2000-10-18October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y.
Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, Chief of Planning and Community Development, David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
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.
Mr. John Martin said the Ivy Landfill Settlement Agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors
on October 4, 2000, places restraints on the First Amendment freedoms of some citizens. The main
complainants have been barred from expressing their opposition to a permit application soon to be
submitted to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by the Rivanna Waste Authority. The
complainants cannot express opposition directly or through other people. They cannot oppose the permit
application in statements to the press, and they cannot participate in public hearings to oppose the permit.
They cannot provide anyone documents or documentary evidence in opposition to the permit. These
people, and the community, have in a sense, been gagged by the terms of the agreement. He said the
settlement is also contingent upon actual issuance of a landfill permit, and if no permit is ultimately issued,
the plaintiffs will lose much of the benefit of the settlement. Clearly, local government exacted this
surrender of first amendment freedoms from the plaintiffs in the give and take bargaining which took place.
This was done to suppress public opposition to the Rivanna permit application, and thereby improve local
governments chances that the DEQ will issue the desired permit.
=
Mr. John Martin said he would give three reasons why the agreement causes direct harm to the
publics interest, and why it should be restructured before more harm to the public occurs. First, it is
=
contrary to public interest for local government to deal with Constitutional rights of citizens in settlement
agreements such as this. First Amendment freedoms are not commodities that the government should
consider to be the subject of barter. These rights are supposed to be inalienable, untouchable by
governmental authority. The surrender of Constitutional rights should not have been the subject of
discussion between local government and citizens. If the government is allowed to bargain for and buy
freedom of speech when it suits its purpose to have public silence, think about the consequences.
Second, the settlement agreement is contrary to the public interest because it constitutes a blatant
attempt by local government to limit and control the nature and amount of public comment available to
DEQ in a State regulatory proceeding. Local government has no right to dictate to a State agency with
respect to the public comment that this regulatory agency may hear in order to perform its responsibilities.
Public interests demand that DEQ do its job without self-serving interference by local governments which
are subject to its regulations. He asked if the Board had fully considered what the reaction of DEQ will be
when it learns that the Board has taken action to deprive it of the opportunity to speak with people.
Third, the Agreement chills everyones right to speak during the DEQ regulatory process. Any
=
person, or any civil organization, that might wish to speak in opposition to continued operation of the Ivy
Landfill would have to do so knowing that if a permit is not issued, the plaintiffs will lose much of the benefit
of their statement because in large part it is contingent upon a permit being granted. Because of this
concern and fear, people and organizations might be deterred from exercising their own personal
freedoms. This chilling effect is harmful to the publics interest.
=
Mr. John Martin wondered if the entire settlement process has to start over again in order to
properly protect the publics interest. He said no, the solution is already built into the settlement
=A@
agreement itself. The last sentence on Page 30 of the agreement provides that local government can
waive application of the gag provisions, and also waive application of the provisions which make the
agreement contingent upon approval of a permit. He urged the Board to exercise these waivers. File the
permit application with DEQ and let every member of the public comment upon the application in the DEQ
permitting process. Ultimately, this will lead to the best possible decision respecting the future of the Ivy
Landfill. If the Board does not do this, it will never be known as to whether the best possible decision for the
landfill was made.
___________
Ms Katie Hobbs said she was present to represent the League of Women Voters. She said Mr. Art
Petrini, the Executive Director of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), came before the Board on
October 4 to give a status report on the Ivy Landfill. He indicated the RSWA was about to apply for a permit
to open a new cell for construction demolition and debris (CDD). In view of the happenings of the last
several months, the League feels there should be a public hearing to decide about the opening of a new
cell at the landfill. She said it may well be the appropriate time to revisit the issue of what the community
wants done at that site. Of course, all pertinent information must be available in order for the citizens to
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
make an informed decision.
__________
Mr. Michael Weber said he was a plaintiff in the Ivy Landfill suit and did not sign the gag order. He
said the Board may be interested in the history of the gag order because what Mr. Jack Marshall said in the
newspaper was inaccurate. A statement was made that the plaintiffs actually wrote the gag order and that
is not correct. The gag order was placed before the plaintiffs, found objectionable and rewritten many
times by the attorney. The Webers agreed that they would not protest anything they agreed to in the
document. What RSWA wanted was a gag order that would keep them from saying anything about Cell #5
in front of the DEQ. He believes the Board thinks the RSWA acts completely in the publics interest. He
=
truly believes there is a serious problem at the landfill, and that having an open discussion on that topic is in
the publics best interest, not just in his interest. He said this agreement is a partial settlement, and a
=
suspension of litigation, assuming that the current agreements are signed. It is like a cease fire, and he
hopes for a more intelligent use of the cease fire.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5 and to accept Item
5.6 for information, was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Item 5.1. Authorize County Executive to execute Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from
Appalachian Power Company (d.b.a. American Electric Power-Virginia).
It was noted in the staffs report the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of
=
Counties negotiated rates and services for all Virginia localities for the services provided by the various
power companies. Negotiations have been completed for Appalachian Power Company (dba American
Electric Power-Virginia) resulting in a slight decrease in the rates localities were paying. The new
agreement for the period of July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2002, has been received and staff recommends
that the County Executive be authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to execute the
following Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity between Appalachian Power Company (dba
American Electric Power) and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, said Agreement dated
September 5, 2000.
VIRGINIA PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (dba American Electric Power)
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 5th day of September, 2000, by and between
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (dba American Electric Power), hereinafter called the
"Company," and ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, hereinafter called the
"Customer."
WITNESSETH:
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained,
the parties hereto agree with each other as follows:
FIRST:Provision of Electric Service
The Company agrees to furnish to the Customer, and the Customer agrees to
take from the Company, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
all the electric energy of the character specified herein that shall be purchased
by the Customer on the premises at installations shown on "Exhibit A" attached
hereto and made a part of this Agreement.
SECOND:Term
The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of twenty-four (24) months
beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2002. The Company and the
Customer agree that the terms of their prior agreement shall apply through June
30, 2000.
THIRD:Voltage and Electrical Characteristics
The electric energy delivered hereunder shall be alternating current and it shall
be delivered at the voltage and other electrical characteristics as set forth on
"Exhibit A," which shall constitute the points of delivery under this Agreement.
The said electric energy shall be delivered at reasonably close maintenance to
constant potential and frequency, and it shall be measured by a meter or meters
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
owned and installed by the Company and located as set forth on "Exhibit A."
FOURTH:Metering and Service Points
Normally, the Company will provide one service from its distribution system and
all of the electricity supplied to an installation will be measured by one meter, but
the Company may, at its option, provide as many services and meters as it may
deem practicable.
When such multiple services and meters are so used, separate bills will be
rendered for each metered installation. The electricity will be delivered to such
point as may be designated by the Company on the premises occupied by the
Customer and shall be used only by the Customer and upon the premises
occupied by the Customer.
For the purpose of this Agreement, an "installation" means a delivery point,
building, part of a building, or group of buildings located in such close proximity to
each other as to constitute one operating unit occupied by the Customer. Those
installations to be served by the Company as of the effective date of this
Agreement are set forth on attached "Exhibit A."
The Company will supply the electricity required by the Customer during the term
of this Agreement at such additional installations beyond those being served by
the Company as of the effective date of this Agreement as may, from time to
time, be requested in writing by an authorized representative of the Customer.
All services furnished to such additional installations shall be governed by the
terms of this Agreement as if such additional installations were being served as
of the effective date of this Agreement. Service will be supplied at a single
voltage considered by the Company to be standard for the area in which
electricity is requested and will be available for general service to municipal
corporations and state governmental entities and their agencies, excluding Public
Housing Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used
in 56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the
''
Supreme Court of Virginia.
FIFTH:Extension of Service - Overhead
The Company will make extensions or expansions of its overhead facilities in
accordance with the following provisions:
The Company will supply and meter service at one delivery point through
overhead facilities of a kind and type of transmission or distribution line or
substation equipment normally used by the Company. Whenever the Customer
requests the Company to supply electricity in a manner which requires
equipment or facilities other than those which the Company would normally
provide, the Customer will pay the Company a Contribution in Aid of Construction
equal to the additional cost of all such special equipment or facilities. This
contribution will be in addition to any Contribution in Aid of Construction or other
obligation of the Customer required under the remaining provisions of this
section.
The Company will, for single phase service for new loads up to and including 25
KW estimated demand, extend service not more than 150 feet from existing
secondary facilities of 300 volts or less having adequate capacity, at no charge to
the Customer. Extensions of facilities for service which do not meet each of the
above criteria will be provided pursuant to the remaining provisions of this
section.
For service delivered to estimated new loads above 25 KW or for extensions for
loads 25 KW or less not meeting all of the criteria covered in the previous
paragraph, the Company may require a Contribution in Aid of Construction prior
to the extension or expansion of its facilities based upon an analysis of the
economic justification of making such extensions or expansions. Economic
justification will be based upon a comparison of the annual cost to the Company
and the increase in annual base rate non-fuel revenue. Annual cost to the
Company equals the additional investment in local facilities to serve the new load
times the Company's annual carrying charge rate of 27.25%; and the increase in
annual base rate revenue equals the annual revenue from the estimated
increase in the Customer's power consumption, exclusive of the fuel component
of rates. If the estimated increase in annual base rate revenue is less than the
annual cost to the Company of the extended or expanded facilities, the Customer
will be required to pay the Company a Contribution in Aid of Construction equal
to the annual cost to the Company less the increase in annual base rate revenue
from the extension, divided by the Companys's annual carrying charge rate. If
=
the increase in annual base rate revenue is equal to or greater than the annual
cost to the Company, the extension or expansion of facilities will be provided at
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
no charge to the Customer.
If the Company has reason to question the financial stability of the Customer
requesting an extension or expansion of service or the duration of the Customer's
electric service requirements, or if the Customer's service requirements are
seasonal or temporary, or if the Customer requires special facilities to meet the
Customer's service requirements, the Company may, at its option, in addition to
imposing a Contribution in Aid of Construction as determined under the
provisions of this section, (a) require the Customer to execute the Advance and
Refund Line Extension Agreement and/or (b) require a special minimum charge
or definite and written guarantee from the Customer in addition to any minimum
payment required by this Agreement.
If, at any time, the financial condition of the Company is such that it cannot issue
debt securities necessary to pay for the construction of new facilities, the
Company may require from the Customer a Contribution in Aid of Construction
and/or execution by the Customer of the Advance and Refund Line Extension
Agreement to cover the total cost of tapping existing transmission or distribution
lines and increasing existing station capacity and new facilities required to serve
new or increased loads. The Company shall advise the State Corporation
Commission when this condition exists.
SIXTH:Extension of Service - Underground
Underground service and facilities will be provided by the Company upon
payment to the Company of an amount equal to the sum of (1) the difference
between the estimated cost of the underground facilities and the estimated cost
of overhead facilities that otherwise would have been required, and (2) the
amount as determined by the FIFTH Section above using the cost of equivalent
overhead facilities. Should the estimated cost of underground facilities be less
than the estimated cost of overhead facilities that would otherwise be required,
then the terms of this Agreement relating to overhead extension of service will
apply.
SEVENTH:Extension of Service - Temporary
The Company will supply electricity for construction purposes, within areas
normally served by the Company, to loads of a temporary nature upon payment
by the Customer of a temporary service charge equal to the nonrecoverable
estimated cost of temporary facilities required to serve the Customer plus the
cost of removing the facilities.
EIGHTH:Rates
(1)The rates at which the Company shall furnish the electricity herein
provided shall be set forth in "Exhibit B" entitled Public Authority Tariff
A
No. 8, Schedule P.A.," attached hereto and made a part hereof. If the
Customer elects to take service under the "Optional Rate" section of the
Tariff, it shall establish a contract capacity for each account. The
contract capacity should equal the normal maximum demand
experienced by the Customer for that account. From July 1, 2000, to
June 30, 2002, the customer may only make one change to or from the
"Optional Rate".
(2)Outdoor lighting service will be furnished in accordance with the monthly
rate, hours of lighting and ownership of facilities provisions of Schedule
O.L. as contained in the then current tariff on file with the State
Corporation Commission of Virginia, until such time as an unbundled
tariff for outdoor lighting service takes effect. Thereafter, and until the
termination of this Agreement, the last bundled tariff shall apply. A copy
of the present Schedule O.L. is attached as "Exhibit C."
NINTH:Payment
(1)Bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment
plan, electronic payment plan or at authorized collection agencies of the
Company by the next bill date. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of
1 1/2% per month will be applied to any account balances not received
by the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills
promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly.
The Customer may designate its billing address.
(2)Inspection
The Customer shall properly install and maintain its wiring and electrical
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
equipment, and it shall at all times be responsible for the character and
condition thereof. The Company makes no inspection thereof and in no
event shall be responsible therefor.
(3)Service Connections
The Company will, when requested to furnish service, designate the
location of the service connection. The Customers wiring must, for an
overhead secondary service, be brought outside the building wall
nearest the Companys service wires so as to be readily accessible
=
thereto. In this case, the Customer's wiring must extend at least 18
inches beyond the building. In all other cases, the Company and the
Customer will mutually designate a point of delivery best suited to the
Customer's and the Company's facilities.
If the Customer desires that energy be delivered at a point or in a
manner other than that designated by the Company, the Customer shall
pay the additional cost of same.
(4)Relocation of Companys Facilities at Customer's Request
=
Whenever at the Customer's request, the Company's facilities located on
the Customer's premises are relocated to suit the convenience of the
Customer, the Customer shall reimburse the Company for the entire
cost incurred in making such change.
(5)Company's Liability
The Company will use reasonable diligence in furnishing a regular and
uninterrupted supply of energy, but does not guarantee uninterrupted
service. The Company shall not be liable for damages for injury to
person or property in case such supply should be interrupted or fail by
reason of an act of God, the public enemy, accidents, labor disputes,
orders or acts of civil or military authority, breakdowns or injury to the
machinery, transmission lines, distribution lines, or other facilities of the
Company, extraordinary repairs, or any other occurrence beyond the
Company's control, or any act of the Company to interrupt service to any
customer whenever in the judgment of the Company such interruption is
necessary to prevent or limit any instability or disturbance on the electric
system of the Company or any electric system interconnected with the
Company.
Unless otherwise provided in a contract between the Company and the
Customer, the point at which service is delivered by the Company to the
Customer, to be known as "delivery point," shall be the point at which the
Customer's facilities are connected to the Company's facilities. The
Company shall not be liable for any loss, injury, or damage resulting
from the Customer's use of its equipment or its use of the energy
furnished by the Company beyond the delivery point.
The Customer shall provide and maintain suitable protective devices on
its equipment to prevent any loss, injury or damage that might result
from single phasing conditions or any other fluctuation or irregularity in
the supply of energy. The Company shall not be liable for any loss,
injury or damage resulting from a single phase condition or any other
fluctuation or irregularity in the supply of energy which could have been
prevented by the use of such protective devices.
