2000-12-06December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 6, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. 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 W. Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.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 he is a resident of Albemarle County living on Catterton Road. The plan is to
pave just one mile, and then the rest of the road will be gravel. He feels the paving plan is nuts, and it will
A@
be confusing and should not happen. Since the bulldozers will come in the fall to start the project, this will
be the last year for the Tiger Lilies to bloom. Meanwhile, there is Mountain Vista Road in the Scottsville
District which needs paving. Maybe that project could be advanced. Ironically, last night the Planning
Commission discussed the critical need for some shoulders on Garth Road. More importantly, there are
many who want to live in the Rural Areas and want to do their part for those rural areas. Suburbanizing a
country road is contrary to what everybody is trying to do. What is the point? There needs to be a plan.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.9 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for
information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Resolution to Appoint Robert Lowry as Assistant Fire Marshal.
It was noted in the staffs report that Virginia Code 27-36 provides that the Board may appoint one
='
or more assistant fire marshals to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal in his
absence. The appointment of Mr. Robert Lowry (recently hired as Fire Prevention Inspector/Investigator) as
an assistant fire marshal is necessary in order for him to fulfill his job description. He has satisfactorily
completed the required training for fire marshals, exercising police powers as required by the Virginia State
Department of Fire Programs.
By the recorded vote set out above, Mr. Robert Lowry was appointed as an Assistant Fire
Marshal.
__________
Item 5.2. Thomas Jefferson Venture FY 2001 Budget.
Forwarded to the Board members was a copy of the Thomas Jefferson Venture Budget for FY
2000-01. It was noted that the budget increased by only $1000 over the previous year. The Regional
Competitiveness Act requires that this budget be approved by each locality within the region. Three new
programs were added in this budget (pilot student learning program; distance learning; employer-assisted
home ownership program). Ms. Thomas and Mr. Tucker recommended approval of the proposed budget.
By the recorded vote set out above, the proposed Thomas Jefferson Venture budget for FY
2000-01 was approved.
__________
Item 5.3. Privacy Statement for Internet Website.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Code of Virginia had been amended to require that state
=
agencies and local municipalities which maintain an Internet website develop an Internet privacy policy and
an Internet privacy statement before December 1, 2000, and to post that policy on their website before
January 1, 2001. The Countys privacy statement is designed to meet the requirements of Virginia law
=
regarding personal information.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Privacy Statement for Internet Website,
was adopted:
County of Albemarle General Government
and
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Albemarle County Public Schools
Privacy Statement
It is the policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia that personal information about citizens
will be collected only to the extent necessary to provide the service or benefit desired; that
only appropriate information will be collected; that the citizen shall understand the reason
the information is collected and be able to examine their personal record which is
maintained by a public body.
This web site:
1.Does not require you to provide any personal information to download files or
reports or to view any of our public pages.
2.May collect personal information that you voluntarily provide us in order to provide
you with services or information you specifically request. Should you not desire to
provide this personal information, we may be unable to provide you the services or
information that you have requested.
3.Will use information provided by you only for specified purposes that may include
anonymous reports and summaries of the data collected. Your personal
information will not be provided to any other person, entity or organization without
your consent, unless required by law, court order or other valid legal process.
4.Does not place a cookie on your computer.
A@
5.Will not track your personal movements through the web site.
6.Has security measures in place to protect the loss, misuse and alteration of the
information under our control.
7.Contains links to other sites. Neither the County of Albemarle nor Albemarle
County Public Schools is responsible for the privacy practices or the content of
such web sites.
8.Automatically logs technical information necessary to maintain system security and
performance and to generate anonymous usage statistics.
If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site or your
dealings with this web site, please contact: (to be filled in)
__________
Item 5.4. Restriction of Through Trucks on Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Earlysville Road
(Route 743).
It was noted in the staffs report that On May 3, 2000, staff presented a report to the Board
=
regarding restriction of through trucks on Route 743 (Earlysville Road) between Route 606 (Dickerson
Road) and Route 631 (Rio Road). Staff recommended that it be authorized to begin the necessary steps to
officially request VDOT to restrict through trucks on this section of Route 743. Due to concerns that the
restriction could have adverse impacts on farm-related truck traffic traveling to and from the Earlysville/
Advance Mills area, the Board took no action on this recommendation, but asked staff to evaluate a through
truck restriction on Route 606 between Route 743 and Route 649 (Airport Road). On September 20, the
Board held a public hearing and several representatives from local trucking companies spoke expressing
concerns that the restriction on Dickerson Road would have an adverse impact on their businesses. The
Board requested staff to contact trucking companies in the area and develop guidelines for future through
truck restriction requests from the public.
Staff talked with several companies and concluded that a restriction on Route 606 would impact all
companies they contacted. All respondents indicated that they use Route 29 to Route 649 to Route 606 to
Route 743 to Route 660 (Reas Ford Road), and if they needed to find an alternate route it would be an
indirect route and increase their costs. As for Route 743 south from Route 606 to Route 631, the trucking
companies indicated they only use this route for deliveries and occasional through trips, not for general
through movement. Restriction of through trucks on this section of Route 743 would not have the same
negative impact as the section mentioned above.
Staff continues to recommend that the Board not request VDOT to restrict trucks on Route 606.
While staff can support such a restriction on Route 743 between Route 606 and Route 631, the Board did
not previously support this restriction. In the alternative, staff recommends that the County contact the
companies in the vicinity of Airport Road, by letter, and request that they avoid using Route 743 for trucking
purposes except when the origin or destination is in the Earlysville area. The companies contacted for this
report (Luck Stone, Crutchfield and 4FLSC) indicated that they would voluntarily do so.
Staff has developed guidelines for future through truck restriction requests from the public. Staff
will still conduct its preliminary analysis on all requests. The guidelines will help gauge the need and
community consensus for the restriction. Staff recommended adopting these guidelines for use when the
public requests a through truck restriction on a state-maintained road.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the recommended guidelines for
future through-truck restriction requests, but did NOT authorize staff to request that VDOT restrict
trucks on Earlysville Road.
(The following draft letter sets out the guidelines:)
Dear County Resident:
You have inquired about having truck traffic restricted in your neighborhood. Under current State
guidelines, the County can only restrict "through traffic". If a truck has a legitimate destination within the
proposed restricted areas, the restriction would not apply. In order for this request to be placed on the
Board of Supervisors agenda for discussion, you will need to furnish the following information:
1. A petition(s), which has been signed by a majority of those persons currently residing along
the proposed route, requesting through truck restriction.
2. Identify the reason the restriction is being requested (speed, noise, volume, accident data,
etc.).
3. Identify the terminus points of proposed restricted area.
This information should be forwarded to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville VA 22902-4596.
When all of this information has been obtained, the request will then be placed on the next
available agenda of the Board for discussion. If the Board supports the request, they will request staff from
the Department of Planning and Community Development to further analyze the request against VDOT
guidelines. Staff will prepare a staff report with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. At that
time, the Board of Supervisors may schedule a public hearing to take comments from anyone wishing to
speak, either in favor of or in opposition to your request. It is customary for the County to contact the major
trucking companies in the county for all through truck restriction requests.
Following the public hearing, or at a future meeting, the Board will decide to support or deny the
request for through truck restriction. If the request is supported, it will be forwarded to the VDOT- State
Engineer for action. If the Board does not support the request, they will direct staff to work with you and
trucking companies in the area to minimize the impact of truck traffic.
You may also wish to inform your representative on the Board of Supervisors that you are
contemplating this action.
__________
Item 5.5. Stream Assessment Pilot Study - Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Memorandum dated
November 30, 2000, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., was received for information as follows.
It was noted that on August 2, 2000, the Board supported the voluntary release of 0.4 MGD from
the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Since that time, the engineering consulting firm of Draper, Aden & Associates
has conducted a stream assessment pilot study for this voluntary release (copy of report on file in the
Clerks Office). At its meeting on November 27, 2000, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of
=
Directors supported the continued release of 0.4 MGD from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, but did not support
any further continuance of the stream assessment study. The Friends of the Moormans River support the
=
continuance of this assessment, and the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider funding such study
further. If so, staff recommends that this matter be discussed with City Council so they might participate in
the funding of any future stream assessment.
(Ms. Thomas said a member of the community told her that the State Department of Game &
Inland Fisheries had at one time offered to do a study on the Moormans. Before going the route of seeing
=
if the City, County and RWSA could get together to fund something, staff might check to see if there is that
possibility. Also, she said the volunteers presently working on the study with Steven Bowler have said they
are learning a lot and they are enjoying their work.)
There was no action taken on this item. Staff is to investigate Mrs. Thomas suggestion.
==
__________
Item 5.6. Appropriation: Education, $7,849.00 (Form #20030).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on October 12, 2000, the School Board
=
approved the following appropriations:
Digital Audio Recording Equipment and Software: At its January, 2000 retreat and subsequent
board meetings, the School Board asked that the Clerk explore the feasibility of obtaining digital audio
recording equipment and software for recording School Board meetings (see results of this search in the
report which is on file in the Clerks office). The School Board Clerk has recommended that a lap top
=
computer with CD-recorder be connected to the existing sound system in Room 241 or the Auditorium.
Short-term costs for equipment and software are $5000.00, and the School Board approved the allocation
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
of this amount from their Reserve Fund.
DonationsWestern Albemarle High School: Donations were received from Leonard Simon and
BB
Candace Carroll in the amount of $200.00 to help defray transportation costs for the spring band trip; from
Virginia and Tim Michel in the amount of $100.00 for instructional purposes; and, from the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Foundation in the amount of $1000.00 to match funds raised by WAHS students last spring as
part of their Youth in Philanthropy Program.
DonationsMurray Elementary School: Martha Jefferson Hospital awarded the MJH Innovative
BB
Child Health Improvement Initiative Grant in the amount of $1000.00 to Murray Elementary to fund a
program in nutrition training for students and parents.
DonationsMurray Elementary and Stone-Robinson Elementary Schools: Dominion
BB
Resources, Inc.-Virginia Power awarded grants of $500.00 each to each school. At Stone-Robinson the
funds will be used for a math mentor ship program, and, at Murray they will be used as a classroom feeder
watch with a scientific focus and interdisciplinary skills.
Artist in Education Residency Grant: The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Meriwether
Lewis Elementary School a grant in the amount of $4549.00. The grant will help fund the project African
A
Culture: Connections to Americas Past, Present and Future.
=@
Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $7849.00 as detailed on
Appropriation Form #20030.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20030
FUND: SCHOOL PROJECTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2410 60100 999981 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE$(5,000.00)
1 2410 62110 800100 MACH/EQUIP-ADD500.00
1 2410 62110 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT4,000.00
1 2410 62110 800710 ADP SOFTWARE500.00
1 2302 61101 420100 FIELD TRIP200.00
1 2302 61101 601300 ED/RED SUPPLIES100.00
1 2302 61411 580000 MISC SUPPLIES1,000.00
1 3104 60216 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES1,000.00
1 3104 60210 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES500.00
1 3104 60216 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES500.00
1 3104 60206 312700 PROF SVC-CONSULTANTS4,549.00
TOTAL$7,849.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$1,300.00
2 3104 18000 181252 MJH GRANT1,000.00
2 3104 18000 181250 DOMINION RES GRANT500.00
2 3104 18000 181251 DOMINION RES GRANT500.00
2 3104 18000 181253 VA COMM-ARTS GRANT4,549.00
TOTAL$7,849.00
__________
Item 5.7. Appropriation: 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, $32,757.00 (Form #20034).
It was noted in the staffs report that the U.S. Department of Justice awarded a two-year grant
=
beginning December 1, 2000, to the County for the reduction of crime and improvement of public safety.
The Police Department will use the funds for current officers working overtime in support of community
safety projects. The funds can also be used to support other areas such as increased security, a crime
prevention program and a multi-jurisdictional task force. The program costs of $32,757.00 will be funded
by the DOJ Federal Grant in the amount of $29,481.00, with a $3276.00 local match funded out of current
operations. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $32,757.00.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 22034
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 2000 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
GRANT
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1539 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES$30,410.00
1 1539 31013 210000 FICA2,347.00
TOTAL$32,757.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1539 33000 300001 FEDERAL GRANT$29,481.00
2 1539 51000 512004 TRS FROM GENL FUND3,276.00
=
TOTAL$32,757.00
__________
Item 5.8. Appropriation: General Fund, $835.55 (Form #20036).
It was noted in the staffs report that in June, 2000, one of the Sheriffs vehicles sustained damage
==
from a dog. The dog owners insurance company paid the County for the damages. The money was
=
received and deposited on June 19, 2000, and the vehicle subsequently repaired. However, since the
invoice was not paid until September 12, 2000, and the funds had been received in the prior fiscal year, an
appropriation is now necessary to cover the expense in the current fiscal year. Staff recommends that the
Board approve the appropriation in the amount of $835.55 as detailed on Appropriation Form #20036.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted
by the Board:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20036
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: INSURANCE RECOVERY FOR DAMAGE TO
SHERIFFS VEHICLE
=
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 31020 605053 VEHICLE OPERATION$835.55
TOTAL$835.55
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$835.55
TOTAL$835.55
__________
Item 5.9. Appropriation: General Fund, $990.00 (Form #20037).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has been selling the
=
Animal Friendly license plates as part of its special license plate program. The plate was issued to support
the dog and cat sterilization program at a cost of $25.00 per year in addition to the regular vehicle
registration fee. After the first 1000 sets of license plates are sold, $15.00 of the fee is made available to
the locality where the vehicle is registered to support its sterilization program. For Fiscal Year 2000,
Albemarle County is due $990.00 from this fund. Staff recommended that the Board approve the
appropriation as detailed on Appropriation Form #20037, and that the funds be made available for use by
the Albemarle SPCA.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation, with the funds being made available for use by the Albemarle SPCA to support their
sterilization program for dogs and cats:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20037
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SPCA FROM DMV ANIMAL
FRIENDLY LICENSE PLATES
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 39000 565510 SPCA-ANIMAL FRIENDLY$990.00
TOTAL$990.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 22000 220106 STATE REVENUE-DMV$990.00
TOTAL$990.00
__________
Item 5.10. Hydrogeologic (Groundwater), Update on Work of Groundwater Committee and
Related Projects.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
It was noted in the staffs report that currently, the Department of Engineering & Public Works is
=
engaged in three initiatives to develop a groundwater program, as outlined below:
1.Groundwater Data Base: Funds were appropriated in FY 00 to develop a data base of all
>
existing groundwater information, primarily from well completion reports filed at the Thomas
Jefferson Health District. The Virginia Division of Mineral Resources began this initiative in
1998 as a pilot program, and County funds were appropriated to complete the task. A
temporary position was created to manage the work. However, this position was only filled
for three months and could not successfully be refilled. The remainder of the work was
contracted out as part of the Hydrogeologic Study project, and will be completed by early
spring '01.
2.Regional Hydrogeologic Study: Funds were included in the recent reappropriation budget
for FY 01 to conduct a regional hydrogeologic study for the Mechum River and Ivy Creek
>
watersheds as part of a six-year proposal to study the County's groundwater resources.
While the groundwater database is designed to collect existing information, the
hydrogeologic study will research and analyze original data based on field work, the
examination of aerial photos and other technical sources. The need for this type of study
arose, in part, from the Peacock Hill request for public water in 1999. In order to realize the
Countys Land Use Plan objective of not extending public water and sewer lines into the
=
Rural Areas, the County will need this type of information to promote the sustained use of
groundwater sources in these areas, and to help resolve crises when existing groundwater
systems fail. It is anticipated that the regional studies, in combination with the database, will
provide planning or regional level information to support the Land Use Plan and the update
of the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. A contract is currently in place with
ENSAT Corporation to conduct the work. Additional funding will be requested upon
completion of the current study for the purpose of conducting similar studies in other parts of
the County (five additional regional studies are proposed).
3.Groundwater CommitteeVerification of Adequate Groundwater at the Site Level: The
S
Board approved formation of and representation on a Groundwater Committee in May,
2000. The charge to the committee was to establish standards to verify adequate
groundwater supplies for new development proposals in the Rural Areas. While the
projects noted above address groundwater availability on a County-wide or regional scale,
the site-level standards will be designed for individual sites to examine and protect
groundwater through site design, the collection of information, sound water system
management, and education of homeowners. Information from the groundwater database
and regional studies will be used to develop these strategies for each development site.
The committee has met twice, and will meet again on December 14. A strategy has been
developed, and a report from the committee will be forthcoming by June '01.
The three projects are each listed as Strategy items in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Taken together, they are intended to strengthen the County's ability to plan for the Rural Areas and promote
the sustained use of groundwater. When the Board approved formation of the Groundwater Committee, it
requested an update on the committee's progress at its December meeting. Staff has taken this
opportunity to explain how the three groundwater initiatives have taken shape and will interrelate.
