1995-07-05000 .20
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 5, 1995, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs.
Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 A.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Walter Johnson requested that the Board consider applying a Cost
Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) to construction projects. A CPIF contract can be
used at all levels of government and can provide a significant opportunity to
reduce construction project costs, and increase contractor profit without
affecting quality. A CPIF contract should be given strong consideration in
building the County's new high school as well as other construction and VDoT
projects. Mr. Johnson then read a statement (copy on file) explaining the
various ways a CPIF contract can be used.
Mr. Perkins suggested that staff investigate CPIF contracts for its
savings potential and to review the County's criteria for utilizing this
program. Mrs. Thomas asked that an effectiveness study be included in the
report. Mr. Bowerman asked that auditing requirements for contracts and
architect fees be investigated. Mr. Johnson said a CPIF contract is geared
towards construction and not design.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve items 5.1 through 5.3 on the Consent
Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Item 5.la. Appropriation: Bright Stars Program at,Stone Robinson -
$87,816, (Form #95002). (At the June 3 meeting, the Boar~approved funding in
the amount of $87,816 from local funds to implement an at-risk program for
four-year olds at Stone Robinson Elementary School. Local fun~.ing in the
amount of $36,191 is to match the state grant of $38,145 for the '~ngoing
expenses for the program. Local funding in the amount of $51,625 is for one
time monies to purchase and install a modular unit to house the program at
Stone Robinson. Approval of this request will officially appropriate those
funds to be spent on the program in FY 1995-96. Local funds will be shown as
a transfer from the Fund Balance to the Department of Social Services budget
where they will be shown as a General Fund expenditure to a special fund which
will track all the program expenses and other revenues. )
The following resolution of appropriation was approved by the recorded
vote set out above:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NLIMBER: 95002
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR BRIGHT STARS AT-RISK-FOUR
YEAR OLD PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100053013930208
1155361129110000
1155361129130000
1155361129210000
1155361129221000
1155361129231000
1155361129232000
1155361129270000
1155361129301210
1155361129310000
1155361129331100
DESCRIPTION
AT-RISK-FOUR YEAR OLD PGM-SOC SERV
SALARIES - REGULAR
SALARIES-PART TIME
FICA
HEALTH INS
DENTAL INS
WORKERS COMP
CONTRACTED SERVICES-CLASSROOM
PROF SERVICES-EVALUATION
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
AMOUNT
$87,816 00
48,737 00
1,500 00
3,825 00
3,600 00
4,350 00
150 00
450 00
15,000 00
2,500 00
150 00
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
1155361129331200
1155361129360000
1155361129420100
1155361129520100
1155361129520301
1155361129550100
1155361129580000
1155361129600400
1155361129601300
1155361129800550
ADVERTISING
FIELD TRIPS
POSTAGE
TELEPHONE SERVICE
TRAVEL
MISC EXPENSES
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
EDUC & REC SUPPLIES
MOBILE CLASSROOM UNIT
TOTAL
REVENUE
2100051000510100
2155324000240283
2155351000512004
DESCRIPTION
APPROPRIATION FROM FI/ND BALANCE
STATE CATEGORICAL GRANT
TRANSFERFROM GENERAL FI/ND
TOTAL
0'00:1.2:1
1,250.00
294.00
500.00
300.00
800 00
2,130 00
300 00
1,500 00
2,OOO 0O
36,625 00
$213,777 00
AMOUNT
$87,816.00
38,145.00
87,816.00
$213,777.00
Item 5.lb. Virginia Commission for the Arts Grant $3750, (Form
#95003). (Each year, the County applies to the Virginia Commission for the
Arts for a Local Government Challenge Grant, which matches the County's
appropriations to arts agencies in the community. For the current fiscal
year, Albemarle County has been awarded a total grant in the amount of $3,750
which will be equally divided between the Virginia Discovery Museum and the
Piedmont Council of the Arts. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation
$95003 in the amount $3,750; $1,875 to the Virginia Discovery Museum and
$1,875 to the Piedmont Council of the Arts.)
The following resolution of appropriation was approved by the recorded
vote set out above:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95003
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE PIEDMONT
COUNCIL OF THE ARTS AND THE VIRGINIA DISCOVERY MUSEUM FROM THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHALLENGE GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100079000560401 VIRGINIA DISCOVERY MUSEUM
1100079000560410 PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE ARTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$1,875.00
1,875.00
$3,750.00
REVENUE
2100024000240418
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CHALLENGE GRANT $3,750.00
TOTAL $3,750.00
Item 5.2. Resolution to accept cardinal Drive in Cardinal Ridge Subdi-
vision into the State Secondary System of Highways. The following resolution
was adopted by the recorded vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 5, 1995, fully
incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the road in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 5, 1995, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
000
1)
Cardinal D~ig~ {rS~ ~he edge of pavement of State
Route 643, 530 lineal feet to the end of the cul-de-
sac as shown on a plat recorded 9-20-88 in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 1014, pages 655-656, showing a 50 foot
right-of-way, with an additional drainage easement
shown in Deed Book 1475, pages 561-563, length 0.10
mile.
Total length - 0.10 mile
Item 5.3. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sher-
iff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the
month of June, 1995, were approved, as presented, by the recorded vote set out
above.
Item 5.4. Letter dated June 23, 1995, from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Resident
Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing
the monthly update of highway improvement projects currently under construc-
tion and the construction schedule for future projects in Albemarle County,
received for information.
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JULY 1, 1995
ROUTE ESTIMATED
NO: LOCATION STATUS COMP. DATE
29 From Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) Construction 82% Complete Dec 95
To N of Rio Rd (Rt 631)
240 Rt 240 Bridge Replacement Construction 20% Complete Dec 95
Near Iht Rt 250
1-64 Bridge Repair - Various Locations Construction 73% Complete Sep 95
**29 From N of Rio Road (Route 631) Construction Started-June May 97
To S Fork Rivanna River
*'671 Bridge Replacement at Millington Constructed Started-June Nov 95
* Revised Date
** New Project
(1) 29 FROM S FORK RIVANNA RVR TO AIRPORT RD (WIDEN TO 6 LANES) 08-99 24 MO
(2) 610 FROM ROUTE 20 TO 1.8 MI E ROUTE 20 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-96 6 MO
(3) 631 (RIO RD) FROM BERKMAR DRIVE TO ROUTE 29 08-95 6 MO
(4) 631 (RIO RD) FROM ROUTE 743 (HYDRAULIC RD) TO BERKMAR DRIVE 09-97 12 MO
(5) 631 (RIO RD) FROM NCL CH'VILLE TO CSX RR (MEADOWBROOK PKWY) 07-97 12 MO
(6) 637 FROM ROUTE 635 TO 0.55 MI W ROUTE 682 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-99 12 MO
(7) 649 (AIRPORT ROAD) FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 606 12-00 9 MO
(8) 656 (GREENBRIER DRIVE) FROM ROUTE 654 TO ROUTE 743 04-01 6 MO
(9) 682 FROM ROUTE 250 TO 1.7 MI S ROUTE 250 (GRAVEL ROAD) 08-95 12 MO
(10) 711 FROM ROUTE 712 TO ROUTE 29 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-97 5 MO
(11) 712 FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 692 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-96 9 MO
(12) 743 (HYDRAULIC RD) FROM ROUTE 657 (LAMBS ROAD) TO ROUTE 631 01-96 12 MO
(13) 759 FROM ROUTE 616 TO FLUVANNA COUNTY LINE (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-99 5 MO
(14) 760 FROM ROUTE 712 TO ROUTE 29 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-98 12 MO
(15) 866 (GREENBRIER DR) FROM ROUTE 743 (HYDRAULIC RD) TO ROUTE 1455 09-99 9 MO
Item 5.5. Meadow Creek Parkway - efforts to obtain primary road funding
for section of Rio Road to Route 29 North, was received for information in the
following Executive Summary:
"The County has requested primary road funding for the Meadow
Creek Parkway from Rio Rd. to U. S. 29N as its highest priority
primary road project. Questions have been raised as to the
accuracy of preliminary cost estimates for this project. A
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
meeting was recently h~ld b~ County staff, David Bowerman,
Charles Martin, VDoT staff and representatives of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board to strategize how to better prepare for
requesting Meadow Creek Parkway funding in next year's primary
road allocation process.