The Company will provide and maintain the necessary line or service
connections, transformers, meters and other apparatus which may be
required for the proper measurement of and protection of its service. All
such apparatus shall be and remain the property of the Company.
(6)Customer's Liability
In the event of loss or injury to the property of the Company through
misuse by, or the negligence of, the Customer, or the employees of the
same, the cost of the necessary repairs or replacement thereof shall be
paid to the Company by the Customer.
The Customer will be responsible for any damages resulting from
tampering with, interfering with, or breaking of seals of meters, or other
equipment of the Company installed on the Customer's premises. The
Customer hereby agrees that no one except the employees of the
Company shall be allowed to make any internal or external adjustments
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
of any meter or any other piece of apparatus which shall be the property
of the Company.
The Company shall have the right at all reasonable hours to enter the
premises of the Customer for the purpose of installing, reading,
removing, testing, replacing or otherwise disposing of its apparatus and
property, and the right of entire removal of the Company's property in the
event of the termination of this Agreement for any cause.
(7)Location and Maintenance of Company's Equipment
The Company shall have the right to construct its poles, lines and circuits
on the Customer's property and to place its transformers and other
apparatus on the property or within the buildings of the Customer, at a
point or points convenient for such purpose, as required to serve such
Customer, and the Customer shall provide suitable space for the
installation of necessary measuring instruments so that the latter may be
protected from injury by the elements or through the inadvertent acts of
the Customer or of any employee of the same.
(8)Use of Energy by Customer
The service connections, transformers, meters and appliances supplied
by the Company for the Customer have a definite capacity and no
additions to the equipment, or load connected thereto, will be allowed
except by consent of the Company.
The Customer shall install only motors, apparatus or appliances which
are suitable for operation with the character of the service supplied by
the Company, which shall not be detrimental to same, and the electric
power must not be used in such a manner as to cause unprovided for
voltage fluctuations or disturbances in the Company's transmission or
distribution system. The Company shall be the sole judge as to the
suitability of apparatus or appliances, and also as to whether the
operation of such apparatus or appliances is or will be detrimental to its
general service.
No attachment of any kind whatsoever may be made to the Company's
lines, poles, cross arms, structures or other facilities without the express
written consent of the Company.
All apparatus used by the Customer shall be of such type as to secure
the highest practicable commercial efficiency, power factor and the
proper balancing of phases. Motors which are frequently started or
motors arranged for automatic control must be of a type to give
maximum starting torque with minimum current flow, and must be of a
type and equipped with controlling devices approved by the Company.
The Customer agrees to give reasonable notification to the Company of
proposed increases or decreases in its connected load to prevent
operating problems with the Company's facilities.
Except with the consent of the Company, the Company will not supply
service to the Customer if the Customer has other sources of electric
energy supply to the installations listed on Exhibit A.
The Customer shall not be permitted to operate its own generating
equipment in parallel with the Company's service except with the written
permission of the Company.
Resale of energy will not be permitted.
TENTH:Information to Be Provided
The Customer hereby authorizes the Company to provide to a single designated
representative of the PA customer group, as designated by the Executive
Directors of the Virginia Municipal League and Virginia Association of Counties,
the following information in a format mutually agreed to by the parties:
a)class-level load research information which the Company currently
develops for the Public Authority class based on approximately 155
representative metering points, assuming the Company has received
appropriate authorizations;
b)monthly usage (kWh) for the Customer's accounts for the most recent
12 month period including a) on/off peak usage for each account where
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
available and b) interval usage for each account where available;
c)actual kW demand data for the Customer' s accounts for the most
recent 12 month period where available.
The above information shall be provided to the single designated representative
of the PA customer group, and shall be provided electronically, at no expense to
the Customer, within 90 days after receiving the request, but no more frequently
than once in a single calendar year until June 30, 2002. The Company shall
comply with any reasonable additional requests from the designated
representative of the PA customers for the data described above and the
Customer agrees to pay for such data.
ELEVENTH:Distribution
The Company agrees to provide to the designated representative of the PA
customer group by May 1, 2001, a proposed distribution revenue requirement
and distribution rate(s) based on the cost of providing distribution service to the
PA customers. The Company agrees to comply with all reasonable requests for
information in connection with the proposed distribution rates including the
underlying distribution cost of service study and supporting work papers. The
Company shall respond to any such requests from the PA customer group for
information within 30 days from receipt of such requests. The parties further
agree to enter into good faith negotiations to establish by January 1, 2002, a
cost-of-service based distribution rate, to be effective after June 30, 2002, for
service to PA customers and for the distribution component of street lighting
rates.
TWELFTH:Transmission
The Company agrees to provide to the designated representative of the PA
customer group a copy of AEP's currently applicable FERC Open Access
Transmission Tariff (OATT), and to provide copies of any new or modified
replacement OATT which would apply to transmission service for the PA
customers, or their supplier.
THIRTEENTH:Generation
After June 30, 2002, the parties' rights and responsibilities regarding generation
service shall be as provided by applicable law and regulation, except to the
extent otherwise agreed by the parties.
FOURTEENTH:Additional Terms and Conditions
(1)In no event shall any officer or agent of the Customer executing or
authorizing the execution of this Agreement be held personally liable on
account of such authorization or execution.
(2)This Agreement shall be binding upon the Company only when accepted
by it and approved by its proper official, and shall not be modified by any
promise, agreement, or representation of any agent or employee of the
Company unless incorporated in writing in this Agreement before such
acceptance.
(3)The obligations of the Company and the Customer for service under this
Agreement are subject to appropriations by Customer's governing body
to pay for such service.
(4)The following sheets, as amended or revised from time to time, are
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Exhibit A - Present Listing of Accounts
Exhibit B - Schedule P.A.
Exhibit C - Present Schedule O.L.
(5)In the third quarter of 2000 and 2001, the Company will perform an
analysis based on the twelve months ended in June of that year of the
effects of the optional demand charge rates for each of the Customers
=
accounts. The results of this analysis will be provided to the Customer
when the analysis shows the annual bill at the alternative rate would
have been lower than the actual bill during the historical period. The
Customer understands that the results of this analysis will not entitle the
Customer to any refund, nor is it a guarantee of any future savings
should the Customer change rates. Any change in rates selected must
be initiated by the Customer.
(6)There are no unwritten understandings or agreements relating to the
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
service herein above provided.
(7)This Agreement cancels and supersedes all previous agreements
relating to the purchase by the Customer and sale by the Company of
electric energy at the Customer's premises as referred to above.
_____
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANYExhibit B
d/b/a American Electric Power
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 8
SCHEDULE P.A.
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities,
excluding Public Housing Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used
in 56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of
''
Virginia.
MONTHLY RATE (Schedule Codes 804, 805, and 806)
Monthly
Rate
CUSTOMER CHARGE
Per Service Connection ("Account"). . . . . . . . . . . . $8.27
SCHOOLS (804)
Per KWH Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.575
4
WATER PUMPING, SEWAGE PUMPING, AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (806)
Per KWH Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.728
4
ALL OTHER (805)
Per KWH Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.262
4
OPTIONAL RATE (Schedule Codes 809, 812, and 813)
Available to any Public Authority Account with normal maximum electric demands of 100
KW or more. A contract capacity will be established which is equal to the Account's estimated
normal maximum electrical capacity requirements.
Monthly
Rate
SCHOOLS (809)
Customer Charge
Per Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.00
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.54
Energy Charge
All KWh Metered KWH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.861
4
WATER PUMPING, SEWAGE PUMPING AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (813)
Customer Charge
Per Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.00
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6.18
Energy Charge
All KWH Metered KWH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.000
4
Reactive Demand Charge
All KVAR of Lagging Reactive Demand . . . . . . . . . . 29
4
ALL OTHER (812)
Customer Charge
Per Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.00
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6.76
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Energy Charge
All KWH Metered KWH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.000
4
OPTIONAL ICE STORAGE RATE (Schedule Code 815 and 816)
Available to any Public Authority Account where the Customer has installed Company
approved energy storage equipment.
Monthly
Rate
Customer Charge
Per Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$10.80
Energy Charge
All metered kWh during on-peak billing period 5.584 per kwh
4
All metered kWh during off-peak billing period 2.745 per kwh
4
For the purpose of this Schedule, the on-peak billing period is defined as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
local time, for all weekdays, Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8
p.m. to 7 a.m. for all weekdays and all hours of Saturday and Sunday and the following legally
observed holidays:
New Year's DayLabor Day
Memorial DayThanksgiving Day
Independence DayChristmas Day
The Company reserves the right to inspect at all reasonable times the energy storage
equipment and devices which qualify the Account for service under the Optional Ice Storage Rate.
If the Company finds that, in its sole judgment, the availability conditions of this provision are
being violated, it may discontinue billing the Account under this provision and commence billing
under the standard monthly rate.
OPTIONAL UNMETERED SERVICE PROVISION (Schedule Code 800)
Available to Public Authority Accounts with small fixed electrical loads of 25 kW or less,
such as traffic signals and signboards which can be served by a standard service drop from the
Company's existing secondary distribution system. This service will be furnished at the option of
the Company, if requested by the Customer.
Each separate Account shall be separately billed under the agreement for electric
service. In the event one customer has several Accounts for like service, the Company may
meter one Account to determine the appropriate kilowatt-hour usage applicable to each of the
Accounts.
The Customer shall furnish switching equipment satisfactory to the Company. The
Customer shall notify the Company in advance of every change in connected load, and the
Company reserves the right to inspect the Customer's equipment at any time to verify the actual
load. In the event of the Customer's failure to notify the Company of an increase in load, the
Company reserves the right to refuse to serve the contract location thereafter under this provision,
and shall be entitled to bill the Customer retroactively on the basis of the increased load for the
full period such load was connected plus three months.
Calculated energy use per month shall be equal to the contract capacity specified at the
location times the number of days in the billing period times the specified hours of operation.
Such calculated energy shall then be billed at 4.575 per KWH plus the Fuel Adjustment Clause
4
plus a monthly customer charge of $5.27.
DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND
The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration of a 15-
minute demand meter or indicator.
Monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the
Account's established contract capacity.
For those Accounts that are designated to have a Reactive Demand Charge, the reactive
demand in KVAR shall be taken each month at the highest single 15-minute peak in KVAR as
registered during the month by a KVAR meter or indicator.
Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest whole KV and KVAR.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge per account equal to the sum of
the customer charge, demand charge, energy charges, fuel adjustment clause and reactive
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
demand charge of the applicable monthly rate.
MEASUREMENT OF ENERGY
Energy supplied hereunder will be delivered through not more than one single phase
and/or one polyphase meter for each Account.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic
payment plan, or at authorized collection agencies of the Company by the next bill date. On all
accounts not so paid, a charge of 1 1/2% per month will be applied to any account balances not
received by the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly after the
billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly. The Customer may designate its billing
address.
SPECIAL TERMS
This Schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for
electric service entered into between the Company and each city, county and town governmental
authority.
FUEL ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE
Bills computed according to the rates set forth herein will be increased or decreased by a
Fuel Adjustment Factor per KWH calculated in compliance with the following Fuel Adjustment
Clause.
When the estimated unit cost of fuel (Fm/Sm) used to meet Appalachian Power
Company's Net Energy Requirement less losses (Sm) is above or below the base unit cost of
12.8000 mills per kilowatthour (Fb/Sb), an additional charge or credit equal to the product of the
actual kilowatthours used and a fuel clause adjustment factor (A) shall be made, where (A),
calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mill per kilowatthour, is as defined below:
Adjustment Factor (A) = Fm - Fb
Sm Sb
Any difference between the estimated cost of fuel used to meet Appalachian Power
Company's Net Energy Requirement and the actual cost of such fuel will be reflected in the
calculation of the Fuel Adjustment Factor in the second succeeding month.
In the above formula (F) is the expense of fossil and nuclear fuel in the base (b) and
current (m) periods; and (S) is the KWH sales in the base and current periods, all as defined
below:
Fuel Costs (F) shall be the cost of:
(a)fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in Appalachian Power Company's plants, and
Appalachian Power Company's share of fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in
jointly owned or leased plants;
(b)the cost of emission allowances consumed concurrently with the monthly
emission of sulfur dioxide from the Company's generating plants, including those
wholly owned, jointly owned and leased;
(c)the actual identifiable fossil and nuclear fuel costs associated with energy
purchased for reasons other than identified in (d) below;
(d)the net energy cost of energy purchases, exclusive of capacity or demand
charges (irrespective of the designation assigned to such transaction) when such
energy is purchased on an economic dispatch basis (included therein shall be
such costs as the charges for economy energy purchases and the charges as a
result of scheduled outage, all such kinds of energy being purchased by
Appalachian Power Company to substitute for its own higher cost energy), and
less;
(e)the cost of fossil fuel, emission allowances and nuclear fuel recovered through
inter-system sales including the fuel costs related to economy energy sales and
other energy sold on an economic dispatch basis.
Sales (S) shall be equated to the sum of (a) generation, (b) purchases, (c)
interchange-in, less (d) energy associated with pumped storage operations, less (c) inter-system
sales referred to in (e) above, less (f) total system losses.
Sales (S) shall be modified to reflect losses of 10.51% associated with Appalachian
Power Company's deliveries to customers served under this schedule.
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
The adjustment factor developed according to the preceding paragraphs may be further
modified to allow the recovery of gross receipts or other similar revenue based tax charges
occasioned by the fuel adjustment revenues.
The cost of fossil fuel shall include no items other than those listed in Account 151 of the
Commission's Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees. The cost of
emission allowances shall be that included in Account 509. The cost of nuclear fuel shall be that
as shown in Account 518, except that if Account 518 also contains any expense for fossil fuel
which has already been included in the cost of fossil fuel, it shall be deducted from this account.
All references to the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees
shall be to such Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees as is in effect from
time to time.
VA S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 17
SCHEDULE O.L.
(Outdoor Lighting)
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for outdoor lighting to individual customers located outside areas covered by
municipal street lighting systems.
MONTHLY RATE
A.Overhead Lighting Service
For each of the following, the Company will provide lamp, photo-electric relay control
equipment, luminaire and upsweep arm not over 6 feet in length, and shall mount same on an
existing wood distribution pole which is connected to secondary facilities of the Company.
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Rate Per Month
LampApprox.BaseLevelized
NominalInitialLumeRateFuelTariff
WattagensType of Lamp$$Code
100 9,500High Pressure Sodium 7.64plus .54094
200 22,000High Pressure Sodium 8.87plus1.13097
400 50,000High Pressure Sodium10.06plus2.23098
250 28,500High Pressure Sodium Flood10.06plus1.38127
400 50,000High Pressure Sodium Flood12.50plus2.23109
175 8,500Mercury Vapor 6.58plus .96093
250*13,000*Mercury Vapor 8.59plus1.34096
400 23,000Mercury Vapor10.13plus2.12095
175 13,000Metal Halide Flood 9.22plus .96134
400 36,000Metal Halide Flood 9.39plus2.12102
1000110,000Metal Halide Flood26.64plus5.07131
* Effective August 28, 1990, the 250 watt 13,000 lumen mercury vapor lamp will no
longer be available for new installations or for repair or replacement of existing units.