(Ms. Humphris said she has always suggested that everything possible be learned about the
groundwater supplies in Albemarle County. This is taking place, and she thinks it is excellent. She noted
that on the second page of the Groundwater Committees minutes, it says This is not a simple task. She
=A@
said that now that this is taking place, she wonders where this study is headed. It looks like the study will try
to make it possible for people to live in the rural areas where growth is not wanted. She said it looks like the
County is trying to give a certificate of approval for a private central well system in the rural areas. Even
though she knows the study has to take place, she is having feelings of reluctance as to where the study
will lead the County.
Mr. Hirschman said the committee does not presume to be a surrogate for the Rural Areas. Their
goal is to make sure that whatever development occurs will create no crisis situations ten or fifteen years
from now. What they are doing will be important input for the Rural Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Perkins said there has been information from the Soil and Water Conservation District recently
about the collection of rain water to use for certain things, not only rural houses, but also for large shopping
centers. That is another way to consider conserving water.)
This report was received for informational purposes only.
__________
Item 5.11. Southside Fire Station, Update on.
It was noted in the staffs report that for several years the County has been planning for the
=
construction of a new Fire/Rescue station to serve the southern urban and surrounding areas. The Mill
Creek study in the fall of 1998 developed a general concept and preliminary budget for the station. Over
the past year, a committee of two volunteers and two staff members worked to refine and finalize the
original concept and develop a final design for the combination (volunteer/career) station. The committee
considered current needs and visited other localities to review their facilities.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
The County's Architectural Engineering firm recently completed a preliminary design and cost
estimate based on review by the Committee. The revised estimate indicates that the cost for the facility has
increased from $1,809,825 to $2,882,100. When the contingency built into the original estimate is included
in comparisons, the cost increase breaks down as follows:
Approximately $180,000.00 of the increase is the result of increased site development and
$
road costs. This increase in cost was mainly due to the need to change the originally
planned site because of poor access and sight distance.
Approximately $450,000.00 of the increase is the result of the change in market conditions
$
currently being experienced. As the Board is aware, other projects in the area have
experienced increases in construction cost due to the current construction market. The
Juvenile Detention Facility, as an example, recently experienced a significant increase in their
construction bids.
The remainder of the increase, approximately $450,000.00, is the result of the increase in the
$
total square footage of the facility. The original square footage estimate of 10,700 was
developed without the benefit of a detailed design process. The volunteer/staff committee
developed the proposed design after consideration of current needs and review of facilities in
other localities. After this review, several items were included in the facility which may not
have been considered in the original general concept. For example, the proposed facility
now includes a large room for community functions and volunteer/career training and an
area for an exercise room to serve the volunteers/staff in the system. In addition, the facility
includes a larger sized laundry facility to serve the system for special cleaning of turnout gear
that would otherwise have to be sent to a special cleaning service. Each of these features is
designed to serve the volunteer system throughout the County and would not otherwise be
included in the proposed facility to this degree.
The first two items identified above are somewhat beyond the County's control and reflect the
required change in location and the challenge of predicting the market two to three years ahead of actual
construction. However, the County does have more control over the price increase identified above as it
relates to total square footage. While some of this increase is the result of not having gone through the full
design process and the addition of space to address volunteer system needs, staff does believe that
reevaluating the overall design of the facility can reduce a certain portion of this cost. Staff is now in the
process of working with the architect to cut approximately $200,000.00 from the current estimate to reduce
construction costs. While this is still a substantial increase over the 1998 estimate, it reflects the reality of a
strong construction environment and a more realistic design for a combination (volunteer/career) station.
The funding for the station was originally planned to come from CIP fund balances and a lease
purchase financing. Because of the delay in this and other projects, a revised plan to finance the 800 MHz
radio system and the new capital funding established by the Board, staff believes the station can be built
without borrowed funds. These changes are reflected in the CIP currently being developed for the Board's
review during the coming budget process.
County staff and volunteer representatives will do further review and revisions to the proposed
design over the next several weeks. As a result of the process of getting volunteer input and the need to
consider further revisions to reduce cost, the schedule for the facility is behind what was originally
anticipated. As it currently stands, we would expect the station to be open sometime in the fall of 2002. In
January, staff will provide the Board with a final review of the cost estimate and station design, which we
hope to be a prototype for future station construction.
(Mr. Perkins asked about the cost increase, and what type of building is being studied. He has
been an advocate of the Butler type of buildings. It seems these cost estimates are quite high. He thinks
A@
the building should be functional, but not a Taj Mahal. Mr. Tucker said staff can make a comparison. This
A@
plan was reviewed with both a committee of neighborhood residents and chiefs and captains of the fire
companies. This was to be a prototype for future facilities. This report is an update; the price increase was
due to market conditions.
Ms. Humphris said she also wondered why the cost had increased, but in reading the report she
was glad to see what the components of the building will be. The facility at East Rivanna has served well as
a community facility. This new facility having a community room and some amenities in order to get
volunteers to come to the facility, is important. Mr. Tucker said staff has focused on that aspect, and he
does not believe Mr. Perkins is suggesting that that be changed, but is speaking mainly of exterior
construction.
Mr. Perkins said the community room may be more important than the number of bays, and the
facade of the building can be whatever is wanted. However, changing the type of construction can gain
more square footage.)
This item was presented as an update to the project only.
__________
Item 5.12. First Quarter Report for JAUNT services in Albemarle County for FY 2001, was
received as information. (Note: A full, verbal report will be given under Agenda Item No. 9.)
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
__________
Item 5.13. Copy of letter dated November 16, 2000, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Richard E. Carter, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1,
Property of Howard Carr, K. C. Higginbotham and J. H. Higginbotham, II, Tax Map 110, Parcel 17, was
received as information.
__________
Item 5.14. Draft minutes of the Planning Commission meetings for October 3 and November 7,
2000, were received as information.
__________
Item 5.15. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000, was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's
office.
__________
Item 5.16. Letter dated November 28, 2000, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Acting Resident Engineer, to Ms.
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding items discussed at the November 1, 2000, Board of Supervisors' meeting,
was received as information as follows:
1.Painted double yellow lines have been installed on Ricky Road, Bennington Road and West
Park Drive near the intersection with Barracks Road.
2.Deer warning reflectors were installed on I-64 between Route 781 and Route 780.
3.The request for a deceleration lane on Route 20 at Greene Mountain Country Store has
been forwarded for further review. We have looked at this a number of times before with a
recommendation that the entrance into the store from Route 713 be an exit only. This was
not well received by the store owner. We have also asked for safety funds to install left turn
lanes at this intersection, but this has not yet been funded. It may be that with a project, we
could rearrange the entrance. We will advise of the latest traffic review.
4.Recent speed study and traffic volumes were given to Mr. Bill Mawyer in Engineering for
Whippoorwill Hollow Road.
5.We plan to change the signal at Shoppers World in the near future so that right turn exiting
=
traffic from Shoppers World will have to stop on red ball when there is left turning traffic from
northbound lane Route 29 (This will function as a right turn on red after stop instead of the
now existing green signal.) per letter from Joan Graves.
6.We plan to do a traffic signal study count at Route 29 and Route 641 in January, 2001.
7.With reference to the Stonewall Jackson Commemorative Sign at Mechums River, we have
=
found a location that suited Mr. George Bailey who had lobbied for some time to get it
placed back near its original location. This location has been established, but the sign was
in need of repair and painting and will be installed soon, hopefully. The location is on the
north side of Route 250 just east of Mechums River Bridge.
=
8.Please be advised that Pearson Construction, Inc. has been recommended for award of the
Route 679 project with a low bid of $271,024.00, pending execution of applicable bonds, etc.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: August 9, September 6, September 20, October 4,
October 11 and November 8, 2000.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of September 6, 2000 (Pages 11 to the end), and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 4, 2000, (pages 1 and 2 were missing) and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of August 9, 2000, and found them to be in order. He also had
read September 20, 2000 (Pages 1 to Item 10 on Page 12), and had a correction on Page 14, the word
not should be inserted in comments being made about - fifth paragraph, third line.
A@
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve those minutes
which had been read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Bill Mills, Acting Resident Engineer, was present. He said the new Resident Engineer has been
hired. He is Mr. Jim Bryan who will come on December 18, 2000, to serve this Residency. Mr. Bryan is a
graduate of West Point. He is presently working at TRW, an engineering firm in Richmond.
__________
Mr. Mills said the work to be done on Routes 791 and 605 has been bid, but nothing has been
finalized at this date.
__________
Mr. Mills noted that VDOT has changed the traffic signal at Shopper's World. Mr. Bowerman
thanked VDOT for reacting so promptly to the problem brought up by Ms. Joan Graves at this location.
__________
Mr. Mills said the "historic" sign mentioned at last months meeting has been relocated on Route
=
250. It has been welded, repaired, painted and reinstalled.
__________
Mr. Mills said he would like to mention the reflectors regarding deer. He has sent information to Mr.
Tucker and to Mr. Juan Wade regarding these deer reflectors. Presently, VDOT is installing these
reflectors on eastbound I-64, and some will be installed on Route 29 South. Ms. Thomas said she had
been told that these sometimes distract the driver, but she did not see that affect. Mr. Mills said the driver
does not actually see the reflection. Ms. Thomas said she thinks these would be appropriate on Route 29
South, but the Route 250 West Committee would like to see the reflectors before they say yes for that
A@
route.
Mr. Tucker said the information he received is quite lengthy so he did not have copies made for the
Board members. What he found interesting is that it has a listing of all states and the number of accidents
attributable to deer. Virginia has between 500 and 800 accidents per year. In Pennsylvania and Michigan,
they have between 45,000 and 50,000 per year. He just wonders if Virginias numbers are accurate.
=
__________
Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Mills for the double lines being reinstalled in Hessian Hills.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Mark Lorenzoni said he appreciate VDOT riding with him on Route 250 West.
She said all appreciate the efforts of VDOT during maintenance of the road to create shoulders on Route
250 West (toward Western Albemarle High School where there are no shoulders now).
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Mills for stepping in as Acting Resident Engineer and trying to solve some
of these problems. She asked if this is something the Board will have to work out with the new Resident so
that attention will be given during maintenance projects. Mr. Mills said he hopes this will be an ongoing
consideration with all road projects. He said that in many places there are no shoulders (maybe only one
foot), and they try to get in something when they repave. To get any width at all, the project is much more
involved, even down to needing additional right-of-way. He said at this time, they
are putting in additional shoulder width along Route 20 South. They have already added some shoulder
width along Route 29 North.
Ms. Humphris asked what route was being discussed. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Lorenzoni was
originally disturbed only about Route 250 West at Western Albemarle High School because of student
drivers (he has a 15 year old son). She said because the road is three lanes, people tend to drive too fast,
and it has no shoulders in most places. If a driver were to drift off of the side of the road, driving experience
would control a great deal what happened.
Mr. Mills said he has always emphasized low shoulders as one of the most dangerous situations.
They have tried to make that an emphasis on Rio Road where there have been repairs made recently to
make the drop-off much less. They have also done some repairs on the shoulders of Route 250 by just
machining.
__________
Mr. Dorrier noted that the off-ramps at Fifth Street are a problem brought to his attention by a
resident who said that during the morning and afternoon rush hour, they are dangerous. Traffic coming off
of Route I-64 at Fifth Street backs up and cannot get across Fifth Street. There probably needs to be some
type of traffic light at that location in the future.
Ms. Thomas said there is a project for this intersection in the Six-Year Plan a few years into the
future. She asked the status of the project. Mr. Mills said in talking with the Traffic Engineer, he found that
money has been appropriated for the current year and next year in the Interstate, Primary Plan that could
be used. That money should probably be used for this project instead of Secondary Funds. He will ask
that that be done. He said that during the AM and PM peak hours on the eastbound lane, the left-turn
movement fails. At the other ramps, the left-turn is a D which is an urban level of service. He said the
A@
eastbound left-turn movement does not, by itself, warrant a signal, but VDOT can take traffic counts to see
what can be done.
Ms. Humphris asked if something had been required of the developer of the Heischman property
on that corner. Mr. David Benish said staff has never received a rezoning request for that site. An
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was approved to allow commercial development on that property.
At this time, he understands the developer may pursue his by-right residential zoning on the property.
__________
Mr. Perkins asked that VDOT clean up the debris which collects under the railroad underpass in
Crozet. The area between the road bed and the sidewalk is the low spot in the road, so a lot of debris
collects in that area. The underpass is used by the residents from Windham. Mr. Mills said VDOT has a
hired sweeper now, and he thinks this can be taken care of.
Mr. Perkins said the last time this was mentioned, he also suggested installing cross-hatching to
connect the sidewalks. He thinks the cross-hatching would be good to show pedestrians where to walk.
Mr. Mills said this request is at VDOTs Traffic Office, but he has not heard anything from them at this time.
=
__________
Ms. Humphris said she thinks there needs to be an improvement in the way VDOT communicates
with the County in order to aid in understanding the road planning process. Mr. Cilimberg said regional
transportation issues should be addressed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Ms. Humphris said there has been recently confusion about the overall transportation planning
process. The MPO is about to work on the 2015 CATS updates. The County will soon be updating its
Secondary Road Plan. There have been some confusing efforts on the part of one City Council person
who is doing computer generated maps of roads. Some of these are in the County (the Southern Parkway,
the Hillsdale connector, an overpass at Hydraulic Road). She said there needs to be a better
understanding of how the transportation planning process works. The things being generated should go
through the MPO Technical Committee and then to the Board of Supervisors and the MPO Policy Board.
These things are not going through the City street planning people. The work being done is just floating
A@
because it is not directed work. She said the Meadow Creek Parkway resolution City Council is supposed
to being deal with tonight has things in it telling the County what it should do. These are things which might
be impossible for the County to do. It is just getting too confusing. She feels that somebody has to get a
A
grip, take charge and let everybody know the process for transportation planning so it can be done in an
@
orderly fashion.
Mr. Cilimberg said these things are happening at a level beyond the Technical Committee. The
MPO is the place where this should be discussed. Ms. Humphris asked if he was saying the methodology
should be discussed by the MPO. Mr. Cilimberg said yes. These are regional transportation issues being
A@
raised at a level beyond staff, and being raised by a member of the MPO. The MPO is where that should
be addressed and sorted out and sent back to the Technical Committee for study.
Ms. Humphris asked if the County members of the Technical Committee have discussed these
issues with City members of the Technical Committee. Do they know what is happening? Mr. Martin said
everyone is aware of the problem, but there is no way to control it. There is no way this Board can control it,
and certainly no way Mr. Cilimberg can control it. It is up to Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris to address this
problem with the other members of the MPO. Mr. Benish said when he and Mr. Juan Wade get information
from other political bodies, they often get the same call from the City asking if they know the source of the
information. They try to communicate to the extent necessary so they can respond to their appropriate
bodies. In the Countys Comprehensive Plan, a lot of the responsibility for transportation planning is
=
abdicated to the MPO. Staff relies on the MPOs Policy and Technical Boards to guide them in
=
decision-making in the County in the CATS area.
Ms. Humphris said when she received the communication on the Southern Parkway, she was
horrified, and hoping that was not the way County staff had suggested things be done. Mr. Benish said staff
has not seen the suggestion to which Ms. Humphris is referring. Mr. Cilimberg said it should be understood
that none of these proposals have gone through any design process, it is just an idea generated by one
person. They have not gone through a design process which needs funding before that can happen.
Mr. Tucker said he believes Mr. Don Wells could help. The proposed plan has been looked at only
from the perspective of having a nice-looking road. Vertical and horizontal alignments have not been
considered at all.
Ms. Thomas said the MPO should have an orientation session about how things actually get done.
She believes City staff is the most frustrated. She sat through a Council meeting about a month ago, and
was very interested that there was no interaction with staff. Mr. Cilimberg said this Board, in response to
City Councils first letter about the Meadow Creek Parkway about a year ago, stated that with the Eastern
=
Planning Initiative, the upcoming CATS update, and the Transportation Plan, there was no need to create
more transportation plans because there is a process where that can happen. He thinks it is important to
reiterate that over and over.
Ms. Humphris said not only is there a process, but there is also no other legal or fiscal way to do it.
That is the only way established to do transportation planning. The whole idea of another regional
transportation plan is beyond the pale, but there seems to be no way to get them to understand that. Mr.
Martin said if any member of this Board started doing something on their own, the other Board members
have no ability to stop that member, but can only suggest. Ms. Humphris said the Board members could let
the public know that they did not agree with that member.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Work Session: CPA-2000-05 Route 29-Hollymead.
C
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is the other component in the Comprehensive Plan amendment which would
create the Hollymead town center and the transportation improvements along the Route 29 corridor in the
Hollymead Community from Airport Road (Route 649) south including improvements to Proffit Road. The
Commission had discussed the transportation improvements along the Route 29 corridor at its work
sessions on CPA-98-03 for the Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a set of recommendations to create a transportation system in the
Hollymead area. It deals with both the west and east sides of Route 29, and also has recommendations
regarding Proffit Road and consideration of the school to be built on Proffit Road, with the
recommendations being dealt with in the update of the State Secondary System Six-Year Plan. If adopted,
the Board would need to be proactive with VDOT in trying to influence the ultimate improvements in that
area. VDOT has already developed some concepts on these improvements, but they have not been
subject to any public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment, by
unanimous vote, at its November 28, 2000, meeting, as it did with the Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Cilimberg said that last week during discussion of the transportation improvements, the
Commission noted a couple of things in the town center recommendations which they did not think had
been relayed to the Board.
Mr. Benish said that on Page 3 of Attachment B, Transportation, Town Center Area, third bullet, it
should read: The road network for the Town Center should consist of a system of interconnected streets
A
forming a network of blocks. The network should consist of two three north-south roads with crossing
streets creating a block pattern. ....
@
Ms. Thomas said she would like to mention the words Metal buildings not permitted in Core Area
A@
listed under Site Design on Page 2 of the report. She just attended an AIA Trade Fair, and suggested the
words preformed metal buildings be used instead. She saw very attractive, handsome, expensive
A@
examples of metal buildings at that trade fair.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the recommendations for the transportation network are excellent.
Ms. Humphris asked if there will be a map available at the Board's public hearing showing these
improvements. Mr. Benish said the Commission discussed having a map, but never instructed staff to draft
one. The Commission was reluctant to include a road system within the town center. Ms. Humphris said
she believes the Board has a head start on the public because it has seen the big concept maps of
A@
VDOT. Mr. Benish said typically staff does a map. Mr. Martin said he does not think it would help to have
a map, but what hurts about a map is the perception that it a final decision. Ms. Humphris said there could
be a disclaimer that it is a conceptual plan.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said there are neighborhoods on each side of Route 29, but he sees no attempt to
integrate these neighborhoods, i.e., pedestrian paths, bicycles. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out language reading
Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Parkway should be designed with grade-separated crossings of Route
A
29, without ramps, to connect with the road system on the western side of Route 29 and accommodate
east-west vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements. Also, Provide a grade-separated crossing
@A
without ramps at Airport Road to accommodate east-west vehicular and pedestrian/bike movements.
Pedestrian and bike facilities should be provided on the crossing. There is also language which states
@
Based on development patterns east of Route 29, provide grade separated bicycle/ pedestrian
A
overpasses/underpasses to accommodate east-west movement. He said that would be in addition to the
@
road crossings. That was a feature which the Commission and some of the public wanted incorporated.
Mr. Martin said there would be a lot of walking taking place if not for the need to cross Route 29.
There will be features on the west side of Route 29 which the people on the east side will want to use,
particularly teenagers. Also, there is still discussion about doing the same sort of thing at Ashwood
Boulevard, rather than closing Ashwood to make it a fly-over.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be hard to do with the way traffic signals are set in that area. Mr.
Tucker said the grade-separated crossing recommended is a fly-over. It is not an interchange. It would
A@A@
be either constructed over, or under the road. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission did not make the
Hollymead and Timberwood fly-overs interchanges because if a ramp is constructed, it creates more
A@
conflict for pedestrians and bicyclists. There are intermediate access points, rather than ramps.
Ms. Thomas said the only question she has concerns the grade-separated crossing without ramps
A
at Airport Road. She asked if this is the Airport Road intersection with Route 29. That is a major
@
intersection. She asked if Proffit and Airport Roads are to go over Route 29 with no access to either road
from Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg said access to Route 29 would come off of the side street system. He said
that idea may have to be revisited later. There may be a need to have an urban interchange, but when one
of those interchanges is introduced, it immediately affects land use in the area.
Ms. Humphris asked how far an urban interchange would be placed from the Route 29 access to
the North Fork Research Park, since they are planning an interchange. Mr. Benish said it is quite a distance
away. It is possible to put in both. VDOT did a study of this when they did the Route 29 North Corridor
Study. They had a concept for a Proffit Road/Airport Road/Route 29 North intersection which had ramps on
the north side of the intersection which went into a neighborhood street section. The on- and off-ramps on
the south side were at the Timberwood Boulevard intersection. There might be half an intersection on the
north side, and on the south side the neighborhood street system would be used. There are design ways to
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
deal with that idea. The space is there to put in two interchanges between Proffit Road and the North Fork
Research Park. How the parallel street system develops in the area to the north will play a significant role
in how the Proffit Road intersection is developed. Mr. Cilimberg said it is possible that someone wanting to
turn left on Route 29 would actually have to turn right and go to the next street where there is a left turn and
then cross. Ms. Thomas said she likes the concept in the recommendations, but only had the question
about the Airport Road intersection.
Mr. Martin referred to language under Land Use and Density stating: Low Floor Area Ratio
A@A
(FAR) uses of more than 65,000 square feet are generally not appropriate. However, compatible uses
larger than 65,000 square feet shall be multi-story structures and otherwise meet recommended
development criteria (up to 65,000 sq. ft./floor). He said at the Boards last meeting, this was discussed.
@=
He thought all property owners, along with staff, were to discuss this recommendation for a possible
change. It is his understanding that all sides have come together on the idea of the town center except for
this one recommendation.
Ms. Thomas said this is a good reason to have a public hearing. She does not have a concept of
the difference between a FAR of 0.75 and a 0.7. Ms. Humphris asked the idea behind the concept of the
floor area ratios. Mr. Cilimberg said the higher ratio gives more density which means going into a multi-
story type structure. Mr. Martin said it mainly forces parking garages to be built in basements or on top of
buildings. Mr. Cilimberg said the typical shopping center is at 0.25. The Board will hear from someone at
the public hearing as to how the FAR relates to market and the ability to do that in a market like this present
market based on land prices, rentals, etc. Mr. Martin said things have gone well since the Boards last
=
meeting, but there is this one sticking point.
Mr. Dorrier suggested there be another definition of the term grade-separated. Ms. Thomas
A@
agreed. There was no further discussion of this agenda item today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. JAUNT Annual Report, Donna Shaunesey.
(Note: Ms. Humphris left the room at 10:10 a.m.)
Ms. Shaunesey noted that in FY 1999-00, JAUNT provided five percent more trips for Albemarle
citizens than in FY 1998-99. Usage of the night and weekend service nearly tripled in the past year. Both
rural and urban Albemarle residents with disabilities are riding JAUNT to evening classes and jobs, and
church services. Ridership on the Big Blue route continues to increase slowly, but the route is still not very
productive. Although their service is inherently inefficient, they are working to make it better by grouping
people together, and not just transporting one person. The trade-off is that people sometimes have to
change appointment times, or the time when they are picked up, and sometimes have to ride longer than
they would like to ride.
Ms. Shaunesey said they have tried to schedule routes, the most dramatic increase on a route
being the one from Scottsville/Howardsville/Esmont which carried 37 percent more passengers than the
previous year. This means that they do not have to send out a vehicle to pick up just one person.
The Welfare-to-Work Transportation Project has been able to serve every VIEW client who needed
a ride to work. This project is fully funded through State and Federal grants. They get information on every
person referred to JAUNT by Social Services, and Social Services has been very supportive of the service.
JAUNT continues to be one of the model transportation systems in the country thanks to the
support from the County. She acknowledged the financial support from the Board, and also the
appointments to the JAUNT Board. She said Jaundiego Wade has served as the JAUNT Board President
for the last few years, and has done a good job. Mr. Clifford Buys is a citizen member on the Finance
Committee and he has lots of experience with finances. Also, Ms. Roxanne White just left the JAUNT
Board after serving for ten years. She served on the Finance Committee and saw JAUNT through some
turbulent times.
There are two Albemarle vacancies on the JAUNT Board. She has been trying to recruit some
applicants, but has not been successful so far. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said the Board receives a quarterly report from JAUNT and she noticed the 25
percent increase in actual trips to Route 29 North. She asked what is counted as a trip. Ms. Shaunesey
said they are one-way, people trips. She said the trips are increasing slower than they would like, so they
are working with CTS to go further out Route 29.
Mr. Dorrier asked if JAUNT is geared toward lower-income people. Ms. Shaunesey said they are
actually open to the general public, but their recent survey showed that 80 percent of the people they carry
are below the poverty line. Mr. Dorrier asked if JAUNTS ride times and pick up times are well publicized.
=
Ms. Shaunesey said they deal with target groups (people who most need the service). They do publicity on
the individual routes. They have not spent as much time advertising for people with disabilities because of
costs associated with that service.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Thomas asked if people who have other transportation means actually use JAUNT, particularly
those in nursing homes. Ms. Shaunesey said that has slowed down because there are not as many
retirement communities being developed. She said a number of the retirement communities and nursing
homes have their own vehicles, so are doing a portion of their transportation needs. One thing they have to
remind those at nursing homes about is that JAUNT is a public transportation service, it is not an escort
service, their staff is not trained to be nurses aides, so their people must be brought to the bus; it is strictly
curb service.
Mr. Dorrier asked the last drop-off time on a route. Ms. Shaunesey said in the rural area, it is 10:00
p.m., and in the urban area, it is 11:00 p.m.
(Note: Ms. Humphris returned to the meeting at 10:18 a.m. Mr. Martin immediately called a recess
so that some equipment for the next agenda item could be put in the room. The Board reconvened at
10:30 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. The Partnership for Children, presentation by Ms. Jacki Bryant.
Ms. Bryant said she is the Coordinator for The Partnership for Children. The Partnership was
founded on a vision for a healthy community. It came about because of extensive planning by the
Commission on Children & Families, and its early childhood work group.
Ms. Bryant said The Partnership for Children is a community-wide effort aimed at families and their
children ages 0 to 6. The Partnership builds upon a local home-visiting collaborative, Growing Healthy
A
Families. All new mothers under 30 and all teen mothers are offered an introductory/assessment home-
@
visit, and all home-visiting programs serve children up to the age of 6. She said Children, Youth and Family
Services pursued and received funding to establish the healthy families home-visiting program
and the Community Coordinator position. The governing body for The Partnership was established in
November, 1999 and began to develop the organizational structure to implement the vision.
Ms. Bryant said the organizational structure is comprised of two bodies, the Partners Group and an
Advisory Board. The Partners Group is comprised of 14 agencies, both public and private. The Advisory
Board is composed of 23 members of the community representing business, media, parents, education,
health care, education, faith and other communities. She introduced some of the members of that group
who were present at the meeting: Dr. Charles Gleason, Advisory Board; Mr. John Halliday, Partners Group;
Ms. Roxanne White, Advisory Group; Kathy Trane, Advisory Group; Elvira Maker, Advisory Group; and,
Kathy Ralston, Partners Group.
Ms. Bryant said The Partnerships vision is to build a supportive community where children are
=
nurtured in healthy families and who arrive at school ready to learn. They believe that with true
collaboration across the entire community their vision can be a reality. There are three main pieces to this
vision. First is to have a supportive community, including a unified approach across many child-serving
agencies, to have information accessible at community locations frequented by parents. One step toward
this goal is establishment of library resource centers in the main and branch libraries. These centers will
link child development, parent education and childrens books and activities in one family-friendly room.
=
Then there is the creation of a family-friendly community where value for families and the important role of
parents is demonstrated.
Ms. Bryant said the second part of their vision is to help children and healthy families including
coordinated, but non-duplicative home-visiting so that all children have up-to-date preventive health care;
healthy and nurturing family relationships; universal parent education so parents have the knowledge and
skills to parent effectively; accessible and family-friendly community services so that families can access
resources to become more self-sufficient; children should live free from child abuse and neglect; home
visitors who are trained to use the home environment to enhance early literacy development; families who
have access to the knowledge and skills to enhance their childrens development in all areas; school
=
environments that are welcoming and reach out to engage parents in the learning process; and, available
and affordable child care.
Ms. Bryant said The Partnership is employing many different strategies to accomplish this vision,
each with a unique goal or approach. First, the home visiting collaborative is strengthening families and
enhancing childhood development. The early literacy work group is working to increase providers and
parents knowledge of early literacy development and enhancing childrens school readiness. The parent
=
education work group is working to establish universal parent education and accessible parent education
services. The public awareness work group is trying to increase community awareness, involvement and
investment in accomplishing The Partnerships Vision.
=
Ms. Bryant said the vision is beginning to materialize. There are two initiatives which they are
excited about. First is the home visiting collaborative. This was formed several years ago as the Growing
Healthy Families collaborative. It is currently comprised of four home visiting programs including the Child
Health Partnership, the Healthy Families family partners program, the Infant Development Project, and
Great Beginnings. They are collecting outcome data to demonstrate the effect of the programs on the
participants. They are submitting joint funding applications and using a collaborative approach to allocate
funds to programs and they just completed a flow chart of their community home visiting programs so they
might improve access for residents and referrals sources. They see the benefit of the collaborative
approach, they are committed to developing this approach even further. A future goal is to have one point
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
of entry for all home visiting services.
Ms. Bryant said the second initiative is the Getting Ready Literacy Kits. These kits are a way to
A@
encourage an early literacy development and motivate parents to read to their children. The kits are based
on reviews of several national models. The kits have created an opportunity for an unique collaboration
with the schools and other child-serving agencies around a common goal and outcome. In fact, both the
City and the County school systems contributed $5000 in August of 2000 because they see this as an
important strategy for improving the skills and readiness of children coming into kindergarten each year.
Implementation of the program is planned in four phases. They estimate that 995 children will receive
literacy kits in the first phase. When fully implemented, all new parents, approximately 3200, would receive
a kit. They have put quality assurance mechanisms into place to measure the impact of frequency of
reading on parents and availability of literacy materials in the home.
Ms. Bryant said it is clear that with 14 agencies working together, acting as core groups, and a
committed and diversified advisory board, they can go a great distance in advertising their mission. Within a
few months, the Board will receive a report where they will set out a time line in the areas discussed today.
They know they will need support from all corners of the community to realize the vision of a healthy
community. For example, as they begin to expand their parent resources, they will be calling upon
businesses to help support child care, food and transportation so that parents may get to the meetings.
They will ask employers to distribute early literacy awareness materials to their own employees. They are
asking that the City and the County include the communitys early childhood development strategy in its
=
marketing and communications materials to incoming businesses and residents. They hope to have the
Boards continued support as they reach for a healthy future for the community. She offered to answer
=
questions.
Mr. Martin thanked Ms. Bryant for the presentation. Mr. Bowerman said that years ago, when the
County and City looked at all of the diverse agencies trying to offer childrens services, the CACY
=
Commission was formed and it was recommended that this group be formed. He thinks this is a wonderful
effort by the community to coordinate services to youth. Ms. Thomas said these are programs which have
been tried and have proven to be successful in other localities.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Social Services Advisory Board, Presentation by Karen Powell. (Note: Mr.
Tucker said it has been requested that this presentation be deferred until January, 2001.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. School Board Presentation, Mr. Charles Ward.
Mr. Ward said Ms. Susan Gallion has resigned as a member of the School Board about a year
before the expiration of her term; her husband has taken employment out of state and they are relocating.
The School Board took applications and narrowed the choice down to four candidates. At its meeting on
December 14 they will take comments from the public, hold interviews and then make the appointment on
December 18. At 5:30 p.m. that day, the School Board will hold a farewell reception for Ms. Gallion.
Mr. Ward noted the document entitled Albemarle County Public Schools, 2000 Annual Progress
A
Report which is a compendium of everything one would want to know about the school system. He said
@
School Board priorities are rated in this report. Their priorities will now cover a two-year period of time.
Some of the information in the report will go to the individual schools so they can figure out how they will do
their school improvement plan.
The School Board has a meeting on December 19 with the local legislators to discuss its 2001
Legislative positions. He said they have been holding meetings quarterly with the legislators to keep them
up-to-date on different items. One item refers to high school hazing. There is currently a law being used in
the colleges that they would like to have apply to high schools as well. They have other issues such as
compensation of the school board members.
Mr. Ward said the Human Resources Department has provided the School Board with an annual
report on recruitment, selection and retention. He said there are more teachers retiring. There are many
career moves and moving out of the area. This is the first year there has been a big change in teacher
retention which has dropped to 85.5 percent. He said the report shows that 0-5 year teachers are leaving
before the end of that five-year period. Some of this may be attributable to pay.
Mr. Ward said they hired 176 new teachers this school year, but their rate of growth this year is
down. That might help the school system.
Mr. Ward noted that the new northern elementary school has been named the Baker-Butler
Elementary School. Mr. John E. Baker was honored for his demonstrated appreciation for education and
commitment to education. He served on the Albemarle County School Board for eight years. Mr. James
R. Butler was honored as the first African-American to serve on the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, and the first black man to be an Albemarle County Extension Agent. He was an extension
agent for 26 years, and also served on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors. At its
December 14 meeting, the School Board will consider recommending a name to the Board of Supervisors
for the road that leads to the new school.