The County has had underway for some time with Sveredrup Corp., an
alignment study for Meadow Creek and associated connectors. Cost
estimates for the recommended Meadow Creek alignment are $72.5
million for a 4.1 mile length of suburban expressway with a design
speed of 50 mph and which includes interchanges at Rio Road and U.
S. 29N as well as bridges necessary to span the floodplain of the
South Fork Rivanna River and Powell Creek, the Southern Railway
and Route 643. The recent meeting noted above focused on ways to
reduce the cost of Meadow Creek and procedures that could lead to
that goal. The following was decided:
1)
Develop new cost estimates based on a lower design speed
(probably 40 mph) and functional classification (Suburban
Principle Arterial), and at-grade intersections rather than
interchanges at U. S. 29N and Rio Road.
2)
Include additional controlled access points to serve future
development along the alignment and include in a re-run of
the traffic forecasting model.
3)
Create a task force of County and VDOT staff to review the
above referenced information and work with Sveredrup to
finalize the alignment study inclusive of this new informa-
tion. Have the task force also make contact with affected
properties along the potential alignment(s) to determine the
willingness of property owners to cooperate in the right-of-
way acquisition and/or construction of the Meadow Creek.
4)
Complete the alignment study for public hearing and assess-
ment of level of environmental review that will be necessary
for this project in time for presentation of County request
to the VDoT Primary Allocation hearing next spring."
Mrs. Humphris asked what constitutes a design speed of 40 miles per hour
rather than 55 miles per hour. Mr. Tucker said the design speed' is based on
horizontal and vertical alignments. Mrs. Humphris asked if a two-lane road on
a four-lane right-of-way is an option. Mr. Tucker said "yes". If the right-
of-way is obtained and the build and grade is for two-lanes, more money would
be saved than if four lanes were graded.
Item 5.6. Primary Road Allocation Plans for Albemarle County projects,
comparison of Fiscal Year (FY) 1994-2000 and FY 1995-2001 plans, was received
for information in the following Executive Summary:
"The FY 1995-2001 Proposed Primary Road Allocation Plan recently
went to statewide public hearing. The Board has asked for infor-
mation comparing the proposed plan with the FY 1994-2000 Plan.
A table comparing planned allocation to Albemarle County projects
for the five common years in each plan is provided as Attachment
A. Some facts worth noting regarding the two plans:
1)
Seven Albemarle projects were listed to receive $48,052,000
in funding over the six years of the FY 1994-2000 plan.
Eleven projects are listed to receive $46,017,000 in funds
over the six years of the FY 1995-2001 plan, a 4.2 percent
decrease in funding. Total Culpeper District project fund-
ing for the six years of each plan was $101,661,000 in the
FY 1994-2000 plan and $100,562,000 in the FY 1995-2001 plan,
a 1.1 percent decrease in funding.
2)
Six Albemarle projects were listed to receive $37,732,000 in
funding over the FY 1995-2000 period (five common years of
both plans) in the FY 1994-2000 Plan. Eleven pro~ects are
listed to receive $36,602,000 in funding over the same five
years in the FY 1995-2001 Plan, a decrease of 3.0 percent.
Total Culpeper District project funding over the five common
years of each plan was $82,687,000 in the FY 1994-2000 plan
and $82,673,000 in the-FY 1995-2001 plan, a decrease of less
than 0.1 percent.
3)
Five new projects have been added, one project separated out
(29-Bridge Replacement S. Fork Rivanna) and one project
dropped (29-Interchanges) in the FY 1995-2001 plan.
4)
Significant increases in project funding between the two
plans over the five common years are $3,075,000 for the
widening of Rt 29 from Rio Road to the S. Fork Rivanna due
to increased construction costs and $12,077,000 for the Rt.
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
29 Bypass for preliminary engineering and right of way
acquisition.
5)
Significant decreases in project funding between the two
plans over the five common years are $7,455,000 for the
widening of Rt 29 from S. Fork Rivanna to Airport Road
($3,300,000 of which went to the Rt. 29 bridge replacement
at S. Fork Rivanna) and $14,657,000 for the Rt. 29 Inter-
changes which have been dropped."
Item 5.7. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for May 18, 1995, received for information.
Item 5.8. May, 1995, Financial Management Report, received for informa-
tion.
Item 5.9. Update on Magistrate's office and Juvenile Court electronic
monitoring, received for information.
Item 5.10. Operating results for Acme Design Technology, Co., for May,
1995, received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: December 14, 1994, March 1 and
May 10~ 1995.
Mr. Marshall had read December 14, 1994, pages 1-14, and found them to
be in order.
Mrs. Thomas had read December 14, 1994, pages 14 to the end, and found
one typographical error.
Mr. Bowerman had read March 1, 1995, pages 16 to the end, and found one
typographical error.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve the minutes which had been read, with the corrections noted.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matter: Discussion: FY 1995-96
Secondary Road Construction Budget.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Secondary Road Construction budget is consistent
with the priorities of the County's Six Year Secondary Road Plan which was
approved in May 11, 1994. There is a change regarding the funding of one
project. Route 682, an unpaved road, is receiving additional funding for FY
1995-96. It was previously estimated that funding for this project would be
complete during FY 1994-95. The cost for this project has increased by
$968,073, from the $1,999,000 in the original plan to $2,967,073. Therefore,
an additional $848,341 has been allocated to the plan for FY 1995-96. The
balance, $331,323, is to be paid in the upcoming FY 1996-97. The right-of-way
cost and preliminary engineering was higher than estimated for Route 682. The
higher cost has extended the timing for completion of Route 682. While the
priorities for other road paving projects have not been affected, the addi-
tional allocation to Route 682 has affected the amount of funds available to
fund other gravel road projects. Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Board approve
the FY 1995-96 Secondary Construction budget.
Mrs. Thomas referred to a letter (copy on file) from the Resident
Engineer which stated that: "The final allocations show an increase of
$615,533, in regular construction and an increase of $232,808, in unpaved road
funds." It is unclear where the funding is coming from for Route 682. She
asked if the funds were from subsequent year allocations. Ms. Tucker said
VDoT based the Six Year Plan and the FY 1995-96 Secondary System Construction
budget on tentative figures. The actual figures submitted provided VDoT with
additional funds which were applied to the Route 682 project due to the cost
estimate increase. Mrs. Thomas said most of the cost increase is in construc-
tion as opposed to the right-of-way. She asked if this is the way construc-
tion costs are broken down in the Budget. Ms. Tucker said "yes." There was a
significant cost increase in construction as well as increases in the right-
of-way and design of the project. Mrs. Thomas asked why the increase was
substantial. Ms. Tucker said the initial cost estimate was low and had to be
increased due to design and construction costs.