When other additional overhead facilities are to be installed by the Company, the
customer will, in addition to the above monthly charge, pay in advance the installation cost of
such additional overhead facilities extending from the nearest or most suitable pole of the
Company to the point designated by the customer for the installation of said lamp, except that the
customer may, for the following facilities only, elect in lieu of such payment for the installation
cost, to pay the following:
For each additional pole and overhead wire span not over 150 feet:
Wood Pole$3.50 per month
Aluminum Pole$7.50 per month
Fiberglass Pole$8.50 per month
B.Post-Top Lighting Service
For each of the following, the Company will provide lamp, photo-electric relay control,
post-top luminaire, post and installation (the type and height of which will be consistent with the
Company's construction standards), including underground wiring for a distance of 30 feet from
the Company's existing secondary facilities.
Rate Per Month
LampApprox.BaseLevelized
NominalInitialRateFuelTariff
WattageLumensType of Lamp$$Code
175 8,500Mercury Vapor 7.80plus .96099
50 4,000High Pressure Sodium16.93plus .26133
70 6,300High Pressure Sodium11.61plus .38106
100 9,500High Pressure Sodium11.62plus .54111
250 28,500High Pressure Sodium11.93plus1.38103
400 50,000High Pressure Sodium12.82plus2.23104
400 36,000Metal Halide11.25plus2.12105
250 28,500High Pressure Sodium Flood32.42plus1.38128
400 50,000High Pressure Sodium Flood12.82plus2.23124
175 13,000Metal Halide Flood23.64plus .96135
400 36,000Metal Halide Flood11.35plus2.12126
1000110,000Metal Halide Flood52.42plus5.07132
When the customer's service requires an underground circuit longer than 30 feet from
existing secondary facilities for post-top lighting service, the customer will pay to the Company, in
advance, a charge for the additional length of underground circuit.
Company trenches and backfills:$4.00 per foot for the length of underground circuit in
excess of 30 feet.
Customer trenches and backfills$1.00 per foot for the length of entire trench* (including
the underground circuit in excess of first 30 feet):
150 feet.
* Trench must comply with all Company and local standards.
The customer will, where applicable, be subject to the following conditions in addition to
paying the monthly charges set forth above:
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
1. Customers requiring service where rock or other adverse soil conditions are
encountered will be furnished service provided the excess cost of trenching and backfilling (cost
in excess of $4.00 per foot of the total trench length) is paid to the Company by the customer.
2. In the event the customer requires an underground circuit be located beneath a
driveway or other pavement, the Company may require the customer to install protective conduit
in the paved areas.
PAYMENT
For all residential customers with outdoor lights, bills are due upon presentation and
payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment
agents of the Company within twenty (20) days of the bill preparation date. A charge of 1 1/2%
per month will be applied to any account balances, excluding local consumer utility taxes, not
received by the Company by the next bill preparation date.
For all other customers with outdoor lights, bills are due upon presentation. Any amount
due and not received by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized
payment agents of the Company within twenty (20) days of the bill preparation date shall be
subject to a delayed payment charge of 1 1/2%. This charge shall not be applicable to local
consumer utility taxes.
HOURS OF LIGHTING
All lamps shall burn from one-half hour after sunset until one-half hour before sunrise,
every night and all night, burning approximately 4,000 hours per annum.
OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES
All facilities necessary for service, including fixtures, controls, poles, transformers,
secondaries, lamps and other appurtenances, shall be owned and maintained by the Company.
All service and necessary maintenance will be performed only during the regular scheduled
working hours of the Company. The Company shall be allowed 48 hours after notification by the
customer to replace all burned-out lamps.
TERM
Written agreements may be required pursuant to the Extension of Service provision of the
Company's Terms and Conditions of Service.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Schedule is subject to the Company's Terms and Conditions of Service.
(Note:Chart concerning TOTAL MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN KILOWATT HOURS
PER SINGLE LAMP is on file in the Clerks Office.)
=
__________
Item 5.2. Authorize Chairman to execute "Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County and
Orange County.
It was noted in the staffs report that Albemarle County has proposed entering into written mutual
=
aid agreements for fire and rescue services with each of its neighboring counties. An agreement prepared
by the Albemarle County Attorney between Albemarle County and Orange County has been approved by
the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Staff recommends that the Chairman of the Board be authorized
to execute this agreement on behalf of Albemarle County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors was authorized to execute the following Mutual Aid Agreement between Albemarle
County and Orange County with regard to fire and rescue services.
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 18th day of October , 2000, by and between
Albemarle County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as "Albemarle", and Orange County, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Orange",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Orange to
enter into an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services;
and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia;
''
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual
benefits to be derived by Albemarle and Orange from this Agreement, Albemarle and
Orange hereby covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1. That Albemarle and Orange will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related governmental
services to the other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for
such support is made. Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county
volunteer company or department firefighters and rescuers.
2. That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed
to compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when the
resources of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being
used, within the boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the
assisting county to continue to provide services in the other county when its personnel,
apparatus or equipment are needed within the boundaries of its own county.
3. That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire
services, rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related
governmental services to adequately serve its respective county.
4. That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to
property or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the performance of this
Agreement.
5. That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county
from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise
out of the activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this
Agreement.
6. The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the
assisting county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a response for
assistance, or for damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel
incurred when responding in the other county; provided, however, the county requesting
assistance under the terms of this Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the
other county the actual cost of specialized extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation
agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to this Agreement.
7. That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make
such request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will
then contact the appropriate county officials to determine its response.
8. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the
personnel making such response shall not become employees of the county requesting
assistance for the purposes of the Virginia Workers Compensation Act.
9. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the
personnel manning such responding units shall remain under the command of the senior
responding officer, and shall work as a unified company and shall not be split apart
during the emergency operations unless ordered by the senior responding officer.
10. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the
senior responding officer determines that the emergency operations are being conducted
in an unsafe manner, the assisting county may limit its assistance to a support service or
withdraw the assistance to ensure the safety of its personnel.
11. This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of both
counties.
12. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving thirty
(30) days written notice of termination to the other county.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
Orange's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being
authorized to do so.
__________
Item 5.3. Set public hearing for November 8, 2000, to consider ordinance and agreement
necessary to include County in pool of localities participating in pilot program for the aggregation and
procurement of electrical energy through the Virginia Municipal League (VML) and the Virginia Association
of Counties (VACo).
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
It was noted in the staffs report that the pilot program involves a competitive procurement of
=
electrical energy developed by a steering committee composed of representatives from the Virginia
Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and Virginia Power. The short-term goal of the
program is to obtain the greatest savings for the group of participating localities, school boards and
authorities (approximately 200). The Albemarle County School Board and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority are also eligible for inclusion in this pilot program. The steering committee hopes that the
program will test the efficiency and cost savings potentials in the future with even larger aggregations of
accounts for electrical energy.
Virginia Code 15.2-1300 requires that the County approve a joint powers of agreement by
'
ordinance. Both the agreement and ordinance were developed by outside legal counsel in Richmond
(Christian & Barton, LLP) on behalf of the steering committee. Staff recommends that a public hearing be
set for November 8, 2000, to consider adoption of the ordinance and agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set November 8, 2000, as the public hearing
date on An Ordinance Approving the Virginia Governmental Electricity Purchasing Association Joint
Powers Association Agreement; and Providing for the Effective date of the Ordinance.
__________
Item 5.4. Proclamation recognizing November 12 through November 18, 2000, as American
Education Week.
By the above recorded vote, the following Proclamation was approved. Mr. Martin read it into
the record:
AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK
WHEREAS,public schools are the backbone of our democracy, providing young
people with the tools they need to maintain our nation's precious values
of freedom, civility and equality; and
WHEREAS,by equipping young Americans with both practical skills and broader
intellectual abilities, schools give them hope for, and access to, a
productive future; and
WHEREAS,education employees be they custodians or teachers, bus drivers or
C
librarians work tirelessly to serve our children and communities with
C
care and professionalism; and
WHEREAS,schools are community linchpins, bringing together adults and children,
educators and volunteers, business leaders and elected officials in a
common enterprise;
NOW, THEREFORE,I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of
NOVEMBER 12, 2000, THROUGH NOVEMBER 18, 2000
as
AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
__________
Item 5.5. Sheriff's Request for Additional Part-time Funds (deferred from October 4, 2000).
It was noted in the staffs report that Sheriff Robb has furnished further information regarding his
=
request for $40,000 in additional part-time funds. The Sheriff indicates that the challenges facing his office
are primarily the result of the J&D Court workload. Because of the cost-sharing agreement with the City,
staff believes the County should be responsible for no more than 50 percent of the Sheriffs request and
=
that the City be approached for the remainder. If the Board concurs, staff recommends approval of an
additional appropriation of $20,000 in part-time funds to the Sheriffs operating budget.
=
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved an additional appropriation of
$20,000 in part-time funds to the Sheriffs operating budget, with the remainder of the request
==
being made to the City. The actual appropriation form will be included on a future agenda for
adoption.
__________
Item 5.6. Letter dated October 17, 2000, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, Chairman, from the
Honorable Charles M. Ward, Chairman, School Board, making a specific request concerning the use of
approximately $5.5 million of the Fund Balance. The letter set out requests totaling $3,575,000, with none
of the areas being new. The letter was received as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2000-39. Monticello Fire/Rescue Station (Sign #94). Public hearing to
receive comments on a request to allow fire/rescue station. Znd R-15. TM 91, P 2E. Contains 13 acs
(proposal is on approx 4 acs of the 13 ac total). Loc on S side of Mill Creek Dr (Rt 1150) across from
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Monticello High School football field. Scottsville Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 2 and October 9, 2000.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said Albemarle County proposes to build a new fire
and rescue station across the street from Monticello High School in the southern end of the Countys
=
Development Areas. The facility would be approximately 8100 square feet for the offices, operating and
housing with two apparatus bays of approximately 6000 square feet. The station is expected to be staffed
24 hours a day by crews of up to eight persons. Four emergency response vehicles are planned for this
station. While most fire stations in the County are owned and operated by volunteers, this one would be
County-owned and operated. The County does anticipate some volunteer staffing and public functions,
such as educational programs. Fund-raising is not anticipated as a major activity at the station. Staff found
the use to be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval subject to six
conditions.
Mr. Benish said that at its meeting on October 3, 2000, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of SP-2000-39 subject to the six conditions recommended by staff, but adding No.
7 reading: The preliminary site plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
A@
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier said when this matter was heard earlier, some Scottsville firemen felt the fire station
should be near Walton School, but now they agree that growth is right outside of the Charlottesville area
and this is the best location. He then offered motion to approve SP-2000-39 with the seven conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Perkins said the staff report said this would be the first County-owned and operated fire station.
He said this will be a publicly-owned and operated station as are all of the other stations in the County. It
disturbs him that the County will have to hire people to operate the station. He said it should be a goal of
the County to operate this station with volunteers. The map the Board received with the staff report showed
that this station will serve a large number of people. He thinks it is up to those people, with the Countys
=
leadership, to come together and form a squad to command this building and to work with the companies
and businesses in that area, so the station could be operated with volunteers.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes that is everyone's wish and he would be happy to discuss the
situation with Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Martin agreed that it would be a goal of the entire Board to have the station operate in that way.
Ms. Humphris said many residents in that area are new to the community and they may not be
aware of the history of volunteers in fire and rescue operations. She thinks they will get more fully involved
as volunteers in the future. Mr. Bowerman said ten people did volunteer at the first meeting at Monticello
High.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Development of the site shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled
"County of Albemarle Fire and Rescue Station No. 11" dated September 15,
2000. Specific items for conformity include access from the "Future Access
Road (to South)"; parking on the side and to the rear of the building; screening of
the property to the east; and provision of interconnections to adjoining properties.
In site plan development and review, consideration shall be given to orienting the
building closer to and parallel to the "Future Access Road (to South)", to create a
more urban appearance of the facility. Consideration shall also be given to
adjusting the apparatus bays to be set back further than the front façade of the
operational facility.
2.A screening buffer of dense evergreen vegetation shall be provided between the
proposed driveway adjacent to the Kimco property to mitigate visual impacts and
noise impacts on the adjoining parcel.
3.Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles and auctions
shall be conducted in an enclosed building only. No such activity shall be
conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
4.All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent streets. (This is in addition
to Section 4.17, Lighting.)
5.Access to the facility shall be provided as either a private driveway or a public
road. If a private driveway is to be used, it shall be located in the area shown as
the "Future Access Road (to South). It shall have, at a minimum, a four (4) foot
@
asphalt pedestrian path provided along the east side of the drive, extending up
the driveway up to the first parking space. A private driveway may be used until
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
such time as a subdivision plat or site plan for the adjacent (Kimco) property is
approved. At that time, a public road shall be constructed as an urban cross
section with sidewalks and street trees.
6.Where regrading of slopes is required to create the building and parking pads,
the applicant shall minimize use of 2:1 slopes. Where 2:1 slopes are to be used,
landscaping shall be employed to enhance the appearance, stability and
maintenance of these slopes.
7.The preliminary site plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-99-007. Keswick. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Section
10.2.2.27 of Albemarle County Code to allow expansions or enlargements of restaurants & inns to a
maximum of 75 add'l rooms & for uses & amenities incidental & related to the primary use with approval of
a special use permit in the Rural Areas District. (Notice of public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress
on October 2 and October 9, 2000.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that after expressing concerns regarding
potential county-wide impacts and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, on July 11, 2000, the
Planning Commission indefinitely deferred ZTA-99-07. Then, on August 9, 2000, the Board of Supervisors
adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 10.2.2.27 and resolved that the Commission hold a public
hearing and present its recommendation within 60 days. On September 21, 2000, the applicants attorney
=
forwarded language for the revised text amendment, the purpose of the text being to eliminate any other
property within the County from being eligible to qualify under its provisions. With exclusionary language
entitling restaurants and inns that have been served, as of January 1, 2000, by a privately-owned water
distribution system permitted by the Virginia Department of Health and a sewer treatment plant monitored
by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the proposed amendment would allow expansion of
up to 75 rooms or 1.6 times the number of guest rooms whichever is lesser and expand or enlarge uses
and amenities.
Mr. Benish said the Commission, at its meeting on October 3, 2000, unanimously recommended
approval of ZTA-99-07 with language as presented by the Assistant County Attorney.
With no questions from Board members, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Liz Ratcliff,
Director of Finance for the Keswick Hall Club and Estate, introduced Mr. Jay Wineberg and Mr. Rick Carter
as the people who will make the presentation. Also present was Mr. Jack Landry, North American Counsel
for Orient Express Hotels.
Mr. Jay Wineberg said he and Mr. Carter represent Orient Express Hotels in regard to this zoning
text amendment. Orient Express acquired Keswick Hall in May, 1999, manages and has contracted to
purchase the Club. The zoning text amendment approved by the Commission specifically provides that a
restaurant and/or inn in a RA district (a nonconforming use), may seek a special use permit provided it is
served by existing water or sewer systems which have adequate capacity for both existing and proposed
facilities without the expansion of either one. He said if this text amendment is adopted, it does not permit
Orient Express or anyone else to build anything. It will only enable them to file for a special use permit to
increase the number of rooms from the current 48 to a maximum aggregate of 125. They believe this is
essential for the continued economic viability of Keswick Hall.
Mr. Wineberg said the granting of any special use permit would be subject to conditions and
restrictions as the Board of Supervisors deems appropriate at the time. He stated that they are agreeable
to a requirement and any request for a special use permit submitted by them will be accompanied by an
overall site plan for all properties owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the applicant, which are
adjacent to or in the vicinity of the subject property. They feel a number of benefits will accrue to Albemarle
County by approval of this zoning text amendment, and any subsequent special use permit. The expansion
permitted by the ZTA will encourage heritage tourism as contemplated in the Countys Economic
=
Development Policy. The original portion of the Inn, Crawford Villa, is a contributing structure in the
Southwest Mountain National Register, and is also on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National
Register. The ZTA complies also with the Countys Historic Preservation Plan which suggests that the
=
Zoning Ordinance should be amended to allow more varied uses to encourage the reuse of historic
structures and greater flexibility in the application of existing zoning requirements. Thirdly, it complies with
the stated intent of the proposed historic overlay district which seeks to promote tourism and other
economic benefits of protecting historic and cultural resources including historic landscapes.
Mr. Weinberg said the adoption of the ZTA and the subsequent granting of a special use permit will
result in a vastly superior resort hotel being located in Albemarle County, a resort hotel of sufficient size to
attract corporate meetings, as well as national and international guests. He said this is a facility which has
changed ownership several times since its original opening. They feel the limited number of guest rooms
limited its economic viability. Also, at completion, it will provide 85 job opportunities, and an opportunity for
Albemarle residents to train for and obtain employment in the luxury resort industry. The expanded facility
will contribute an additional $664,000 a year in taxes (real estate, personal property, room, food, beverage,
business license, sales & use tax) to Albemarle County. Their economic contribution study estimated that
Keswick will also purchase an additional $1,685,000 per year from local businesses and service providers.
Mr. Weinberg said they have completed engineering, traffic and utility studies to determine the
feasibility of the proposed request, and to be sure that utilities in sufficient quantity and capacity would be
available, and the infrastructure available. He said Mr. Carter will address these items. Mr. Weinberg said
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
they feel that what has been proposed is in the best interests of the County, as it will assure the renovation
and viability of an historic heritage attraction. He said they also have the support of their neighbors. The
zoning text amendment is narrowly drawn so there can be no development without this Board granting a
special use permit so the protections are in place. He said the land proposed for the additional rooms is
already dedicated to Keswick Hall, and there will be no expansion of the Hall offsite or into residential areas.
There will be minimal effect on County services as the buildings are fully sprinkled, and the roads, security,
water and sewer are privately provided and maintained. This is a low-impact, high-value project. They ask
that the Board approve the ZTA in the highly restricted manner, as revised by staff, and which retains for the
County the ultimate right to grant or not to grant a special use permit, but does extend to them the right to
be heard. He requested that the Board adopt the zoning text amendment.
Mr. Richard Carter said he also represents Keswick. He said they have submitted water reports
and traffic studies to the County. They feel that they have sufficient water and can comply with VDOT
regulations. Present tonight are engineers from Timmons who did the water testing and engineers who did
the traffic survey. He offered to answer questions.
With no questions from Board members, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, was present to represent the League of Women Voters. She said the 1996
Comprehensive Plan contains a notation saying the Rural Areas section is being reviewed. At the end of
1999, the Countys Planning Department was short two staff members, and had been for over a year. The
=
League believes this places an unfair burden on current staff and the Planning Commission. The League
has heard for four years from both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors that until the
A
Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed certain other things cannot be completed.
@
The League has come tonight to say it is time for the Board to act on this ongoing problem. The Rural
Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan is being amended in pieces as everyone waits for the overall
revision. Without this amendment in place, and with the Planning Department understaffed for over a year,
how can the County continue to take applications for major planning decisions?
Mr. Tom Olivier was present on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle. He said they are opposed to ZTA-
99-07 which raises broad issues regarding the role of tourism in the rural areas. They believe such board
issues should be addressed in the coming update of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Citizens for Albemarle proposes that the County commit sufficient Planning staff time so that a full review
and update of the Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas Polices can be completed by June, 2001. Albemarle
has a tradition of providing scant staffing for work on Rural Areas policies (see copy of full statement which
is on file in the Clerks Office).
=
Mr. Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, read from a prepared statement which is on file
in the Clerks Office. He said PEC will not oppose the applicants request to expand the existing guest
==
facility by 75 rooms (emphasis placed on existing guest facility). They do not want this ZTA to allow for
similar, non-rural scale facilities to pop up elsewhere in the Rural Areas. They believe any review of a
proposed commercial-use in the Rural Areas should include a review of the total build-out potential of the
site. This includes both what is there and what is planned. Any subsequent studies on water, sewer, traffic
and fiscal impacts should be made in reference to that total such that a comprehensive land-use decision
can be made. This proposal would sound different if it were described in its broader context, as a facility
planned for approximately 130 private homes, a 123 room hotel, a golf course, a clubhouse, a restaurant, a
bar, a pool, a tennis court, a conference hall, etc. This component should be taken into consideration with
the whole.
Mr. Werner said the Planning Commission expressed concern that this ZTA might be so limited that
spot zoning could be an issue. Broader language might allow this level of development anywhere that an
applicant is willing to sink a well and build a pocket sewage treatment facility. Ultimately, this type of
development activity might drive the expansion of public services into the countryside. He then listed
several conditions which PEC suggests become part of either this ZTA or as a necessary broader
amendment to the Rural Areas policy.
Mr. Walter Johnson said he has been a resident of Keswick since 1975. He is familiar with the
history of the area, its existing conditions, and the conditions visualized by Orient Express with this ZTA. He
said approval of this ZTA will provide an opportunity to achieve Sir Ashleys vision of functional elegance
=
and environmental sensitivity for this facility. He said it will recapture the communitys grandeur that was
=
dominated by Keswick Hall during the 1960s and avoid the flight that was there during the 1970s and
1980s. He said the land use of every square inch in Keswick Estates is defined and shown on the
application plan approved by the Board on SP-95-12. With the approval of the requested ZTA, this Board
will retain total approval authority for any land use changes through the special use process. He then
asked those people in the audience who were in support of the application to stand (about 40 did so). He
asked the Board to approve the ZTA.
Dr. William Orr said he lives directly across the road from the Keswick Club and has for many
years. He has no problem with their requested expansion, or the things they want to do, but he is
concerned about the water supply. He knows they draw their water from a deep well near I-64, and as long
as that well is operational, that is fine. In the immediate area, the wells are borderline. His well had only
1/2 gallon per minute, so he had to dig a new well recently. If the area where the well is located were to be
developed, there might be a problem. He thinks there should be some stipulation that if that well fails, they
would put in a water supply such as that at Glenmore at their expense. He thinks it is a big gamble to run
an operation of this size on well water.
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Peter Hallock said he applauds the applicant for saying they would look at the whole site.
However, he said the County was assured at the time they dropped nine holes from the golf course and put
in more lots, that they needed no more rooms in the inn. Now, they are looking at the inn again. He thinks
the number of lots should be looked at also.
Ms. Ann Mallock said she is a resident of the rural areas and is particularly interested in the integrity
of the rural areas. She agrees with the people who want to consider the entire project at the same time. If
this were a brand new 100-room hotel, it would have to consider traffic, water use and air quality, as should
the expansion of the existing facility. She asked that the Board consider these items in anything written as
the ZTA. She also commented on there being consistency in dealing with applications. Vagueness in
language created problems for everyone. She asked that the entire project be considered, and there be a
requirement that there can be no increase in the overall residence level.
Mr. DeForest Mellon said he is a resident of the Rural Areas. He said the request to increase the
number of hotel rooms raises several issues; adequate clean water, sewage treatment expenses,
increased traffic on scenic roadways, and his largest concern is that there is no compelling public interest in
further increasing human pressure in the Rural Areas of the county. A report released by the TJ Planning
District Commission about four years ago showed that the area is already under critical population
pressures posed by by-right development of rural landscapes. He said the growth areas cannot be
expanded piecemeal into the Rural Areas by granting spot zoning variances to individuals, especially to
large commercial interests whether or not these interests are in line with the design to foster tourism. He
sees the issue here as resembling the tragedy at the commons where the rural lands in the County are
A@
held in common by the county citizens, but where pressures from a few citizens would over exploit these
common resources and lead to their degradation. Regulation of these legitimate concerns is a major
reason for having a Comprehensive Plan. The future of the County as a beautiful and serene place to live
ultimately depends upon strong resistance to all attempts at thwarting provisions of this important set of
guiding principles.
Mr. Jim Holden said he and his wife live in Keswick Estates and are neighbors of Keswick Hall and
Club. One of the reasons they wanted their home here is because the facility contributes to the ambience
of the County. It is not a jarring intrusion upon the rural areas. All of the land that is proposed for the
additional rooms at the Hall already lies within the gated community. It is already dedicated to the use by
the Hall. There will be no intrusion into the residential area and there will be no intrusion outside of the
gated community. He said there will always be concerns about water, but Orient Express Hotels has
developed very substantial studies on the water issue that should resolve doubts on that score. Ultimately,
that can be a focal question on the special use permit. What the Board has before it tonight, is removing a
barrier to Keswick Hall/Orient Express coming in and requesting a special use permit. Voting in favor of the
ZTA is not giving up control of the Rural Areas, only saying it will consider requests on a case-by-case
basis. He feels this application has a very strong benefit for Albemarle County.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier said the zoning text amendment seems to have been narrowly drawn. There was a
comment that it was too board and the Planning Commission sent it back to be redrawn. When he reads
the language, it seems that limiting it to 75 rooms or 1.6 times the existing number is a pretty narrow
interpretation and deals with only one entity. He knows the staff is in opposition to approval of this
amendment. He wants to be sure it is because of the language, and not because it is in the Rural Areas.
Mr. Bowerman said the language being considered speaks specifically to restaurants and inns
located within a historic landmark. It has nothing to do with numbers. He then read the language
recommended by the Commission.
Mr. Martin said an evolution has taken place during review of this request. The request evolved
itself to this point. Then, today, Mr. Weinberg said the applicant is more than willing to outline the entire
proposal during the special use permit process.
Ms. Humphris said she understands why there is so much support for this request in the Keswick
community. She hopes that all who signed the statements in the book the Board received will understand
A@
that she understands the value and the importance of an Orient Express facility to the entire community, but
there are other issues to consider. One is the potential for spot zoning, which could get the Board into a
court proceeding. Another issue is the potential for setting a precedent which would allow other entities in
Albemarle County to do the same thing. On the other hand, she understands the objections a lot of people
have about the rural areas, and how the Board is taking this application before getting the revised Rural
Areas policy for the Comprehensive Plan. She was glad to hear the applicant say they would present a
wide, broad, overall site plan with a request for a special use permit so it would be a benefit to the overall
community.
Ms. Thomas personally thanked those people who did not speak tonight, but who had sent their
comments to the Board earlier. If this land was in a designated growth area instead of a rural area, she
does not believe there would be any questions. A major part of her concerns will be addressed by the
promise made tonight that the entire area will be shown when the special use permit is discussed. Since
the Inn is in the Rural Area, she hopes the applicant will tell the residents of the Inn that they should not
expect police, emergency medical and fire services such as they would have in an urban area. The water
system seems to have plentiful quantities, but because of the underlying limestone, it is far more open to
pollution than most of the wells in Albemarle County. There is no promise from Albemarle County that they
could get either public water or sewer for this facility. When the application comes to the Board, then the
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Board can look at its entire impact on the Rural Areas. She was going to have a conversation with the other
Board members and the County Attorney as to how the Board could assure it would see a plan for the
entire facility, but she will take Mr. Weinbergs words as a promise.
=
Mr. Martin said he would like to say to those who stood, but who did not speak, that they are only a
minority of the letters he has received concerning this request. He apologized to those who had sent letters
and to whom he has not had time to send a reply. He then asked if there were a motion concerning this
petition.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III,
District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 10.2.2.27.b, By
special use permit. He feels the language in the revised ZTA is sufficiently broad enough to not be
considered in the spot zoning category. That is just his personal opinion, but he believes the proof of this
will be in any subsequent special use permit request.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The zoning text amendment, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-18(6)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit.
1.Community center (reference 5.1.04).
2.Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02).
3.Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
4.Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
5.Private schools.
6.Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone
exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances.
7.Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
8.(Repealed 3-5-86)
9.Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
10.(Repealed 11-11-92)
11.(Repealed 3-15-95)
12.Horse show grounds, permanent.
13.Custom slaughterhouse.
14.Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to
performance standards in 4.14).
15.Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in
section 15.1-486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.07).
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
16.(Repealed 11-15-95)
17.Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in
4.14).
18.Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to
performance standards in 4.14).
19.Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.01).
20.Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05).
21.Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14).
22.Country store.
23.Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89)
24.(Repealed 11-8-89)
25.Flood control dams and impoundments.
26.(Repealed 11-8-89)
27.Restaurants and inns that are:
a.Located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive
plan, provided: (I) the structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or
inn; and (ii) the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the
architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent
therewith; or
b.Nonconforming uses, provided the restaurant or inn is served by existing
water and sewerage systems having adequate capacity for both the
existing and proposed uses and facilities without expansion of either
system. (Amended 11-8-89; 10-18-00)
28.Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.
29.Boat landings and canoe livery.
30.Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5.
31.Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
32.Cemetery.
33.Crematorium.
34.Multi-crypt mausoleum.
35.Church building and adjunct cemetery.
36.Gift, craft and antique shops.
37.Public garage. (Added 3-18-81)
38.Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82)
39.Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4-28-82)
40.Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83)
41.Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87)
42.Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related
to, and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added
12-2-87)
43.Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87)
44.Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92)
45.Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95)
46.Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site
employee parking for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
5.1.39).
47.Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-2000-04. Historic Preservation. Public hearing on a proposal to amend
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan with an updated and expanded Historic Preservation Plan
which provides a framework for protecting the County's significant historic resources. (Notice of public
hearing given in the Daily Progress on October 2 and October 9, 2000.)
Mr. Martin said a number of people have already signed up to speak about this agenda item. He
wants to state at this time that the Board will not be voting on either this plan or the next agenda item
concerning a budget amendment, tonight.
Mr. Martin said the Board will first hear from the Historic Preservation Committee, and then it will
take comments from the public. He will hold speakers to the three-minute time limit, and he will not allow
any applause during this hearing, basically because applause sometimes brings on boos and cat calls
A@
from people on the other side of the issue. He reminded the audience that this public hearing tonight
concerns an Historic Preservation Plan to be included in the Countys Comprehensive Plan, and has
=
nothing to do with an ordinance on this subject.
Mr. Ralph Damon, a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, was present on behalf of the
Committee. He noted the absence of Mr. Jim Eddins, Chairman of the Committee, who is recovering from
a recent illness. Mr. Damon thanked the Board for allowing it to present a plan for preserving Albemarle
Countys historic resources. He said they began the work five years ago at the Boards request and have
==
made a considerable effort to incorporate public comment and to produce a concise document. The
proposed plan contains the elements which are essential to preserving the historic resources. The
Committee has worked hard to craft a presentation program that is balanced. The proposed recommen-
dations of the Plan which are summarized on Pages 3 - 8 (County of Albemarle, Historic Preservation
Plan, a proposed component of The Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Albemarle County Historic
Preservation Committee, September, 2000) combine education and owner participation, balancing
regulation with voluntary action and economic incentives. He said the recommendations encourage
reasonable, responsible treatment of the Countys irreplaceable historic and cultural resources. He said
=
the Countys Comprehensive Plan is a document aimed at protecting Albemarles resources and to
==
preserve the quality of life in the County. This plan will help implement these goals and make the Compre-
hensive Plan more complete. As build-out proceeds in Albemarle County, it can be seen how the
landscape is changing. On Route 29 North, the hills have been flattened, the streams are in culverts, grass
and trees are turned to blacktop and concrete, and the historic resources are long gone. Route 29 North
could be anywhere in Virginia. It could be anywhere in neighboring states. He said most people in the
County dont have ancestors who grew up at Monticello or Ashlawn or Castle Hill. These grand buildings
=
may be protected for the future, but what about the smaller, simpler buildings where our ancestors grew up.
What of the rare slave dwellings that still exist in Albemarle? These more modest buildings can presently
only rely on good luck to withstand the pressures of development. These buildings have an important story
to tell, and without that part of the story, our history is incomplete.
Mr. Damon said he is not anti-growth. He is a builder by trade. His wife is a Realtor. They depend
for their livelihood on growth. What he is saying is that Albemarle does not have to be destroyed to have
growth. He said every citizen of Albemarle County has a right to live in Albemarle as Albemarle, with her
charm and her uniqueness and her historic character in tact. In closing, he introduced Mr. Ed Lay who is a
foremost expert on historic buildings in Albemarle. He recently published a book concerning the subject.
Mr. Lay said Albemarle is rich in architecture with all building types and from all stylistic periods with
nationally recognized buildings, architects and builders. Being one of the fastest growing counties, it is
imperative that threatened buildings be saved and not taken for granted. He then began a slide presen-
tation showing some mistakes and some endangered buildings. He showed pictures of buildings which had
been razed and gave a short history of each. He then showed pictures of some endangered, abandoned
buildings, including the Old County Jail.
Next to speak was Ms. Bessie Carr. She said that many historic structures have been well cared
for, but the slides showed what is happening and what will continue to happen unless the County takes
action. By providing education and alternatives, demolition can be slowed and often prevented, and
Albemarles distinction which keeps businesses, residents and tourists coming can be protected. Currently,
=
there is no protection for historic resources. The Historic Preservation Committee thanks the Board for
allowing it to present its plan for protecting Albemarle Countys unique resources.
=
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Lark said he lives in the Buck Mountain area of the County. He serves as Secretary of the
Jefferson Area Libertarians. On behalf of his Libertarian colleagues, he urged the Board to reject any type
of mandatory historic preservation proposal. He said that mandatory historic preservation is nothing less
than the involuntary transfer of property from its owners to government. Its adoption would allow a tiny
minority to use the County government to impose their aesthetic preferences upon others. Property owners
may be saddled with enormous costs to accommodate a desire by those preservationists who are unwilling
to purchase assets they deem historically valuable. The proper way to preserve property that has historical
significance is for those who consider it valuable to negotiate a voluntary agreement with the property
owners. Mandatory historic preservation is a profoundly improper and immoral use of the power of
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
government, and has no place in free society. He asked that the Board reject mandatory historic
preservation schemes.
Mr. Gary Westmoreland said the proposed mandatory Historic Preservation ordinance continues a
long march against private property rights. From comprehensive plans, zoning laws, planning
commissions, mountaintop protection ordinances, to members of the board of supervisors, proposals and
votes against private property rights are never ending. Adoption of a mandatory preservation plan will allow
local government to impose enormous burdens on property owners often in an effort to satisfy the
architectural tastes of a tiny minority. If community members believe a building or a parcel of land has
historic value, then those members are welcome to bargain with the property owners in an effort to preserve
that building or parcel of land. However, those members have no right to use government to force property
owners to preserve an asset in order to satisfy the aesthetic preferences of others.
Mr. Wayne Mogielnicki said he is a resident of North Garden and director of communications for the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. In keeping with the Foundations dual mission of education and
=
preservation, it supports the Historic Preservation Plan before the Board tonight. They believe the plan
would benefit the County as a whole, and would be especially valuable in terms of the historic, or heritage
tourism that has become so important to the entire region. The Foundation supports the plan and favors its
passage.
Mr. Rives Bailey said he is a resident of Albemarle County and is president of the Charlottesville
Area Association of Realtors. He said there is no doubt that preserving the beauty of Albemarle County and
its historic sites contributes to a successful real estate industry. Home buyers considering moving to this
area are often greatly influenced by the beauty of the area and the historic treasures in the County. He has
worked with a number of buyers interested in historic properties. His overwhelming experience has been
that they are very sensitive to the benefits of maintaining those properties, and enhancing them. He
recently worked on the Tudor Grove property which abuts the development areas of the County. Working
with many parties, they were able to define boundary lines which protected the boundaries and made that
property purchaser able to restore the property to its previous condition. While it continues to be a high
priority to preserve the historical nature of the community, it is far more important to preserve the
fundamental roots of democracyprivate property rights. He urged the Board to adopt a plan which
C
stresses education and incentives for preserving historic sites, but which does not infringe on private
property rights. He urged that all references to an ordinance be removed from the plan, and the rest of the
plan be adopted.
Mr. Bob Moorefield said he is a resident of Albemarle County, and area president of Suntrust Bank.
He is present tonight to represent the business community. He serves as Chairman of the Charlottesville
Regional Chamber of Commerce. Since the Historic Preservation Committee began its work in 1995, the
Chamber has followed its work and, on a number of occasions, has taken exception to that work. Although
the Chamber knows the important economical value of history and historical sites in the County, it also
recognizes that there is a need for a proactive plan to evaluate the understanding and support for historic
preservation among the citizens and stewards of historic assets in the County.
Mr. Moorefield said the Chambers concern centered upon the committees desire for a punitive
==
ordinance for compliance. The Board of Supervisors, at the last public meeting on this subject, wisely
agreed to separate all mention of an ordinance from a proactive plan for historic preservation. If the Board
follows through on this complete separation of the plan from any language involving an ordinance, the
Chamber supports this Historic Preservation Plan becoming a part of the Comprehensive Plan. It supports
all voluntary measures for historic protection, and all efforts to educate people on the value of local history.
They support negotiated alliances, and believe tax exemptions, grants, and the purchase of historic
properties and easements have value as well. If the County should wish to explore an ordinance, the
Chamber asked that any committee considering such language be given representation from the business
community, especially from agri-business and tourism.
Ms. Charlotte Hogue said she does not see the need for this plan. It seems the new folks dont
=
recognize the efforts of the people who have lived here for many years and who have protected the
resources. The Board said it wants farming to continue, but if she is forced to keep her farm and its
buildings the same, how will she be able to change them to adapt to new farming methods and machinery?
This affects her livelihood and her ability to farm. Farming is not done as it was 50 to 60 years ago. There
are constant changes. Why do some think that after years of keeping her property intact, that she suddenly
needs a County historic plan outlining how she manages that property? She said it is wrong to force an
unneeded plan on property owners in Albemarle County. It puts a limit on expanding or removing homes
and buildings. What has happened to property rights? This plan will call for monitoring funding to cover
expenses for additional staff, transportation, office space, equipment, etc. Taxes and land values are
already too high without adding another level of bureaucracy. This has caused many working people to live
in surrounding counties to escape the high costs of living. If the County needs a plan, isnt a voluntary plan
=
with incentives a better way to get people to cooperate? Why havent the 2000 buildings and 400+ sites
=
been publicly identified? Is this really about historic preservation or an effort to create more bureaucracy
and political power by catering to jealousy, greed and the desire to control? She said the Board has turned
down preservation proposals four times since 1977. She urged the Board not to adopt this measure.
Mr. Ed Scharer said he was present for the Albemarle County Farm Bureau. He said if the goal is
to preserve historic services, agriculture must be preserved first. Agriculture is the engine which fuels the
tax base, and which has preserved historic structures for close to 400 years. He said there has been much
said recently about preserving agriculture, even now a courageous program called ACE is being developed
to stem the tide of agricultural loss in the County. If the Board wants to preserve agriculture, a way must be
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
found to make Albemarle a viable place in which to farm and live. If the Board wants to preserve productive
open space, the Board must be a buffer between incoming, well-meaning, but uninformed citizens who
move from urban settings, but who immediately want to make Albemarle what they just left. If the
remaining family farms in the county are to be preserved, the activities of a large county bureaucracy which
feeds on growth and develops new programs and regulations to justify its existence, must be filtered. In
order to keep the rural setting in the County, preserve the environment, conserve bio-diversity, and provide
for orderly growth, and protect historic resources at the same time, agriculture and silviculture are the
answers. If the County can preserve agriculture, farms will continue to be good citizens without expensive
government regulation and bureaucracy, which is exactly what they do now. He then asked those who
supported him to stand (about 100 people stood).
Mr. Bob Watson said he is with the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition. He was not
present to discuss the merits of preserving historic resources. Rather, at issue is the methodology of
protecting those resources, most of what are unidentified and privately owned. There are two major
ingredients in that methodology. Trust and fairness. He believes most of the Boards constituents would be
=
in favor of protecting historic resources. But, the majority of those constituents have not read the plan.
Those that have are split between support and opposition. With proper education and meaningful
incentives, owners of historic properties will make prudent decisions without mandatory controls. At the
Boards work session on August 2, it agreed that the plan should be considered separate from an
=
ordinance. It does not seem fair to allow the perception of separateness in the public eye and yet have the
plan contain a footnote on page 38 that calls for a mandatory ordinance. He urged that the footnote be
removed. He said the most important action is to enact a plan that promotes education and incentives, and
is fair to all parties.
Mr. A. C. Shackleford said he is the president of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau. They are
disturbed that in its present form, this proposal has the potential for untold harm to the citizens. He has too
many concerns about the Plan to express them in his three minutes. He said the Farm Bureau has written
to the Board to express objections to the mandatory features of this plan. They could support a voluntary
program based on extensive educational efforts and meaningful incentives toward compliance. The plan,
as it is written, tramples on individual rights to manage private property, and it imposes on them financial
costs that they cannot afford or justify. It is okay to say that this is merely a plan, and without an ordinance,
it has no teeth. However, once this plan is adopted, they feel County staff will write an ordinance based on
it. They know any ordinance would be as restrictive as the plan allows.
Mr. Shackleford said what they see in this document is the mind set that people are free only to the
extent allowed by those who govern them. He believes the democratic system of government should
protect the rights of its citizens. In the Historic Preservation Plan, there are numerous guarantees to local
government, but the only promise to the individual is that the owner of an historic property may meet with
staff and committee members before being told that the property is subject to all of the requirements of the
ordinance. He believes the Board will be reasonable in enforcing an historic preservation ordinance, and
he believes any committee appointed by the Board would try to use compassion in its operations. But,
future boards and committees may not be so restrained. He urged the Board to guarantee future citizens
protection from overzealous bureaucrats.
Mr. Lowery Abell said he owns an historic house which is included in the proposal. He asked why
the County wants to penalize the people who have taken care of the historic houses. He said if this
proposal becomes law, he will have a bureaucracy and an appointed board looking over his shoulder
constantly. He asked that this plan be voluntary so he can care for his place. He asked that the barrage of
government interference in citizens lives be ended. He is tired of everyone thinking that his home and land
=
are a viewshed. Their rights stop at his property lines. Everybody wants to tell him what he can do with the
place. He has worked his whole life to beautify and pay for the place. A lot of the regulations are a poor
attempt to cover a diverse group as they oppose land use. The Board is poised to pass a new plan when
no one can even get a definition of what historically significant is. He asked that the Board think about
A@
what is happening in the City of Charlottesville on the downtown mall. He asked how the Board could in
good consciousness pass a plan when no one can give him a definition.
Mr. Paul Brockman said the prepared statement which he had given to the Board was for reading.
His corporation, which is being called Preservation Central and provides some of the incentives the County
has not been able to put into its plan, was officially chartered by the Commonwealth last Friday. He said
this is a new corporation which seeks to acquire and administer easements on historic properties as a
501(c)(3) offering significant tax benefits to the donors of those easements. It will conduct educational
opportunities about the value of historic preservation in cooperation with every organization in this region
that is interested in cooperating with it. It will be run by a team of professionals in historic preservation. It
will cover the area from Orange to Amherst. He said they intend to cooperate with every other preservation
organization in this area that will cooperate with them. They asked that their existence be incorporated into
the Countys Plan.
=
Ms. Mary Shackleford said she was present to read a letter from Dick and Carol Greene, Ringwood
Farm, Crozet, who could not be present tonight. They are opposed to the proposed Plan in its present
form. They feel it is so vague that it appears as an attempt to secure legislation first, and then make up the
rules later. The definition of historic is extremely broad. Property owners should know before passage
A@
who will be impacted, and, specifically, how. The designation of districts is too vast and inclusive. Age
alone does not make a building historic. The district overlay ordinance is particularly unfair to farmers. To
be required to retain or repair a building that is functionally or economically obsolete is a hardship. What is
the cost to the taxpayers of the proposed plan. It would be a major undertaking to monitor and inspect so
many properties, etc. In the proposed plan, there is no compensation for the burden of regulation imposed
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
upon owners of historic properties. They are not against historic preservation, but prefer that it be
accomplished by recognizing and designating qualified individual sites with owner consent. The proposed
plan of a district overlay ordinance would open the door to ever-broadening rules, regulations and
government control of private property. They urged the Board to be specific and include the owners in
deciding the fate of their properties.
Mr. Louis Eaton said he would like to second Mr. Shackefords comments for the Farm Bureau. He
=
has been a resident of Albemarle for 30 years, and owns one of its oldest houses. He feels he has done an
exceptional job of restoring and looking after this property. He has restored four historic houses in the last
four years. He noted some of the examples of properties shown in the Committee report. He said the
problem presented to the Board is far over-blown. There is no greater stewards of historic properties than
the owners. He knows a lot of these people personally, and they do a good job of looking after these
buildings. He agrees with a previous speaker who said the rules are being made up as we go along. He
thinks it would be good for the staff to have a report showing where the buildings are located. It is
unfortunate that some buildings have been torn down, but he said this is not a Kosovo situation; that is the
A@
image being given the Board. The image painted is a ruse to come up with the legislation. Protection is
needed, but what is being proposed is too much.
Mr. Doug Kingma was present to represent the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association. They
support a plan which is only voluntary. Voluntary in both the Plan and any future ordinance. Any ordinance
which would impose restrictions on a property owners rights will have a financial impact, and it is unfair to
=
take an owners rights without compensation. They suggest that the Board adopt a plan that stresses
=
incentives for owner participation.
Ms. Carol Clarke said she lives in the North Garden area of the County and has two structures on
her property which may be considered historic. She is also Chair of the Charlottesville Area Legislative
Action Coalition. She said CALAC feels historic properties should and can be protected by a plan that
educates owners as to why they should voluntarily enter a preservation program and it should provide
incentives for them to do so. CALAC feels that in order for incentives to work, they need to be created to
the strength level at which they will work. If the property owners sacrifice is properly compensated for by
=
meaningful incentives, the property owner will willingly agree to preservation. The cost and sacrifice to the
individual property owners should never be allowed to be greater than that cost to the general public which
derives benefit from the preservation. However, the real issue is one of fairness. The Committee stated
that only the plan is being considered, yet the Plan strongly recommends a mandatory ordinance. That
language should be removed from the Plan on Page 38. All aspects of an ordinance should be considered
only when everything is finalized.
Mr. Joe H. Jones said he is a resident of the White Hall area. As a child he may have lived in an
historic structure. He is not sure because the term historically significant is not defined. He knows that
A@
when the temperature dropped below 25 degrees he could breathe out white puff-like smoke in the
mornings. He is a member of the Farm Bureau Board of Directors, a member of the County Ag-Forestal
Review Committee, and also a member of the newly-formed ACE Committee. Both of these committees
were implemented for open space protection and preservation. He views both of these committees as
voluntary zoning ordinances. The Ag-Forest District designation comes after landowners request and sign
a contract with the Board of Supervisors to keep their land in ag/forestal uses for at least ten years. Under
the ACE ordinance, landowners will offer their development rights for sale. These are initiated by the
landowner. He feels a voluntary historic ordinance could be formulated similar to these. The voluntary
nature allows government and its citizens to cooperate together to achieve a common goal. The ordinance
section of the historic plan gives a committee the power to designate a structure, a building, a property, or a
landscape as historic. Then paragraphs of onerous regulations tell how the owner must maintain it, offer it
for sale, be fined, or all of the above. For government to have this power is wrong. Websters Dictionary
=
defines wrong as not in accordance with what is mostly right or good, not correct in action, judgement,
A@A
opinion, method, etc., and invasion of anothers right to his damage. If a mandatory ordinance is a
=@
guidance for slower growth instead of landscapes, the whole county should be designated as historic so
that all can come under these rules and regulations. Is it fair to designate and regulate people because
part of their home is a log cabin with additions added on? Is it right to force citizens to maintain old barns
and sheds because they are aesthetically pleasing to tourists? Historic resource protection amounts to
even more rules and regulations on the backs of rural property owners. Put the burden on growth, not on
longstanding citizens of Albemarle.
Mr. Frank Grizzard, a member of the Albemarle County Historical Society, was present to read a
letter from its president, Mr. Edward Gaynor. He said the members of the Society have watched with
interest the efforts to create an historic zoning ordinance. Because the Societys mission lies in preserving
=
and promoting local history, the Society views this as a policy issue central to its mission. The Board of the
Society has reviewed the proposed plan and urges each of its members to give the plan careful
consideration. The Society found several commendable points in the proposed plan: it does not rely solely
on regulatory measures to encourage protection of properties; it incorporates information concerning the
positive economic impact of preservation activities; it emphasizes public education about local historic
resources to encourage voluntary action; it aims the proposed ordinance primarily at preventing demolition
or irreversible exterior changes to structures rather than focusing on details which do not have a permanent
impact; it develops an ordinance which meets requirements of the Certified Local Government program;
and it avoids unnecessary additional bureaucracy by adding members to the Countys existing architectural
=
review board. The Board of the Society encouraged its members to learn about the proposed plan and
actively express its own viewpoints (Note: complete statement is on file in the Clerks Office).
=
Ms. Carolyn O'Brien said she and her husband live on the family farm in southern Albemarle. They
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
are lifelong residents of Albemarle and the farm has been continuously farmed by the OBrien family for
=
well over one hundred years. They are concerned about the future of the farmer in Albemarle. The
proposed Plan should be voluntary through education and incentives, not mandatory. Who would benefit
from a zoning ordinance of this magnitude? They believe in individual property rights. They do not need a
committee to dictate how to maintain their farm.
Ms. Nancy McMurdo said she raises beef cattle in the County. She mentioned a book by DeLong
entitled Property Matters. She said the book delves into property rights in Seventeenth Century Europe
A@
and proceeds to the issue of concern tonight, that of the spillover effect. The way in which your neighbors
A@=
decisions can affect your property. Mr. DeLong says that many disputes over land use erupt when
someone wants to use property for a different use that has more spillovers. An effort to put town-houses in
an area of freestanding residences is the common problem. The existing residents feel the newcomers will
downgrade the neighborhood aesthetically, and bring in more traffic. However, some-times someone uses
property that confers a positive spillover on the neighborhood. Even an effort to generate a positive use is
likely to generate intense opposition. People who live across from a vacant track, or an historic building,
tend to regard the situation as their right. Give them a legal lever for the exercise of opportunism and a
rough rationale to salve their conscious and they will appropriate the positive spillover as their own. Mr.
DeLong cites dozens of cases where property owners have had their right to use their property attacked. In
many cases, the property owners have lost their battle and the value of their property. Even where they
have ultimately made their points, image the cost in money, time, energy, and sleepless nights just to retain
what was their own to begin with. She is not opposed to historic preservation, but believes it should be the
result of private ownership, not legislation. (Time expired)
Ms. Katie Hobbs was present to represent the League of Women Voters. She said that since 1971,
when the League supported the expansion of the Citys (Charlottesville) historic district, it has continued to
=
urge the adoption of an historic preservation plan and its inclusion in the Countys Comprehensive Plan.
==
Tonight, the League asks the Board to amend the County Comprehensive Plan with an updated and
expanded historic preservation plan.
At 9:00 p.m., Mr. Martin called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:18 p.m. and continued the
public hearing.
Mr. Bill Jones said he is a landowner in Albemarle County and is in the real estate business. Last
year at this time he purchased a property in Covesville to remodel and resell. It was an old farm house. His
understanding of the plan is that it would create undue hardships on him, or others, trying to do the same
thing. He took an old farm house and added a bathroom and updated the electrical and plumbing. There
were a couple of buildings on the property that were really old and dilapidated which were torn down. They
had no significance of an historical nature, but his understanding of the plan is that it would require all the
approvals and hoops one has to go through. He agrees with Mr. Eaton and others. He speaks against
A@
mandatory requirements such as that. To build up a group that will be required to do what is being
proposed is not proper, so he is against that. Particularly, where there is the possibility there could be an
ordinance. A plan for guidance is one thing, but dont tie it into an ordinance.
=
Mr. Brent Nelson said he lives at 214 South Street in Charlottesville. He is present as a native of
the area and a member of a family who has lived continuously for many generations in both Charlottesville
and Albemarle County. He is present as a resident and property owner for 15 years in an existing historic
preservation overlay district located in Charlottesville. He is also someone who works everyday in the
development community. He is present to support the incorporation of the Plan into the Countys
=
Comprehensive Plan as presented and with all provisions intact. He said it is important to remember that
there are no effective voluntary historic preservation ordinances within the state of Virginia. Before the
Board tonight is a five year, closely scrutinized effort to find a way to manage growth responsibly, fairly and
to accommodate growth so it does not destroy historic resources. It is alarming how quickly they can be
destroyed by unmanaged growth. He knows this first hand because the Albemarle of today hardly
resembles the Albemarle of his youth. He said that each time an historic resource is destroyed either with a
demolition permit or through neglect, the very fabric of the community which provides a sense of place,
along with its continuity and connection, is chipped away. It is absolutely critical that the community be
educated about the value of historic resources and the benefits they provide the community. By imple-
menting the actions and recommendations shown in the plan, the Board has the opportunity to show that
Albemarle County can act as a leader within the state of Virginia. He asked that the Board not allow the
property rights hysteria generated by some groups to overshadow the facts and intentions of this proposed
A@
plan.
Mr. J. J. Murray said he was present to represent Citizens for Albemarle. He said at its meeting on
May 24, 2000, the CFA Board of Directors voted to endorse the recommendations of the proposed Historic
Preservation Plan including the creation of an Historic Overlay District Ordinance. CFA agree that historic
buildings and landscapes of the County deserve more protection than they currently enjoy. It is clear that
the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory. More than 60 important structures have been lost over the last
few decades, some of them were even on the State and National Registers for Historic Places (voluntary
conservation). Mr. Murray said he lives in one of the original farmhouses of the Carr family, and it has both
historical and architectural interest. He bought the house at a time when it belonged to an out-of-state
developer who had a potential buyer who wanted to tear it down in order to rebuild on the site. There is
absolutely nothing to keep him from doing just that. He sees no alternative to an ordinance with some teeth
if loss of our heritage is to be prevented. He is willing to give up some of his personal rights in order to
achieve the greater good of protecting the historic heritage of the County. He said CFA applauds the
emphasis on documentation, monitoring and education. Also, CFA recognizes that the proposed incentives
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
program is vital to the acceptance of the Plan by the citizenry. If the Plan is seen as a public/private
partnership beneficial to all parties, then acceptance of its aims and means should be a foregone
conclusion.
Mr. Tom Loach said he is a resident of the County. While the topic of discussion for tonight is
historic preservation, it is apparent that the associated issues of property rights and rural development are
an integral part of the discussion. It also appears that like the discussion on the Mountain Protection
Ordinance, there will be an attempt tonight by individuals and special interests groups to derail historic
preservation and achieve with political confrontation what they were either unable or unwilling to do during
the committee process. The committee selected by the Board to deal with historic preservation
represented a broad cross-section of interested parties, and in turn, their recommendations are in keeping
with the vast interests of all residents of Albemarle County. All the meetings of the committee were open to
the public and allowed public input. The question has to be raised as to why the voices of dissent during the
committee process didnt or couldnt take the route of compromise and consensus building to achieve their
==
goals. He supports historic preservation. He is a resident of the growth area and assumes that since he
has lived in Albemarle only 11 years that makes him new. Since he is from the northeast, he assumes he
A@
is considered to be one of those people who want to come here and change things to the way they were
from where he came. He will take credit for being new, but not for wanting to change things. That is the
reason historic preservation is important to him. He saw the way things went when there was no protection
in the northeast where he came from. He pointed out that one of the programs praised tonight, the ACE
Program, came out of a call from the Albemarle Neighborhood Association, an association of growth area,
or new residents. The DISC program which hopefully will stop the march into the rural areas also came
from residents of the growth area. Keeping the character of the county rural is of interest to growth area
residents.
Mr. Jeffrey Plank said he lives in Scottsville. He speaks on behalf of the Scottsville Architectural
Review Board which he chairs. In 1996, Scottsville implemented its historic preservation plan by
establishing the ARB and historic overlay district in its zoning ordinance. Last year, they hired a professional
preservation architect to assist them in reviewing applications, and to draw up design guidelines for the
district. This year, they won a grant from the State Department of Historic Resources to conduct a
professional inventory of their historic buildings. Without the ARB, he believes that some historic buildings
in Scottsville would have been seriously compromised or lost. Wherever there has been restoration of their
historic buildings (six in three years), they have seen economic development and increases in property
values. As a new ARB, they have had some problems, but they believe they are now seen as a source of
information about their historic buildings, as a constructive resource for advising about building restoration
for applicants, and as a fair and open forum for the community to review changes to buildings that have
cultural, as well as financial value.
Ms. Ashlin Smith said she is the current president from Preservation Piedmont which is a nonprofit
corporation dedicated to the protection of old buildings, sites and neighborhoods, as well as traditional sites
and open spaces. They do this in order to create appreciation for historic resources in the region. She is
present tonight because of what has been lost. For centuries, laws have required owners to use their
properties in ways that respect the needs of their neighbors and society. Our neighbors and this society
need to know our history in order to grow from it. What better way to learn than to live with history and see
reminders of it around us every day? That does not mean that we are living in the past, but that we respect
the past. She asked if resources are protected with an historic overlay district ordinance, if this really
deprives individuals of their property rights. When an ordinance encourages a property owner to participate
in the designation process, or when an ordinance provides expert advice in restoration and maintenance,
and even if an ordinance provides funding for maintenance when financial constraints are too great, the
owners property rights are not lost, but increased. Preservation Piedmont wholeheartedly supports the
=
Albemarle County Historic Preservation Plan and especially supports the recommended historic overlay
district ordinance. With this ordinance, the Virginia tradition of preserving individual rights and preserving
history will survive and thrive.
Mr. Peter Way said he is a member of the Conservative Coalition. They support Mr. Shackelford
and the Farm Bureau in the remarks they made this evening, and the other people who have spoken in
opposition to this plan. He suggested that the Board not only take out the footnote, but that it be made clear
in this plan that it is not to be mandatory, but it is to be voluntary. He thinks it is a matter of trust, and it is just
the beginning of the pecking away of property rights. To him, it is a typical example of the way these
A@
things get into the government. A special interest group comes before the Board, a committee is then
appointed made up mainly from that special interest group with a few token other people included. Then
there is the staff which has everything to gain from an increased bureaucracy and all of a sudden there is
another major plan which is going to interfere with the individual rights of the citizens. He hopes the Board
will keep this plan voluntary. He said each one of the Board members sitting here tonight knows clearly that
if this plan is adopted, it will be an ordinance because this plan will be the basis of that ordinance.
Mr. Tom Olivier said he was speaking as an individual. He supports the Historic Preservation Plan
as it is and hopes it will be adopted by the Board. He said historic structures are a physical manifestation of
our history and identify. They are of great value to future generations, and they represent something far
more significant than mere viewsheds. He noted that the plan includes an education and incentive
component which will help owners of individual properties protect those structures. Without doubt, many
structures are lost because individuals are unaware of the value they sometimes possess, or that help is
available to help them deal with the challenges of those old structures. He said no one likes falling under
an ordinance, but it is by no means a given that an ordinance implies the trampling of property rights.
Sometimes an ordinance is required to get people to do the right thing. He said there are potential,
legitimate property rights issues here, but he thinks that in general these things have been raised in broad
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
terms this evening. He believes there is good legal precedent for local governments to regulate and
provide requirements for structures to be maintained within their jurisdictions. For example, there are
building codes and building inspections. It does not mean that property rights are being trampled simply
because there is an ordinance which requires certain types of structural maintenance. Put in place, the
property rights advocates should identify specifically what rights they believe are being trampled, and how a
possible ordinance might trample those rights. He said concerns have been expressed broadly rather than
in relation to specifics which are before the Board this evening in the plan, or that he has heard are likely to
occur in the development plan.
Mr. Michael Weber said he would like to explain some things that his family has experienced with
historic preservation. His father grew up in Albemarle County, and went to the University of Virginia on a
scholarship. He worked in Washington, D.C., and was involved in civil rights. He was instrumental in
abolishing the poll tax. After that period, he moved to New York and began his career. In 1968, his parents
bought what is now called Malvern. It was a derelict property. The house was used for storage of hay. The
kitchen area had collapsed. The soil was eroded. There were big red gashes in the soil and clay would run
into the streams each time it rained. They restored that property and it is now listed on the National
Register and it is a Virginia Landmark. Its architectural drawings are in the Library of Congress. The
restoration won a prize from an organization in Philadelphia. It has been written up in Southern Living. It
has been on the garden tour. It is an historic property which was built in 1795. The restoration of the
property was his mothers life work. She spent 30 years on the work. At a time when she should be able to
=
enjoy the fruits of her labor and pass on her legacy to the community, she looks out her window and sees
the actions of the County of Albemarle and its Solid Waste Authority destroying the beautiful viewshed of
her restoration. She has to put up with all of the smells, the dust, the vultures, etc. that he has complained
about so many times. His perception is that the County itself is among the most destructive agents as far as
historic preservation is concerned. He thinks that any ordinance, plan, or guidelines promulgated should
clearly state that the County has to follow its own rules. The burden should not be on private citizens alone.
The damage done to his familys property was done after 1993 when that landfill should have closed down.
=
It was an open dump. There was a fraudulent permit application filed. DEQ agrees with him. They said
there were material inaccuracies in that permit application. DEQ has ordered the illegally operating cell to
be shut down, #2. During that seven-year period, the western boundary was destroyed and the landfill
started rising above the tree line. Because the Webers refused to sign the settlement, the attorneys
=
instructed the landscapers to pull all the mitigations out that would benefit them in order to punish the
Webers. (Time expired)
Mr. Fred Gercke said he is a resident of the newly-created Proffit Historic District listed on the
National Register and the Virginia Landmarks Register. He was skeptical about seeking listing on these
registers. He was afraid it would take a lot of effort and work with uncertain returns. History is the
interesting story of ordinary people like ourselves, and our struggles, accomplishments, and mistakes in
development. It was felt that the Proffit community would benefit, not just from documenting history, but
also foster a sense of community identity and pride, educate residents, visitors and the general public about
Proffits unique history, and accrue the benefits that come from such listings. The registers are mostly
=
honorific with limited incentives and protections. The rest is then up to the locality to fill in. He said if we do
not plan to save our historic resources, we will have neglected our responsibilities and set ourselves up for
meddling from Washington and Richmond. Historic preservation is not just the province of wealth elitists.
The specter of an ordinance has been raised tonight, but, tonight the Board is here to pass on a plan to
preserve our past or our future.
Ms. Wren Dawson Oliver said she lives in the southern part of the County. She is here tonight to
urge the Board to adopt the Historic Preservation Plan and, hopefully, a subsequent ordinance. She said
she and her husband own a property which has been in her family for almost 150 years. She said an old
log barn and an old stable that were on the property are gone. She thinks an historic preservation
ordinance could have helped those buildings be saved. She said the Dawson family used to own a property
in Esmont that had an historic mill that is no longer there. An ordinance and a plan could help with
preservation of some of those historic landmarks.
Ms. Jodie Webber said she was present (along with Ashlin Smith) to represent two groups:
Preservation Piedmont and Friends of the Union Church. She is a native of Albemarle County and grew up
on a working farm in a house which dates back some 200 years. The members of both of these groups
express their strong support for both the proposed Historic Preservation Plan and proposed ordinance.
They feel historic buildings offer special and unique physical links to the past. There are no replacements
for these structures so whenever one is destroyed, a piece of the common cultural history is gone forever.
Historic buildings contribute to everyones quality of life by providing a visual connection to our roots and
=
heritage. Effective safeguards are needed to protect what is important to all of us. Ms. Webber said the old
Union Church building in Earlysville is a rare surviving example of early Nineteenth Century public
architecture of the rural Piedmont. Five years ago, the property was in imminent danger of being sold and
destroyed to make way for a car repair garage. Through intense efforts of a handful of residents, the old
grounds are once more the setting for various community events throughout the year. It is listed on both the
State and National Historic registers. Neither designation could have saved the building from destruction. A
local treasure was nearly lost because nothing existed to protect it. Other fine old buildings have not been
so lucky. The proposed plan, and especially the proposed ordinance, offer a comprehensive, balanced
and fair means to identify and protect irreplaceable historic resources. Neither proposes to require
maintenance or to regulate land use or free standing construction, and even allow demolition as a last
resort, thus safeguarding property rights. She urged approval of what they feel is a very reasonable
proposal.
Mr. Jeff Werner was present to present a statement from the Piedmont Environment Council. He
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
urged that the Plan being discussed tonight be approved. When an ordinance is written, he assumes that it
will be discussed then. He said he is in a unique position to comment on the implications of this proposal.
His academic studies focused on historic preservation. He spent 12 years in the construction industry and
was involved in numerous projects on historic sites and properties. He owns an historically-designed home
in downtown Charlottesville. From a perspective based on extensive academic, professional and personal
experiences, he urged the Board to approve this Plan. His background has led him to conclude that historic
preservation is not only good for the community, but it promotes and preserves the past. It is good for the
local economy and the property owner. It is good for the construction and tourism industries. It is good for
teachers and students, and good for todays generation who seek to understand who they are and what has
=
shaped their world. He then related a recent visit to Fredericksburg where Civil War battlefields have been
destroyed by development. He said the task of weighing the sides of this argument is the Boards. He
=
noted that in 1978, the United States Supreme Court decided that a historic preservation program is not a
violation of Constitutional rights. He hopes the Board can see the merits and benefits to Albemarle that this
plan represents.
Mr. Paul McGill said he has heard a lot of consensus that it is the desire to preserve our history, but
not a lot of consensus as to how to go about that. He thinks there are people who are willing to give up their
freedoms readily. All give up freedoms to live in this society. There needs to be a broad consensus about
what freedoms we surrender. He does not believe the consensus is there for the way the plan is written.
He thinks there needs to be a broader agreement on this issue among the parties that care about the same
thing basically.
Mr. DeForest Mellon said he has been a resident of Albemarle County for 37 years and has owned
property near Free Union for 28 years. He said that those who were born prior to the middle of the previous
century understand that to entrust the preservation of historic structures to voluntary inaction is to insure that
economic pressures will, if not in this decade, then in the next, lead inevitably to their replacement for
reasons of expediency or economic gain. If action is not taken by ordinance to protect historic,
irreplaceable structures, they will not survive in the economic climate that prevails at the start of the Twenty-
First Century. If nothing is done, others will act in our stead, and that unfortunate outcome can be easily
glimpsed in every section of the country. He urged the Board to adopt the present plan with the ordinance
intact.
Mr. Charles McRaven said he is a professional restorer of historic structures. He has done this
work for over 50 years. He is a consultant throughout the United States on historic structures, and does
restore any type of structure that is old and historic. He would like to see every historic structure in the
country saved. He would love to see this plan adopted, and an ordinance following it demanding that
people restore their structures. He said it is a very expensive thing to restore an historic building right. A lot
of people do patch jobs. It is time-consuming and very involved to do it right. Although he thinks this plan is
a good step, he cannot agree that it should be an ordinance, or that it should be mandatory. Something is
being overlooked when the County says it is going to tell individuals what to do with their property that they
have paid for and that they own. If buildings are to be preserved, there is one way to do it. The Nature
Conservancy has done it. They buy the properties and turn them into museums or they attach restrictions
to them in perpetuity and they find buyers for them who will respect and follow those restrictions. He would
support that sort of thing. To infringe on the freedom of an individual to own property and to do with it as he
sees fit, is something that should not be stepped on. (Time expired) If the Board passes the ordinance, it
will see historic buildings go up in flames all over the County. People who cant afford them will burn them
=
to the ground.
Mr. Tripp Allard said he is the land community project leader for the Southern Environmental Law
Center where they work to promote sensible growth and a strong quality of life in this region. He is also a
board member of Preservation Alliance of Virginia and has taught historic preservation law and policy. He
said communities throughout the country have recognized what is underlying in this proposed plan. That is
a need to protect historic resources, to preserve reminders of past heritage, to foster a strong quality of life
and to promote strong economic growth. He thanked County staff, the Historic Preservation Committee
and the Planning Commission for their careful, thoughtful work in bringing this plan to the Board. He is glad
to hear that most here tonight support or recognize the importance of historic preserva-tion. He said there
is a lengthy trail of demolished buildings in this county, and throughout the Common-wealth, throughout the
country, that testifies to the fact that just leaving individual landowners to do as they see fit with any historic
resource is no guarantee that the resource will remain. The Plan before the Board tonight is a balanced,
well-crafted plan that will protect the valuable resources of the County. A lot of words were spoken tonight,
such as property rights, punitive, immoral, burdensome, ordinances that might trample on rights. If one sifts
through some of the rhetoric, there is a legitimate concern, but these issues are for discussion when an
ordinance is before the Board, not tonight. The objections to this plan are misplaced. It is not an ordinance,
it is a blueprint. There have been some sweeping statements about property rights based on
misconceptions about the nature of these rights. He has spent decades working on preservation issues,
and many of the comments espouse an absolutist view that any limitation on property rights is somehow a
trampling on all property rights. This is contrary to two centuries of American law. A need for reasonable
provisions addressing what individuals can do with their property, has always been recognized.
Preservation ordinances throughout the country have been upheld by the Supreme Court. All the courts of
the land have held that preservation ordinances are reasonable provisions that do not interfere
impermissibly with property rights. He has worked on preservation plans and ordinances throughout the
Commonwealth, and the proposed plan for Albemarle is one of the milder plans that he has seen. It is a
good start in the right direction. There is overwhelming support for preservation, so he urges the Board to
adopt this plan.
Ms. Linda McRaven said the entire work of she and her husband revolves around the restoration of
historic buildings. They have written three books which are available in bookstores. They have children
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
who they have taught to love and honor history and the work they do. One would think that she would want
the Board to pass the mandatory ordinance because it would do their work good. She said the issue is one
of how to keep our historic heritage and how to balance property rights. She said restoration work begins
with the stark reality. It is far more expensive than straight construction. To mandate that any property
owner do that is absolutely wrong. She is urging that the Board not get into the hornets nest, but be careful
=
and understand what including an historic plan in the Comprehensive Plan really means to the landowners.
She urged that the Board consider massive tax incentives. Rather than give the owner money to do
something, give a tax incentive instead. She urged the Board to work with the schools to educate people
about good stewardship of the land. Teach them the importance of historic preservation. She urged the
Board to not force a few landowners who are mixed levels of wealth to bear the expense of something the
public will never see. She thanked the Board for reading her letter and for listening to her.
Ms. Sara Bon-Harper said she would like to speak in support of a preservation plan. She said a
comprehensive plan is the only way to work together to avoid the destruction of Albemarle Countys historic
=
resources. Time and again there has been the destruction of historic buildings by development simply
because there are no ordinances to prevent that destruction. It is time to stop lamenting and start planning.
She asked that the Board adopt the plan.
Ms. Jillian Galle said she supports the Historic Preservation Plan for several reasons. To those
concerned that such a plan will restrict economic growth, it has been demonstrated by many nationally-
recognized scholars that historic preservation does not have to be paired against economic growth. A case
in point would be Central and Northern Virginia where parking lots and malls went in instead of an historic
preservation plan and which now support mostly menial jobs. Locally, there is Route 29 North, where it can
be seen that it is quickly becoming a wasteland. A preservation plan would have helped to restrict this
growth. Secondly, there is no place in the country where a voluntary preservation plan has worked. This
can also be seen in environmental and public health issues where laws had to be passed to regulate
emissions or the amount of pollution dumped into a river because voluntary action was not taken when it
was requested earlier. In short, a preservation plan does not mean the state will take over private property,
and it does not mean the people in the County are not appreciative of homeowners who proudly take care
of historic properties. There is a need to look beyond current ownership. What happens when a current
homeowner who is taking care of the site sells the property to a developer who does not recognize the
importance of the standing structures or the architectural resources that lay underneath the ground. There
is one place that is currently being destroyed by the Dunlora development. It is an area call Free State
A@
that was occupied by slave individuals owned by Thomas Jeffersons sister. It became a free black
=
community in the mid-Nineteenth Century and it is still occupied today, but houses are being destroyed as
the development is expanding. Just this last month, a house dating to 1868 or 1870 was destroyed.
Without a comprehensive historic preservation plan, more areas such as Free State, such as Milton, and
such as the sites that were shown earlier tonight in a slide presentation, will continue to be destroyed. She
strongly urged the Board to adopt the Historic Preservation Plan.
Mr. Ben Marke said he grew up in Proffit and has lived there all his life. For the past 20 years, his
parents owned a house in the area which has recently been declared an historic district. It is historic for
every reason. It has plenty of things to offer the children of this area. Things that they need to be educated
about. But, the plan before the Board tonight is not just about educating children about the past. Eventually
it will used as a tool to gain approval of the ordinance behind it. The idea of making it mandatory that the
people who own these properties would have to go to a board to gain approval for any change is an
infringement on their rights. His father asked him to come tonight since he is out of town. He does not live
at home anymore, but their home is his home. While growing up they taught him the attributes of living in a
place where you did not have to look out a window and see your neighbor. There are properties on either
side of where he grew up, but it is still wooded, so one does not have to worry about that. While he does
not want anybody destroying that view, that owner should not be held to any standard that would keep him
from doing what he wants with his property. He thinks that is very important.
Ms. Pat Sternheimer said she is a professional archeologist. She made a slide presentation saying
she has worked on Milton for the past nine years on her own time and at her expense. She showed a map
by Jefferson showing his estates of about 5000 acres and the town of Milton located on the Rivanna River in
the vicinity of Routes 729 and 731. The site is currently under threat of destruction. They have done geo-
retrification in order to place the original site over the current topographic maps showing these properties as
they exist today. One is Locust Grove which is under National Register nomination. Dr. Orrs property is
=
under contention at this moment. Approximately 44 of the original lots in Milton would be lost. The lot plan
for the town was 103 lots. There were 15 roads in the town. Each lot measured one-half acre. She has
been working with the Planning Commission to investigate Dr. Orrs property. She has been using
=
mediators to get permission to work on the property. She has not excavated, but only done a surface
survey. She has located approximately 1000 artifacts just on the surface. They have been noted. She
showed a picture of the types of structures which existed on the property at one time. The town was
established in 1789. She knows the size and how many structures were there, but all insurance records do
not give complete data. These were lumber houses, store houses, taverns, fuel houses, mills. She knows
the names of the roads. She knows approximately how many people lived there, and today she was told
that if she does produce artifacts, Dr. Orr would stop construction. She does not know if that is true or not.
(Time expired)
Mr. Bruce Wardell said he is an architect in Charlottesville. He is a resident of Albemarle County,
and is president of the Central Virginia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. They would like to
commend the committee for the development of the historic preservation plan and the research. The
Solomons choice that they developed was well-researched, well-prepared and it is a good framework
=
within which to go forward with historic preservation. He said one issue has become evident this evening,
that is, there is a point between the historic preservation plan, and the historic overlay district. There are
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
many things which are incentives to be offered that have nothing to do with an ordinance. Historic districts
can be defined which will then allow tax credits to be developed and received by owners. When an
ordinance is adopted, there then become economic responsibilities. He thinks it is important for the County
to understand that the resources need to be made available in order to develop incentives for preservation
before the ordinance requires them. He has had many experiences working with overlay districts and they
do encumber the process of working through development and design of projects. However, the incentives
found in working with historic tax credits and those kinds of things have been amazing generators of historic
preservation and historic renovation. He, personally, encourages the County to investigate incentives that
could be offered prior to the consideration of any ordinance which superimposes additional restrictions on
development. The Board may find that the incentives are so strong that the ordinance is not necessary.
Mr. Keith Ford agreed with Mr. Charles McRaven about the buildings being destroyed. He thinks it
is obvious that nobody wants to be told what he can do with his own property. He has heard rumors that
there will be some buildings bulldozed. He hopes this is not right. He is standing tonight in front of the most
important people in Albemarle County, and he is sincere. There are ordinances and other regula-tions to
protect the land. He thinks the Board has done a good job. A few things he did not agree with, but mostly
he did agree. There is all the protection needed for the land, but who protects the landowner? Gates are
torn down, people are burglarized, a number of deer are being slain. He asked the Board to focus on some
way to help the landowner. He asked that the Board not take any action tonight on this plan, but instead
focus on someway to break the crime, the breaking and entering, the poaching, the gates being torn down,
etc.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin said the Board will take no action on this particular issue tonight. It will be scheduled for
a work session on the day meeting of November 1 and possibly a decision will be made at that time. He
thanked the people present at this meeting for their attendance and their comments.
____________
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:30 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING to receive public comments on recommended
amendments to the FY 2000-01 County Operating Budget. This public hearing is being held pursuant to
Virginia Code Section 15.2-2507. (Notice of the hearing was given in the Daily Progress on October 8,
2000.)
Mr. Tucker said that on September 20, the Board was apprised of the preliminary FY 1999-00 year-
end revenues and expenditures, which confirmed a healthy revenue surplus of approximately $5.1 million,
mainly attributable to the robust economy, and an expenditure savings of $1.5 million. Although total
General Fund revenues came in at approximately 4.6 percent over the January, 1999 estimates, the
Department of Finance had anticipated revenue surpluses based on the economy and increased
construction activity. One confusion is that after the presentation in January, 2000 and then at the Boards
=
first budget work session in March, 2000, the Department of Finance included about $3.5 million of the
anticipated budget surplus in the base of the current FY 2001 budget.
Mr. Tucker said these additional revenues are consistent with surpluses being seen in other
localities around the state, as well as the Federal government. The state was 6.3 percent over their earlier
projections, Henrico County was at 4.65 percent, Chesterfield County was at 4.2 percent over projections,
and Arlington County was at 3.89 percent, while Loudoun County was 13.21 percent over projections.
Mr. Tucker said he would not go into any of the proposals listed in the Boards handout, and which
=
was also provided to the public tonight. No decision has been made on any of these items at this time. He
understands the Board will take no action tonight, but will discuss this in more detail in a work session on
November 1.
Mr. Martin said the Board will not take action on this item tonight. He also noted that he gets upset
when the press and other individuals who do not attend Board meetings make comments or write articles
which are totally incorrect and show a total lack of knowledge of what is being proposed. He stated at least
five times at the Boards last meeting when the consultants recommendations were discussed that
==
Recommendation A was that the Board set aside 0.5 percent, Recommendation B was that the Board do
nothing, Recommendation C was to hold a bond referendum or come up with additional money and
Recommendation D was to give tax money back to the citizens of Albemarle. He recommended at least
five times that the Board go with Recommendation A in the beginning and start setting aside the 0.5 percent
and that in April or May when the Board deals with the tax rate the next time, it look at Option D because
many members of the Board have said they intend to give $1.2 million back by way of a tax reduction, or
refund it if that option becomes legal. Then after the discussion on taxes, if need be, the Board might go to
Recommendation C, a bond referendum, if there were the need to do that. He was very upset to see
statements made by media that the Board had made up its mind not even to consider D. He made the
A@
recommendation over and over again, and he felt that the other Board members went along with that
scenario. He said this Board has already set aside the $1.2 million, and it has clearly indicated that the
chances are high that the money will get back to the citizens of Albemarle in some manner.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Martin reiterated that the rules which applied to the
previous public hearing are still in effect.
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Keith Drake said he is a taxpayer in the White Hall District. He said this is a tax surplus, not a
budget surplus. The term budget surplus implies that the extra money is somehow the result of prudent
A@
planning and fiscal responsibility by the County. The surplus actually resulted from the hard work of the
citizens of Albemarle. He commended Supervisors Dorrier and Perkins for their efforts to hold the line on
spending and live within our means. He said Albemarle County staff and the Supervisors spent
considerable time, energy and resources last winter and spring justifying a four-cent tax rate increase to the
public. Now, it is learned that not only was that tax increase unnecessary, but the tax rate could have been
lowered by three times that amount and still have met projected needs. Although Mr. Martin has said he
knew the tax increase was retroactive, during the public budget hearing he did not say a word. He asked if
Mr. Martin thought enacting a $1.2 million retroactive tax would have been of interest to the taxpayers. He
said the Board was elected to protect the taxpayers interest, not pet projects. Mr. Drake said he thinks the
=
Board should give back the $1.2 million stealth tax, and the surplus, instead of hiding behind legal excuses.
All the Board members should be working hard to protect the citizens interest and change the law so that
=
the money can be returned to its rightful owners. He feels anything less is unacceptable. If nothing else,
put the tax surplus aside for future capital projects to reduce dependency on bonds. He said the citizens
will hold the Board accountable if either the stealth tax or the tax surplus becomes part of the base line for
next years budget. The Meals Tax was supposed to prevent a tax rate increase, but the Board enacted one
=
anyway last spring, and an additional $1.2 million stealth tax. Now, there is an unanticipated surplus which
proves that the analysis and justification for a tax increase was dead wrong. As a taxpayer, he cannot trust
the Board. As a citizen, he cant believe the Board.
=
Mr. Bowerman asked to be heard. He said that in the adopted budget last year, the Board was
aware that there was a $3.5 million projection on which it based its spending plans that would be included in
this years adopted budget. The Board went ahead and approved these expenditures should funds become
=
available, and that is what is before the public tonight. Between the time the Board got the budget and
today, real estate was sold with a higher value on it than the estimate from the Finance Department. When
that happens, there is an immediate increase in the tax rate on that house. Sales tax revenues were higher
than anticipated because general sales were higher than anticipated. That is over and above the $3.5
million. There was an additional $1.5 to $2.0 million the Board did not anticipate only because it did not
know the rate of growth. In the future, past history concerning revenue growth from year to year, will be
included when making projections. There should then be a gauge to go by in November when beginning
work on the next years budget. He said the Board did talk about the $3.5 million during budget work
=
sessions.
Mr. Gary Westmoreland asked that the Board return the surplus to the taxpayers now.
Mr. Bob Moorefield said he is a resident of the County, is area president of Suntrust Bank, and is
appearing before the Board tonight in his capacity as Chairman of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of
Commerce. He said that next Tuesday morning he will convene the Chambers Board for a thorough
=
review of the Countys budget preparation process this year which resulted in a tax increase and a generous
=
surplus of funds. He said the Chamber represents 1700 member organizations which employ over 46,000
people in the region. It has consistently lobbied the Board to keep the property tax rate as low as possible.
Each year they have presented strategies to fund essential services such as: public education, safety and
security, and continuing investment in infrastructure. This past spring, they opposed a property tax increase
based on their own research which concluded that there were ample resources to satisfy the Schools
budget. They implored the Board to avoid a tax increase and gave specific recommendations on how to do
so. Finally, they offered to assist in the formation of a blue ribbon commission of private sector fiscal
specialists to provide an unemotional foundation for future budget recommendations. In view of the events
that have transpired since spring, these being a four-cent tax increase, the premature enactment of the tax
rate increase, and a large revenue surplus providing all the proof that a tax increase was unnecessary, he
renews the Chambers offer to provide the Board with assistance before and during the next budget cycle.
=
Mr. Paul Wright said there should not have been a tax increase this year. It is not a budget surplus,
but excess taxpayer appropriation. He referred to Mr. Bowermans earlier statement that the Board already
=
knew that $3.5 million was needed for expenditures, and had already approved those items. So what?
There is still $5.0 million in preliminary excesses. It does not mean it will not get bigger. He has been told
all day by County staff and other people, that it is only $1.2 million; no, its $5.0 million. The Board can say
A@=
it is already spent, but commitment of funds does not negate the excess. Also, he was told today that these
are one-time expenditures; new programs are not being started with these funds. He said by spending
A@
these funds on one-time programs, it will free up moneys for other new programs. Also, he thinks next
years budget will be based on these numbers, so this surplus will be spent each and every year. He
=
mentioned the study by Davenport and said a lot of the numbers are now out of wack because of the
A@
budget numbers. He said it was done backward by figuring out how much could be spent before figuring
what to spend it on. He mentioned the county wide survey which is to take place soon, and asked that a
question be added Do you think your taxes are too high? He said the Board was lobbied asking it not to
A@
raise taxes, but it did anyway. He asked that the money be given back.
Mr. Rob Bell said the Board works hard on the County budget. In the end, the budget is
established, and taxes are collected to pay for those needs. This year there is an extra $6.4 million, or if
what Mr. Bowerman said is correct, $2.9 million. The reason is that the County collected more money than
it needed. This is not a surplus, but an over tax. The question is what the County should do with the
money. He would like to second what the Libertarian gentlemen said, if you take in too much money, give it
back. The Board already has the money needed to pay for its needs and requirements, so what is being
discussed tonight is the extra money beyond that amount. He said one member of the Board has said he
would not have voted for the tax increase if he had known about the surplus. It is not too late to repeal that
tax. Barring that, the Board can put the money into a rainy day fund or a capital reserve. He asked that
A@
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
whatever the Board does, the money not be called a need, and then use that new need to justify the
spending. He said the citizens dont need committees or special reports or blue ribbon panels, dont need
==
an apology, dont need an explanation, but only want their money back.
=
Mr. Tom Olivier said he is speaking as an individual. He said many residents recognize the volatility
in the economy so he is not present tonight to complain about a budget surplus. He wanted to comment
about two items in the work plan. One is the update of the geographic information system in the Planning
Department. He said there is interest among the Planning staff in strengthening this system, and the
acquisition of data sets which will be of great use in open space planning, and the protection of natural
resources. Secondly, he noted that in 1999 in adopting the Natural Resource chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan, a commitment was made to create a standing County Biodiversity Committee. In the
past year, citizens have done much of the groundwork to allow creation of this committee by holding
biodiversity workshops. He said a copy of the work plan created by these people was forwarded to the
individual Board members. He said the creation of this committee awaits the availability of sufficient staff
time to support its work. He urged that sufficient funds be included in the next budget to support these two
items.
Ms. Pat Sternheimer said she is present to represent Milton, a town currently for sale. She asked to
explain the significance of Milton to the County. She said it is a multi-cultural urban environment that existed
during the late 1700s. It contained over 15 commercial businesses including river shipping companies,
general mercantiles, blacksmiths, tobacco inspection stations, seal houses and mills. It is also the story of
the common man, the slave, the free black, and the women and children who are not mentioned in the
history books because histories were written during Colonial times by wealthy white men. The site today
would be of great value to the community and especially the children of Albemarle County because it does
tell the truth about what really existed throughout our history.
Mr. Ed Strange said there is a unique opportunity to solve a problem which has plagued the
community for many years by using this budget surplus, mainly landfilling in the headwaters of the Rivanna
Reservoir. He said that last week the executive director of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority proposed to
continue landfilling in Ivy based on a tipping fee chart based on little supporting documentation. He said
that without that documentation, it is not much more than dots on a piece of paper. What may not have
been clear from the presentation is that the best plan is to build a transfer station. The reason the building
transfer option (near the City, and near the Interstate where it is the most efficient) appears so expensive
initially is that it involves the purchase of land, and all the associated start-up costs of a new transfer station.
That same chart shows that the build/transfer option is the cheapest after the start-up costs are recouped.
He urged the Board to insist on a complete study of all the options. He knows that all of the options were
not on the chart. He asked that it be followed by a public hearing so that the people who will be paying for it
have some say about it. If the build/transfer option were chosen, he would ask that the cost of it be offset by
some of the budget surplus. He said this is a one-time opportunity to have a waste management system
the County can be proud of, and in a relatively painless way.
Mr. Tom Loach said this Board has been characterized as the Board that cant say no. However,
A=@
he sees the Board as the Board that doesnt say yes often enough. In 1993, the Crozet Community study
=A@
was done. In that study, a sidewalk plan was set down. Unfortunately, several weeks ago, there was a
pedestrian death in Crozet. Tragically, it is not the first death due to the lack of pedestrian mobility in the
downtown area. He thinks it must be nice to live in the neighborhoods where there is no want and no need.
Crozet does not have that luxury. There is a lot of development occurring. The elementary school faces
eminent overcrowding. A long-range plan for education is needed in the community. Sidewalks are
needed. Recently, two of Crozets major businesses have closed, so they will need help in redeveloping
=
the job center downtown. If there is a surplus, he would like to put in a bid for some part of it for
infrastructure needs for the future of Crozet.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said last years total budget was $161.0 million. He said the figure used by the
=
financial analysts in the base year was $161.0 million for assumed revenues. The Board knows that for the
past five years the County has experienced an annual nine-percent growth in revenues. The analysts used
seven percent as a conservative figure. He said the Board looks at the funds at the end of the fiscal year
and sees that it is x number of dollars over what has been anticipated. Those are then called one time
A@A@
funds. He asked if they are not really, in fact, the basis for a starting point for next years numbers. He said
=
it may be one time, but whatever amount of money the County received from State, Federal and local
sources, was $167.0 million this year. He asked if that should not be the beginning point for next year. He
asked if this document should not reflect that, and shouldnt planning reflect past experience. One of the
=
things the Board could do to help itself and the public understand the numbers as they come in during the
year is have a percentage on those monthly or quarterly statements. If there was the same percentage
average for the last five years, he thinks it would be helpful. Mr. Tucker said he told the Board earlier that
one of the things staff wants to do is provide a better format for budget discussions. They
would like to have a quarterly review of the budget with the Board rather than having it on the consent
agenda.
Mr. Martin said the Board will conduct a work session on this subject at its November 1 meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: August 9 and August 16, 2000.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of August 16, 2000, and said they were in order.
October 18, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Motion to approve those minutes was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she recently attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating the opening of the
first and only pedestrian bridge connecting Charlottesville and Albemarle County. At that time, she was
presented with a picture of the bridge, which she gave to the Chairman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials