minimize impervious surfaces and establish healthy stream side vegetated buffers.
· I strongly endorse the alternatives for increasing the height of the dam at the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) to salvage some of its dwindling capacity. These are
'inexpensive alternatives and extend our collective investment in this resource. Your
consultants also suggested that this could be a relatively quick alternative to implement,
which is also valuable.
Some members of our community have investigated the technology and economics of
reservoir recovery, as it might be applied to the SFRR. Their research suggests that there is
a significantly less expensive alternative for dredging to the one priced by your consultants.
I would encourage you to have your consultants investigate small hydraulic auger dredges
that remove sediment in a non-turbidity-producing manner. This technology has been
available for over 10 years and deserves careful consideration. I would be very interested
in reading an assessment of the applicability of this technology to the SFRR.
3. Invest in water reuse.
There is no question that water reuse will play a significant role in our water planning
strategy over the 50-year horizon of your study, It would be smart to start now. Our water
X:\BIN\USERS\RKP\WP\I.iR99XjM060399.DOC
use plan currently assumes that the biological processes in the Rivanna River will provide
the final cleansing of the effluent from the Moore's Creek water treatment plant. We
should usethat to our advantage. There is something inherently elegant about reusing the
same water over and over again ... forever. This is the sustainable water solution of the
future. It should be possible to balance our retainage and releases to restore the flow
downstream of all impoundments to the natural range of variability in a serious reuse
scenario.
In addition to considering a pumpback to the Meechums River, I am also interested in the
notion introduced by one of the staffof the Authority ~ to use the two reservoirs at Ragged
Mountain as final treatment sites in a reuse strategy. Over time, if our needs continue to
grow, we may fip, d that we have several options for sites ,~o inco~orate int~ tl-~e
pumpback/reuse model. :
Thank you for taking the time to work your way through these thoughts. Of all people, you
'know how complex this issue is and how deserving of our careful consideration. I must say
that I was disappointed that your consultants in their presentation and analysis exhibited a
stron~ bias for heavy-handed engineering solutions, primarily focussed on new dams and
reservoirs. We need to be much more creative than that.
This community has no shortage of creativlty and will. We need to move beyond old
discredited ideas that are based on the premise that "if brute force isn't working, you are not
using enough of it". We need to move to elegant solutions based on an appreciation for and
understanding of the inherent logic and beauty of natural systems. Please provide the
leadership to move us all in this direction. If you do, you will find a majority of this
community. solidly behind you.
I would be delighted to meet to discuss this further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Russell Perry, AIA
Managing Partner
Art Petrini, RWSA
Col. Allan Carroll, US Army Corps of Engineers
Regina Poeske, USEPA Region 3
Janet Norman, US Fish and Wildlife Service
City Council of the City of Charlottesville
Board of Supervisors of Albernarle County
-35-
X:\I;IN~,USERS'RKP',WP\LTR99~dM060399.DOC
' /League of Women Voters ,
:- ...... ":=-,~--.:-~., , .' -,
DATE: July 8, 1999
TO:
Charlottesville City Council
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
League of Women Voters of CharlottesvilledAlbemarle County
Rivanna River Basin RoundtabI¢
Water Policy and Water Supply Planning
The Lea. g'ue of Women Voters and the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable advocate sound water
policy and full public participation in water decisions that will impact our community far into
the fi~ture. Regarding the Water Supply Platoring process now traderway by the Rivarma
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), we believe that this process is so important that the
eldcted officials of Albemarle County ahd the City of Charlottesville shou!d be setting basic
policy in this matter,
Public participation over the past few years in numerous water forums, summits, and
committees, in the RWSA process, and at the Water Supply Plan public meeting of April 20,
t999, suggest a high level of informed citizen interest and concern.
Therefore, we urge the County, the City and the RWSA, jointly, to initiate a series of
meetings to promote public cducation, dialog and deliberation on this important .issue. We
bel/eve that there w/ll be broad interest in and appreciation for this opportmnity for public
discourse. We propose the following sessions to be held as soon'as scheduling ['.ca-nits, but
certainly no later than early September, 1999:
1. An open joint City Councilf Board of Supervisors work session with RWSA
presenting their water supply and demand analyses and the potential alternatives they have
identified to meet their projected future demand. Additionally, service, educational and
conservation groups, and other informed parties that represem the broad spectrum of water
use and interest in the Basin should be invited to make concise, informed presentations.
2. A second open meeting to be held after a per/od oft/me to allow our elected
officials to study the information presented and to solicit input from their constituents. This
meeting would give the elected officials an opportundty for questions and answers vdth the
RWSA and for a joint discussion of water supply and use strategies.
3. A public hearing for further input by the community on water policy and v~-,ter
supply issues.
z,,O'd ';'~::6 66, 91: In_r` O08S-96z,,-1708:x~J A.LNFf33
The Water Supply Planning process is proceeding at a deliberate pace. We see no reason that
the proposed .meet/ngs would/nterrupt or d/srupt the process underway. Conversely, now that
the RWSA has identified num6rous altertmtives for consideration, we feel that this is an ideal
time for the public and its r~presentatives to be engaged in the dialog. We ask that you
initiate this dialog in an expeditious manner.
Since the Water SuppIy Plann/ng process will continue for an undefined time, we also suggest
th_~t you establish a joint City/County and Regional water oversight commission or task force.
This would a/low the/ntegration orbreader water issues with the task of providing an
adequate potable water supply for the public service area.
We thank you for your attention to these requests, 'and otter any ass/stance you would find
helpful in organ/zing the proposed informational meetings and/or identifying important
participants.
Respectfully yours,
Ruth Wadlington and Sandy Shook
Co-Presidents, League of' Women Voters CharlottesviIle and Albemarle County
Arthur Bulgcr, Ph.D.
Chairperson, Rivanna River Basin Roundtable
-37 -
~0'~ ~:6 66, £~ InE O08S-96~-~08:x~J ~.INNOD 39~WN38'}J
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLO'H'ESVILLE, 22911
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
July 7, 1999, Board Meeting
Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the July 7th
Board meeting.
The following gravel road projects currently on the Secondary Six Year Plan have revised advertisement
dates as shown:
Dick Woods ROad (Route 637)Current ad date 10/98; new ad date'l 2/99 '
Midway Road (Route 791 ) Current ad date 12/98; new ad date 02/2000
Durrette Ridge Road (Route 605) Current ad date 2/99; new ad date 02/2000
Grasmere Road (Route 679) Current ad date 10/99; new ad date 2/2000
· The dead tree on Tabor Street will be scheduled for removal by contract as soon as possible (coordination
with Virginia Power will be necessary due to the close proximity of the tree with power lines).
· The sidewalks under the railroad bridge in Crozet on Route 240 have been swept.
· We have applied calcium chloride to abate dust on Rocky Hollow Road (Route 769).
· The dead tree limb on Route 627 south of Route 712 was removed.
Residents living along Morgantown Road (Route 738) met on May 10, 1999, to discuss their concems
regarding traffic issues. The Department of Transportation, Albemarle County Police, Albemarle County
Administration and the Board of Supervisors were represented at this meeting. The main desire of residents
was tO make the area more residential in nature giving driVers the impression that they are traveling through
a neighborhood rather than along a country roadway.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Ms. Ella Carey
July 7th Board Meeting
Page 2
July 28, 1999
Vehicular speeds were a leading concern. Our speed study indicates higher than desirable operating speeds
ranging from the mid 40's mph to as high as the upper 50's mph. Given the posted speed limit of 35 mph for
the entire roadway, such operating speeds indicate a considerably high non-compliance rate and need to be
addressed by enhanced enforcement. The community requested a reduction in the posted speed limit of 35 mph
to 25 mph. Considering the aforementioned data, it would be extremely difficult to justify a 25 mph speed limit
especially given that such limit would lie outside the +/- 10 mph window for even the 50th percentile operating
speeds.
Citizens indicated their interest in initiating a program with the County Police whereby local residems would
take license plate numbers of those speeding and give the information to the police. Police would then send a
letter to the vehicle owner indicating that the vehicle was observed at a certain date and time traveling
excessively fast on Morgantown Road.
VDOT representatives explained procedures for the traffic calming pilot program. At this time we recommend
that wide pavement markings be installed to give the perception of a narrow travelway which often reduces
speeds. A resident suggested that the Department cut-de-sac Route 738 on both ends making access only from
Rome 676. This concept did not receive a favorable reaction but was held as a possible future consideration.
Citizens indicated that motorists often pass stopped school buses. The County Police indicated that they would
step up their enforcement. The Department will install additional STOP FOR STOPPED SCHOOL BUS signs.
It was also noted that a large number of parents driving children to Murray School travel excessively fast after
their children are dropped off. School officials indicate that the School Board's decision to consolidate bus
routes in order the save money has resulted in much longer bus routes (some routes have children on a bus in
excess of 60 minutes) and many parents are driving their children to school to prevent: them from being so long
on the bus. School officials stated that they would issue a flier requesting parents to travel more cautiously
when driving to and from the school.
Concerns were expressed regarding truck traffic on Morgantown Road. The closing of Dettor, Edwards and
Morris, Inc. significantly reduced the sizes and frequency of trucks traveling along Route 738. A recent count
confirms that there has been an approximate 1% reduction in larger truck volumes. The type of truck most
frequently found using Morgantown Road is classified as a single unit, two axle vehicle, i.e. delivery vans and
small construction vehicles, or pick up trucks.
Residents indicated their desire for sidewalk and bicycle facilities along Morgantown Road. It was explained
that these improvements would occur through the Secondary Six Year Program and can be considered for
inclusion in the plan during the next annual revision review.
Ms. Ella Carey
July 7th Board Meeting
Page 3
July 28, 1999
I am available to discuss this review with the neighborhood if requested. I am also available to discuss these
and other transportation issues at the August 4th Board meeting.
Sincerely,
AGT/smk
JeffHores
Irene Jordan
Sally Thomas
A. G. Tucker
David P. Bowerman
Charlo~e Y. Humphris
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
COUNTY OF ~I REMaRLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Charlottesville, V'n'ginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
August 4, 1999
Charles S. Martin
Walt~ E Perkiris
Sally H. Thomas
The Honorable Virginia Daugherty, Mayor
City of Charlottesville
P. O. Box 911
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Meadow Creek Parkway
Dear Virginia:
At its meeting on August 4, 1999, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reviewed the
recent letter we received from City Council regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway and the five
issues you requested that we consider. Unfortunately, only five members of our six-member
Board were in attendance and, while we believe that the items you have outlined are worthy of
further consideration, the Board felt that we should discuss these items more definitively in
September when all six members are in attendance.
Again, thank you and Members of Council for including us in the discussion of these important
matters related to the Meadow Creek Parkway. We hope to have farther information to you
regarding this issue later in September.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSMXdbm
99.015
pc: XA'I~eemarle County Board of Supervisors
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE S U M MARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway
S U BJ E CT/P RO POSAL/R E QUEST:
City comments/letter of July 19th regarding Meadow Creek
Parkway.
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Cilimberg
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes ~, ~
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting on July 19th, the Charlottesville City Council approved the Meadow Creek Parkway in a 3-2 vote with a two-lane
facility but with right-of-way provided for four-lanes. They also proposed five (5) issues for the County to consider as it relates
to the Meadow Creek Parkway:
Eastern connector;
Additional parkland to be added to existing parkland and trails;
Cooperate in hiring design consultant;
No cell towers in Meadow Creek Parkway right-of-way; and
Pedestrian crossing at Meadow Creek Parkway and Melbourne Road.
DISCUSSION:
The five (5) issues presented to the County by the City with respect to the Meadow Creek Parkway ideally requires review of
the entire Board. All of the issues appear to be worthy of consideration and discussion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Chairman notify the Mayor that we support discussing the five (5) items they have proposed but
would like to consider these items in September when our full Board can discuss this matter.
99, 132
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
City Council
P.o. Box.911 · Charlottesville, Vir.gh~a, 22902
· Telephone (804) 970-3113
..... : ...... J~uly 19, 1999
,$: s~ /,. ,-,
BOARD OF
Charles Martin
Chair, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
411 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Charles:
Please find attached a copy of our comments provided to the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) on the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. We attach this letter so that the
Board may have a detailed explanation of our concerns and comments, as this road is a part of
the regional transportation network affecting both City and County.
As you know, there has been considerable discussion of this road and its impact on the
City. Some of this discussion has focused on how the City and the County can better cooperate
on design of the road, and how better to design a regional transportation network for the next
twenty years. With this in mind, we are interested in exploring, with the County, the following
issues:
First, the Council is interested in revisiting the previous CATS and the regional
network of roads. There has been considerable discussion about a "eastern
connector", a "near eastern corinector", and other additional roads, both north and
south of the City, that would complete the regional network. The Council is not
committed to any particular road, but is very interested in discussing the regional
network and particularly interested in facilitating better means for traffic to move
from areas noah of the City to Pantops and the eastern pan of the County.
Second, we wish to explore a further acquiring additional parkland over and
above the acreage necessary to replace land taken for the road. This parkland
could be acquired between the 250 By-Pass and Rio Road, and perhaps all the
way to the Rivanna River. We think that considerable discussion should occur on
this idea, and are willing to commit capital funds to the acquisition of land with
the County to make this concept a reality. Perhaps the City and County should
consider jointly applying for federal grants to supplement and enhance our local
funding of any possible initiative. We are open to a wide variety of approaches,
including the notion of a park land commission and/or a model similar to the
Towe Park City/County arrangement.
Page Two '
July 19, 1999
3.' Third, in its letter to VDOT, the City states that it may hire a technical consultant
to monitor design and construction of the City portion of the Meadowcreek
Parkway. We think that it might be useful for the City and the County to
cooperate in the hiring of a consultant and setting forth a charge that includes
design consultation for the County portion of the road. In that way, we would get
some consistency of design and be better able to integrate the County and the City
portion of the road.' We do not wish to slow construction of the road but instead
improve its design.
Fourth, the City has requested that VDOT give up any right that it may have to
facilitate the construction of cellular towers in and along the right-of-way for the
Parkway.. Given Albemarle's previous position on these matters, we thought it
might be appropriate for us to join together in setting forth our concern about cell
towers in the fight-of-way, and to jointly seek agreement with VDOT on this
issue.
Fifth, we are concemed about how the County portion of the road integrates with
the City portion, particularly at Melboume Road. It is in the interest of both the
City and the County to have safe pedestrian access across the road at that point.
Consequently, we would ask that you join with us to approach VDOT about that
critical intersection.
We appreciate your interest in working with us on the above matters and eagerly await
your responses with your suggestions as to how to move forward.
Sincerely,
Virginia Daugherty
Mayor
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 91 ! * Charlottesville, Virginia * 22902
Telephone (804) 970r3113
July 20, 1999
Scott Hollis
Reginald H. Beasley, Jr.
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219-1939
Re: Mclntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway)
VDOT Project No. U000-104-102; 063 1-002-128
City of Charlottesville
Ge.ntlemen:
Preliminary road plans presented by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
propose four motor vehicle travel lanes crossing the eastern portion of Mclntire Park at a design
speed of 70km/hr (43.5 MPH). VDOT sought public comment on this proposal at a hearing held
May 27, 1999. We have been given the right to submit written comment in behalf of the City.
This letter is delivered to VDOT only after Council has received considerable input from
many of its citizens about this project, before, during, and after a public hearing held by Council on
June 21, 1999. We also have carefully reviewed the work of the City' s consultant, a report done by
Rieley and Associates entitled "A Study of Roadway Alternatives for the Meadow Creek Parkway
in Mclntire Park" dated April 27, 1999, (hereinafter "the Rieley Report"). An extra copy of that
report is enclosed for VDOT's reference. The City' s formal position or comment, item by item, for
which there is majority support of this Council, is as follows:
1. Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway design speed proposed
by VDOT of 70 krn/hr. Instead, Council asks that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed for a
maximum speed of 6Okm/hr or 37.25 MPH. In conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's
design speed, Council also asks that the proposed road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent
with the Rieley Report so that the road will be "blended as gracefully as possible into the existing
land form." This should help to reduce the project's impact on Mclntire Park.
2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle travel lanes,
rather than four (4), be constructed (between the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the
ScOtt Hellis
Reginald H. Beasley, Jr.
RE: Meadow Creek Parkway.
July 20, 1999
Page 2
Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the "study
alignment" referred to in the Rieley Report as 4-Lane Divided (4-D), pp. 4-5. If and when a future
City Council were to approve an additional two lanes, new primary travel lanes could then be
constructed with a minimum of disruption to the Park, its landscape, and greenery and at lower costs
for the State and?the City.
3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Four (4) Lanes. Right of way for four (4)lanes of motor vehicle
travel should be acquired at the outset as part of the current project.
4. The Intersection at Route 250. Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to
succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include
a tightly drawn intersection with a relatively small footprint. The initial VDOT design is far too
large. We believe that the total number of lanes created by the intersection should not exceed
seventeen (17).
Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to Mclntire Park through and around the proposed
intersection from the south and east also must be accommodated at grade in an effective manner for
the intersection to work as we desire.
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on road" bicycle
lanes on each side of the Parkway' s noah-south travel lanes to serve high speed cyclists. In addition
and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO ) recommendation, Council
also supports construction of a shared pedestrian/bicycle path much like the one proposed by the
VDOT design, but eight rather than five feet in width.
6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water management facilities into one
pond or "lake", as in the Rieley report, makes sense to all of us. The City will do everything within
reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors
enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway.
7. Additional Park Land. The City respectfully requests that VDOT/acquire and donate to the City
and County, as part of this project opportunity, the greatest amount of additional land as is possible
north and south of Melbourne Road. Our objectives are several. These include replacing any park
land losses resulting from this project, enhancing and expanding the northern and eastern sides of
Mclntire Park, and joining with the County in seeing that park land noah of Melbourne, through a
linear park or otherwise, becomes a reality before acquisition of additional land in that location
becomes occupied or too expensive. These acquisitions should be made easier through VDOT's use
of money saved from.the City's requested design changes, including those seeking a reduced design
Scott Hollis
Reginald H. Beasley, Jr.
RE: Meadow Creek Parkway
July 20, 1999
Page 3
speed, two rather than four lanes, and combination of the storm water detention facilities.
8. Cell Towers. To supplement its revenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions of the public rights-
of-way that VDOT now "owns" - property originally acquired solely for traditional road system
purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to private companies who then construct
wireless telecommunieation towers ("Cell towers") on the sites along our highways.
Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they are larger or taller
or both. Yet, construction of these towers continues to proliferate in Virginia. This new cell tower-
highway program has occurred without any local govermnent zoning or land use oversight or
permission, and without any meaningful opportunity for the public to participate in deciding where
the next tower will appear. For these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers
anywhere along Phase I of this project without the express permission of this Council and the Board
of Supervisors of Albemarle County. We wish to see VDOT's agreement to this local government
involvement memorialized in a formal document as the project moves forward.
9. Limited Access. Council endorses the concept of a limited access Parkway for this road as it travels
through Mclntire Park. It should be engineered for passenger traffic only, and signed to prevent truck
traffic. Council chooses not to recommend fencing the right of way as is conventional in many limited
access highways. As the Rieley Report indicates, "with the lower speed design and the objective of
making this roadway as much a part of the park as is possible" fencing is not "necessary or desirable".
10. Regional Transportation and The Eastern Connector. While the Council supports construction of
a two lane version of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described in this letter, Council has no interest
in this Parkway's becoming a defacto "eastern connector", i.e., being used by the public to travel
from Route 29 North to Pantops-Route 20 Noah. The Parkway should be viewed as only one part
of the regional transportation solution. We urge VDOT, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and
the County. of Albemarle to develop new regional approaches to solve our traffic problems.
11. The MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Cormnittee. This Committee is commended
by CoUncil for its extensive work on the preliminary Parkway designs heretofore put forward by
VDOT. We urge VDOT to continue to work with this Committee to ensure "that the road is
compatible with the community's natural and built environment, and enhances the multi-modal
mobility for area residents". To the extent that the Advisory Committee needs assistance in the future
from the City in these continuing efforts, the City may hire a technical consultant to monitor design
and construction, and seeks VDOT cooperation in addressing legitimate concerns of this Council and
City staff as the process moves forward.
Scott Hollis
ReginaM H. Beasley, Jr.
RE:' Meadow Creek Parkway
Page 4
12. Vietnam War Memorial. As final' design plansf evolVe, proper nieasu~es must be taken by VDOT '
in cooperation with the City to protect, preserve, and care for the War Memorial which curren~y is
located on a hill in Mclntire Park near the proposed intersection of the Parkway and the 250 By-Pass.
The foregoing items - one by one -are each in their own right important, crucial, elements in
any final design that the City and this Council will support. These components were coupled together
in order for Council to build a consensus. To the extent that the City has any right, by law or
· practice, to approve the final design, we ask and expect that VDOT will remember this linkage.
Finally, if there are questions that VDOT has about Council' s position as stated in this letter,
please let us know, through contact with City staff or directly. We stand ready to cooperate with
VDOT in moving this project from.the proverbial drawing board to construction.
Sincerely yours,
Virginia Daugherty
Mayor
CC:
Donald R. Askew, District Administrator, Culpeper
Carter Myers
1'o: Members, Board of Supervisors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, C~
Subject: Reading List for August 4, 1999
Date: July 29, 1999
M[MORAHI)tlM
March I 0 (A), 1997
July I, 1998
April 2 I, 1999
June 2, 1999
June 9, 1999
June 16, 1999
July 12(A), ~999
Ms. Thomas
M r. M artin
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Martin
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Humphris
/ewc
APPENDIX I
MERGEN BETWEEN COMMUNITY POLICY & MANAGEMENT TEAM AND COMMISSIN ON
CHILDREN AND YOUTH
August 4, 1999
(This item was scanned in under Boards and Commissions Reports, 1999)
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
First Annual Report to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
June 30, 1999
(This item was scanned in under Boards and Commissions Reports, 1999)
GUIDE TO YOUTH SERVICES for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community
1999-2000
(This item was scanned in under Boards and Commissions Reports, 1999)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Liberty Land Ltd. - Request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
S U BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST:
Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area to provide Water to property
described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 51A, Phase 6 of
Ashcroft Subdivision
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Banish; Ms. Thomas
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
IN FORMATION:
REQUEST:
The applicant, Liberty Land Ltd., requests Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to undeveloped property
described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 51 A, Phase 6 of Ashcroft Subdivision. The property, consisting of approximately 37
acres, is located on the north side of Route 250 East (Richmond Road), with access of Hansen's Mountain Road and
Lego Drive. The applicant is requesting water service for the proposed Phase 6, consistent with the remainder of
Ashcroft Subdivision which is served by public water and private septic.
HISTORY:
At its meeting of February 17, 1999 the Board of Supervisors approved a zoning map amendment for this property,
rezoning it from RA, Rural Areas, to PRD, Planned Residential Development, with a proflared plan. Although the
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, designated the upper portion of Parcel 51A as Rural Area, staff found that the
applicant's proposal to develop it as a phase of Ashcroft and preserve the lower portion (including the Locust Shade
property) as Rural Area under one parcel maintained the intent of the Plan. At the time of the rezoning approval, it
was agreed that the text of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan would be amended to reflect the changed
Development Area boundaries. Staff identified the need for the applicant to file a jurisdictional area amendment to have
this area included in the service area prior to approval of final plats for Phase 6.
DISCUSSION:
The Public Water and Sewer section of the 1996 Land Use Plan indicates that the Urban Areas, Communities and
Villages will be served by public water and sewer. With the rezoning of this property, its inclusion in the Designated
Development Area (Neighborhood Three) in the Land Use Plan was anticipated, and, therefore, extension of sewer
service to the lots within Phase 6 would be appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
In consideration of the above-cited factors, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing to
amend the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area to provide water service to Phase 6 of Ashcroft
Subdivision. Staff will also move forward with the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as agreed to at the time of
the Board's approval of the rezoning. Board public hearings for both the jurisdictional area and Plan amendments will
be scheduled for the same meeting (tentatively, in October).
CC:
Rick Beyer, Liberty Land Ltd.
Art Petrini
Bill Brent
David Hirschman
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Subdivision Plan
99.141 BOARD OF SUPERVIS ORS
Chit|otlltwlll
A~qx)n
Proht!
/{ 1 i x-~,;~.~ ~,o' ATTACHMENT A
,.
, ~ ,
..- ~' - ..... - ' L,
743
I
Monticello
/
/
ZMA 98-17
Ashcroft Phase 6
;.t
T,Iv~tn
/
//
/
I
· \, CaSh
" /t
CROSSFfOAOS
/
/
0
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
62
I ATTACHHENT B J
9
: 77
20FS
51A
MONTICELLO
· .~.--'~'/--~,,,_.:j> ". I
92
,-~, ,. ,.~, S C0~l LLE AND
............... RIVANNA * DISTRICTS
/>
48 ~ 49
Rt. P50
/
SECTION 78
OwneF AppmvM
77,e subdivision of the land described is with
the free consent of and in accordance with the
desires of the undersi~ned owners, trustees, or
proprietors. Any reference to future potential
development is to be deemed as theoretical only.
All statements affixed to this plat are true and
correct to the best of my know/edge.
Statement Of Title I ATTACHHENT C I
77ze land shown w~s obtruded by Liberty Land Ltd.
DB 1 715-492, & 1)I! 1775-662 and to the best of
my ltno,4edge meets all the requirementq regarding
the platting of subdivisions.
R.L. Beyer Date
I
To witness the for~oing instrument was acknowledged
before me this day of
My oommisston expires / /
Coun(y Approwl
Chairperson Alb. Plan~ing Gemre.
Date
Desig. Agent Board Of Supervisors
Albemarle County
Date
The land use regulat:~ns listed/described heroin are imposed putsneat to the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance in e£feet this date and are not restrien've covenants mnnin~
with the land and their appearance on this plat is not intended to impose them as such.
Notes:
RECEIVED
JUL 0 8 1999
PLAN~.,i!.,'.!G AND
1. 8ouroes of tide: DB 1 715492, & DB 1775-662. COMMUNHY DEVELOPMENT
2. This parcel is not in a flood plain per Flood Insttranee Rate Map Community Panel No, 5.10006 02451] for Albernarle County.
3. This parcel is ,oned PRD.
4. This parcel may not be further divided without plannin~ eommision approval.
5. Iron markers are at the edge of the road easement where it interseeLs lot lines and all lot corners unless otherwise noted.
6. Minimum building setbacks are 15. O' front, 15o 5' sides, 15. 5' rear, and 25.0' from l. ego Ddve.
7. The sepn~ setback is 50' from all streams.
8. Land Use: 20.542 acres for single family residenee. v, 1 Z884 acres ~r open space.
Dwelling Types: BHek or frame homes. Density: 1 DU/0.98 Aeres.
9. Culpeper Br~neh is not a perennial stream where it adjoins Lots 232 & 233. A stream buffer of 100 feet as noted in Section 17-317
of the Albemarle County Code is not required.
10. All access will be limited to the proposed intemal public reads except for the residue of TM 7~51A and Lot C which may
access the exis~ public toads directly.
DELTA RAD!L,tS ARC TANGENT C.-SEIkR!NG CHORD
I 3°41 '02" 1587.02' 102.04' 51.04' N82°12'47"W 102.02'
2 12'22'14" 440.0.0' 95.00' 47.69' S07'03'18"W 94.82'
3 13*43'35" 440.00' 105.41' 52.96' S05'59'37"E 105.16'
4 11 '18'30" 380.00' 75.00' 37.62' S07'12'10"E 74.88'
5 15029'29" 380.00' 102.74' 51.69' S0601 1 '50"W 102.43'
6 10'14'42" 817.10' 146.10' 73.25' S08'49'14"W 145.91'
7 13'42'17" 389.21' 93.10' 46.77' S10'33'02"W 92.87'
8 7'42'51" 697.00' 93.84' 46.99' N62°27'07"E 93.77'
9 1'32'45" 697.00' 18.81' 9.40' N67*04'55"E 18.81'
10 9'17'18" 697.00' 112.99' 56.62' N72*29'56"E 112.87'
11 6*58'03" 325.00' 39.52' 19.79' S89°17'40"E 39.50'
12 7°35'13" 325.00' 43.04' 21.55' N83*25'42"E 43.00'
13 15*29'20" 325.00' 87.86' 44.20' N71 '53'26"E 87.59'
14 6'14'39" 325.00' 35.42' 17.73' N61°01'26"E 35.40'
15 1 *32'36" 645.00' 17.37' 8.69' N58°40'25"E 17.37'
16 7°39'12'' 645.00' 86.16' 43.14' N63°16'19"E 86.09'
17 10'02'41" 645.00' 113.08' 56.68' N72*OT'15"E 112.93'
18 12055'00" 475.00' 107.08' 53.77' S06'23'55"E 106.86'
19 3'16'08" 475.00' 27.10' 13.55' S01°41'39"W 27.10'
20 10'36'51" 475.00' 87.99' 44.12' S08038'09"W 87.87'
NO. BEARING DISTANCE
BP S32'59'13"W 43.87'
BQ S02'26'37"W 136,23'
BR S29'34'08"W 47.96'
BS S01'45'14"W 97.32'
BT S18°58'18"W 19.35'
BU N84*25'59"E 5.04'
BV S05°37'03"W 20.84'
BW N58'35'41 "E 23.49'
BX N58°35'41"E 36.86'
BY N77*08'35"E 25.00'
BZ S85°48'39"E 60.36'
CA N77*08'35"E 25.00'
CB S13'56'34"W 60.36'
Plat Showing 8uMivision Of
Tax Map 78 Parcel 51A
Located Near Shadwell, Albemarle County, Va.
Section I Phase VI
' Asheroft"
8oale: 1 "= 100~' Date: July 7, 1999
Bryan (]bambers & Assco. - Land Sttrveyin~
Located in Cottrt Square Paln~yra (804)589~5.129
Mailing Address: Rt 1 Box 68, Fork Union, Va. 23055
NO. BEARING DISTANCE
6A
Culpeper I
Branch
250 Frontage Road
(F-179~)
Scale: 1" -- 2000'
100'
AA N32°47'01 "E 19.47'
AB N10°26'39"E 63.12'
AC N16°04'31"E 170.04'
AD N18°46'18"E 129.36'
AE N18°00'35"E 89;07'
AF N16°41'23"E 83.55'
AG N18°42'24"E 67.85'
AH N14°21'42"E 52.95'
AI N16049'40"E 54.86'
AJ N20°38'22"E 92.19'
AK N12°58'41"E 70~64'
AL N07°10'23"E 139.21'
AM N06°06'03"E 66.61'
AN N00°53'05"E 21.80'
A, N05°54'57"E 49.94'
AP N01 °50'52"E 80.25'
AQ N08°07'07"E 62.17'
AR N05°S6'04"E 139.75'
AS N03°47'31"W 152.32'
AT N05*37'03"E 32.51'
AU S84°25'59"W 8.43'
AV N18°58'18"E 33.39'
AW N01 °45'14"E 98.28'
AX N29°34'08"E 48.02'
AY N02026'37"E 136.54'
AZ N32059'13"E 44.87'
BA N13°23'25"E 58.56'
BB N10°55'39"E 87..35'
BC N18022'14"E 40.00'
BD N12°48'10"E 66.56'
BE N29°41'03"E 58.54'
BF N30047'37"E 32.49'
BG N22°14'05"E 8.33'
BH S22°14'05"W 6.50'
BI S30°47'37"W ...... 33.14'
BJ S29°41'03"W 56.95'
BK S12°48'10"W 65.56'
BL S18°22'14"W 5.00'
BM S18°22'14"W 34.84'
BN S10°55'39"W 86.92'
B, S13°23'25"W 60.50'
50' 0
Sheet 1 Of 4
100'
I
I
Parcels W, X, Y, & Z
were part of TM 78A-2
and have been added
to TM 78-51A by the
'deed recorded in DB
1775-662. They are to
be included in Lots 1,
2, 3, and the residue of
TM 78-51A
0
Glenorchy
(Undeveloped)
Harley & \annie
Easter
DB 331-522
DB'918-114 Plat
TM 7813-1
Lot A "Ashcroft"
R.L. Beyer
Construction, Inc.
DB 1775-662
DB 1775-666 & 667 Plat
DB 930-402
DB 810-574 Plat
TM 78A-2
1.676 Acres ~'0'd ~
~ '-Ct:7
Yele. {"O' O" .C
aunet. 0
..~ .......... ~ ...... i' /
2I-';;922S.9F .........'-"- .....~.,~, I ! Iron
0. c. ' , , T _~ _. / Fnd.
'..: / Lot 232
40438 8.F. /
/ , 0.928 Ac., /
/ it
IrOn 4' I
Fnd.
Lot 233
64428 S,F.
1.479 Ac.
/ ,,'
~ ~ IiI
I
I
I ATTACHMENT C !
I
13i .79'
/
' Lot 231'
~ it
".40000 S.F~
/
~1
X ~
994 SF~r
Lot 230
40000 S,F.!
0.918 Ac. ~
I
Lot 234
40000 8.F.
0.918 Ac.
Future Section II
Phase V1
"Ashcroft"
· !
~' % 15" Culvert
I
:ffi
Plat Shon4ng Subdivision Of
Tax' Map 78 Paro~l 51A
Located Near 8h~dwel~ ~l~m~le Coun~ V~.
See n I Phase
'~sheroft"
Sosle: 1' = 1007 Date: July 7, 1999
Bryan Ch,n~bers & A,~oo. - Land
Loosted in Court Squaw Pdm~a (804) 589-5139
Mailin~ Address: Rt I Box 68, Fork Union, Va. 23055
Section IV Phase I
"Ashcroft"
I)B 803-613 Plat
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ i
\
\ X
\ ~
\
15"
\ Culvert
Sheet 2 Of 4
100' 50' 0
100'
I
' iATTACHHENT I
, / ,
Lot 233 I ,' , ,
, , ,,,, , \
' ~
Section [ ,/ / ,
Phase VI / ,' ~ ~ ' - ' age
, / '~ ~ '
, , ~., ~ ~. '
I I ~
I iI
' ' ~ot ~j~ ' ,
' Section I ' ,
Tele. Line ~ * 15" Culve~
II
'~.
Future Section II '
',',~
Phase ~
"AshcrOft"
5'47,622 S.F.
12,572 Acres
(lncl. Roads) "
..--" ~.
..-&~.. .......--'
. .. o~-~""" ~?~""""'
..-..,.~ ~ .
. -~6~'~ · ..~(~ · ..
·. ......-" .....................--'~ ~'~:~,
', .~X
.. .. ~..~..
'.. ~j~-'~ ~. ',
'~'.
o:0
", ~ x - · ~ Pasture
",, xx xx "'-. ' ~ ...... Gate
, "',, xxx xx ~.. ~-(19) "~' ', .__
,,....,, 2,,%,. ;/ .
//g/ i'
X. '~2,t~:......./~
"',,,, X,°%~;'.... :." / "~ . /
Res. TM 7~51A "', xx ~ "'-
no!uding ~ ",,~ %~ "'. "'. ." ~ ~ , '
~h.,~ w ~"',, '- % ', "'-. .Z ~,I
"~heroEt" ",, x~ ~G~ ~ ",, ~ ~ '
&Open Spaoe ~e "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'
547622 8.~, ~ "', ~x ~ ~x "', ,'
+??9ozs s.~. ~ ",, ,, ~ ,, "..' /
= ~3=~o s,~. ~ ",, ,, % ,, "~ .......
3o.4ss ~. %~ ",,,, ,,~ ,,, .....~'~-~:y~;.-': ........./
, <%',,,,,,, ),, ',,, .. /
DB 434-4 5 P at "',, xx
Ref: DB 944-740 ',,
& DB 944-755 Th 758 Plat ,,,,
· %-,,,.',,,
+1.311 Acres (Par's W, X, Y, & Z) "',,
-2.000 Acres (Lot C) "-
rJmm
~ .
Building Setback
Lines. See Note 6
Page 1
-- 38.426 Acres Total
Plat Showing SuMivision Of
Tax Map 78 Parce~ 51A
Looated Near Shadwell, Albemarle County, Va.
Section I'Phase VI
'~Asheroft"
Scale: 1" = 100~' Date: July 7, 1999
Bryan Chambers & Assoe. - Land Surveying
Located In Court Square Palmyra (804) 589~5 139
Mailing Address: Rt .1 Box 68, ForIf Union, Va. 23055
Sheet 3 Of 4
100' 50' 0
100'
ml
""-, "",, 0 "", ~ATTACHMENTCI
~OO"'~,\?dO6b~\\
Liber~ Land Ltd. ~ "-,,, ', ,% ' -,
DB 1715-492 o~ '-,,,,,~x~/~;~x
DB 434475 Plat ~ ~ ~e ~ o ·
Ref: DB 944-740 ~(t~ ",, ' ~ x ~
& DB 944-755 Th. 758 Plat ~ '~-,,, ~xx
Total Acreage In TM 7~51A -,,,,
39.115 Acres '~,,
+1.311 Acres (Par's W, X, Y, & Z) Pasture
-2.000 Acres (Lot C)
"38.426 Acres Total
Res. TM 78-51A
Including
Future Section II
Phase VI
"Ashcroft"
& Open Space
547622 S.F.
+779018 S.F.
= 1326640 S.F.
30.455 Ac.
0
~o
5e'c
Mildred S.
Anderson
WB 39-302'
DB 434-475
Plat
TM 78-51B
P/at Showing 8ulMi~ision 0£
Tt~ Map 78 P~el
~o~ted ge~ 8h~d~ll, gbem~le Coun~ V~.
Sec~n I Phase ~
t~ sh croft"
SoMe: l " ~ 100~' D~te: July 7, 1999
B~an Ch~m~rs & Assoe. - L~d
Located in Goua 8qu~e Pdm~ (804)
MaiIing Addre~: Rt 1 ~x 68, Fork Union, Va. 2J055
|Fort ~ ~ //Approx. Location Of
/ Water Line From Existing /
Set ' f,0 O~ / Well (DB 434-475 Plat)
""' 7> ] ' T ?V~ ~' ] ffi / < ~6 '., /
, ~ ~ ~ )-,, ,e /
Area / ~ , ~ ~ , ~ d ' ~ 64-
j 2.000 ,
'%% ' '
o. ~ Cone. '
Channel
II~ ~LTH Op ~II This bounda~ was based on a
~ ~+ Z~ current field su~ey with lines
403~2141 ~ established i.a.w. physical ev-
$ ~0. 0
idence, deed descriptions, and
recorded plats. There are some
minor inconsistancies between
Win, Roudabush°s plat of Lego
%ff)"'/~ Drive, and Thomas Blue's plat of
TM 78-51A which resulted in a
~e~4~l~~ ~:Z;/ shorter length for curve (2) and '
SUR.,¢ slightly different intersection
· I lengths for the NE corner of
TI~! 78-5~ B. Also see notes
on Gheet 2 for the north
boundary.
Sheet 4 Of 4
100' 50' 0
100'
I
;7°24'1
-37'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD BRIEFS
Also available at bttp://k12.albemarle. org
"WE EXPECT SUCCESS"
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: JULY 12. 1999
BOARD ACTIVITY
The Board received and approved the Year-to-Date Finandal
Report, June 30, 1999.
The Board expelled a middle school student for the 1999-2000
school year first semester for willful disobedience.
The Board invites parents and community members to apply
for membership to the Health Advisory Board for the Jack
Jouett District. This vacancy is for a one-year term. For
additional information, call the Clerk's office at 972-4055.
The Board approved Policy Section I, Instructior~ All
Section I policies will be sent to policyholders and placed on
the kl2.albemarle.org Web Site.
The Board deferred the 1999-2000 Board/Superintendent
Priorities to August 9, 1999.
At a joint meeting on July 12, the School Board and the
Boa?d of Supervisors agreed that the health care contract for
1999-2000 be renewed with QualChoice. Employee
premiums were increased from $10 to $15 per month,
dependent upon the type of package offered. The Delta
Dental premiums remained approximately the same for
employees and their families. For additional information,
please call the Clerk's office.
AFTER-SCHOOL ENRICHMENT REPORT
The Albemarle County After-School Enrichment Prograin
(ASEP), a self-sustaining business formed in 1982, provides after-
school care in all 15 elementary schools, averaging 1,000
elementary students daily and has an annual budget of $1.3
million. Tukion and fees pay for salaries and operating expenses;
the daily tuition of $7.00 has not increased since 1995, though
operation time increased by 30 minutes in 1998-99 and average
daily attendance increased from 500 in 1995 to 1,000-plus in 1999.
Staff costs increased as finding experienced, qualified staff became
difficult.
The ASEP faces significant challenges: (1)at the current tuition
rate, budget projections for FY 1999-00 exceed projected revenue;
(2) labor and operating costs will continue to rise; (3) finding
qualified and experienced staff will continue to be a concern; and
(4) increased staff development will be needed to offset lack of
experienced, qualified staff. Due to anticipated fiscal pressures
including rising labor and operating costs, continuing technology
upgrades, and increased need for staff devdopment, staff
· recommended increasing the daily ASEP tuition rate from $7.00
to $8.30 per day, adjust staff to student ratio to 1:15 to offset
costs, and institute a prepaid billing system to eliminate revenue
lag and bill collection time. Other issues facing the ASEP are
rapid growth, uncertainty of number 'of students with special
needs, bill collecting and suspension of nonpayment, and
program time increased due to the school schedule changes.
The Board agreed to defer action on this issue in order to
obtain additional information from staff, including a program
structure at the $8.30 per day fiat rate and implementation of a
prepaid billing system, as well as parent communication about
program changes. A Parent Fact Sheet will be developed
regarding therecommended changes. The ASEP issue is
scheduled for the Board's August 9, 1999 meeting for public
testimony and action. In addition, a follow up report will be
provided to the Board in January 2000 that will include future
financial projections.
MIDDLE SCHOOL STEERING
COMMITTEE UPDATE
One responsibility of the Middle School Steering Committee,
formed in 1995, was to create consistent grouping
practices/honors level classes in all County middle schools.
Henley and Jack Jouett Middle Schools offered honors classes in
all four core subjects in Grades 6-8, while other middle schools
ability-grouped students for mathematics and, to some extent, for
language arts, with all schools providing special instruction for
students below grade level. Different grouping practices
presented problems for parents in understanding why some
schools offered classes that others did not and for students
moving from one school to another.
In 1998, the Committee brought to the Board a plan for making
middle school grouping practices consistent, recommending that
(1) honors level classes be offered in sixth grade for mathematics
and language arts, (2) a choice between social studies and Science
honors classes be available in addition to the mathematics and
language arts in seventh grade, and (3)honors level classes be
offered in all core subject areas in eighth grade. All middle
schools implemented this recommendation (Walton in full) for
sixth grade in the 1998-99 school year. The pilot showed that
offering a third honors dass for seventh grade was not feasible
due to scheduling constraints. The Committee then
recommended offering only mathematics and language arts
honors classes in seventh grade, as students were not intended to
be ability-grouped in all core areas until eighth grade. The
Committee felt strongly that middle school students must be able
to work cooperatively with peers of many ability levels at least
through seventh grade. Therefore, the Committee recommended
the following to the Board:
Grade 6: Offer honors classes in mathematics and language
arts; group heterogeneously for social studies and sdence and
differentiate instruction to meet varying student needs.
Grade 7: Offer honors classes for mathematics and language
arts; group heterogeneously for social studies and science and
di~erentiite instruction to meet varying student needs.
Grade 8: Offer honors classes in all four core instructional
Research supports the fact that heterogeneous grouping benefits
all students. Gifted students' achievement is not harmed, while
other students benefit from working in mixed-ability classes. The
Committee believed strongly that middle schools represent an
important transition between elementary and high school.
Ability-grouping in all four core areas in all three grades would.
be inconsistent with best practice. All middie schools planned to
implement these recommendations for 6% 7% and 8~h grades for
1999-2000. The division will continue to focus on training in
differentiated instruction, offering a course as part of the Literacy
Task Force's staff development plan.
After receiving public testimony, the Board tabled a decision
regarding staff's recommendations and offered the following
suggestions:
1. More focus is needed on school-based and division-wide
training for teachers in differentiating instruction to meet
the needs of all students in their classes.
2. Since the schedules are done for the 1999-2000 school year,
staff will provide a report to the Board in December 1999
regarding the above-noted issues.
time for. (1) guidelines to be developed by the state Department
of Education in response to legislation from the 1999 Virginia
General Assembly, (2) incorporation of state guidelines into the
final product, and (3) input solicited will allow time to solicit
input from teachers, parents, and local human resources
professionals.
The Board supported staff~ recommendations and offered the
following suggestions:
1. Utilize a one to two-year professional development plan
for determining the types of training offerings and the
impact of training needs on the budget.
2. 'Stress the importance of a client feedback mechanism
regarding the teacheFs performance, i.e., parent and/or
student survey.
3. Tie school-based initiatives to the Board/Superintendent
Priorities in the Appraisal Plan.
4. Pilot at schools in which committee members are on staff.
ACTIVITIES AND NOTES
The Progress Report will be delayed until October in order
to parallel the State Report Card data.
The Parent Climate Survey will be administered this year in
grades K-12.
As of July 12, three out of 15 teaching positions have not
been secured. Staff continues to work hard to place these
Reduction-in-Force teachers in positions before the 1999-
2000 school year.
~-~The division will receive the official Standards of Learning
'test scores from the state soon.
TEACHER PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL PLAN
Developing a revised teacher evaluation instrument is an ongoing
Board/Superintendent Priority. Since February 1999, a
committee of administrators and teachers has met to address this
area, using input from stakeholders and applicable research on
performance evaluation as a starting point. The Draft Teacher
Performance Appraisal was designed to meet the following
objectives: (1) to enhance effective instruction for student
achievement, (2) to assure accountability in teacher performance,
(3) to promote professional development and growth
opportunities for teaching professionals, (4) to incorporate
individualized and school-based development goals, and (5) to
assist teachers needing improvement.
Staff recommended piloting this draft plan witha limited number
of teachers in 1999-2000 and using this experience to finalize the
Plan for full implementation in 2000-20011 This pilot will allow
56 teachers attended the Lead Teacher's Institute in
Waynesboro on June 21 and 22 and focused on SOL
objectives to enhance instruction in English, Language
Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies.
The division is in the process of giving the end-of-course
SOL tests to students in secondary summer school.
Monticello High School students received report cards that
were' originally sent to Albemarle or Western Albemarle
High Schools, depending on where the student artended
school in 1997-98. Staff balieves that this is because
Monticello did not open until the fall of 1998.
The division continues to be concerned about the Algebra
SOL test, given that the Algebra I scores for eighth graders
were counted with the eighth grade tests at the middle
school. The Algebra I scores should be counted at the high
school level where the diploma is issued due to it being a
verified credit course. Board consensus was reached for the
Superintendent and Chairman to send a letter to the State
Board of Education Superintendent and Chairman
expressing the division's Algebra I concerns.
Albemarle County Public Schools
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 29, 1999
Comparison of Albemarle County and State SOL Test Results
Yesterday, the Virginia Department of Education released 1999 state results from the
Standards of Learning (SOL) testing program. I want to share with you the results of our
preliminary analysis. The table on the following page shows 1998 and 1999 percent passing and
the change from 1998 to 1999 for both Albemarle County and the state. Highlights include:
* 1999 Albemarle County pass rate was higher than Virginia on 24 out of 27 SOL tests,
compared to 22 out of 27 in 1998
· Improvement from 1998 to 1999 in Albemarle County was higher than Virginia on 19 of 27
SOL tests
· The largest improvements in passing rates for Albemarle County were on the following tests:
· Grade 5 English: Writing: .85.7 % passing, up 18.6 %
· High School English: Reading: 74.4
· High School English: Writing: 78.3
· High School Algebra I: 60.7
· High School Algebra II: 54.5
· Grade 3 History & Social Science: 66.3
· Grade 5 History & Social Science: 67.8
· Grade 8 History & Social Science: 51.8
· Grade 5 Science: 77.1
· High School Earth Science: 69.1
% passing, up
% passmg, up
% passing, up
% passing, up
% passing, up
% passing, up
% passing, up
% passing, up
% passing, up
10.3
13.9
12.0
14.1
14.3
38.1
10.7
12.2
12.5
One test on which scores dropped si~ificantly was World Historypom 1000 tI.D. to the
Present / World Geography. This drop does not represent a decline for a whole cohort of
students. Instead, this test was taken by only 106 students, many of whom had failed the earlier
world history course or were identified as at risk. Next year, this course and test will be taken by
most 10~ graders who are the first cohort required to have four history credits to earn an
Advanced Studies diploma.
Dr. Casther and I continue applauding the hard work and on-going efforts of our staff and
teachers.
Attachments (3)
Standards of Learning Tes. ts
Passing Rates for
Albemarle County Public Schools and Virginia
.SOL Test
Grade 3
English
Mathematics
History & Social Science
Science
Grade 5
English: Reading,
Literature, & Research
English: Writing.
Mathematics
History & Social Science
Science
Computer/Technology
Grade 8
English: Reading,
Literature, & Research
English: Writing
Mathematics
History & Social Science
Science
Computer/Technology
High School
English: Reading,
Literature, & Research
English: Writing
Algebra I
Algebra II
Geometry
Earth Science
Biology
World History to 1000 AD +
World Geography
Wo~d History from 1000 AD
to the Present +
World Geography
U. S. History
Albemarle County
1998 1999 Change
Passing Passing from
Rate Rate 1998 to
(%) (%) 1999
59.3
63.3
52.0
69.4
1998
Passing
Rate
{o/o~
70.8
67.1
46.3
29.7
64.9
79.8
Virginia
1999
Passing
Rate
(%)
65.6
68.6
57.5
41.1
73.0
70.3
Change
from
1998 to
1999 -
65.6 +6.3 53 61 +8
68.8 +5.5 63 68 +5
66.3 +14.3 49 62 +13
75.3 +5.9 63 68 +5
64.1
64.4
48.7
40.4
67.1
56.6
77.9
82.6
66.0
77.7 +6.8
85.7 +18.6
56.0 +9.7
67.8 +38.1
77.1 +12.2
89.1 +9.3
73.9
74.2
67.0
51.8
81.3
76.6
+8.4
+5.6
+9.5
~-10.7
+8.3
+6.3
+10.3
+13.9
+12.0
+14.1
-1.0
+12.5
+5.3 '
+0.8
42.4
33.6
74.4
78.3
60.7
54.5
66.1
69.1
83.2
83.4
73.5
68
65
47
33
59
72
64
67
53
35
71
63
72
71
40
31
52
58
72
54
41
30
-9.4
+6.6
69
81
51
46
67
81
67
70
60
40
78
72
75
81
56
51
62
65
81
64
68
47
32
33.0
40.2
+1
+16
+4.
q-13
+8
+9
+3
+3
+7
+5
+7
+9
+3
+10
+16
+20
+10
+7
+9
+10
+6
Albemarle County Public Schools
Department of Instruction
July 29, 1999
Associated PreSS
RICI~VIOND -- Virginia public
~chool students improved their
scores on all 27 of the new
statewide standardized tests in the
second year they were given, but
still performed poorly on history
and math exam.
The state Department of Educa-
lion released statewide passing
rates Wednesday for students who
took the Standards of Learning
tests in the spring. The depart-
ment said it was still tabulating
how well each school did and
expected to have those results by
late August.
Last year, only 2.2 percent of
the state's 1,813 public schools did
well enough ~o meet accreditation
requirements that will be in place
by the 2006-2007 school year.
The tests are given in grades 3,
5, 8 and high school By 2004, stu-
dents ~viIl have to pass the tests
graduate from high school.
Students showed the greatest
improvement on tests in algebra,
fifth-grade writing, and third- and
fifth-grade history. But there was a
lot of room for improvement in
most of those areas.
The number ofstudents passing
the Algebra II test increased from
31 percent to 51 percent. In Alge-
bra I, the passing rate improved
from 40 percent to 56 ~ercent.
For third-Fade history, the
number of students passirig went
from 49 percent to 62 percent; for
fifth-grade history, from 33 percent
ta46 percent. .... :': .................
. In?fifth-grade writing, th~ pass-
jag rate jumped from 65 percent to
81 percent. ... , ·
': 'Virginia's: ~eacherS deserve
praise and ct~iit. for this accom-
plishment~" said Kirk T. SChroed-
er,, presi.dgnt of the V'zr~-~ Board.
of Educafion."rhe fruits of their
Iahors are beginning to show.
capedally: en~oui~ed' by tla sig-
nffi. cant increase'in a/gebraL" ......
· Paul D. Staple.tOn, state super-
intendent ~of rublie instruction,
Said he expe~ores Will continue
to improve as teachers and. stu-
S01. paSs rates -..,.
percentage rates at which students
in schools Statewide passed the
1999 Standards of Learning tests,
arranged by grades and subl~cts. . . ·
' with 1998 percentage rates in
parentheses..
Grade 3
English 61% (53%)
Math 68% (63%)
History 62% (49%)
Science 68% (63%)
Grade 5
English reading 69% (68%)
English wdting 81% (65%)
Math 51% (47%)
History 46% (33%)
Science 67% (59%)
Computer/Tech 81% (72%).
Grade 8
English reading 67% (64%)
English writing 70% (67%)
Math 60% (53%)
History 40% (35%)
Science 78% (71%)
Cornputer/Tech 72% (63%)
High school
English reading 75% (72%)
English wdting 81% (71%)
Algebra I 56% (40%)
Algebra II 51% (31%)
Geometry 62% (52%) '
Earth science 65% (58%)
Biology 81% (72%)
Chemistry 64% (54%)
Wodd history 1 68% (62%)
Wodd history Ii 47% (41%)
- U.S; history 32% (30%)
Source: va. Dept. of Education.
-:
.................. ....:
were 81 percent ja 5z'~-Szade writ-
jag a~d computer tecl~olo~, and,
· hi¢h school wriffi~g and, bidoff.., ,~"
'I"ae mdst dismal scores .were ja....
high school Americas histoff~ with'
a 32 pei'cent passjag rate Idaat Was'
ouly two perce~tsSe pejats bettap.
· than Iast ye~. EiShth-Sradem did-
n't do'.much betterwith ~ei~.r-....,
centaBe 'passja8 at 40 petce~r,' up' '
.-fi'om 35 pez~ceat lastyear.':-~:, '..'.'.~,
~ducatoz-j lave said ~e
8'teatest' curriculum chanles'. iz~ ~'"
social studiesL Some 'c~itics have
~mplaiaet 'that questions on
section
'
~ ENTERTAINMENTS., .,B4 . ~ ,. ..... ' ' " ' ~ ~]o~~ ' ~'..: " ~
count schools mark'-..dramatic ovement
By . . · to the state-mstit Albe Y ' areas and 1 . · -' - u .~ a~fotthetes~la
Dady PrOfess ~taff wnter ' - dards all schobls must ach~ve fall accrea- · OVC~ their scores o~ 25 'four.elementa~ sch~?, met .the q ' ear ~ause we didn't, ka~ what
. " ' ' · · '. ' ~ ~u erintendent l~p[ ' men~ for full accreaitatmn ..... Y ' ' doubtedl , what,
Mbem.l.. ~ounty. public schvI tan?U' t~t~YKevm cs~Z:n~s~0, ':Our ~ntere,t now OUt Or 27 SOL tests, com-' . -. mo. sCn~,, iaa.a, ,roaau,.. w~a, tos~.e ,oamoa'°~t~ta,tta bk,.., ha~d ~"- ~.tdbute' to'
den~ &amatt~lly stop.red their 8 .; ~ ' iove a amst its '. · ' ' ' ' · I1 mead Menwether ~wss and 8teny ., , · Y ' ' t ~s" she,
aa,s of ~aming, test scores.es ~ea,,. [~,~5t~;ho;CkT~i~i~s.W;garecom.pared with their 1998 scores,, .oy ... · - -t,,, ,-,, mc..a.m ~, . ,
sch~l ~d officials announ~a monaay. ' ow, ,~-. r · -
' Almost 7,000 students in the third, mitted to mei~ting and exceeding state
fiith~ eighth ~nd ninth through twelfth -.accreditation requirements iq all county
grades took the second round of SOL tests schools."
To meet full accreditation status, at
in.lViay. Students improved their; scores on
25 out of 27 SOL tests, compared with least'70 percent of students in each school
· ' must pass each SOL test; Students take
their 1998 scores..
The scores indicate Albemarle schools the tests in four subject areas: English,
Point.
· Fora; other scho~ls came ~loie to meet- said,
- . 'on re uiroments' Wood- It is unclear'at this time v~hat will hap-'.
history, mathematics and science. · ing full accreditatt q .... "' ........ schools that fail to me~t full accred:'l
Albemarle schools in 1998 met require- brook Elimentary School anu rtemey, clack pe, ~v - .... .
nd middle schools," itation status ~Y zuu~.' , · 't
merits in four out of 16 content areas and Jouett and Sutherla . - ' , ' · ~-~ ,-~ dinator of testing and program
--Director of Curriculum Lmvetopmem , ......r . - .
eight out of 27 SOL tests -- but no schools See SOL'on B~
met full accreditation requirements. , Sylvia Henderson explained~. ~he across- .. :~
. .:-......" ;,'-:;-.y:..;:...)'= thi~.;o~tcomesTheY,re working°f this onarethatg°ing to
L ,a:?.-' "~...'"'""':i be;
k"'i~...: . ',~ :.:.:.' ::'.':.~.~ ':,~: (,.:i' :rently, holding public'hea~n~s,a~
C~6t hued from B1. ~: d;., '. 'i'-,~,~'; .--~edti6ig to determine What nap:
. ....-.'::~'-":: :" -' .":" ~aRe~:2~7" ' :'
' "for ', Albemari~: sch~ls, · ' .' '
ahalys~! . .. ~L:.,:'-.g~..', M~marle announced iL. SQL
~':Hugnes, sam', tna~...: ..:. ~ · .
. .. ; ....... ' .... e..to....~tt~o~earher~anm~tofthe
~ .mllll0a ques~..' ~n. ~.- , ._., ,. -. %, · · ' · · vi~nia
wor~ng over the n
'to de~ine what'it means for ~ ..?omen Ma~ 'Susln 'Payne
· , ..... · ....... : -. ~e cry r~elved I~ ~t [~sul~
~h~l ~ De Ge~le~ ac~i~um · "... ...... ' ' ' ·
' ~s ~dicated the.~tat~ will';'~Ay and ~at ~e~a~ will wm~
'7':H~g} .......... -:-,-- ; '.~6~tii' the su~gn~nde~t, l~?
.~ot ~se over lalling ~m.~ , - · - ;' "
we ofh~ they f~ on the" out' of town?'~tums :~'~release
SOLtes~. '-'. ':',..'.F'"L:-.'.< ']]]~Sa-~-dent 'Bill ~ons,
Gallion Said ~e don t kn~.~hat ;.'~ .Y' ' . . - '.
Issues Raised by the Board of Supervisors on July 7, 1999
Issue 1. Raised by Walter Perkins. One of our employees stated to the press that it will be
necessary to have trailers at Monticello High School next year. Why would this be
necessary if there is under enrollment at Albemarle High and Western Albemarle High?
Why can't we just "balance the students between the three high schools without the
introduction of trailers?"
The School Board will receive a detailed report on the school building capadty on
August 23, 1999, from the Long Range Planning Committe~ A copy of the report will
be provided to the Board of Supervisor& It is not accurate to think that the opening
Monticello High School caused the other high schools to be under enrollell Albemarle
High had some 15 trailers last year. The number this year is 5. More importantly, the
decrease in students at A!bemarle High School has allowed the movement of students
through narrow halls, to fiow more smoothly and without the potential for student
confrontation. Teachers can now have work rooms., Teachers are assigned rooms
rather that float throughout the school Lessening movement back and forth between
the main building and the trailers outside means increased efficiency in the
management of students between classes~ Available cafeteria space and service have
been facilitatetL Differentiated staffing to accommodate appropriate class sizes can
more effeaively be planned. All of these are all factors. The "balancing" of students
at the high school level would also cause the realignment of student feeder patterns
down through the elementary schools. Monticello High Schooi's enrollment for
September is projected at 1,078 students. Western Albemarle High at 953 students.
Albemerle High at 1,535 studen~ Murray High at 84 students~
Issue 2. Raised by Forrest Marshall. Why have we failed to address the issue of
providing bonuses to employees, particularly teachers, when there is a shortage in
particular fields ? I think I covered this issue sufficiently, by admitting that the School
Board did not feel the need to offer bonuses to a particular class of employees because of
the inequities to other employees who are already in the system and for teachers in other
disciplines who are also equally valued.
Issue 3. Raised by Sally Thomas. Why are we continuing to provide skills to students
that are not needed in the community while we have not provided skills that are needed ?
She cited the Cosmetology program as an example. I responded by recounting that at the
CATEC graduation it was reported that every student who wanted a job or desired to
continue his education had either taken a job or were completing his acceptance into
school. CATEC graduated (provided completion certificates to) 122 graduates in the
following career fields. Computer Repair 12, placement requests 8; Auto Body 6
~placement requests 4, Auto Technology 9 placement requests 4;Bricklaying 3,
'( placement requests 2; Carpentry 7, placement requests 2;Computer Network
Technology 8, placement requests 2; Cosmetology 21, placement requests 5, Culinary
Arts 9, placements requests 4; Design Technology I S, placement requests O; Design
Technology H 3, placement requests 0 Early Childhood Education 6, placement
requests ~; Electricity 1 O, placement requests ~; Hotel/Restaurant Management 7,
placement requests 4; Masonry 7, placement requests 2; Residential Wiring ~,
. placement requests 4; Short Order Cook 3, placement requests 2.. 2 students received
scholarships to technical schools, 3 students plan to continues their education at a
four-year or 2-year colleg~ The Director at CA TEC has accomplished extensive ·
coordination with the Center Board, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Joint Vocational
Advisory Committee and area business leaders to identijS~ and align its curriculum
offerings based on the current area demands for workforce need& Four new programs
since 1997 are in response to those demand& As regards the 21 graduates of the
Cosmetology Program, it continues to be a profession that has high demands. Analysis
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics the occupation of cosmetology employs over 6000,000
nationally and over I1,000 in Virginit~ The occupation in this region is expected to
grow at a rate of 10% annually, and does not include Nail Technicians. CATEC
cannot fill all the demands for this occupation. Currently CA TEC gradates own and
operate local salons and one serves as an instructor at another Tech Center. One
CA TEC owner done, employs eight CA TEC graduates.
Issue 4. Raised by David Bowerman. Why can't we use "experts" in the fields of math
and science to teach our students ? They could cover the learning gap that some of our
teachers may have and give valuable experience to our students while overcoming the
math and science teacher shortages. I responded that several factors preclude having
volunteers in the classroom for extended blocks of instruction. One factor was the need
for accredited teachers in the classroom and the other factor being the requirement to
cover specific course material required by the Standards of Learning. David responded
by suggesting a program of having lesson plans approved by the appropriate central
coordinator that the volunteer wouM follow. Currently over 300 hundred UVA students
from Madison House volunteer in our schools. The RESEED Program will begin this
fall with some 20-25 retired scientist, mathematicians, and engineers volunteering their
expertise in the sciences to augment the curriculum material Currently, State
regulations allow for an individual without full professional license to teach up to three
years on a provisional !icens~ At the end of three years the individual must complete
the coursework for full a professional !icens~ A meeting a the State Board of
Education at the end of the month will address the issue relaxing or modifying the
credentials for "hard to place" position&
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing to Approve Tax-Exempt Financing for
East Rivanna Fire Co., Inc.
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Tax-Exempt Financing
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution to Approve T -Exempt Financing
STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: ~y
Messrs. Tucker/Foley/Davis /
BACKGROUND:
"'he East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. is in the process of purchasing a new crew cab fire truck. It wishes
to take advantage of tax-exempt financing provisions provided for volunteer fire companies in the IRS regulations.
Under these regulations it can secure a loan at a favorable interest rate. Comvest Ltd. Inc. has agreed to finance
an amount not to exceed $205,000 under a seven-year lease purchase agreement for the truck at a net interest rate
of 5.03%.
DISCUSSION:
Although the County incurs no liability for and has no obligation to repay the loan, for IRS purposes it is considered
an obligation of the County. The IRS regulations require the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing pdor to the
approval of the borrowing by ERVFC.
RECOMMENDATION:
At the conclusion of the public hearing staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to Approve
'ax-Exempt Financing by East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
99.142
I~vkl P. Bo~mn~
CERTIFICATE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
AS APPLICABLE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 147(f) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 1986, AS AMENDED
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "County"), pursuant to Section
147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the "Code") hereby states that the
actions taken by the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co., Incorporated (The "Fire Department") to
enter into a Lease with Option to Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") in the aggregate principal
amount of not to exceed $205,000.00 in order to finance a crew cab fire truck, said equipment
beirig located at 3501 Steamer Drive, Keswick, Virginia 22947, and to pay costs and expenses
incidental to the financing, have been approved by the county as the applicable elected
representative with respect to the Fire Department as provided in Section 147(f) of the Code.
This approval is given following a public hearing held at 10:15 a.m. on August 4, 1999 at
the Albemarle County Office Building at 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
and is solely for the purpose of satisfying requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code.
By the grant and execution of this Certificate, the undersigned County assumes no
liability or other responsibility for and under said Agreement and the obligation represented
thereby, said approval being given solely to comply with Section 147(f).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has caused
this Certificate to be executed by its Chairman as of the ~/'~' of C2~,4./.,-~/,- / q 9,~ ,
1999.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Its//~ra,~ af ~ ~ ~
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
BY EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.
WHEREAS, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (hereafter ERVFC) desires to enter
into a Lease with Option to Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") in the aggregate principal
mount of not to exceed $205,000.00 in order to f'mance a crew cab fire truck; and
WHEREAS, ERVFC has obtained a commitment from Comvest Ltd., Inc. subject to
ERVFC meeting all requirements of the Intemal Revenue Code; and
WHEREAS, under the Intemal Revenue Code if ERVFC is a qualified volunteer fire
department and the financing is approved by Albemarle County after a public hearing, it may
qualify for federal tax exempt financing; and
WHEREAS, The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors did properly advertise and
conduct a public hearing on this proposed financing on August 4, 1999; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County incurs no liability for and no obligation to repay the
above described financing;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors for the County
of Albemarle, Virginia hereby approves the borrowing of up to $205,000.00 by the East Rivarma
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. from Comvest Ltd., Inc. under Internal-Revenue Code provisions
for tax-exempt financing for the purpose of acquiring a fire truck; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman is authorized to execute the
Certificate Of The County Of Albemarle County, Virginia, As Applicable Elected
Representative Pursuant to Section 147(f) Of the Internal Revenue Code 1986, As Amended.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on August 4, 1999.
Clerk, ~0?ard of County Su~
INTER
OFFICE
M3MO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
Water Supply Planning
August 10, 1999
At its August 4, 1999 meeting, the Board of Supervisors indicated that you would work with the
consultants to group public-suggested alternatives into viable and less viable categories, including
reasons given as to why some may or may not be practical, and the approximate cost of
implementing each suggestion. Please contact David Hirschman should you have any questions.
Thank you.
Cc: David Hirschman
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Water Supply Planning
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
: Local Government work sessions and public hearing on
water supply alternatives.
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 1999
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 20th, the League of Women Voters and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) conducted a Water Forum at
which RWSA consultants, VHB, presented 30+ water supply alternatives and received public comment regarding those
alternatives. Several weeks ago, the Board of Supervisors requested that City Council and RWSA join them in jointly reviewing
the various water supply alternatives being proposed by the RWSA consultants, VHB. The RWSA agreed to initiate such a
meeting when the original alternatives had been "paired" down to a more realistic number.
DISCUSSION:
In early July, the League of Women Voters and the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable requested that joint Board of
Supervisors/City Council work sessions/hearings be conducted to review the VHB alternatives and receive comment from
various groups. They also suggested that a joint City/County water oversight commission or task force be established.
RECOMMENDATION:
After discussing the matter with others, it is suggested that a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors, City Council, ACSA
and RWSA be held in September to hear a presentation by RWSA staff on all water supply alternatives and to receive public
comments regarding these alternatives. The Albemade County Service Authority has been added to this group since the four-
party Agreement requires that water supply improvements are dependent on recommendations from the ACSA and City.
In October or early November, a second presentation and hearing could be held by the bodies regarding a more definitive list
of alternatives which will be developed from the September hearing and the independent review from state and federal
regulators.
With regard to the creation of a regional water oversight commission, the intent is to include central Virginia localities as part
of this commission; therefore, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission may be a more appropriate body to create
and appoint such an oversight commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
99.131
eague of Women Voters _ .,,s'~ --': ·
~OUNDTk~L~
DATE: July 8, 1999
TO:
Charlottesville City Council
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
League of Women Voters .of Charlottesville/Albemarle County
Rivanna River Basin Roundtable
Water Policy and Water Supply Planning
The League of Women Voters and the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable advocate sound water
policy and full public participation in water decisions that will impact our community far into
the future. Regarding the Water Supply Planning process now underway by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), we believe that this process is so important that the
eldcted officials of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville should be setting basic
policy in this matter.
Public participation over the past few years in numerous water forums, summits, and
committees, in the RWSA process, and at the Water Supply Plan public meeting of April 20,
1999, suggest a high level of informed citizen interest and concem.
Therefore, we urge the County, the City and the RWSA, jointly, to initiate a series of
meetings to promote public education, dialog and deliberation on this important issue. We
believe that there will be broad interest in and appreciation for this oppommity for public
discourse. We propose the following sessions to be held as soon as scheduling permits, but
certainly no later than early September, 1999:
1. An open joint City Council/Board of Supervisors work session with RWSA
presenting their water supply and demand analyses and the potential altematives they have
identified to meet their projected future demand. Additionally, service, educational and
conservation groups, and other informed parties that represent the broad spectrum of water
use and interest in the Basin should be invited to make concise, informed presentations.
2. A second open meeting to be held after a period of time to allow our elected
officials to study the information presented and to solicit input from their constituents. This
meeting would give the elected officials an opportunity for questions and answers with the
RWSA and for a joint discussion of water supply and use strategies.
3. A public heating for further input by the community on water policy and water
supply issues.
The Water Supply Planning process is proceeding at a deliberate pace. We see no reason that
the proposed meetings would interrupt or disrupt the process underway. Conversely, now that
the RWSA has identified 'numerous alternatives for consideration, we feel that this is an ideal
time for the public and its representatives to be engaged in the dialog. We ask that you
initiate this dialog in an expeditious manner.
Since the Water Supply Planning process will continue for an undefined time, we also suggest
that you establish a joint City/County and Regional water oversight commission or task force.
This would allow the integration of broader water issues with the task of providing an
adequate potable water supply for the public service area.
We thank you for your attention to these requests, and offer any assistance you would find
helpful in organizing the proposed informational meetings and/or identifying important
participants.
Respectfully yours,
Ruth Wadlington and Sandy Snook
Co-Presidents, League of Women Voters Cha~ottesville and Albemarle County
Arthur Bulger, Ph.D.
Chairperson, Rivanna River Basin Roundtable
AuGust 4, I ggg
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION :~. I -344(A) Of THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS;
UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION OF
SPECIFIC PROPERTIES FOR SCHOOL SITES, FOR
RECREATIONAL USE, AND FOR PUBLIC PARKING; AND
UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
AND STAFF REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION RELATING TO
THE IVY LANDFILL.