Mr. Perkins said this is a lot of money to apply towards Route 682. The
County is spending almost $1.5 million per mile to reconstruct this road.
This cost is staggering. Ms. Tucker said when donated right-of-way and design
costs are done efficiently, they can lower the total construction cost.
000 25
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Thomas then shared a leS~r (copy on file) from Mr. Thomas Farley,
dated August 20, 1992, regarding donated right-of-way and design cost, with
Board members and staff.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not remember anything that was brought to the
Board's attention regarding the implications of purchasing right-of-way and
its effect on design plan and cost. Ms. Tucker said if the right-of-way is
purchased from the property owner, VDoT has to develop a design plan.
However, if the right-of-way is dedicated, then the exchange of property is
done through legal documents, sites and deeds.
Mr. Perkins asked if other funding could be used for Route 682, rather
than gravel road funds~ Ms. Tucker said it would be the Board's decision if
the Board wanted to use other Secondary Road Improvement funds for Route 682.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board is venturing into untried territory, and
this is a learning experience. Mr. Perkins agreed and said every board has to
learn about these types of projects, but he thinks there needs to be a change
in the road standards to which the County builds these roads. The County
should not spend $1.5 million to upgrade a gravel road and make it a black top
road. People are more interested in having curves straightened out of roads
rather than having a superhighway made out of their streets. Mrs. Thomas said
VDoT had to purchase right-of-way which increased costs, and the design plan
had to be detailed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the entire Route 682 had to be detailed in the
plan, or if the road was detailed only when the right-of-way was purchased.
Ms. Tucker said the entire road project had to be detailed. Mr. Bowerman said
this does not make sense from a legal point-of-view. If this is done to meet
the need of someone not willing to sell, he could understand the need for
detail, but what about the people who are donating the right-of-way. This
level of detail should not be necessary. Ms. Tucker said it has to do with
the public hearing process; the public must be made aware of the entire
project scope and its impact. Mr. Perkins felt the project should be made
into two projects. One project before the right-of-way is required and one
project where the right-of-way is not required.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
the FY 1995-96 Secondary Road Construction budget as presented. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:49 a.m. and returned at 9:51
a.m. Mr. Marshall left the room at 9:59 a.m. and returned at 10:02 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7b. Discussion: Six Year Improvement Program for
Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 2000-2001, per Mrs. Humphris.
Mrs. Humphris referred to Item 5.6 from the Consent Agenda. The report
indicated that there were significant increases in project funding between the
two plans over the five common years of $3,075,000 for the widening of Route
29 from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River due to increased construction
costs and $12,077,000 for the Route 29 Bypass for preliminary engineering and
right-of-way acquisition. She asked why there was a 52.5 percent increase in
the overall funding for the widening of Route 29 from Rio Road to the South
Fork Rivanna River. There was a 71.3 percent increase in construction costs
(from $4,100,000 to $7,023,000). She requested that VDoT provide explanations
to the Board when there is an increase in cost for road projects.
Mrs. Humphris then made a presentation regarding the Six Year Improve-
ment Program for FY 1995-96 through FY 2000-2001. (A copy of the report is on
file in the Clerk's office.) The report was broken down and presented in the
following sections: (1) Tentative 1995-96 Construction Allocations and Six-
Year Improvement Program; (2) Cost of Revised Alternate 10 Bypass; (3) Federal
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and State Funding in
Six-Year Allocation, 1994-95 through 1999-2000; and (4) Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Carter Myers, from the Commonwealth Transporta-
tion Board (CTB), about the CTB's public hearing process. In her observation,
the CTB has a strange public hearing process. The public hearings are held in
areas that are affected by change. People attend these hearings and are told
they cannot be heard. Instead, people are encouraged to provide individual
comments by tape or in written form which are turned over to VDoT staff. Even
if someone wanted to go and make a presentation to the CTB Board, it is
difficult to know what is on the agenda. Items are added and deleted at the
last minute, and it is difficult to find out from Mr. Myer's staff what is
being discussed. A citizen is then told that when the CTB meets it is not a
public hearing, but it is a public meeting because the public has already been
heard back in their locality. The public might have been heard by VDoT staff
and staff might have passed the information on to CTB members, but the CTB
members might not have had time to read or absorb the information given. She
thinks the CTB needs to be more open to the public.
0002.26
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mrs. Humphris said she attended a public hearing in which the Meadow
Creek Parkway was addressed. Representatives from South West Virginia also
attended the hearing who had a $4.0 million mountain-slide that exhausted
their road improvement funds. The representatives were given five minutes to
make a presentation on how they intended to come up with $4.0 million. She
did not feel that it was in the public's interest to allow only five minutes
for such an important event.
Mr. Myers said the public hearing process is being reviewed. There
seems to be feedback regarding an open forum concept and the need to allow for
additional comments. However, there are some people who feel a part of the
public hearing should be held in a meeting format. In some public hearings,
two days of open forums are held with one day as a meeting. If there has been
a public hearing on a particular issue, the CTB Board does not like to make
the CTB meeting a public forum. There are nine allocation meetings around the
State where people can attend and make presentations. Also, direct contact
with the CTB Board is recommended.
Mrs. Humphris said she attended the CTB's public hearing in Richmond
about the Meadow Creek Parkway which is the County's first priority. She also
attended the public hearing in Culpeper. In Culpeper, the Chamber of Com-
merce, Senator Ed Robb, Delegate Mitch Van Yahres and City representatives
provided their support regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway being made a part of
the primary road system. However, when VDoT staff gave their report to the
CTB Board in Richmond, none of this broad-based support was mentioned. This
was a disappointment to her and a disservice to the people who worked hard on
having this issue heard. This is one of the glitches that she finds wrong
with the public hearing process.
Mr~ Myers said he is aware that the Meadow Creek Parkway has broad-based
support. However, there was not enough time spent or data gathered to bring
the Meadow Creek Parkway's cost in line to an acceptable level. He is hoping
that within the next year, the Meadow Creek Parkway's cost will be lowered to
an acceptable level, and at the March preallocation meeting the Meadow Creek
Parkway can be upgraded to a primary designation. The problem with the Meadow
Creek Parkway is cost. A task force is working to lower the cost to $25.0
million (or lower) and to go back to the CTB with a figure that can be
approved.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Discussion: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS)
changes to Whitewood Road/Albert Court Bus Stop on Route 9.
Mr. Cilimberg said on January 4, 1995, the Board approved the replace-
ment of the Albert Court bus stop with a new bus stop at the Colonnades, which
would also serve the Old Salem Apartments, along with two other changes to
Route 9. On May 3, 1995, the Board requested the Charlottesville Transit
Service (CTS) to see if it was possible to keep the Albert Court bus stop
along with establishing the new bus stop.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff and CTS made actual test runs that incorporated
both the Colonnades and Albert Court stops. The test runs were done at
different times during the day and took timing for passengers to board into
consideration. When compared with the original Route 9 bus that did not stop
at the Colonnades, the bus that stopped at both the Colonnades and Albert
Court took an average of eight additional minutes. If the delay is compounded
for each Route 9 run during a full day, it would add to 64 minutes, the
equivalent of another bus in order to keep up with the printed schedule. This
delay may be longer when the students at the University of Virginia returns.
Mr. Cilimberg said Route 9 is already the longest CTS route. In con-
structing routes, consideration must be given to both moderate and heavy
traffic conditions. Creating a schedule problem on Route 9 would also affect
other routes in the bus system. Many passengers transfer from Route 9 to
other CTS routes. These transfers must be closely timed. A late bus arriving
would either cause another route to hold up to wait for ~ passenger, or would
require the passenger to wait a full hour to transfer to another bus. The
first option would cause other buses to be late; the second option would deter
people from using the system. Staff continues to recommend the original
(January 4, 1995) proposed changes in bus service in the County.
Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Helen Poore, from CTS, could explain the specific
details of this proposal.
Ms. Poore said there is a bus on Route 9 which makes at least six rounds
that includes the stop at the Colonnades. This stop takes eight minutes
longer per hour and sometimes exceeds eight minutes. This route is critical.
It runs west of Route 29 and serves a densely populated area which is growing.
Originally when the Board heard this issue, it was requested that CTS serve
the Colonnades and so CTS said "yes." However, in order to do accommodate
this request, something needs to be eliminated from the route. CTS would like
to serve both locations, but it is impossible to do so within a one hour
headway. Many of the Route 9 riders are transferring to other routes in order
to get to destinations that are not covered by routes. A constantly changing
schedule for each stop would be confusing and impossible to convey to riders.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much time the Albert Court run took by itself.
Out of the eight minutes, Ms. Poore believes that it took three minutes each
000 .27
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
way, twice an hour. Mr. Bowerman then asked if the eight minutes were
separated between Albert Court and the Colonnades, what the time differentia-
tion would be for each.
Mr. Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner for the County Planning
Department, said CTS started at University Hall with a bus going to the
Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments, and a bus going on its regular route
without stopping at the Colonnades. Each route was run noting people entering
and exiting the bus which stopped at the Colonnades and went on around the
loop. It took eight minutes for the entire route. He does not know if Albert
Court, specifically, can be identified. The time for Albert Court was counted
as part of the entire route which went to the Rio Hill Shopping Center and
back. He estimates that it would take two to three minutes to go to Albert
Court~ turn around and go back. Mr. Bowerman said even if Albert Court is
eliminated, CTS would still be five to six minutes over the hour by adding the
Colonnades. Mrs. Thomas said Albert Court is within the hour and adding the
Colonnades adds eight minutes to the hour, so apples and oranges are being
compared. Mr. Bowerman noted Mrs. Thomas's comment and asked how long the
route would take if Albert Court is dropped and the Colonnades are added. Ms.
Poore said it would take an hour. Mr. Bowerman said it takes an hour now. It
does not seem reasonable that adding Albert Court would be the same as adding
the Colonnades because of the distance the bus must travel between the two.
Ms. Poore said it is not a great distance between the two, but part of the
time involved is that the roadway into the Colonnades is easier to negotiate
with fewer turns and traffic lights. This is not so with the Albert Court
route which is more time consuming.
Mr. Bowerman said the Albert Court route is growing and there will be a
need eventually for a bus stop. There needs to be some allowance for routes
that are longer in terms of headway. It is just as effective to do this now
versus later. Albert Court does not serve many people now, but he thinks
there is a perception message being sent that the County is adding one thing
and dropping another and this concerns him, the Whitewood Road and Albert
Court communities. He does not support this change. However, he understands
from a management viewpoint why CTS is doing this, but it is an unacceptable
change.
Mrs. Thomas said she is sympathetic to Mr. Bowerman's viewpoint. She
asked if Jaunt had an opinion on whether people at the Colonnades would ride
the bus. In the CTS survey, people said they would like to ride the bus, but
they have their own private transportation which they do not use. Instead,
they use Jaunt which is a convenient appointment and demand system. She asked
if anyone knew how often people planned to use CTS. Mr. Wade said this is a
tough call. In the survey, people seemed interested and said they may use
CTS. If CTS receives some of the decrease in funding that is being paid to
Jaunt, then it may be worth CTS pursuing further. Mrs. Thomas said if CTS
receives this decrease in funding, she hopes it is used for increasing
services and improving transportation as Mr. Bowerman suggests. She does not
want the funding used for anything else. If the Board supports this proposal,
it makes dollars and sense because it is costing the County to use Jaunt.
Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that the Board needs to establish
additional decision-making criteria. She asked if the decision should be
based on the number of riders or dollars. It is costing the County to use
Jaunt services for the Colonnades. The Colonnades cost $18,000 over the
measured period for 118 people served. There is a need for bus service at
Albert Court and at the Colonnades. If the Board finds that people at the
Colonnades, which includes Old Salem, are not utilizing the bus service, then
the Board will need to revisit this issue. Also, if the number of riders in
Albert Court are not enough to substantiate the need for service, then the
Board will revisit this issue as well. She supports the change, but she
thinks this situation needs to be monitored. If this change will save the
County Jaunt money, then it should be allocated to CTS.
O1 Mr. Bowerman said he is not arguing the point that the Colonnades and
d Salem should not be included in the routes, they should be included. A
person can walk from the bus stop at Albert Court to the bus stop on Common-
wealth Drive in three minutes. '~heze are many people ',-ho do not repru~
~ridcrship dependent ~p~ CTS~ He hates to see stops moved or changed around,
especially when there are stops along the route that are expanding. At some
point, a longer route will need to be investigated and made to work with
transfers. He wants to see as many citizens served as possible by CTS, and he
wants to see them added and not subtracted from routes.
Ms. Poore said CTS and staff can develop a bus service plan for any
level of service that the Board feels is necessary. If the Board is interest-
ed in expanding services along Route 29, this can also be investigated. Other
modes of transportation need to be examined on a periodic basis and not on a
route to route examination. She encourages the Board's input in this process.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not support the change. He supported it
initially but after reviewing the circumstances and being approached by the
community he changed his mind. He wants to keep Albert Court, Old Salem and
the Colonnades on line with bus service.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
the change which removes Whitewood Road/Albert Court from Route 9, and adds
the Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments, and removes the south leg of Berkmar
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Drive between Rio Road and Route 29 from Route 9, and allows the location of a
bus shelter at the intersection of Commonwealth and Peyton Drives (south-
bound). Staff is to closely monitor these changes to see if they are having
the desired results, and the Board will revisit the issue at budget time.
Mr. Martin said he supports Mr. Bowerman's viewpoint regarding this
issue. This is a perception problem, and the Board should add bus stops and
not subtract them. As the County and bus service usage grows, at some point,
something will need to be done. This is as good a time to do it versus later.
Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris asked how could this be done. Mr. Perkins added
the Board cannot add another bus. Mrs. Thomas said it is fine to make a
protest vote but it can carry the day, then how will the problem be solved.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board could reduce the cost of Jaunt
providing service to the Colonnades and Old Salem. There needs to be an
alternative. Mr. Marshall said he would encourage Jaunt to discourage people
from using public transportation. Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris said this is
contrary to federal funding regulations and cannot be done. Mr. Marshall said
people can be discouraged from using Jaunt, but they cannot be denied the
service. Ms. Poore said the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits an
organization from saying that a service will not be provided based on destina-
tion or income. Mr. Marshall asked if the public was notified about the ADA,
and that public transportation is available for use. Ms. Poore said this will
be marketed when all buses are wheel-chair equipped by August, 1996. CTS
will then advertise that people can use bus service, provided that it goes to
their destination. Otherwise, Jaunt must be used.
Mr. Bowerman said his lack of support on this issue is not a reflection
on CTS or staff. CTS needs to have an economical bus system that serves as
many people as possible. At some point, this bus line will be longer than an
hour and the cost implications will need to be discussed. It may be that
another bus should be added. If the Board's negative vote carries the day,
this issue will be dealt with immediately. If it does not carry the day then
the future will decide this issue.
Mrs. Humphris said the people who live at the Colonnades have been
encouraged to use public transportation although some cannot get to the bus
stop due to a lack of sidewalks and many of the people are elderly and are
unable to walk to the bus stop. Despite these problems, the people at the
Colonnades want bus service. They ride Jaunt because there are no other
alternatives. Mrs. Humphris said if her motion fails then the Board cannot
blame the Colonnades or anybody else. It is the Board's responsibility to
provide bus service.
Mr. Bowerman said this is not an either/or issue. The Colonnades and
Old Salem should have bus service, and it would be more economical than using
Jaunt especially if citizens will use it.
Mr. Martin said the County provides bus service and that bus service
should continue in order to avoid public perception problems. The County will
save money but the Board has to ask itselfl is this money a large amount and
is it in the public's best interest. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Martin if he is
talking about dollars and cents. She said $18,000 was spent, for a nine month
period, to provide bus service. However, another bus may be needed and may
cost $60,000 to establish another route. Mr. Martin said if the County
maintained what is now being serviced, $18,000 is already identified. It
seems to him, that the Board is now saying that too much is being paid for bus
service. Mrs. Humphris's motion is a dollar and cents motion, but how much
money is really saved.
Mr. Bowerman said in two months Berkmar Drive will open and a bus route
will need to be established. Adding ridership to this line needs to be ad-
dressed now rather than later. This run may take eight minutes. It may need
30 minutes of headway, and the ridership may be doubled. This area continues
to grow, and the Board needs to address this issue in terms of adding rider-
ship and expanding routes. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Bowerman
asked if Jaunt takes people to Sams and Walmart to shop.
Mr. Tucker questioned whether the Colonnades should provide their own
transportation because their advertising indicates that they do. Jaunt is a
service that the Colonnades qualify for and it is an expensive service to
provide. If this service is not provided then Albert Court would be main-
tained where it is currently being proposed. The cost would remain through
Jaunt and they would get the ridership. CTS would not get the additional
ridership at Old Salem. To some extent, it is a dollar and cents issue. Mr.
Tucker asked Ms. Poore if both services were provided without an additional
bus, if it would be primarily a loss of service, a reduction in service to
meet headway and transfers, or if both services could not be provided. Ms.
Poore responded that CTS could not do both without an additional bus and
maintain the one hour headway. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens when Sams and
Walmart are added to the bus line. Mr. Perkins said another bus may be
needed.
Mr. Martin said the Board usually makes logical, rational decisions.
However, there are times a decision needs to be made for reasons that are not
based on dollars and cents. There are times when all board members are in
this type of situation. The perception of removing a bus stop is important.
Mrs. Humphris said she understands Mr. Bowerman's and Mrs. Martin's stand on
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
this issue. She has spent her whole life basing her decisions on fact and
principle. This is the only way to keep things straight. She has not based
one vote on her political popularity. Mr. Martin said the fact represents the
public's perception on this issue. He said Mrs. Humphris is not taking this
perception into consideration. To him, this perception is an important
consideration.
Mr. Marshall called for the question. Roll was called, and the vote was
as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Marshall, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas.
Mrs. Thomas said as long as the viewpoint is fostered in the community
that the Board is taking away from one group and giving to another, a yea vote
would have had an unpleasant reaction in the community. When the Board can
get together as a unified Board with the facts and do what is in the best
interest of the County, then the Board can tell the community that it feels
the right thing has been done. When a three minute walk is too far to walk,
then it will be fostered by the feeling that there were Board members who felt
it was too far to walk. The Board needs to stand together on this issue. A
three minute walk should be recognized for what it is. It is an access for
people to use a good bus system as best as can be provided within the County's
tax structure.
Mr. Tucker said with the tie vote, the original approval of this request
was to eliminate and replace Albert Court on January 4, 1995. Mr. Bowerman
asked that by the Board's action today has this not been overturned. Mr.
Tucker said "no". Mr. Perkins asked if the bus route would remain the same.
Mr. Tucker responded "yes." Mr. Perkins asked if this issue will be revisited
again when Berkmar Drive opens up. Mr. Bowerman said Berkmar Drive was not
considered when this issue was initially discussed. Mr. Tucker said at budget
time, this issue can be revisited, and that Berkmar Drive should be opened by
this time.
Mr. Perkins said if there is a bus stop that is not paying its way, then
it should be closed or replaced by another bus. He asked Ms. Poore what kind
of ridership number is used as a cut-off. Ms. Poore said it cannot be done
stop by stop using a cut-off. Neighborhood percentages of people utilizing
CTS will need to be determined. Some neighborhoods are more productive than
others and resources will need to be placed in the most productive area based
on the number of riders.
Mr. Martin said major decisions will have to be made soon. Not only
will Berkmar Drive be added to the bus route but Pantops will also need to be
considered. There is a need to increase bus stop service and not to decrease
it. He believes it is not worth it to save $18,000 because of the perception
being left in the community. Perceptions may not be correct but it happens.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Tucker discussed a cooperative agreement that would be presented for
the Board's consideration later in the meeting. The agreement supports
repairing damage to the stream bed of the Moorman's River due to flooding.
The cost is $90,000, of which the County is responsible for 25 percent. This
work will move the River back into its proper stream bed and would eliminate
flooding on private property and the roadway.
Mr. Bowerman stated concerns about repairing stream beds. Long term
alternatives need to be considered other than repairing damage made by nature,
especially in the flood plain which is costly. He said realigning roads
should be investigated as an alternative.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the County's portion of this cost can be designated
as an emergency area by the federal government. Mr. Tucker said the Depart-
ment of Emergency Services indicated that the County may be able to utilize
some of these funds.
Ms. Tucker said the federal Soil Conservation Service is responsible for
cleaning debris from private property as opposed to public right-of-ways. The
question has been raised as to whether the County is willing to participate in
this program and pay the 25 percent cost which is supported by Richmond. VDoT
is willing to participate in the restoration of the road but there is also
damage to private property. In cleaning up the private property, this will
assist VDOT in cleaning up the road as well. Financial issues are being
discussed as to whether the restoration will be through the Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA) funding or VDoT funding. The County's match may not
have to be from local funding. However, local maintenance and construction
funding is not applicable to this particular situation. All work that has
been done over the past week has been coded so that it will be taken out of
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
000 0
the County's ordinary maintenance funds for other activities that are being
done such as mowing, repairing of pot holes and construction projects. This
is due to having a two year lag time before disaster funding is settled and
given back to localities. Funding will be used for repairing Route 614 to
Sugar Hollow.
Mrs. Thomas asked about the progress of repairs to the railroad bridge
on Route 633. Mrs. Tucker said cost estimates are currently being reviewed.
Mrs. Thomas said some residents from Route 712 would like to meet with
Mrs. Tucker to discuss protruding rocks on the hillside and the shoulder of
the road. She shared with Board members photographs from Mr. Dan Naude
regarding the protruding rocks. Mrs. Tucker said she would bring back a cost
estimate to remove these rocks.
Mr. Perkins wanted to make sure that Route 674 would receive additional
maintenance due to increased traffic caused by the closing of the Millington
Bridge.
Mr. Bowerman said someone asked him about the speed limit reduction on
Route 250 between the Bellair Market and the traffic signal at Boar's Eead in
the Farmington area, and he did not have a response. Speed is based on the 85
percentile and he knows the traffic that goes through this area does not want
to go 35 miles per hour. Mrs. Tucker said she would obtain information on how
the speed limit reduction process is managed. There are circumstances where a
50 percentile speed limit is acceptable. VDoT pulls from statistical data
what 50 percent of the motorist do as well as 85 percent of the motorists.
The standard is 85 percent which is based on federal guidelines. Mr. Bowerman
said he would be suspicious of a 50 percentile listed in an application.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:55 a.m. and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.)~
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both public
water and sewer service to all existing and proposed buildings at the Char-
lottesville-Albemarle Airport. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20
and 27, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg commented that there were nine facilities identified in
future phases for possible water and sewer coverage.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 11:08 a.m. With no one coming
forth to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to amend
the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both
public water and sewer service to all existing and proposed b~ildings at the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to
the Cafe-No Problem located at the intersection of Route 250 W at Route 240.
(Applicant requests deferral until July 12, 1995.)
Mr. Martin asked why this was being deferred. Mr. Tucker said the
applicant is requesting additional preparation time.
Mrs. Humphris said she turned down a request for a meeting from the
owner of Cafe-No Problem. This was the first time she has ever said no to a
request. The Board's decision has been firm on this issue.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to defer
Cafe-No Problem, per the applicant's request, to July 12, 1995. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Golf courses qualifying under use
value taxation - open space category.
Mr. Cilimberg said the County has received two applications to permit
private golf clubs to qualify for use value taxation under the open space
category of the use value assessment and taxation or "land use tax", program.
0001 1
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
The Board considered eliminating the open space category as a method to
prevent golf courses from qualifying. However, at its meeting on June 14,
1995, the Board voted not to adopt an ordinance which would have repealed the
special classification for real estate as devoted to open space use. The
Board received arguments from members of the public that it is important to
the County to continue the open space category, and that other means should be
taken to prevent local golf courses from qualifying for reduced assessments
under the use value taxation program.
Mr. Cilimberg said in order for land to qualify for the open space
category, it must meet both general and specific standards found in the manual
of the State Land Evaluation Advisory Council. Several determinations
potentially could be made under these standards that could be the basis to
deny an open space use value application. After consultation with the County
Attorney, staff believes that before the pending open space applications are
processed, additional direction from the Board on its open space policy as
currently stated in the Comprehensive Plan is needed. Two approaches are
available:
The County Assessor could determine whether the open
space use applications are consistent with the current
land use plan. Unfortunately, such a determination is
complicated by the vagueness of the Comprehensive Plan
and the associated Community Facilities Plan and Open
Space Plan, which do not specifically discuss golf
courses as a land use, recreational facility or open
space amenity. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan
does not address golf courses or any other park and
recreation use as to their consistency with the land
use plan for purposes of qualifying for use value
taxation as an open space use.
2 o
The Board could amend Chapter Four of the Comprehen-
sive Plan to establish the consistency of the various
park or recreation uses with the land use plan for
purposes of qualifying for use value taxation as open
space use. The Plan would provide that land being
devoted to specifically designated uses either will or
will not qualify for the open space category. The
County clearly has the authority to amend the Plan for
this purpose. Such an amendment should evaluate and
decide the status of each specific park or recreation
use, including golf clubs as well as uses such as
fairgrounds and athletic fields.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff believes the second option is the best method
to address the issue of golf courses qualifying for use value taxation, and at
the same time establish a policy for considering future similar requests.
Staff recommends the Board pass a resolution of intent to amend Chapter Four
of the Comprehensive Plan to establish the consistency of the various park or
recreation uses with the land use plan for purposes of qualifying for use
value taxation as open space use and which designated uses either will or will
not qualify for the open space category.
Mr. Davis stressed that the intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan does
not preclude other findings being made that Farmington and/or Glenmore would
not qualify for open space. The Finance Department has not done an analysis
yet. The Finance Department has not reviewed the applications pending the
Board's resolution of the open space category and the Comprehensive Plan.
There are a number of determinations that need to be made prior to the
approval or denial of these applications by the Finance Department. This
action does allow the Board to set a policy on applications if they meet all
other criteria for open space. If applications do not meet the criteria, then
the Board has the ability to deny them without further analysis.
Mr. Marshall said he thought it was the consensus of the Board to allow
organizations that operate for public uSe or non-profit status to be a part of
the open space category. This would also apply to golf courses that are open
to public use and are not limited to a membership or a profit-making status.
Organizations working for profit or not for public use would not be allowed in
the open space category.
Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Marshall's comments could be worded in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Davis said the open space issue becomes complicated because the
State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee (SLEAC) has issued uniform standards
and under State law the uniform standards must be applied throughout the
Commonwealth. The County cannot have its own standards for what qualifies as
open space; however, the County can have its own Comprehensive Plan which
tries to recognize what is valued as open space in the County. It would be
appropriate, for example, if the County decided that only parks open to the
entire public were recognized as being valuable open space and that limited
access parks not be considered valuable open space. The Board can define what
it thinks is valuable open space in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the
Board must be careful not to compromise the SLEAC rules that have to be
uniformly applied.
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
000 32
Mrs. Thomas said specific details should be outlined in number two which
would allow the Board to make better decisions.
Mr. Perkins asked about the two open space applications that have been
received by the County. Mr. Davis said a time table must be met in making a
determination for these applications. The Finance Department said this issue
must be settled by the end of August in order for them to meet their tax
notification requirements. If the Board fast-tracks the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and if it is decided before the end of August, this would be
considered when processing these applications. Mr. Tucker recommended that
this item be heard on August 9, 1995.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt
the following Resolution of Intent to amend Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive
Plan:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia, Chapter Four,
to establish the consistency of the various park or recreation
uses identified in "Attachment A" (copy on file) with the land use
plan for purposes of qualifying for use value taxation as open
space use. This plan would provide that land being devoted to
specifically designated uses either will or will not qualify for
the Open Space category. This amendment would evaluate and decide
the status of each specific park or recreation used identified in
"Attachment A", including golf clubs as well as uses such as fair-
grounds and athletic fields; and
FURTHER REQUESTS that the Albemarle County Planning Commis-
sion hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan, and does hereby request that the Planning Commission
send its recommendations to this Board prior to its scheduled
public hearing on August 9, 1995.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend and reordain
Chapter 2, Administration, Article VII, Regional Jail Board, Section 2-42,
Vacancies; removal from office; maximum number of terms, of the County Code
relative to term limit of any private citizen.
Mr. Tucker said the Board is being asked to amend the County Code to
remove the term limit of the private citizen member on the Jail Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt
the following Resolution of Intent to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Adminis-
tration~ Article VII, Regional Jail Board, Section 2-42, Vacancies; removal of
office; maximum number of terms, of the County Code relative to term limit of
any private section with the public hearing being scheduled for August 2,
1995.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Chapter 2, Administration, Article VII, Regional
Jail Board, Section 2-42, Vacancies; removal from office; maximum
number of terms, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
presently limits the term of any private citizen member of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail Board to no more than
three consecutive three-year terms; and
WHEREAS, for reasons of good governance and in the public
interest such term limitation should be lengthened;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia hereby resolves the intent to
amend section 2-42 of the Code of the County of Albemarle to
lengthen the term limitation restriction for private citizen
members of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail Board.
AYES:
NAYS:
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that such a code amendment be
prepared and advertised for public hearing.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
July 5~ 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
O00 l...q8
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: Charlottesville/Albemarle Children
and Youth (CACY) Commission - $2500 (Form ~950004) .
Mr. Tucker said the CACY Commission has requested the Board and City
Council to continue the current operations of the CACY Commission by appropri-
ating an additional $2500 for FY 1995-96 from each jurisdiction. During this
next year, the Commission and City and County staff will be looking at the
future direction of the CACY Commission, and the impact of declining state
revenues for the activities of the Commission.
Mrs. Thomas said she is concerned about the State moving towards the
CACY Commission responding to kids after they run afoul of the law rather than
promoting preventive programs. She is also concerned about the regional
level. The State is requiring that a Regional Strategic Plan be developed and
several groups are now planning children services. She is concerned that
groups will duplicate the CACY Commission's responsibilities, especially if
there is a decrease in funding. Mr. Tucker said the primary reason the CACY
Commission was created was to merge the various agencies and not to duplicate
services.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the following resolution of appropriation, Form #95004 in the amount of $2500.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95004
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FI/N-DING FOR CHILDREN AAID YOUTH
COMMISSION
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100059000560160 CACY COMMISSION
1100095000999990 BOARD RESERVE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$2,500.00
(2,500.00)
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $0.00
Agenda Item No. 13. Senator Ed Robb - update on General Assembly
legislation.
Due to a scheduling conflict, Mr. Robb canceled. He has been resched-
uled for August 2, 1995 at 11:00 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointment: University of Virginia liaison on
Planning Commission.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
appoint Mr. Samuel A. "Pete" Anderson as the University of Virginia liaison to
the Albemarle County Planning Commission effective July 1, 1995, for a term
which will expire on December 31, 1995.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Discussion: Foxfield Races.
Mr. Tucker said Mrs. Humphris requested that the Board discuss the
problems at the Foxfield Races as mentioned in a letter she had received from
Mr. Whitley, an adjacent property owner. The County's Police Department met
with Mr. Whitley about the problems and some of them have been resolved.
Other agencies are also investigating Mr. Whitley's concerns.
Chief of Police John Miller said he met with Mr. Whitley on June 6,
1995, to discuss concerns about inadequate bathroom facilities, congested
traffic and underage drinking during the Foxfield Races. Mr. Whitley lives
across the street from Foxfield and has witnessed people entering his property
and urinating because the lines were too long to wait for a bathroom. He said
the Police Department will meet with Foxfield officials regarding this issue.
Another concern that was expressed was the congested traffic problems. During
the last Foxfield Races, four main gates were opened instead of three gates as
in year's past. This situation caused a traffic gridlock that will be taken
care of by next year's races. Mr. Whitley has agreed to be a part of the
planning session for the Fall Foxfield races.
(Page 15)
Chief Miller said another concern expressed was underage drinking. The
Police Department will discuss this issue with the Foxfield authorities along
with the Sheriff's office in requesting that this be a nonalcoholic event.
The planning session will include Foxfield officials, ABC investigators and
the Sheriff's office.
Mr. Bowerman asked if ABC investigators could enter private property to
enforce alcohol abuse. Chief Miller responded "yes"
Mrs. Humphris asked if Foxfield is operating under a special use permit.
Mr. Tucker responded "yes." She then asked if there are conditions that
relate to these problems. Mr. Tucker said not in regard to alcohol. The
permit specifies the number of events that relate to land use. Four years
ago, there was a similar situation at Foxfield and there were discussions with
the Police Department, Sheriff's office, ABC investigators, Foxfield represen-
tatives and others. The problems were corrected. The POlice Department did
not provide ground enforcement but they did provide local traffic enforcement.
The Sheriff's office provided the local on-site enforcement. This situation
has grown gradually worse and needs to be revisited, perhaps with it being a
nonalcoholic event.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with Mr. Tucker. She has received many
complaints regarding this event. There were 22,000 people in attendance last
year at Foxfield which can cause dangerous traffic situations. She saw the
condition of people leaving the races and she has to assume they were students
due to their appearance and behavior. It is dangerous for people to drive
after drinking and also dangerous for people to be in their path. There is
not enough law enforcement personnel to handle the drinking problems. The
only alternative is to have a nonalcoholic event. This would return the
Foxfield Races to what it used to be which is an enjoyment of steeple chasing.
If Foxfield officials do not adhere to these concerns, this leaves the Board
in a position of possibly revoking their special use permit. Mr. Marshall
agreed with Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Davis said regarding the land use issue, the Board needs to have
grounds to revoke their special use permit. Foxfield officials would have to
be in violation of the special use permit which needs to be reviewed before
revocation can happen. The decision of whether or not to have a nonalcoholic
event would be the Foxfield official's decision. What the Board can do is to
ask that the ABC laws be enforced as well as the Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) laws. The Board cannot mandate that Foxfield officials do anything.
However, the Board can encourage the Foxfield officials to make changes.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board had the authority to prevent public
drinking on private property. Mr. Davis responded "no." Mrs. Humphris asked
about underage drinking. Mr. Davis said underage drinking is against the law
and this is something that the ABC and the Police Department will need to deal
with. Mr. Marshall said if underage drinking continues, then the Board would
have grounds to revoke Foxfield's special use permit because it is being
allowed. Me asked Mr. Davis if the Board had this authority. Mr. Davis said
he did not believe the special use permit dealt with this issue. Therefore,
Foxfield would not be in violation of the special use permit.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the people had to leave the Foxfield Races by a
certain time. From her own personal experience, people were still leaving as
late as 8:00 p.m. Chief Miller said there is an agreement with Foxfield
officials that says people will be out by 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Humphris said this
agreement is not being adhered to.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the yearly traffic remains backed up from Barracks
Road to Foxfield. Chief Miller said "yes" Last year, east of Foxfield there
was another home having a party which occurred around the same time that
people were leaving the Foxfield races. This caused major traffic problems.
Mrs. Humphris said there are traffic problems every year.
Chief Miller said four years ago Foxfield officials were not responsive
to a nonalcoholic event; however, the issue will be revisited again this year.
Mrs. Humphris said this needs to be stated in the strongest terms. Foxfield
officials have to understand that they have a responsibility to ensure the
public's safety and the Board has the responsibility to ensure that this
happens.
Mr. Bowerman asked if sobriety checkpoints could be set up and enforced.
Chief Miller said it would be improbable and each time an arrest is made, an
officer would be taken away for two hours with the arrest. Mr. Bowerman said
logistically this would be impossible to do.
Mr. Marshall said the Board should revoke Foxfield's special use permit
if it is in noncompliance. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to review the
terms of the permit and discuss with Foxfield officials the problems their
event has caused despite the fact that the Foxfield races are managed in the
name of a charity.
Mr. Bowerman asked if traffic problems were of concern in the original
special use permit. Mr. Tucker said previous discussions held with Foxfield
officials, four years ago~ did yield improvements and should be done again.
It was the Board's consensus to encourage Foxfield officials to declare the
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
000 35
races as a nonalcoholic event and to work with all the agencies sponsoring the
Foxfield races to assist in resolving these complaints.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 11:47 a.m.,
a motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, that the
Board go into Executive Session pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of
Virginia under subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel regarding pending
litigation regarding a zoning decision and to consult with legal counsel and
staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None. ~
Agenda Item No. 14c. Certify Executive Session. At 12:40 p.m., a
motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify by a
recorded vote that to the best of each board member's knowledge, only public
business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the
Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing
the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered in the Executive
Session.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
To clarify the Board's action regarding CTS bus service, Mr. Tucker said
the tie vote means that the Albert Court stop will be eliminated and the
Colonnades will have CTS service. Mr. Bowerman asked when will this become
effective. Mr. Tucker said it became effective on July 1, 1995.
Mr. Tucker said he wanted to recognize, for public record, the groups
and agencies who supported the County during the flooding last week. He
thanked the White Hall Ruritans, the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross,
the Charlottesville Police Department, the University of Virginia Police
Department, Wyant's store (the civic community center - Larry Wyant), Pegasus,
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, the Western Albemarle Rescue
Squad, the Crozet Fire Department, Fire and Rescue of Albemarle County,
Building Services, School Division, County Parks and Recreation, the Virginia
Power Company, Sprint-Centel, Emergency Operations Center personnel, the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Amateur Radio
Club and Ham operators and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mr. Tucker requested that the Board adopt a Cooperative Agreement
Between the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Agreement and Albemarle County. This agreement would provide federal
funding through the Soil Conservation Service for the restoration of stream
beds at several river locations in the County. This is a lengthy process
which requires a 75 percent Federal funding/25 percent local match. This
funding can come from state funding or private funding. The estimated project
cost is around $90,000 with $22,500, being local or other match. It is a
request at this point, and if the County determines later this is not what is
needed or due to a lack of funding, the County can back out of the agreement.
This work will be done on private property in order to move the Moorman's
River back into its original stream bed, with private property owner's permis-
sion. The Water Resources Official, Mr. David Hirschmann, will be the local
contact, and he will coordinate with local landowners in obtaining their
agreement. Any contracting or request for proposals will be handled through
the Natural Resource Conservation Service which is the federal agency that
oversees the Soil Conservation Service.
Motion was offeredlby Mrs. Thomas~ seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
authorize the County Executive to execute the following Cooperative Agreement
Between the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Agreement and Albemarle County.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION SERVICE
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 1995, by and
between, Albemarle County called the Sponsor and the Natural
Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of Agri-
culture, called NRCS.
WITNESSETH THAT:
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
O0 136
W~EREAS, under the provisions of the Title IV of the Agri-
cultural Credit Act of 1978, Public 95-334, the Sponsors and NRCS
agree to a plan which provides for restoration of certain works
listed below:
Removal of debris from streams, riprap installation, gabion
installation, and seeding as required.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the
several promises to be faithfully performed by the parties hereto
as set forth, the Sponsors and NCRS do hereby agree as follows:
It is agreed that the above-described work is to be
constructed at an estimated cost of $89,494.
The Sponsor will:
Accept all financial and other responsibility for
excess costs resulting from their failure to obtain or
their delay in obtaining adequate land and water
rights, permits, and licenses needed for the work of
improvements described above.
Pay 25 percent of construction cost, as described in
Section A.
Designate an individual to serve as liaison between
the Sponsor and NCRS, with authority and responsibili-
ty for reviewing and approving changes in the work
described in A. Furnish such information, in writing,
to the Contracting Officer.
Review and approve the plan for the work as described
above.
Provide certification (sign SCS-ADS-78) that real
property rights have been obtained for installation of
planned measures.
Upon completion of works of improvements, inspect,
jointly with representatives of NCRS, those works of
improvement described in A.
Upon acceptance of the work by NCRS from the contrac-
tor, assume responsibility for operation and mainte-
nance.
8o
If applicable, complete the attached "Clean Air and
Water Certification" and comply with the attached
"Clean Air and Water Clause."
Upon completion of emergency protection measures and
the elimination of the threat, the sponsors will take
action, if needed, to bring the measures up to rea-
sonable standards by other means and/or authority.
Unless the measures are brought up to reasonable
standards, the sponsors will not be eligible for
future funding under the emergency watershed protec-
tion program.
10.
Complete the attached Certification Regarding Drug-
Free workplace requirements.
C. NCRS will:
Provide 75 percent of the cost of constructing the
works of improvement described in Section A.
3 o
Contract for the construction of the works of improve-
ments described above in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
Provide authorized technical services, included but
not limited to obtaining basic information; prepara-
tion of contracts, drawings, and designs; contract
administration; and quality assurance during installa-
tion.
Arrange for and conduct final inspection of the com-
pleted works of improvement with the Sponsors to
determine whether all work has been performed in
accordance with the contractual requirements. Accept
work from contractor; notify the Sponsors of accep-
tance; and turn over the accepted works to the Spon-
sors.
D. It is mutually agreed upon:
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Pa~e 18)
No member of or delegate to Con~ress or Resident
Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of
this a~reement or to any benefit that may arise there-
from, but this provision shall not be construed to
extend to this agreement if made with a corporation
for its ~eneral benefit.
The furnishin~ of financial and other assistance by
NRCS is contingent on the availability of funds appro-
priated by Congress from which payment may be made and
shall not be obligate NCRS upon failure of the Con-
~ress to appropriate funds.
NRCS may terminate this a~reement in whole or in part
when it is determined by NRCS that the Sponsors have
failed to comply with any of the conditions of this
a~reement. NRCS shall promptly notify the Sponsor in
writin~ of the determination and reasons for the
termination, together with the effective date. Pay-
ment or recoveries made by NRCS under this termination
shall be in accord with the legal rights and liabili-
ties of NRCS and the Sponsors.
This a~reement may be temporarily suspended by NRCS if
it determines that corrective action by the Sponsors
is needed to meet the provisions of this a~reement.
Further, NRCS may suspend this agreement when it is
evident that a termination is pending.
The pro~ram or activities conducted under this a~ree-
ment or memorandum of understandin~ will be in compli-
ance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law
100-259); and other nondiscrimination statutes; name-
ly, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the
A~e Discrimination Act of 1975. They will also be in
accordance with regulations of the Secretary of A~ri-
culture (7 CFR-15, Subparts A & B), which provide that
no person in the United States shall on the 9rounds of
race, color, national origin, a~e, sex, religion,
marital status, or handicap be excluded from partici-
pation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise
subjected to discrimination under any pro~ram or
activity receivin9 federal financial assistance from
the Department of A~riculture or any a~ency thereof.
The sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge
and belief, that they and their principals:
Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed
for debarment, declared ineligible, or volun-
tarily excluded from covered transactions by any
federal department or agency;
Have not within-year period precedin~ this pro-
posal been convicted of or had a civil judgement
rendered a~ainst them for commission or fraud or
a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attemptin9 to obtain, or performin~ a public
(Federal, State or Local) transaction or con-
tract under a public transaction, violation of
Federal or State antitrust statutes or commis-
sion of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, makin~
false statements, or receivin~ stolen property;
Are not presently indicted for or otherwise
criminally or civilly charged by a governmental
entity (Federal, State or Local) with commission
of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph
(1) (b) of this certification; and
Have not within a three-year period preceding
this application/proposal had one or more public
transactions (Federal, State or Local) terminat-
ed for cause or default.
Where the primary sponsors are unable to certify to
any of the statements in this certification, such
prospective participant shall attach an explanation to
this a~reement.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
July 5, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Mrs. Thomas expressed concern, on behalf of residents who live in Sugar
Hollow, about a possible crack in the Sugar Hollow Dam. She asked for
clarification on this issue. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority performed an inspection of the dam and did not find any major
problems. He will investigate this matter further.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:48 p.m.
Cha i rman