Mr. Ward said there is an application for a charter high school, and it is Murray High School. He
said this is a non-traditional school and has a variety of things that are not available in the other schools.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
They have asked for a waiver on the structure of the curriculum, and their dress code. The School Board
has asked for more information, particularly as to the budget. Since this might be a precedent-setting
operation, they want a full disclosure. They have until March 13 to work on that application.
Ms. Humphris said the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) recently sent a letter to the School
Board in reference to the position of the Virginia School Boards Association not joining the Virginia Coalition
for Education funding. She said this was the subject of great discussion at VACo Board meetings in August
and in November. They did not understand the School Boards Associations refusal to join this coalition in
=
an effort to secure appropriate education funding. They communicated this feeling to the president of the
VSBA. Individual VSBA members from different counties indicated that all of the school boards would like
to have them join. Mr. Ward said he was present at the debate. Their concern was maintaining impartiality
and they did not want to embrace the Coalition's entire platform. He did not hear the entire argument so will
ask Mr. Frank Beram to prepare information on this issue. Ms. Humphris said it was the overall feeling that
the school boards themselves would want their organization to belong. What is being discussed is funding
for K-12 education.
Ms. Thomas said she attended two schools where they gave their report to parents regarding their
work on the SOL's. She felt good about how they are tackling the issue. They also seem to have a better
idea of what is expected of them now.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Governor's Virtual School. Mr. Ward said the County is not
participating in the Virtual School at this time. Mr. Dorrier asked if there are plans to participate in the future.
Mr. Ward said the School Board has not yet decided what to do, they are waiting to see how it works out
with the other localities.
_______________
(Note: Mr. Martin said Agenda Items No. 13 and 14 will be discussed together.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Review of Planning Commissions finding that the Northern Albemarle
=
Elementary School is not in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff reviewed the proposal for compliance and found it to be in compliance. He
said that in review for compliance, there are many elements to be considered. Normally, it is not a one
hundred percent compliance. Staff looks for substantial compliance and, in this instance, found
compliance with the addition of pedestrian connections to adjacent neighbors, with the provision of
active/passive recreational and educational activities for students, teachers and the community, including
field space and recreational space for community use. Construction of portions of the greenway and
bicycle trail systems was a point of compliance, as well as, preservation of open space in the area,
particularly to the rear of the school site, and the efficient use of valuable development area land.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission, on November 14, 2000, by a vote of 5:1 found that this request
is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for lack of vehicular interconnectivity with adjacent
residential areas; lack of public street orientation for the school building itself; and, the development of the
site does not fit the character and the terrain of the site.
__________
Agenda Item No. 14. Appeal: SDP-00-109. Northern Albemarle Elementary School Preliminary
Site Plan. Request for preliminary site plan approval to construct 82,726 sq ft elementary school on 55
acre site. The request is accompanied by a waiver request of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which
prohibits construction on critical slopes and a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which
prohibits one-way circulation. Property primarily zoned RA w/secondary zoning of R-1. TM 46, Ps 30 &
30A. Site located on Route 649 (Proffit Road) 840 feet N of Lanford Dr.
Mr. Cilimberg said there were two waivers necessary for the site plan. The staff did recommend
approval of the waiver for disturbance of critical slopes. The Commission, by a vote of 5:1, denied the
critical slopes waiver request saying none of the required findings could be made; the amount of grading
required is not justifiable; and, impact on aesthetic resources. Staff noted that there was no open space
plan identification of resources on the site. The Engineering Department in review of the other aspects of
the critical slopes waiver found that the waiver could be granted based on their review of physical
development factors.
Mr. Cilimberg said the other waiver related to a waiver of one-way circulation necessary to
accommodate the movement of different types of traffic on the site. Staff had recommended approval of
this waiver. However, the Commission, by a vote of 5:1, also denied the one-way circulation waiver request
based on concerns regarding the preliminary site plan, saying one-way circulation may not be necessary.
Staff had recommended approval of the site plan including the waivers, the finding of compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, including a number of recommended conditions. He said the Planning
Commission, on November 14, 2000, by a vote of 5:1 denied the preliminary site plan because they felt it is
not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, it required disturbance of critical slopes for which they did
not grant a waiver, and, it required one-way circulation for which they did not grant a waiver.
Mr. Jack Clark, Rancorn Wildman Architects, made the presentation. He said they feel they are in
substantial compliance with Comprehensive Plan. The first issue mentioned was the vehicular
interconnectivity. He said they did not have a charge from the School Board or the budget to do vehicular
connectivity to adjacent areas. There are pedestrian and bicycle connections through to the school site.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Clark said the second issue was the lack of public street orientation. The building itself, due to
the cut and fill on the site, and the nature of the site, is placed at approximately a ninety-degree angle to
Proffit Road, but it does have orientation to the vehicular access for buses, for car parking and for parent
drop-off which was desired for safety and security reasons. It is similar to the situation at other County
schools.
Mr. Clark said the third issue was that the development does not fit the character of the site. He
said this is a prototype school design. The charge from the School Board was to develop an education
program for an elementary school that can be used for this project, as well as future projects, to save
design time, to save design money, and for parity in schools. This school was designed before the property
was purchased. The building was designed to best fit the educational program needs of Albemarle County
schools. As to critical slopes, there are some, but there will be minimal disturbance to these slopes. He
has worked with staff to disturb fewer critical slopes than they originally intended to disturb. They got staffs
=
approval for this.
Mr. Clark said the last issue had to do with one-way circulation. At the bus loops, and the parent
drop-off area, they want one-way circulation for safety reasons. He said those are the basic issues, and
their request is for approval. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Clark to point out on the site plan the areas of one-way circulation. Mr.
Clark did so, and Ms. Thomas said it looked okay to her.
Ms. Thomas said she met with Mr. Clark and others yesterday to find ways to change the site plan
to make everyone happy. She thinks there should be a way to decrease the amount of impact on the creek
that is graded right up to its edge. Also, there should be someway to make the building fit on the slope.
She was thwarted in this thought, but asked if anyone wanted to respond to whether the school could be
stepped down on the site. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting a split-level building. Mr.
Clark said there are several steps in the building now. Basically, there is block coursing. There are two
block courses going down from the majority of the school to the cafeteria area and then two more down
from there to the gymnasium. That is a difference of 16 inches stepping down to the cafeteria, and a total
of 32 inches total going to the gymnasium. He said Ms. Thomas mentioned this yesterday, and they talked
about other places where this might be done. This probably would add some costs to the entire project.
They are looking at things like keeping the bearing heights for roofs and roof lines consistent across the
majority of the building. That is for construction ease, as well as cost.
Mr. Clark said the other question had to do with the stream. He said this is only one of the streams
on the site. The other two streams will not be affected at all. They could look at ways not to impact that
stream. Right now, they are not impacting it as far as relocating it. What they are doing is having a steeper
slope or grade going close to the stream. There would probably be some improvements to the stream. It
has been degraded somewhat from the drainage from developments to the north.
Mr. Martin said he would like to say something about the stream. The County, by its own rules and
regulations, defines this as an intermittent stream. Based on that, it does not require the buffering that
would be necessary if it were a perennial stream. However, some Planning Commissioners felt that based
on their calculations it is a perennial stream, but it is not based on the Countys calculations. It was not a
=
request from the School Board to allow something that others are not allowed to do. The difference is only
the definition of stream. They used the Countys definition, and if that definition is wrong, it should be
A@=
changed. He said members of the public may be thinking that they want to do something at that school that
the County would not let other people do, and he wants it to be clear that the schools are following the
Countys rules.
=
Ms. Thomas said there was a third point about interconnectivity. Last night it was suggested that if
the second baseball field is not built, there would be room for a road to be built in the future. She said the
School System has not volunteered to do that. There are many questions about that playing field, its
location and its relation to the community, etc. She said Mr. Martin has mentioned that the neighborhood is
not in agreement about any connection at this time, but she feels that once the facility is built and they
cannot get to it, those feelings may change. If the area is reserved so a road might be built in the future,
she thinks the Board will have done something positive. Mr. Bowerman noted that there are other places
on this site, more remote from the school, which look like they lend themselves to a playing field.
Ms. Humphris asked if there were a road to the community, would that be the entrance into this
school. Mr. Clark said it would be a second road. What is being talked about is the road that would
connect through to the north of the site. Ms. Humphris asked about the access on Proffit Road. Mr. Clark
pointed out that access on the map. Ms. Humphris asked if all the traffic that might want to come through
to the school from Proffit Road could also use that road to get to the Forest Lakes neighborhood. Mr. Clark
said it could connect to Jefferson Village, but not to Forest Lakes. Mr. Martin said in order to connect Forest
Lakes, it would take more planning and construction. The Schools are not proposing that the site be
connected to either Forest Lakes or to Jefferson Village.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Al Reaser and the School Board and the engineers have been building schools
for a long time. They have done a good job. The idea when the architects were hired was that their plan
could be reused. This prototype school is being put on this site which was selected by the Board of
Supervisors. Some Planning Commissioners think that a different type of school could have been
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
developed to better fit this site. He said that for the last twelve or more years, those plans have been used
for each new school, with certain changes being made to accommodate conditions at the time. He
understands that the people planning this school have taken the site into consideration and made
modifications to the plans. It is possible that a change in this manner of building schools could be made in
the future, but this is the way the Board of Supervisors instructed the School Board to go about building
schools, because he was a member of the School Board when they were told to find a prototype that could
be used and improved upon.
Mr. Martin said the particular issue is that they are taking a prototype school and trying to put it on
this site. As to interconnectivity, this room would be full of people today if the School Board said it was
going to connect this site to Jefferson Village or to Forest Lakes. Personally, he would like to see the
interconnectivity because he feels it would be good for the communities. What has happened in the past is
that someone can look out his window and see the school, but it then takes 20 minutes driving time to get to
the school, so they have a better understanding of what the connectivity can do. He thinks the
Board should deal with the issue of the ballfield in a way that will allow this to happen at some point in the
future.
Mr. Martin said he has already talked about the issue with the stream. The Schools have followed
the rules and regulations laid out in County ordinances, etc. As to the issue of circulation, when the School
Board conducts its business, it does so with the idea in mind that it will have the best education program
and the best safety for its students. It is not taking a land use approach, and that has created a difference
between them and the Planning Commission. Hopefully, there will be a member of the Commission on the
Design Committee for the next school built. He said the people working on this project are veterans of
construction and they have brought in good schools. They and the Planning staff both agree this is a site
and a school and a proposal that is in compliance, and he has no reason to question them. Because of
some things which have been said, members of the community feel that this school is being forced on them
due to time constraints. That is not true. This is an improvement over the plan used for Agnor-Hurt. To
him, this is an easy issue to deal with. He said the Planning staff worked with School staff and found this
proposal to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and he thinks the Board should agree with
them.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin thought the ballfield should be reserved. Mr. Martin said yes.
A@
Ms. Humphris said all need to remember that this is the Piedmont Region and there are few large
flat sites on four-lane highways which are ideal for building a school. It was difficult to find a site at all.
When this site was offered, the Board was pleased that it had been made available at a price the County
could afford to pay. She said there are problems, and it is not an ideal site, but there is not the opportunity
to find the ideal site. She believes that the School staff and the architect have done the best job they could
do with a difficult situation. She will support the plan, and vote for the waivers, and for its being in
compliance.
Mr. Bowerman agreed saying it is important to note that the Planning Commission looked at this
using land use criteria, so had some problems with the proposal. He does not feel they were wrong in
pointing out these things. He agrees with Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin that this is an appropriate location
for a school. If access to the community is desired in the future, that possibility should be available.
Ms. Humphris said that the next improvement to be made to the building of schools is in the
process that is followed. It appears that there is a major flaw in the process.
Ms. Thomas quoted a couple of passages from the Comprehensive Plan. One says that
development shall be adapted to the natural setting of the County rather than modifying the topography and
natural setting to accommodate development. In another section, the County is told to use prototype
buildings when possible. It has been learned what happens when there is a conflict. She believes this will
be a nice building, but will have some regrets about how it is fit into its setting. One other thing that has not
been mentioned about the building is that it will have an interesting roof line, being a metal roof. Because
the building sits down from the street, it has been said that the air-conditioning units and other ugly things
which sit on top of a building will be seen. This roof is being designed to minimize that, and the roof will be
a significant feature of the building. She thinks that not having the second field at this time commits the
Board to using money at some future time to do the field. It may be cheaper to do it now, but she feels that
reserving that land for future interconnectivity is a decision the Board will be happy it made. Staff has said
there may be better ways to protect the stream than are recommended at this time. She thinks that
everything possible should be done to protect that stream.
Mr. Perkins said he hopes there will be some trees retained along Proffit Road. As to perennial or
intermittent streams, he deals with this issue all the time. They are required to leave buffers when
harvesting timber, and although topographic maps are not always right in these designations, that is what
has to be used. As to the actions of the Planning Commission, he feels this proposal fits the Compre-
hensive Plan. He would be concerned if there were not one-way traffic on bus unloading zones, and in the
drop-off zones. This is a safety factor, and it works at the other schools. He said by not having the
community connected by a road, but by having bicycle and pedestrian paths, it may encourage people to
walk instead of driving. He supports going ahead with this project.
Mr. Dorrier said he also supports the project for the reasons already given. He noted that the
School Board had made reference to other school sites approved by the County (Charlottesville Catholic
School and The Covenant School), and what stood out for him is that these two schools disturbed 94 and
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
80 percent of their sites whereas for this project it is only 67 percent. That indicates that it will be less
invasive and intrusive on the site. One thing that appeals to him is that there is less of a traffic problem at
this site than at other sites the Board had looked at. He believes the connectivity will take care of itself. He
will support the project.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Davis if the Board needed to take each of the factors and vote on them
separately. Mr. Davis said the Board should vote on Comprehensive Plan compliance, the waivers and
then the site plan in that order.
Mr. Martin asked for a motion concerning compliance of this school with the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris that the Board of Supervisors finds that this plan is in compliance
with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as required by Virginia Code 15-2232. The motion was
'
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Humphris then offered motion to approve the critical slopes waiver of Section 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the waiver of one-way circulation of Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris to approve the Northern Albemarle Elementary School
preliminary site plan with the conditions recommended by staff, and with the additional condition that the
most remote ballfield not be constructed at this time, but that the land be reserved.
Ms. Humphris said she believes that the way the Board is going about reserving the land where that
ballfield lies to allow future potential interconnectivity is a good way to go about this. It will be much better to
have the communities come to the Board and ask for the connection than for the Board to impose that
connection on the communities.
Mr. Bowerman said he wants the record to show that the Board is clearly talking about the ballfield
that is further west on the site. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas said her positive vote is based also on some assurance that there will be a better
saving of that stream, if that is possible.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval for the preliminary site plan are set out in full below.)
1.Paved walk along Proffit Road should be kept close to the right-of-way limit and
no less than ten (10) feet from the edge of pavement;
2.Extend right-turn lane on access road from parking lot entrance to Route 649.
No taper will be required with this arrangement;
3.Provide a vehicle turnaround, acceptable to Engineering, for the baseball field
parking lot;
4.Provide additional parking spaces at ballfield and/or design access roadway such
that parallel parking can be accommodated. Unless a lower number is
demonstrated adequate to the satisfaction of Engineering, no less than twenty
(20) additional spaces shall be approved; and
5.No construction of a western ballfield in order to allow possible future
interconnectivity.
__________
Mr. Martin said the Board did not talk about the traffic on Proffit Road. All know that will be an
issue. Staff is already working to see if that road improvement can be moved forward in the Six-Year Plan.
Under the best of scenarios, there will be no long-term improvements before the school is opened. Long-
term improvements are those from a short distance beyond the school back out to Route 29. He said that
nothing being proposed has anything to do with the railroad bridge on Proffit Road. That is a completely
difference issue.
Mr. Perkins said to give the School Division some direction about future schools, he believes there
should be more than one prototype. He suggested looking at localities all over the state to see what type of
buildings they are building. He still favors two-story structures. He thinks there would be a great savings in
roofing and heating costs. If there were more than one prototype to choose from, it might suit the site
better.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to look at the section of the Comprehensive Plan that
recommends the use of prototype plans.
Mr. Cilimberg said the approvals given by the Board today mean that the preliminary process is
complete. From here, the plan will go through final site plan approval which is an administrative process.
This plan will not be returned to the Planning Commission unless there is some problem in the final site
plan.
Mr. Martin thanked those people who had attended todays Board meeting. He said this was not a
=
meeting for public comment, but he tried to get in all of the things which had been mentioned to him before
the meeting.
(Note: At 11:43 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:57 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Budget for Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 2001. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on November 26, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary. He said Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates
'
that the County must hold a public hearing to amend its current FY 2001 budget if the additional amount to
be appropriated exceeds one percent of the original budget or $500,000.00, whichever is the lesser. This
Code section applies to all funds, i.e. Capital, E-911, School Self-sustaining, etc., not just to the County's
adopted operating budget. The proposed amendment totals $8,817,960.00 and includes the following five
appropriations:
General Capital Projects$3,722,128.98
School Capital Projects$2,799,785.15
Stormwater Projects$ 592,591.19
Tourism Projects$1,029,455.00
Education Technology Grant$ 674,000.00
$8,817,960.32
Mr. Tucker said the first four he just mentioned (General Capital Projects, Appropriation #20019;
School Capital Projects, Appropriation #20026; Stormwater Projects, Appropriation #20027; and, Tourism
Projects, Appropriation #20029) are appropriations the Board sees each year and were approved by the
Board at the November 1, 2000, meeting. All four consisted of reappropriations of FY 1999-00 funds into
the current fiscal year for uncompleted projects. There were no additional local revenues required for
these appropriations. The fifth appropriation, and the only one that requires approval at this time, is for
$674,000 for a State Education Technology Grant. There are no additional local funds required for this
appropriation.
Staff recommends approval of this amendment in the amount of $8,817,960.32 for the five project
categories and appropriations listed above. Staff also requests approval of Appropriation #20032 in the
amount of $674,000.00 for the Education Technology Grant.
There were no questions from Board members, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no
one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the FY 2001 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$8,817,960.32 for the five project categories listed above, and to adopt the following Resolutions of
Appropriation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20019
FUND: CIP-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PROJECTS FROM FY 99-00
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9010 11010 800750 BOARD OF SUPV LAND ACQUISITION$8,000.00
1 9010 12140 950004 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM48,259.94
1 9010 12200 800700 INFORMATION SERVICES ADP EQUIPMENT484.64
1 9010 21000 312343 COURT FACILITIES SPACE NEEDS STUDY55,000.00
1 9010 21000 331000 COURT FACILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE30,044.17
1 9010 21020 800100 GENERAL DISTRICT COURT MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT5,000.00
1 9010 21050 331000 JUVENILE COURT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE58,854.42
1 9010 31000 800306 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH600,408.64
1 9010 31000 800915 PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY25,717.97
1 9010 31010 800910 POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRING RANGE30,000.00
1 9010 31040 800650 ECC-OPERATIONS BUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION24,110.11
1 9010 32010 800523 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PUMPER-REPLACEMENT250,000.00
1 9010 32010 950092 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE HOUSE/AERIAL FIRE AP361,790.12
1 9010 32010 950110 FIRE DEPARTMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYS43,791.81
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
1 9010 41000 312700 ENGINEERING PROF SER CONSULTANTS50,000.00
1 9010 41000 800690 ENGINEERING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROG99,122.50
1 9010 41000 800960 ENGINEERING STREET LIGHTS76,994.21
1 9010 41000 950035 ENGINEERING NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD3,079.00
1 9010 41000 950039 ENGINEERING MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY24,275.41
1 9010 41000 950059 ENGINEERING KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE191,893.30
1 9010 41000 950061 ENGINEERING MEADOW CREEK PATH20,000.00
1 9010 41000 950090 ENGINEERING IVY ROAD51,667.00
1 9010 41000 950091 ENGINEERING BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK46,933.25
1 9010 41020 950024 STREET IMPROVEMENTS LANDSCAPING 29 NORTH81,941.55
1 9010 41020 950051 STREET IMPROVEMENTS AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR6,600.00
1 9010 41020 950068 STREET IMPROVEMENTS WAKEFIELD ROAD IMP22,937.50
1 9010 41020 950081 STREET IMPROVEMENTS REVENUE SHARING ROADS553,476.90
1 9010 43100 800687 PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT COB CHILLER REPLACEMENT63,419.00
1 9010 43100 950042 PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS1,954.85
1 9010 43100 950102 PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT COB PARKING LOT50,202.16
1 9010 71000 800665 PARKS & RECREATION ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES61,729.51
1 9010 71000 800668 PARKS & RECREATION ADA CHANGES SCHOOLS4,074.00
1 9010 71000 800949 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE PROJECTS17,492.07
1 9010 71000 950003 PARKS & RECREATION CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS128,107.49
1 9010 71000 950009 PARKS & RECREATION SCOTTSV COMMUNITY CENTER1,891.03
1 9010 71000 950028 PARKS & RECREATION RED HILL RECREATION IMP7,400.57
1 9010 71000 950033 PARKS & RECREATION WALNUT CREEK REC PROJECTS9,395.50
1 9010 71000 950034 PARKS & RECREATION TOWE PARK REC PROJECTS135,304.75
1 9010 71000 950044 PARKS & RECREATION ATH FIELD STUDY/DEVEL43,022.66
1 9010 71000 950050 PARKS & RECREATION SOUTHERN PARK DEVELOPMENT41,811.47
1 9010 71000 950064 PARKS & RECREATION IVY LANDFILL DEV'L30,000.00
1 9010 71000 950070 PARKS & RECREATION BROWNSVILLE REC IMP12,655.00
1 9010 71000 950079 PARKS & RECREATION STONE ROBINSON REC IMP537.17
1 9010 73020 800700 LIBRARIES ADP EQUIPMENT47,500.00
1 9010 73020 800949 LIBRARIES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS89,980.43
1 9010 73020 950076 LIBRARIES NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY4,223.10
1 9010 73020 999999 LIBRARIES CONTINGENCY FUNDS58,883.00
1 9010 81010 950053 PLANNING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN67,162.78
1 9010 81010 950108 PLANNING GREENBRIAR PED/BIKE PATH75,000.00
TOTAL$3,722,128.98
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9010 18000 189916 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE CHAMBER OF COM/29 NORTH$6,775.90
2 9010 24000 240231 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE VA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION75,705.53
2 9010 24000 240430 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE VDOT 250E LANDSCAPING5,572.84
2 9010 51000 510100 TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION FUND BAL3,033,666.07
2 9010 51000 512023 TRANSFERS FROM E911600,408.64
TOTAL$3,722,128.98
TRANSFERS
1 4101 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT$600,408.64
2 4101 51000 510100 E911 FUND BALANCE$600,408.64
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20026
FUND: SCHOOL CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF ONGOING PROJECTS FROM FY 99-00
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9000 60100 800665 SCHOOL BOARD ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES$208,487.80
1 9000 60100 950051 SCHOOL BOARD AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR3,216.79
1 9000 60203 800200 CROZET ELEM FURNITURE & FIXTURES7,431.01
1 9000 60203 800605 CROZET ELEM CONSTRUCTION5,571.33
1 9000 60204 800673 GREER ELEM HVAC IMPROVEMENTS19,317.27
1 9000 60210 312350 STONE ROBINSON ELEM ENGINEERING/PLANNING4,953.42
1 9000 60210 800901 STONE ROBINSON ELEM BUILDING RENOVATIONS32,559.45
1 9000 60211 800987 STONY POINT ELEM PARKING/PLAYGROUND24,438.69
1 9000 60212 800605 WOODBROOK ELEM CONSTRUCTION502.00
1 9000 60214 800605 CALE ELEM SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION1,613.90
1 9000 60217 312350 NORTHERN AREA ELEM ENGINEERING/PLANNING908,739.40
1 9000 60217 800750 NORTHERN AREA ELEM PURCHASE OF LAND373,257.78
1 9000 60217 950074 NORTHERN AREA ELEM RECREATION FACILITIES300,000.00
1 9000 60251 950062 BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARY RENOVATIONS297,009.00
1 9000 60253 800901 JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING RENOVATIONS10,711.65
1 9000 60254 800901 WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING RENOVATIONS30,393.07
1 9000 60255 800200 SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCH FURNITURE & FIXTURES1,249.33
1 9000 60301 800605 ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION10,193.98
1 9000 60302 312350 W ALBEMARLE HIGH SCH ENGINEERING/PLANNING3,072.07
1 9000 60302 800605 W ALBEMARLE HIGH SCH CONSTRUCTION77,162.25
1 9000 60303 800901 MURRAY EDUCATION CNTR BUILDING RENOVATIONS13,341.03
1 9000 60304 312350 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH ENGINEERING/PLANNING1,241.42
1 9000 60304 800120 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS10,000.00
1 9000 60304 800200 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH FURNITURE & FIXTURES9,000.00
1 9000 60304 800605 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH CONSTRUCTION67,076.11
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
1 9000 60410 800605 CATEC CONSTRUCTION1,402.98
1 9000 60410 800665 CATEC ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES14,000.00
1 9000 60410 800686 CATEC COSMETOLOGY LAB7,087.28
1 9000 60510 800901 VEHICLE MAINT FAC BUILDING RENOVATIONS8,354.81
1 9000 61101 800700 CLASS/INSTRUC-REGULAR ADP EQUIPMENT137,807.10
1 9000 61101 800707 CLASS/INSTRUC-REGULAR TECHNOLGY GRANT EQUIP115,459.25
1 9000 62190 800700 ADM-TECHNOLOGICAL ADP EQUIPMENT5,097.78
1 9000 62190 800707 ADM-TECHNOLOGICAL TECHNOLGY GRANT EQUIP78,336.00
1 9000 62420 312310 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG A & E ROOF REPLACEMENT5,668.20
1 9000 62420 800672 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG CHILLERS6,033.00
TOTAL$2,799,785.15
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9000 18100 181112 DONATIONS AND GIFTS WAHS BASEBALL PRESSBOX$8,358.00
2 9000 24000 240265 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE EDUCATION TECH GRANT237,870.70
2 9000 51000 510100 TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION FUND BAL2,553,556.45
TOTAL$2,799,785.15
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20027
FUND: STORMWATER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED FY 99-00 PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9100 41000 800975 ENGINEERING STORMWATER CONTROL IMP$259,282.62
1 9100 41000 950093 ENGINEERING DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN43,001.72
1 9100 41035 312400 FOUR SEASONS BASIN PROF SER ENGINEERING2,915.54
1 9100 41035 800975 FOUR SEASONS BASIN STORMWATER CONTROL IMP937.58
1 9100 41036 312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN PROF SER ENGINEERING8,391.45
1 9100 41036 800750 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN PURCHASE OF LAND91,750.00
1 9100 41036 800975 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN STORMWATER CONTROL IMP51,147.28
1 9100 41049 800975 WOODBROOK CHANNEL STORMWATER CONTROL IMP28,035.00
1 9100 41056 800975 BROOKMILL STORMWATER CONTROL IMP107,130.00
TOTAL$592,591.19
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE$592,591.19
TOTAL$592,591.19
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20029
FUND: TOURISM PROJECT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED FY 99-00 PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1810 72030 568901 TOURISM VISITOR'S BUREAU MAINT$12,000.00
1 1810 72030 568905 TOURISM TOURISM PROJECTS447,455.00
1 1810 72030 950026 TOURISM RIVANNA GREENWAY35,000.00
1 1810 72030 950055 TOURISM RT 250/616 TURN LANE110,000.00
1 1810 72030 950056 TOURISM IVY ROAD BIKE LANES5,500.00
1 1810 72030 950107 TOURISM RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 30,000.00
1 1810 72030 950111 TOURISM GREENBELT BOAT ACCESS374,500.00
1 1810 72030 950112 TOURISM GREENBELT FREE BRIDGE15,000.00
TOTAL$1,029,455.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1810 18000 181108 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE CONTRIBUTIONS-DEVELOPER$10,000.00
2 1810 24000 240500 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE GRANT REVENUE-STATE25,000.00
2 1810 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE994,455.00
TOTAL$1,029,455.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 22032
FUND: SCHOOL CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9000 61101 800707 TECH GRANT - EQUIPMENT$674,000.00
TOTAL$674,000.00
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9000 24000 240265 EQUIPMENT GRANT$674,000.00
TOTAL$674,000.00
__________
(Mr. Tucker noted that the appropriation for the Esmont Park Project which was to have been
subject to public hearing today, was not advertised for this meeting, but will be on the agenda of December
13 instead.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing to authorize the County to grant to Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop
of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond (temporary easement) and the Albemarle County Service Authority
(permanent easement) a sewer line easement on Penn Park Lane. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on November 29, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond and the Albemarle County Service
Authority have requested from the County an easement for a sewer line to be installed under Penn Park
Lane in Albemarle County to the Catholic School being constructed along Rio Road. The Bishop requests
a temporary 40-foot wide easement for the construction of the sewer line, and the Authority requests a
permanent 20-foot easement once it takes control of the sewer line. Virginia Code 15.2-1800 requires that
'
the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-owned property. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed easement.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the Board approve the following Deed of Easement and
authorize the County Executive to sign same. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The deed of easement, as approved, is set out in full below.)
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is made and entered into as of the 8th day of
December, 2000, by and between COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, whose address is 401 McIntire Road, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (Grantor); WALTER F. SULLIVAN, Bishop
of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, and his successors in interest, whose address is
811 Cathedral Place, Richmond, Virginia, 23220-4801 ("First Grantee"), and THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, whose address is 168 Spotnap Road, Charlottesville, Virginia,
22911 ("Second Grantee") (First Grantee and Second Grantee are referred to collectively
herein as "Grantees"),
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, First Grantee wishes to construct a certain sanitary sewer line to
provide its property on Rio Road with public sanitary sewer service;
WHEREAS, Second Grantee is willing to accept such lines at such time as the
same shall have been constructed in a lawful manner to its specifications, but not before;
and,
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to convey a temporary easement to First Grantee
to permit it to construct and install such sanitary sewer line for the use of the public; and
is further willing to convey to Second Grantee a perpetual easement across a portion of
Penn Park Lane that was dedicated for public use on the subdivision plat recorded in
Deed Book 448, page 352, in the Albemarle County Circuit Court Clerk's Office, for the
maintenance and operation of such sanitary sewer line, which easement is to be
accepted by Second Grantee at such time as the said sanitary sewer line shall be
accepted by it for maintenance as being constructed in accordance with its specifications.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00),
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged,
Grantor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto First Grantee
temporary nonexclusive rights of ingress and egress and easement centered forty (40)
feet in width to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace, and extend said sanitary sewer
line, consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, which said right of ingress and
egress and easement shall remain in effect only until the said sanitary sewer line shall
have been accepted for maintenance by Second Grantee, whereupon all rights of First
Grantee to such rights of ingress and egress and easement, except such rights as it may
have in common with the public, shall automatically terminate and be of no further effect.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
FURTHERMORE, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged, Grantor
does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto Second Grantee, its
successors and assigns, with Special Warranty of Title perpetual nonexclusive rights of
ingress and egress and easement centered twenty (20) feet in width to construct, install,
maintain, repair, replace and extend said sanitary sewer line, consisting of pipes and
appurtenances thereto; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that it is expressly understood and
agreed that Second Grantee shall not be deemed to have accepted the conveyance set
forth herein until such time as the same shall have been evidenced by the affirmative
acceptance thereof in accordance with the usual and customary practices of Second
Grantee.
Reference is hereby made to the easement plat of Residential Surveying
Services dated October 30, 2000 (and revised November 28, 2000), which is attached
hereto, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A," and recorded herewith, for the
location and dimensions of said temporary and permanent easements as they cross a
portion of Penn Park Lane that was dedicated for public use by the subdivision plat
recorded in Deed Book 448, page 352, in said Clerk's Office.
FURTHERMORE, that Penn Park Lane shall remain passable for all motor
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian traffic at all times during all construction, installation,
maintenance, replacement, repair and extension work identified herein.
Grantor, its respective successors or assigns, agrees that new trees, shrubs,
fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or construction shall not be placed
within the easements conveyed herein. As a part of these easements, Grantees shall
have the right to enter upon the above-described property within the easements for the
purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and extending said
sanitary sewer line, and appurtenances within such easements, and the right to ingress
and egress thereto as is reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair,
replace and extend such lines. If Grantees are unable to reasonably exercise the right of
ingress and egress over the right-of-way, Grantees shall have the right of ingress and
egress over a portion of Penn Park Lane that was dedicated for public use by the
subdivision plat recorded in Deed Book 448, page 352, in said Clerk's Office and located
adjacent to the right-of-way.
Upon completion of construction and installation of the sanitary sewer line, First
Grantee agrees to fill, compact and patch-pave the trench lines to VDOT standards, and
to also re-pave, with a minimum of one inch thick VDOT grade SM5A top surface type
asphalt, the entire width of that portion of Penn Park Lane in which said sanitary sewer
line is installed.
After the sanitary sewer line is constructed, whenever it is necessary to excavate
earth within an easement, Second Grantee agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper
and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practicable to
the same condition as prior to the excavation, including the restoration of such paved
surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation.
The easements provided for herein shall include the rights of Grantees to cut any
trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably
necessary to provide economical and safe sanitary sewer line installation, operation and
maintenance. Grantees shall have no responsibility to Grantor, its respective successors
or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush, shrubbery or
obstructions if cut, removed or otherwise damaged.
The facilities constructed within the permanent easement shall be the property of
Second Grantee, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve
and make such changes, alterations and connections or extensions of its facilities within
the boundaries of the permanent easement as are consistent with the purposes
expressed herein.
The Grantor, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by vote
of the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors, does hereby convey the interest in real
estate made by this Deed.
By its acceptance and recordation of this Deed of Easement, the Grantee
acknowledges that it, its successors and assigns, shall be bound by the agreement
contained herein.
This Deed of Easement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Quarterly Financial Report, Discussion of.
Mr. Martin said the Board has received a quarterly financial report with a new format which he
thinks is very good.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said while the County's past monthly financial
reports met legal and financial requirements, citizens and Board members requested that a reporting
format be designed that presents a clearer understanding of the County's financial condition. The prior
reports did not identify trends, nor did they adequately identify and explain revenue and expenditure
changes and the revenue surpluses that might occur over the course of the year. The format has been
reviewed by the County's auditor. The new format takes into consideration any recommendations made by
the Audit Committee. Also, at this time, the report does not include any School Division information. It
provides information on the County's General Fund and the Fund Balance as of September 30, 2000. If the
Board wants the School Division included, staff will work with the School Board to get that information.
Ms. White said the report has three main sections: the General Fund Quarterly Financial Report;
an Annual Budget Comparison Report; and the General Fund Quarterly Fund Balance Report.
This new quarterly report will now be a part of the regular agenda, and not be included as an item
on the Consent Agenda. Staff will be present to present the report and answer questions, and it can be
discussed by the Board at that time. Not only will revenues and expenditures be included, but there will be
a section on fiscal impact. She then explained in detail how to read the report. (The actual report is
Attachment A of the Executive Summary, and is on file in the Board Clerks Office with the permanent
=
records of the Board of Supervisors.)
Ms. White said the report indicates that General Fund revenues received in FY 00 totaled
>
$115,505,304. When the current fiscal year budget was developed, staff estimated that the County should
expect to increase revenues by $4,985,255 for a total of $120,490,559. As of September 30, 2000, this
revenue estimate had been increased to $123,830,964. The increase in estimated revenues is primarily
due to the healthy local economy and the related increase in the reassessment rate. Real estate tax
revenue estimates increased by $1,031,808 based on the results of the 2001 reassessment. Earlier
estimates included a seven-percent biennial reassessment increase, but, based on new data, the current
projected increase is eleven percent.
Personal property taxes are now shown to be decreasing by $3,350,500. However, this decrease is
offset by the increase in state revenues due to reporting changes associated with the States personal
=
property tax relief program. As the state share of personal property taxes increases, personal property
revenues will no longer be included in the local revenue figures, but will be reflected as state revenues.
State revenue is estimated to increase by $3,915,087. This is primarily due to the reporting
changes associated with the personal property tax relief program.
Sales Tax Receipts for the first three months of the fiscal year show a minor decrease compared to
the first three months of the prior year. Therefore, the County is projecting a reduction of $39,300.
There is also a revised revenue estimate in the use of the Fiscal Year 1999-00 Fund Balance and
other funds. Fund Balance revenues of $1,405,656 have been appropriated for specific projects as
outlined on the Fund Balance Report.
The total projected revenue variance of $3,340,405 reflects a 2.8 percent change in the revenue
projection since the original July 1, 2000, appropriation that was based on the January, 2000 estimate.
Expenditures are within appropriate levels for the first quarter. The County's General Government
expenditures were less than 25 percent of the total budget as of September 30. Total expenditures are
nine percent of the current budget. Timing of a transfer to the School Division caused an 11 percent
variance in the "Transfer to School Division" column. This transfer will occur after September 30, and,
therefore will be reported in the second quarter report.
During the first quarter, an additional $620,976 was approved by the Board in the Administration,
Public Safety and Capital categories for a new total appropriation of $121,111,535. These appropriations
included the purchase of acreage on Polo Grounds Road and acreage for the Ward Center, local matching
funds to hire additional grant-funded public safety personnel, and funds for the ECC consoles.
There could be $2,719,429 in unobligated revenues by the end of this current fiscal year (June 30,
2001) based on staff estimates as of September 30, 2000. Adding the available Fund Balance to the
current year excess revenues provides net Projected Unobligated Funds in the amount of $2,840,000. The
Board also has approximately $123,000 in its Reserve Fund. Including the prior years Fund Balance, that
=
amount is about $244,000 which can be used for needs that arise during this fiscal year.
It is also noted in the report that the ACE Program, which is currently being funded in the Capital
Improvements Program with one-time funds, is programmed to receive an additional $650,000 in projected
carry-over or Fund Balance funds in FY 02. This would reduce the unobligated Fund Balance to
>
$2,190,000.
Ms. White said should the Board decide to reduce the tax rate by $0.01 ($714,000) for the 2001 tax
year, revenues for the current fiscal year budget will be reduced by approximately $357,000 due to
split-billing (the first half of the 2001 tax year is billed in June of the current fiscal year). This would leave a
projected Unobligated Fund Balance of $1.8 million.
Ms. White offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked if "projected and unobligated funds"
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
means "surplus". Ms. White said it is anticipated funds during the year which may not be obligated to
anything at this point.
Mr. Perkins asked the anticipated timing of this report. This is actually the end of the second
quarter, and this report is showing only the first quarter. Ms. White said the next report will be presented in
February. Normally, the report would be presented one month after the end of the quarter.
Mr. Martin thanked Ms. White for the report. He said the report is very clear. The different colors
used help in the understanding of the report.
Ms. Humphris moved that the Board accept the September 30, 2000, Quarterly Financial Report
as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Land Use Values, Discussion of.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the executive summary. He said land use
values are determined by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee (SLEAC) annually and published
for each Virginia locality. The County decided many years ago to use the SLEAC values rather than
generate its own since any other formula developed by Albemarle County would be much more difficult to
defend if challenged by a taxpayer. Due to Albemarle County's biennial reassessment process, the
County's land use values are only changed every two years at the same time a new reassessment is
effective (January 1, 2001).
He said the SLEAC values for tax year 2001 have been received and show a substantial decrease
from 1999 values, up to as much as 50 percent in some values. The actual tax revenue for 1999 on
property in the Land Use Program was $537,407 and will decrease to $338,223 in the year 2001. Despite
the substantial percentage decrease in values, there is only a minimal impact on tax revenues ($199,184).
The reason for this being the low per acre values in both years.
Three years ago, SLEAC started using seven years worth of crop values. The five-year average
values reflect the elimination of the oldest two years and inclusion of the two most recent years for which
information is available. Crop values for the two most recent years are substantially down from the two
oldest years due to droughts, yields and market conditions, along with some other changes in the formulas
such as using negative farm incomes as a factor.
Mr. Breeden said staff wanted the Board to be aware of this change since it is a significant
decrease. Staff has met with representatives of the Farm Bureau who recommended that the 1999 land
use values be retained. While this option retains a status quo on revenues, there are some potential
problems. This option could be difficult to defend in a court challenge. If tax bills are prepared based on
this option and a court determined it was improper, it would require a substantial amount of work to revise
tax bills using the published SLEAC values. Also, if SLEAC values increase in the future, the Farm Bureau
could take the reverse position that values shouldn't increase since the County is not reducing them now.
Staff recommends retaining the current policy of using the published SLEAC values, the impact of which
will be a reduction in tax revenues of $199,184.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this means that the value of farmland went down due to decreasing crop
values. Mr. Breeden said use values are decreasing, but the amount of the deferred land value is
increasing. He said Albemarle County is not a big, working farm community any longer. There are a lot of
gentlemen farmers. The formula used by the state is based on a lot of crop sales, and there are not
A@
many crops in Albemarle County. SLEAC has never elected to include livestock sales in their formula
Ms. Thomas asked about vineyards. Mr. Breeden said vineyards are in the section dealing with
horticulture values.
Mr. Perkins said SLEAC does take into consideration hay crops.
Ms. Thomas asked why this is not a good time to tighten up some of the Countys provisions. It is
=
getting to be a better deal to put land into land use. She has her ten acres in land use, and no one has
A@
ever asked her if she is growing Johnson Grass. She said it has been suggested that people either put
A@
their land into an ag/forest district or have a contract with the County to say they wont develop the land for a
=
given period of time before allowing them to put their land under land use. She said the County does not do
much on that side of the land use values. It is very important to some farming families, yet it is a gift for
some people who own 21 acres, which the Board has done by its zoning. She does not want to do away
with land use, and thinks the County should go with the lower value, but she thinks this may be an
opportunity to do some tightening up on how the County deals with the issue.
Ms. Humphris said she has always supported having land use, but is also supportive of the general
idea that there should be some obligation in return. Every time the Board gets into that discussion, it is told
that it will take a lot of time, money and effort to get that to happen. It would take another employee to do
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
that. In prior years, the Board decided by consensus that it would be more trouble than it is worth, but the
Board has never really known what the pros and cons are in terms of dollar valuation. She wishes there
was a serious obligation from the people putting their land into land use even though the general county
citizens get a benefit. She wishes they got a bigger benefit. She has no idea what the answer to this
question is.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with both Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris. It makes perfect sense, but he
does think it would take a great effort to make a change.
Mr. Perkins said the definition is beyond that for Ag/Forest District. He then offered motion to
accept the staffs recommendation to use the published 2001 SLEAC values. The motion was seconded
=
by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Humphris asked at what time and under what guise would the Board have a further discussion
of the suggestion. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is not in a rush for this information, staff will add this to the
list of things it has to do, and they will begin to look at other localities and what they are doing in the way of
land use values. There are certain provisions in the State Code pertaining to land use. Mr. Davis said there
is a process in the Code which would allow the County to require people to reapply for this tax every year
and they would have to certify what they are doing on their property. The County does not do that now.
There are a lot of provisions for staff to investigate.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Closed Session: Personnel Matters. At 12:10 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered
motion that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under
Subsection (1) to consider appointments to Boards and Commissions; and, under Subsection (7) to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding settlement of a legal claim asserted by the County. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:08 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(The Board went immediately to Agenda Item No. 22 as Planning staff was not present at this
time.)
Agenda Item No. 22. Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement Overlay District Legislation,
Discussion of.
Ms. Thomas said in the legislative proposals submitted to the Virginia Association of Counties
(VACo) last July, the Board approved a request for enabling legislation to provide for a scenic protection
and tourist enhancement overlay district. The purpose of such a district would be to provide localities with a
method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County or State makes
land use decisions in designated areas. The request is also part of the regional legislative packet.
In discussions with legislators and supporters of this legislation, she has been approached to see if
Albemarle would be willing to be a "pilot" for this legislation. In response to anticipated concern from
opponents on the statewide impact of this type of protective legislation, several proponents would like to
submit the overlay district concept as special legislation just for Albemarle. In essence, Albemarle County
would propose special enabling legislation to develop these types of districts and, if successful, other
localities could follow in subsequent years. Other localities may want to be added to the special legislation
in this session of the General Assembly, but the legislation would initially be written specifically for
Albemarle. According to Ms. Thomas, Delegate Vince Callahan, is willing to patron the legislation.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
It was the consensus of the Board to go forward with this request.
__________
Ms. Humphris added that the Historic Preservation Committee wondered yesterday if the County is
asking for enabling legislation to allow it to establish a revolving loan fund for historic preservation projects.
She thought that had been included in the requests. At the meeting yesterday, Mr. Bob Watson said
CALAC is meeting with area legislators tomorrow and he thought CALAC would be willing to support such a
request.
Mr. Davis said he discussed this with Mr. Tucker yesterday. With the Boards support, he will
=
prepare a draft of some simple legislation authorizing localities to loan moneys for historic rehabilitation
purposes and then when the Board meets with legislators next week, they could seek a sponsor.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the City already has such a policy. Mr. Davis said the City has a program, but
there is some question as to whether the City has authority in this area that the County does not have.
Ms. Thomas asked the deadline for pre-filing of legislative requests. Mr. Davis said in order to get
Legislative Services to prepare the wording of the request, it has to be submitted by December 18. After
that date, the local legislators are limited in the number of additional requests that can be filed. Mr. Tucker
said if the Board is supportive of this request, staff may go ahead and ask someone to sponsor this request
so it can be filed immediately.
Ms. Humphris said she hopes the Board members are willing to do that. Mr. Dorrier said he
supports the suggestion.
It was the consensus to go forward with this request.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Electronic Agenda Packets, Presentation.
Ms. Carey said for the past couple of months, she and Ms. Lori Spencer, Executive Assistant, have
researched how other localities are improving their meeting by using technology to reduce costs, improve
efficiency, reduce space needed for record retention, and to assist Board members in better serving their
constituents. Today they are presenting the report on Electronic Agenda Packets.
A@
Ms. Carey said electronic agenda packets are a way to use advanced technology to meet the
communication demands of the 21st Century. It has been proven that use of this technology can reduce
costs although there are the obvious initial start-up costs. It also improves convenience, and allows
increased citizen access to information. Most of the information is already on computer so it would allow
citizen access through the Internet.
Ms. Carey said use of these packets is increasing throughout Virginia, and throughout the nation.
They surveyed 52 Virginia localities and 42 responded. They found that 20 localities are using some form
of electronic agenda packet. No one seems to use the same system. There are 16 other localities who
plan to use the electronic packets in the future. The other 16 localities said they have no interest in this at
this time. Localities that are currently using some form of electronic agenda packets include Augusta
County, Campbell County, Fauquier County, Henrico County, Henry County, Louisa County, York County,
City of Bristol, City of Danville and the City of Staunton.
Ms. Carey said they decided to study two counties, Henrico and Henry. These two counties take
very different approaches. Henrico County did an elaborate renovation of their board room which included
amazing technology. Henry County took a simpler approach and went to the use of laptop computers.
Ms. Spencer said that in 1997 Henrico County did a total renovation to their board room. They built
their computers into work stations rather than using laptop units. They use the Internet to transfer data back
and forth to the board room and to people at home. It took two years to implement this new procedure.
They have found that there are a lot of things they would do differently if starting over at this time.
Ms. Carey said Henry County took a much different approach, and it was much less costly. All of
their board members and staff have laptop computers (about 11 people are involved). Their board
members receive all of their information on a CD-Rom. It took them 10 months to implement this
procedure. This is not a change that could be made in a hurry. During that 10 months they trained staff
and the board on how to use the equipment. They held a mock meeting with the board members prior to
an actual meeting with the public.
Ms. Carey showed a photo representation of Henry Countys actual agenda. She noted that she
=
has in her office some materials which she can demonstrate to the Board. Henry County created a
hyperlink and links each item to the actual documentation which is scanned into a document. With a simple
click of a mouse, the computer goes directly to the document. That program will allow you to move forward
or backward or return to the agenda itself. The program is in WORD.
Ms. Carey that there are big differences in start-up costs depending on how much technology
would be used. In Henry County, they took the least expense approach (cost of $36,000) but they only
have a population of about 54,000. Henrico County went for the most elaborate technology available (their
population is over 254,000). Staff found in this survey that there is a very wide range of things that can be
done. It was obvious that electronic board packets can provide many benefits, both to the Board members
and staff, and also to the citizens. One of the largest benefits is improving efficiency, citizen access to
information, and costs. It provides very easy access to records and helps with records retention. Recently,
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
the County purchased Laserfiche and this can all be coordinated.
Ms. Carey said this is a good time to think about doing this because the Board Room will soon be
undergoing renovations which will include screens and improvements to wiring. The technology has been
perfected and is available. She said the recommendation is for the Board to request staff to further study
the efficiencies of electronic board packets and to incorporate the needed technology improvements into
the Board Room renovation plans. Any changes should be pilot-tested, phased-in and completed in
accordance with a timetable that includes time for training for staff and Board members and which
coincides with Board Room changes. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Humphris asked how she would make the notes which she now makes in the margins of all of
her documents. Ms. Carey said there is a feature in WORD which allows one to make notes on
documents. Henrico County did not use WORD, but created a program called Instant Messenger which is
A@
the same as the note feature in WORD. It also allows members to communicate with each other. Ms.
Humphris said this kind of a change would be a challenge for her.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board members would need laptops because having a stationary
computer at home, and another one in the Board Room, would delete a members ability to look at
=
documents when they had just a few spare minutes to look at agenda items.
Mr. Perkins asked how Henrico County gets the agenda packets out to the Board members. Ms.
Carey said that even with all of this technology, they still deliver paper copies. They only access the
information electronically during meetings. She thinks that defeats the purpose of making such a change.
Ms. Spencer said the Board members have access to the history of a petition, so with only a click they could
pull that up. The added benefit at the meeting was that the Board members could access more information
than they had received in their packets.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there would be printers installed in the Board Room so something could be
printed during a meeting. Ms. Carey said that would be up to the Board members. They did not see any
printers in Henrico Countys board room.
=
Mr. Dorrier said if all the Board members were using laptop computers, and were doing research
during the meeting, he wondered how that affected the progress of the meeting itself. He asked if the
Board members could do that simultaneously and still listen to the conversation. Ms. Carey said they were
told that the technology actually speeded up the meetings.
Mr. Dorrier asked on what screen the information would be broadcast. Mr. Tucker said that is part
of what staff was going to do anyway. Staff was going to look at monitors that the public and Board could
view whenever there is a presentation such as this one.
Mr. Bowerman said what is being discussed is a hybrid system with the Board members using
laptops, having a land link in the County Building for the information, and then have overhead cameras for
the rest of it, and they could pay far less for the whole system than Henrico did. Mr. Carey said the media
person for Henrico County said if he had been in on the process when it first started, he could have made a
lot of suggestions and the system would have been far less expensive.
Ms. Thomas said she did not know that Ms. Carey and her staff were studying this question. She
approached them after she attended a meeting of the Local/State Taxation Commission during which the
Commission was reviewing pages in a report which the public did not have and could not see. She said the
frustration level was very high. A person in the audience said to her you wouldnt treat the people in your
A=
audience that way and she got to thinking that the Board does this as a regular practice. So, she has an
@
interest in better audience ability to follow what the Board members are doing in their meeting.
Ms. Thomas asked how many people in Albemarle County now receive an agenda. Ms. Carey said
there are about 200 agendas mailed. Only 13 agenda packets are actually put together. They have
suggested to the people receiving agendas, that they might like to receive those by E-mail. Hopefully, a
number of people will respond so that the paper copy can be eliminated.
Mr. Martin said when he receives something by E-mail and it is 15 pages long, it is very irritating to
go through such a large document looking at a computer screen. He thinks there would still need to be a
lot of printing. Right now he is using an ink cartridge nearly every month because of this printing. There
would need to be more electronic support provided to Board members.
Mr. Dorrier said there is always the problem of something breaking. He has been without his E-
mail for about two weeks because of a glitch. These things happen all the time. Ms. Carey said she found
that these counties send their information to board members through the Internet, not E-mail. This is also
the way the public accesses the information. Her office does not scan all information into the Laserfiche
until after the board meeting.
Mr. Martin said he discourages that idea. Staff is saying that not only must the board member have
a computer, but they must also have access to the Internet. He said that during the course of the day when
he has time to read some of his packet, he wants to be able to do it and he may not always have access to
a computer that also has access to the Internet. Mr. Tucker said that would be true only if that were the
option chosen by the Board. He said this seemed to be an appropriate time to look at this idea. In the
meantime, the wiring and monitors, etc. will be looked at. Also, staff can talk to people in more counties to
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
see exactly what they are doing regarding this matter.
Mr. Bowerman invited the Board members to visit his company, as it has a good video conference
room.
Mr. Dorrier asked about Chesterfield County. Ms. Carey said they are not using this technology.
Ms. Thomas complained about the poor quality photocopies the Board members receive with their
agenda packets, particularly information with zoning applications. Mr. Tucker said that Planning and
Engineering are beginning to ask people who submit plans, to do it electronically. Everything would then be
in the system and digitized. Part of the expense would be the purchase of scanners for Planning,
Engineering and the County Executives Office.
=
Mr. Martin said he would like to see the County move in this direction. It would be nice to be able to
reduce the paperwork. He knows some Board members keep files and he refuses to do it because he has
no space to store paper. Mr. Tucker said storage has also been a problem in the County Building for a long
time.
Mr. Martin thanked the staff for this report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Audit Committee Report.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to discuss the report briefly. He said that Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Ken
Boyd have met approximately eight times to discuss the budget and the audit procedures of the County. He
referred to the written report in the Boards packet, and then drew the Board members attention to the
==
recommendations. He said the new Financial Report which the Board received this morning answered
some of this Committees questions. He asked for comments from Board members.
=
Ms. Humphris said, to her, this is all new information, and she has several questions. 1) She needs
to know the original charge to the Audit Committee. 2) On page 2, Item #3, she did not understand whether
it is usual to have the third category (break out equipment replacement and ongoing maintenance needs of
the County, which should not be confused with either operating or capital needs. The Equipment,
Replacement and Maintenance (ERMB) should also project future building and space needs). What is the
auditor's opinion about that suggestion? 3) Page 3, Item #5, Land Purchase and Land Banking. She needs
to understand if having a policy which guides the Board and the School Board in future land acquisitions is
something that should be in the purview of an audit committee. This does not seem the right place for such
a policy. 4) Page 3, Item #6, Long-term Investments. All she has ever understood about the formal
investment strategy is that it is governed by the law which states what the Finance Director can do with the
money. She needs to know clearly how it is done now. 5) Page 3, Item #8, Internal Auditor. She is
concerned about the recommendation that a newly hired person would report to the Board through the
Audit Committee, identify waste and inefficiency, etc. Also the recommendation that there would be
guidelines for managing the internal auditor developed by the Audit Committee, gave her a great deal of
A@
problems. Since the County operates under the County Executive form of government, she thinks this
responsibility falls to the County Executive. This would seem to put someone into the building in the middle
of everything financial. The assumption seems to be that there is waste and inefficiency and this will be a
spy type person to ferret out whatever exists. If the Board did believe it is essential to hire another person,
A@
why not just hire another budget analyst instead of an auditor, if the County is short of budget staff? 6) She
is not at all sure about increasing the size of the Audit Committee from three to five members with citizen
members. She said that is moving a function of County government that should be the responsibility of the
Board and the County Executive out of their purview. This seems to be adding advisors who are not
responsible to anybody and that might be set up just to add two members who are members of the
Conservative Coalition because that organization has been pushing this type of thing.
Mr. Perkins said this whole report deals with the use of County money. Mr. Boyd brought out that
the School System has about $1.0 million in the various schools that is just sitting there. That amount of
money should be invested somehow to earn interest. That is the kind of thing that should be looked at.
The Audit Committee did not say there was bad use of County money, but there might be a better way to
use County money. As far as land banking is concerned, how much land does the County need to buy? As
to representation on the Audit Committee, the Board has the final say in that matter. He said the land
banking came about because that is what the Board has been doing, so there may need to be a policy
developed to cover this situation. If the Board knows there will be a school needed in five years, it might go
ahead and find a site way before the Schools ask for the building to be built. He feels the internal auditor is
the most important recommendation of the whole report. Many localities employ such a person, and it
gives the Board a different look at what is happening in the County. He said all of the Board members
eventually become an advocate for certain things. He thinks there is a need for a fresh look, and the only
way to do that is through an internal audit. The County has to have the audit required by State law, but he
believes the County would benefit from use of an internal auditor who would report to the Board.
Mr. Dorrier said when he became a member of the Audit Committee, he did not know what their
responsibilities were so he met with Mr. Robert Walters, Assistant Director of Finance, who provided him
with documents from the state as to the purpose of the committee. Such a committee is an important
component of many localities in defining scope. They met with the Auditor, Mr. Jack Farmer, and talked
with him about the Countys budget. They looked at the budget and looked for inconsistencies and found
=
that the Audit Report made each year is about the same each year. In looking at documents of other
communities, he found that the scope of the Audit Committee is broader than just looking at the budget. It
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
involves performance evaluations, reviewing programs, etc. In looking at the various parts of the
government, they asked questions about certain areas, and that is one reason Ken Boyd made
recommendations concerning the maintenance/equipment budget. Some of that is now included in the
Capital budget and it seems it should be a separate area of concern. As to land banking, it seems there
should be a reason for making land purchases instead of it just being based on a consensus to buy land
because it is available. They wondered if some of that money could be invested in something that would
have a greater return for the citizens. The committee is not recommending that there be a full-time internal
auditor at the beginning. It could be an independent contractual arrangement to deal with special projects
or areas. The recommendation to increase the size of the committee was based on concerns they had
received from the Chamber of Commerce who wanted to have people who could analyze and work with
the budget. If they were on the Audit Committee they could work at the end of the budget cycle and get
ready for the next budget cycle. He, personally, is not sure what the charge to the Audit Committee was in
the past.
Ms. Thomas said she is impressed at all the work the Audit Committee performed, and the number
of people contacted. She asked how these people felt the County was doing, or was that question even
asked.
Mr. Dorrier said the Committee meet with Mr. Bob Devorney who has a broad overview of County
government. He said Albemarle County is doing well, but it could do better. He said that he and the
Cooper Center would be willing to provide advice to the County (at cost). The Audit Committee did not
provide him with enough information to get specific advice.
Mr. Bowerman asked what standard of comparison Mr. Devorney used to say Albemarle is doing
well. Mr. Dorrier said he judged Albemarle against other localities of a similar size throughout the State.
He put Albemarle in the top 20 of the localities he has analyzed. There are ways to do things better, such
as the financial reporting area. There are ways to make things easier to understand, particularly for the
public. The communications problem is the biggest problem Albemarle has. He thinks Albemarle
manages very well, but it is a matter of putting the information into a format the community can understand.
Mr. Perkins said the Committee was told that when an organization gets to the size of Albemarle
County, it needs to start looking at hiring an internal auditor. It would not replace the regular auditor
required by State law. The State has JLARC, and even the Federal government has the Office of
Management and Budget. That is what he envisions. He thinks the County could put out an RFP for such a
firm or person. Hopefully, it would cost less than the regular audit.
Mr. Martin said it sounds as if the Board has a lot of work before it can make a decision. He
suggested that staff look at the pros and cons of the various recommendations by the Audit Committee.
Mr. Perkins suggested accepting the Audit Committee report which would include No. 9, Continuing
Recommendations The Audit Committee, with county staff, will develop specific plans and proposals to
A
implement this report, for subsequent review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. He suggested that
@
the Board ask the Audit Committee to work with staff to develop specific proposals to implement the report.
Ms. Thomas said she needs more information from staff first. She thinks there is already a lot of
program analysis taking place. She assumes that the QUIP Program is working out how the County is to be
more efficient and effective for the money being spent. Mr. Perkins said that is what No. 9 says. Ms.
Thomas said she misread the statement. She thought it said to have the Audit Committee keep working on
these proposals, and she wants the Board to get some analysis from staff before the Audit Committee does
anything further.
Ms. Humphris said it would have been helpful to her to have known the charge to the Audit
Committee and to have received copies of the materials Mr. Walters provided to the Committee. For her
own information, before she could vote for any of the recommendations, she needs to have answers to her
questions about such things as land purchase. She needs information about long-term investments, the
law and strategy being followed at the present time. She needs to understand what the chain of command
might be between an internal auditor and the County Executive who is in charge of everything that happens
in the building. This would be a floating person and she does not know who that person would be
A@
responsible to. She wants a thorough staff report before deciding on anything.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there are two distinct issues. One is whether to have an internal
auditor. The second question is that of the wise use of funds and philosophy and priorities. The two issues
seem to be interwoven. Land banking is really a question of policy, not one of auditing. Those things need
to be separated. If there really is $1.0 million in funds that are at the schools which could be in one pot
A@
that might be a good idea. He thinks that some of the recommendations are mixed together now.
Mr. Perkins said there is no question about that, particularly the land banking. That recommenda-
tion was included because the County has done some land banking which involves the use of County
money. He thinks there needs to be some policy, because the County should not have too much land. As
far as the information the Committee has and sharing it with everyone, he feels that the purpose of the
Committee is to study the information and then issue a report. Whatever information there is can be sent to
the other Board members if they so desire.
Mr. Dorrier said these particular issues arose during the Committee discussions. They spent many
hours talking about all of these issues, so they decided to put the issues into some format to acquaint the
other Board members with what they felt were problem areas.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Martin said it sounds to him as if there was no charge to the Audit Committee; the committee
took it upon themselves to do this research. The other Board members simply want more information from
staff before moving forward.
Mr. Dorrier said as a Committee they felt as though they were working as an arm of the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Martin said he does not think the Board gave a charge to the Committee. He said the
Audit Committee used to meet seldom. They have now gone out with two new members and worked hard.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it was good to have a member from the School Board on the Committee
because they get so much of the Countys money. It brings a new perspective to the work of the
=
Committee.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board had given a charge, it would first have had a discussion of the
problem to be tackled by the Committee. She does not think there is a consensus among the Board
members that there is a problem. She said all know that the most expensive decisions are the policy
decisions made by the Board. The number of kids in a classroom is far more expensive than the number of
packs of paper which are lost. She does not think there is a consensus as to the problems. She also does
not have the basic information she would like to have from staff. She understands that VACo manages the
Countys investments. Mr. Tucker said most of it is done internally. Ms. Thomas said she thanks the Audit
=
Committee for making her realize there are many things involved which she does not know about, but she
would rather have a report from staff before suggesting that the Committee work further.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not mind sending this to staff and getting their reaction. Mr. Perkins
said a lot of these are staffs recommendations. Mr. Dorrier said he can provide members with a copy of
=
the background information the Audit Committee used.
There was no further discussion of this item this date.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. CPA-00-01. Wireless Design Manual (deferred from October 11, 2000).
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 3:25 p.m.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Development Plans Manager, summarized the executive summary. He said the
County Attorneys office had made some recommendations concerning this manual, and staff has
=
incorporated those recommendations into the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. Staff listened to
tapes of the Boards meeting of October 11, 2000, and used those comments to make revisions. A
=
definition of RF Isolator is included, and staff worked with the County Attorneys staff to define a Tier Two
=A@
facility. He said the Policy has been revised to include the following:
1.The personal wireless service facilities policy is primarily intended to address facilities
providing personal wireless service. Other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to
adhere to this policy to the extent possible (Page 4).
2.Discussion that skylining of new facilities is to be avoided (Page 7). A definition of skylining
is on page 15.
3.A definition of backhaul (Page 12).
4.A definition of RF Isolator (Pages 14 and 22).
5.Spelling of Bellair has been corrected (Page 20).
6.Page 20 was amended to delete reference to aesthetics.
7.An improved photo of Crozet is on page 23.
8.Page 32 contains a photo of an existing site showing how the backdrop can affect the
visibility of a facility.
9.Page 33 states facilities in wooded areas should be the same color as the trees.
10.Additional discussion about skylining and the use of an appropriate backdrop is included on
page 57.
11.Noted that "treetop towers" are considered a form of camouflage (Page 60).
12.On page 68 Tier Two amended to read: Tier Two facilities would require Planning
A
Commission approval. Procedures for processing applications will need to be developed
as part of the zoning text amendment establishing the applicable zoning regulations. At a
minimum, the zoning text amendment should include the regulations that a Tier Two facility
must satisfy and a procedure for notifying abutting property owners. The regulations would
be consistent with this Policy. If the site were located within an Entrance Corridor Overlay
District or an Agricultural Forestal District, the application also would be subject to review
by the Architectural Review Board or the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee,
respectively. The Commission could receive input from any other committees or
individuals during the review of an application.
@
The Planning Commission's action on an application would be ministerial, i.e., the
Commission's review would be limited to whether the proposed facility complies with the
zoning regulations adopted for Tier Two facilities. If the application was determined to be in
compliance with all applicable regulations, the application would be approved and, with the
issuance of the appropriate Building Permits, the facility could be constructed. An applicant
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
whose application was denied could appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors.
13.Minimum submittal information amended to require that easement holders be identified
and, if necessary, grant consent to any application (Page 70).
Mr. Martin asked if Board members had comments.
Ms. Thomas said her problem is with Tier Two which does not talk about where a tower is located,
only that it is a treetop type of tower. Also, she has a question about avoidance areas. She said that five
out of every six tower applications cause no problems for anyone, but one will have a lot of concerns
connected to it. She hates to set out a policy that says for one-sixth of the towers, no matter how much
people are concerned, there is no provision for neighborhoods to learn about them. There is no special use
permit, so there will be little input into the process and it will be purely a ministerial matter for the Planning
Commission. She said that often the Board gets into a mess when a matter is ministerial and the public has
no input.
Mr. Fritz said the original plan was to map all of the avoidance areas. Staff realized that was not
doable. In the policies, it is noted that historic resources are important. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at
3:28 p.m.). Many of those resources are mapped, but some are not. One thing contemplated is a
notification process. It is possible the Planning Commission would not feel a tower is an impact on a
resource, and they might go ahead and approve it.
Mr. Cilimberg said when the Planning Commission reviews site plans, they open the discussion and
take public comments. The limit to which they can consider those public comments in their action is
governed by the ordinance; this would be the same.
Mr. Fritz said the real question is one of the standards to be used for review. These will have to be
part of a Zoning text amendment laying out the findings the Planning Commission would have to make.
Mr. Davis said the issue with most of these applications is visibility. It will be challenging to write
standards which are objective enough to be measured as a ministerial act. The Board struggles with this
issue on special use permits on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult to know how to address that issue in an
ordinance.
Mr. Martin said he is proud of the Design Manual and thinks staff has done a good job. When the
Board decided to hire the consultant, he was not sure it was a good idea, but everybody has turned this into
a good document. He would like to go ahead and approve it, even though he knows everybody will not like
it 100 percent.
Mr. Dorrier said it is an excellent document, probably one of the best in the State.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can fix it in the sense that it can write an ordinance, but when doing that
it will have to be written extremely carefully. It will have to take into account all of the issues that have ever
been before the Board, and all the issues it can imagine will come before it in the future because it is going
to become a ministerial act, not an act of legislative judgment.
Mr. Martin said that once enacted, if problems occur, the Board can always make changes. Ms.
Thomas said the Board does not usually take action with the assumption that it is making a terrible mistake.
Mr. Martin said he does not thinks the Board is making a terrible mistake. Mr. Bowerman said the Board
has moved well along the way to establishing a realistic policy that the vendors have bought into; it has
resulted in a landscape which is not filled with towers. He thinks the Board has taken this matter as far as
possible, and it is as right as it can be. The policy may not be perfect, but it moves the County a step further
toward certainty. He would like to codify what is going on right now by recommending approval of
CPA-2000-01, Personal Wireless Service Facilities (copy on file in the Clerks Office), as the Boards formal
==
policy.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. She thinks the Board has done as best as it can. If it
is not good enough, something can be done at the time an issue arises.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff will return a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance in the very
near future. Until the amendment is made to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, applications for special use
permits will be reviewed under this policy, but not under the tier concept.
A@
Ms. Thomas noted that on Page 3, the County Attorney pointed out that Bullets #3 and #4 might be
contradictory. Mr. Fritz said staff made the changes recommended by the County Attorney by saying that
these facilities should not be in an avoidance area, but if they are, they should be denied unless the site is
located so its visibility is minimized. Because there are no prohibited areas, if they choose to go in an
avoidance area, the request should be denied unless those things are met.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The intent of the motion was further clarified later in the meeting.)
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
(Set out below is the proposed amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan:)
The following text will replace, in its entirety, the existing text under the
Location of Wireless Communi-
section (p. 130-132). The proposed Comprehensive Plan text is essentially the same text
cations Facilities
provided in the Introduction of the Wireless Policy document (p. 1-5).
Location of Utilities
(p. 130-132)
Location of Wireless Communications Facilities
The County adopted the Personnel Wireless Service Facilities Policy on December 6, 2000 as a
component of the Comprehensive Plan. It is published under separate cover and available in the
Department of Planning and Community Development. The Policy establishes the County’s approach for
locating personal wireless service facilities. It is based on the following:
·
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves Albemarle County’s zoning authority to
regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities (“cell
towers”).
·
Albemarle County has significant natural, scenic and historical resources. Thomas Jefferson chose
Albemarle County for his homesite and as the site for the University of Virginia. The reason for those
choices is why many others have come to revere this place … and why County residents must be
stewards of the land.
·
Personal wireless service facilities are not well understood by some. This Design Manual is intended to
help the County, the public, and the wireless industry understand planning and zoning for personal
wireless service facilities.
Purpose, Principles & Intended Achievements
The purpose of the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is to establish policies and guidelines and to
recommend standards and approaches for Albemarle County to use in the review of personal wireless
service facility applications. Wireless carriers are encouraged to follow the ideas in this Policy in preparing
applications for personal wireless service facilities. Planning Commissioners, Supervisors and staff should
follow this Policy when evaluating personal wireless service facilities applications.
·
This Policy is intended to allow for the provision of personal wireless service facilities.
Regulations based on the following principles are recommended:
·
The most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is
. Albemarle County should require that sufficient information be submitted with the application
visibility
to enable the County to measure its ability to be seen. The less a personal wireless service facility can
be seen, the more likely it is that it will be approved.
·
Personal wireless service facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas.
·
Applications for personal wireless service facilities in Avoidance Areas should be denied unless
mitigated, sited, located, and designed so as to minimize visibility.
·
Personal wireless service facilities should be located in Opportunity Sites.
·
Applications for personal wireless service facilities sites outside of, but nearby, Opportunity Sites should
demonstrate why they couldn’t be located in an Opportunity Site.
·
Siting and design standards can be used anytime, but they are particularly useful for reviewing personal
wireless service facility sites when they are not in or near an Opportunity Site and not in an Avoidance
Area.
Application of the wireless policy will achieve the following:
·
Protection of Albemarle County resources.
·
A predictable outcome for personal wireless service facility applicants.
·
Equal evaluation and review for all applicants.
·
The development of standards to be used as findings for decisions on personal wireless service facility
applications.
Summary of Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
This Policy allows for the location of personal wireless service facilities throughout the County. The Policy
encourages the construction of facilities that have limited visual impact on the community.
Visibility is the primary focus in the review of Personal Wireless Service Facilities. Facilities with limited
-
visibility are encouraged.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities should not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline.
-
Personal Wireless Service Facilities should not adversely impact resources identified in the Open
-
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Space Plan or designated as Avoidance Areas.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities should utilize existing structures where possible.
-
Personal Wireless Service Facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be appropriate in any
-
zoning district.
Ground based equipment should be limited in size and be designed in keeping with the character of the
-
area.
Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to minimize visibility.
-
The following is a summary of proposed regulatory concepts outlined in the wireless policy.
To enhance the implementation of this policy, the following review concepts are proposed:
Tier One Review. Administrative approval of Personal Wireless Service Facilities located within an
-
existing structure and having no exterior visibility.
Tier Two Review. Planning Commission approval of Personal Wireless Service Facilities attached to
-
an existing structure or a “Treetop Tower”.
Tier Three Review. Special Use Permit review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
-
of anything other than a Tier One or a Tier Two facility.
The following regulatory changes are also recommended:
At the time of preparation of this Policy each Zoning District contains minimum setbacks for all
-
structures that can only be varied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This Policy recommends that the
Planning Commission be authorized to modify the setbacks for personal wireless service facility
structures.
At the time of preparation of this Policy, the Zoning Ordinance requires that towers be set back from the
-
property line a distance equal to the height of the tower unless a modification is granted by the Planning
Commission. This policy recommends that service providers be able to acquire easements around the
tower a distance equal to the height of the structure. If this easement is acquired no modification of the
setback will be needed. If the easement is not obtained, the service provider would need to request
that the Planning Commission grant a modification of the set back.
Minimum submittal standards are recommended.
-
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris offered motion to :
Appoint Mr. Mark David Kindler to the Commission on Children & Families, to replace Ms. Meredith
S. Gunter, with said term to expire June 30, 2001.
Appoint Ms. Kathryn Hobbs to the Architectural Review Board with said term to expire on November
14, 2004.
Appoint Mr. Vito Cetta to the Housing Committee with said term to expire on December 31, 2003.
Appoint Mr. Bruce Wollenberg to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency to replace Ms.
Leslie M. Durr who has resigned. There is no set term for this appointment.
Appoint Ms. Waltine Eubanks to the Advisory Council on Aging to replace Mr. Edward L. Strickler,
Jr. who has resigned. This term will expire on May 31, 2003.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Cilimberg said he wanted to clarify the action taken on the Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Policy. He said that in October, the staff provided the Board language for the actual Comprehensive Plan
amendment needed to reference the document in the Plan. He does not believe that was part of what the
Board discussed today, but that language also included a statement prepared by the staff that could be
used by the Board to say where the Policy is applicable. He believes it was the Board's intent to incorporate
this language as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and include a statement that The Personal
A
Wireless Service Facilities Policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing personal wireless
service, other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible. He
@
said that was not really discussed today, so he wanted to be sure the action included that.
Mr. Martin said that language was part of the revisions listed in the executive summary. Ms. Thomas
asked if that was to be part of the motion. Mr. Cilimberg said he wanted language about the
Comprehensive Plan amendment in the motion. Mr. Tucker asked what was needed to do that. Mr.
Cilimberg said adoption of the amendment language provided to the Board on October 11, 2000, should be
included. There was a three-page recommendation of what that amendment would be as well as the
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
statement of where this policy is applicable.
Mr. Bowerman said that was his intent in making the motion. Ms. Humphris said that was the intent
of the seconder to the motion.
__________
Ms. Humphris said there has been a lot in the media in recent days about what the City is preparing
to do in making a decision about the Meadow Creek Parkway. The Board knows about it through the media
because there has been no direct contact with City Council since receipt of a letter some months ago from
Ms. Virginia Daugherty. She had asked the Board to agree to a list of things in order for City Council to
approve of the construction of the Parkway. This the Board did including the retaining of a consultant.
Recently, because of an E-mail sent to the Board members by one member of City Council, she has
become concerned about the direction City Council might take in regard to the whole effort to obtain
approval for the Meadow Creek Parkway. She thinks it will occur with the result that the blame for defeat of
the Meadow Creek will be placed on the County. She said City Council is preparing to send a letter to
VDOT setting out conditions for their approval and acceptance of the construction of the Meadow Creek
Parkway, but the letter includes things that would be required of the Board of Supervisors before that could
be accomplished. Some of the things that would be required of this Board are things which are simply
impossible for this Board to do.
Ms. Humphris said she will refer to a document from Mr. Kevin Lynch marked Prepared November
A
1, 2000" (and it might not be the most up-to-date document) which was sent to the Board on Friday,
December 1, and which contains the changes he wishes to have made in it. On the first page states the
A
current design as presented by VDOT is not acceptable to the City. It then goes along and says The City
@A
is not willing to approve the major design features until certain things are done. One of those things is
@
until necessary assurances are given by VDOT and Albemarle County to comply fully with the comments
A
contained in this letter. To start with, City Council is telling VDOT that City Council will not approve the
@
current design of the Meadow Creek unless Albemarle County does certain things. It goes on to talk about
lowering the design speed, which she understands VDOT has already done, and says City Council
A
demands that VDOT fund and approve of an interchange to be constructed at a later date at McIntire and
250" and goes on to say The Citys approval for Meadow Creek Parkway design shall be contingent upon
A=
acquisition of parkland by the City. Ms. Humphris said that is something the Board had agreed to
@
cooperate in, but later in the letter it says Council believes the appropriate amount of acreage to replace the
approximately nine acres that are to be taken by the Parkway would be 50 acres. They would be expecting
the County to participate in the purchase of that land.
Ms. Humphris said on the next page, #10 is the section called Regional Transportation and the
Eastern Connector, and it talks about the Citys approval of the Meadow Creek being contingent upon
=
receipt of an update of the Three-Party Agreement within a certain number of months from the date of this
resolution from Albemarle County and the University in cooperation with the MPO and VDOT to develop a
A
new regional transportation network and land use plan to provide access for the growing eastern and
northern parts of the region, establish corridor etc., etc. She said this is a strange requirement because at
@
this moment the MPO is engaged in a major, one-half million dollar study called The Eastern Planning
Initiative which in time, probably a year into the future, will give the information needed about what the
transportation needs are for this corridor that is being discussed in the proposal from the City. The need for
this transportation network will not be known for quite some time. In place is the official, legal plan for how
regional transportation plans are done, known as the CATS (the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation
System network). It is the only legal and funded method available for planning the regional network. She
does not understand why it is being demanded that a new network and land use plan be developed. The
County right now does not have a significant amount of development planned for this part of the County so
this flies in the face of the Countys Comprehensive Plan.
=
Mr. Martin said the document referred to by Ms. Humphris is from one member of City Council, but it
seems to be written as if it is coming from the Mayor.
Ms. Thomas said she has a copy of a different version of the letter. It is to be discussed tonight at
Council meeting.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Lynch says he is sharing the proposed language to be sure the concerns of
A
Maurice (Cox) and he are clearly represented and understood. She said that one or more City Councilors
@
seem to be prepared to demand that the County of Albemarle take certain actions, which the County
cannot do, in order for them to agree to the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought Council had already agreed to construction of the Parkway. Ms.
Humphris said they have agreed several times. They are asking that the Board change things in order to
meet these particular Councillors concerns, at least one or two. This would doom the Parkway. Mr. Lynch
=
has been told several times in MPO meetings that the whole idea of an eastern connector road, which is
what it seems he is demanding, has been studied in the past. It was found not to be feasible, but could
perhaps be found feasible by the Eastern Planning Initiative which will not be available for more than a year.
Even if it is found to be feasible, Mr. Lynch has been told that there is no money to build an eastern road.
VDOT will not build it. The County has no money to build it. So, what the Board is faced with is an
intolerable list of conditions being demanded from somebody on City Council in order to agree to the
construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway even though there is already an agreement starting with the
1990, 91 and 92 Three-Party Agreement and extending to the agreement made with the City through
>>
Mayor Daughtrys letter of a year or so ago.
=
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Martin said he thinks it is important that the Board, and hopefully the community, understand that
this did not come from City Council, but from an individual. The Board should not react to a lot of these
things. Unless it comes from City Council it is not an official document. City Council had agreed to the
project, so at this point the Board has two agreements with Council; the Three-Party Agreement, and
another in the letter from Mayor Daughtry where Council voted to do the Meadow Creek Parkway on
condition that the Board agree. That still exists even though this individual Council person is creating
documents which make it appear that the agreement no long exists.
Mr. Dorrier said this person became a member of Council recently so did not vote for the project.
Mr. Martin said that makes no difference. The official action is the majority vote taken on an issue. It is not
official unless the majority votes for it. Even though individuals run around and say whatever they want, it is
not the will of the majority.
Ms. Humphris said she believes the other members of City Council need to know this Board's
reaction to what has been laid out in the public before they vote on it tonight. She heard yesterday that
there had been some change in the thinking of a key member of City Council which might change any
vote taken tonight. If it should come to pass that City Council changes its mind again, and puts demands on
the County, then the Meadow Creek Parkway is doomed.
Mr. Perkins said in that case they would kill the project and place the blame on the Board. Ms.
Humphris said that is correct. VDOT has told Council that a 17-lane intersection at Route 250 will not work,
but they are insisting that that is the only thing to which the City will agree. She wants it to be made clear
ahead of time that these are things we would not, could not, should not comply with.
Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Humphris thought the Board should adopt a resolution. Ms. Humphris
said the Board should communicate in some way with the leadership of City Council before their meeting
which starts at 7:30 p.m. tonight. She thinks they should be apprised of where this Board stays which is the
same place it has stayed for 20 years.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board should vote in favor of the agreement it already has and say
that is its position. To get into a complicated issue at four oclock without the details is not good.
=
Mr. Bowerman said Council is contemplating writing a new letter to VDOT. Ms. Thomas said she
had a copy of the response the Board sent to Mayor Daughtry in September that was commenting on each
of Councils concerns. She said it was an earlier version of this same letter; many parts are identical. This
=
Board supported looking at a regional network of roads, but said that CATS was the way to do it. The
Board said it was very interested in parkland. This letter does not set out any number of acres, and
Councils letter to the Board did not set out any number of acres. Then, Council recommended that there
=
be a consultant to monitor design and construction. At the time the Board wrote the letter in September, it
thought that could be done by the committee. The Board has now gone so far as to spend many County
dollars to get a consultant. The Board has taken a major step toward what Council wanted. If there is
going to be any sort of communication, it would be worth pointing that out to them.
Mr. Bowerman said this was done so the Countys portion of the Parkway would be consistent with
=
the Citys design.
=
Ms. Thomas said they mention cellular towers, and that is the same in both letters. Then they
added something about the Melbourne Road intersection, and she does not think that has changed. The
main points are the amount of parkland, and some people who are not happy with leaving it up to CATS
and the MPO, and the Eastern Planning Initiative. They want to tackle the Three-Party Agreement. In the
meeting she attended, she pointed out to one member that that is a dangerous thing for the County to get
involved in because of the SCLCs lawsuit and things which are dependent on that Three-Party Agreement.
=
Also, the Three-Party Agreement is not the way to get anything done. It was a series of sequences being
communicated to VDOT and the way to get things done is to work through CATS which is funded. If there
is to be any communication, it would be good to refer back to the September 9 letter and point out the ways
the Board has gone even further than requested in that letter.
Mr. Bowerman asked the cost of the Countys consultant. Mr. Martin said it was over $100,000. It
=
was mentioned in that letter that there is the Three-Party Agreement and then the Board made a separate
agreement in order to get Council to go along with the Parkway. They approved the Meadow Creek
Parkway and now they are asking for a third agreement. If the Board signs a third agreement, could there
not be a request for a fourth agreement or a fifth agreement? He thinks it is time to stop.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board can say this is out of its hands. Mr. Martin said if Council approves the
Parkway tonight based on conditions, who is to say that tomorrow they wont start talking about another set
=
of conditions. Mr. Dorrier said the Board can state that Council should not micro-manage this project at this
particular time.
Mr. Bowerman said the County will not be responsible for any cancellation of the project because
the Board has already met the terms it agreed to a year ago, and has made a substantial financial
commitment along those lines. That is the agreement the Board is operating under.
Mr. Tucker said because of the lateness of the hour, he would suggest that the Chair or the Vice-
Chair contact someone instead of trying to write a letter. Mr. Martin said if the Board agrees he will get in
touch with the Mayor.
December 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn to December 7, 2000, at 4:30 p.m., Room 235 for Joint Meeting with
School Board.
With no further business to come before the Board, at 4:03 p.m., motion was offered by Mr.
Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adjourn this meeting until December 7, 2000, at 4:30 p.m., in
Room 235.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials