2005-02-05February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 2, 2005 at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis
S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. W yant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Terry Hawkins asked Albemarle County law enforcement officers present to stand and
introduced them: Lt. Earl Newton, Sgt. Dwayne Carr, Lt. Courtney Craft, and Sgt. Dan Blake. Mr.
Hawkins read a prepared statement asking the Board to address “a serious financial crisis” confronting
them. He said that as they retire from their profession, they face a dire situation that deals with health
care and the “out of control costs” associated with it. Mr. Hawkins explained that police officers are
allowed by law to retire at age 50, with at least 25 years of service. He noted that there is nothing in place
to assist them with the extremely high cost of health care, explaining that the county assists for five years
only, and after that the retiree must fund all of the costs.
Mr. Hawkins said that he pays $703 a month, and the average health care cost to the employee is
one-fifth of their entire paycheck. He explained that that situation coupled with the high cost of living in
Charlottesville has forced police officers to take a second job after retirement. Mr. Hawkins stated that the
City of Charlottesville provides all employees with free health care until age 65, and then provides a
supplemental policy to augment Medicare coverage for only $20 per month; the City of Staunton offers
this for all of their employees.
Mr. Hawkins requested that the County of Albemarle develop a plan to mirror Charlottesville’s, but
any assistance would be welcome. He added that Melvin Breeden has compiled a report of costs and
comparisons.
Sgt. Blake addressed the Board, stating that he is a 20-year veteran of the county police
department, and former state president of the Virginia Fraternal Order of Police, which represents 9,000
law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth. He said that the concerns he hears from his colleagues
statewide relate to health insurance and health care upon retirement. There are avenues that can and
should be explored regarding this cost. Sgt. Blake suggested phasing the plan in to include everyone,
noting that this does not represent a large population of the Albemarle County workforce; retirees must be
eligible for full benefits at retirement.
Sgt. Blake reminded the Board that he had written each Board member a letter requesting they
look into the situation, and he has received one written reply that indicated human resources would be
looking into the matter. He does not think it is an unreasonable request from the county’s retired police
officers to ask and receive assistance with the cost of health care benefits today.
Mr. Rooker stated that there would be a report presented at the upcoming budget work sessions,
and the Board would act upon the matter at that time.
Mr. Dorrier pointed out that national statistics show that police officers have a shorter life
expectancy because of the stress of their jobs, and that is an important factor to consider.
Mr. Tucker commented that that is why police and fire personnel are permitted to retire earlier
than other state employees.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a schedule for budget work sessions set yet.
Mr. Tucker stated that the dates had been set, but there is no specific time chosen for this matter.
Mr. Rooker said that he assumes the City coordinates with Medicare. Mr. Tucker confirmed this,
and said that he believes the city contributes in relation to the number of years of service given, and the
county will be considering that approach.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5a. Presentation: Boards and Commissions Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Rooker presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Dwight Colley for his service as a
member of the Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee from 2002 through 2004. On behalf of the
Board of Supervisors, Mr. Rooker expressed gratitude to Mr. Colley for serving on the initial committee
and as the first chairperson. Mr. Colley volunteered his time and expertise to the county’s agency by
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
teaching a course on communications to the entire agency in October 2002. He served on the Police
Department’s Crisis Negotiation Team as a psychological consultant. During that time, Mr. Colley made
himself available 24/7 to our negotiators for specific recommendations on tactics.
__________
Agenda Item No. 5b. Presentation: Recognition of Juandiego W ade, Community Service Award.
Mr. Rooker recognized county employee, Juandiego W ade, for being selected as one of The Daily
Progress’ “Distinguished Dozen,” which highlights members of the community who make a difference in
their community. Mr. Rooker indicated that Mr. W ade was selected from over 100 nominations for his
commitment to youth in the community demonstrated by his involvement in numerous community groups
and charitable organizations. Mr. Rooker stated that Mr. W ade serves as a mentor to youth, including
fourth graders at W alker Upper Elementary School. Mr. W ade teaches Sunday School at Olivet
Presbyterian Church, and spends Mondays and Thursdays helping children with their homework. Mr.
Rooker said that co-worker Paul Muhlberger stated that everyone looks to Juan as “an admirable person,”
and his demeanor and temperament in his position of County Transportation Planner are invaluable
assets.
Mr. W ade thanked the Board for the recognition and said that this community is a wonderful place
to live and to raise a family. He feels that it is his duty to do what he can to make it a better place for all of
its citizens.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve Items 6.1
through 6.6, and to accept the remaining items as information on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowerman
seconded the motion. (Discussion on individual items are included with that item.) Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: May 5, July 14(A), October 13 and October 27, 2004.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes for July 14(A) were approved. (The
remaining minutes were pulled and moved to the next Board meeting.)
__________
Item 6.2. Resolution recognizing the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
On Behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and local government, the
county would like to honor and recognize
The Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club
for their continued support of the Albemarle County Police Department’s firearms training
needs.
The Albemarle County Police Department depends on the skill and accuracy of its officers in the
use of their firearms when confronted with life threatening situations.
That skill and accuracy requires significant training and firing range time to allow officers to
become proficient in a variety of situations which may involve the use of a firearm.
For the past ten years, officers of the Albemarle County Police Department have been granted
use of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club in a partnership arrangement that has benefited the
Department greatly.
Without the availability of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, the Department would have had to
locate or construct adequate facilities for their firearms training, which would have incurred
significant costs and created inconvenience for officers attempting to meet their training and
certification needs.
It is with great appreciation that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of our
entire community, commends the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club for their generosity and
community spirit in sharing their firing range with County Police Officers. The support and civic
mindedness of organizations like the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club truly make our county a better
and safer place for all residents.
__________
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 6.3. Resolution of Intent Requesting Albemarle County participation in the Virginia
Department of Transportation Residential Traffic Calming Program.
The executive summary states that VDOT’s Traffic Calming Program provides localities with a
traffic management tool to deal specifically with speeding in residential areas. Traffic calming measures
are typically lower cost traffic management systems/devices to help manage vehicle speed including, but
not limited to, speed humps, four-way stops, traffic circles, and raised crosswalks.
In order for a locality to participate in this program, VDOT requires the locality adopt a resolution
requesting VDOT to make this traffic calming program available to the locality. VDOT staff recently
notified the County of an apparent procedural oversight. VDOT has no record of the required resolution of
intent from the County requesting participation in the program. VDOT is requesting the County adopt a
resolution as a housekeeping matter. A memo has been received from VDOT which briefly outlines the
program and the requirement for a locality to officially request participation.
The County has participated in the Traffic Calming Program for a number of years. Albemarle
County was one of the original County’s to participate in the pilot Traffic Calming Program when it was
initiated by VDOT. It appears the “official request for participation” step was missed as the program
transitioned from its “pilot” status. At the recommendation of VDOT, the attached resolution also includes
a request to make available the use of All W ay Stop Controls (typically, three- or four-way stops) as a
traffic calming tool. VDOT is now requiring all localities to specifically include a request to use All W ay
Stop Controls as a possible traffic calming tool in the resolution. Staff opinion is that the Traffic Calming
Program remains an important tool to help address certain traffic issues in the County.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the Traffic Calming Program resolution
provided to the Board.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING VDOT MAKE AVAILABLE THE RESIDENTIAL
TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WHEREAS, residents of Albemarle County make requests to the County for traffic calming
measures to help control speeding in neighborhoods and residential subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has a Residential Traffic Calming
Program to provide communities with a traffic management tool dealing specifically with speeding in
residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation Residential Traffic Calming Program
stipulates that the County take the lead role in the traffic calming process pursuant to the VDOT
Traffic Calming Guide For Local Residential Streets; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires that the Board of Supervisors
adopt a resolution requesting that the VDOT Residential Traffic Calming Program be made available
to the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors
does hereby request the Virginia Department of Transportation make the Residential Traffic Calming
Program available to the County, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby request, pursuant
to Section VI. A. of the Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Street, that Albemarle County
include the use of “All W ay Stop Controls” as a traffic calming measure; and
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby authorize the
County Executive, or his designee, to be the County’s coordinator for traffic calming.
__________
Item 6.4. Jarman Lake Road (Grayrock Subdivision) Child at Play Signs.
The executive summary states that the Grayrock Homeowners Association has requested that
VDOT install Child At Play signs on Jarman Lake Road in the Grayrock Subdivision. VDOT procedures
for this type of request require a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors.
The County has established criteria for County support of the Child at Play signs. Below are
the review criteria and staff’s assessment of how this request meets each of these criteria.
1. “Child At Play” signs shall only be considered on secondary roads.
Jarman Lake Road is in the Secondary Road System (Route 1380).
2. The request must come from a Homeowner’s Association where applicable.
Please find attached a letter from the Grayrock Homeowners Association requesting
placement of the signs.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
3. There must be a child activity/attraction located nearby for the sign to be
considered.
Jarman Lake Road is the entrance road into the Grayrock subdivision and there is a tot
lot located on Jarman Lake Road. There are sidewalks on both sides of Jarman Lake
Road. Children and families from the entire subdivision walk to this tot lot.
4. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control
devices.
The proposed location of the signs will not conflict with any existing traffic control
devices.
This request meets all of the criteria for supporting the installation of Child At Play signs.
Planning staff has visited the site and can recommend approval of this request. If supported by the
Board of Supervisors, the resolution will be forwarded to VDOT for review and installation. The
approximate cost to install a child at play sign is $125. These funds will come from the County’s
secondary maintenance funding.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution supporting the installation of
Child at Play signs on the street noted above.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING RESIDENTS’ REQUEST FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A “CHILD AT PLAY” SIGN
WHEREAS, the residents of the Grayrock subdivision are concerned about traffic in their
neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live in the
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, there is a tot lot located on Jarman Lake Road and the residents believe that a
“Child At Play” sign would help alleviate some of the safety concerns by alerting motorists of the
potential for children to be playing in the area; and
WHEREAS, the Grayrock Homeowners Association has requested the County’s support of
the Association’s request to have VDOT install such signs on Jarman Lake Road.
NOW, THERE FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
does hereby support the community’s request for VDOT to install the necessary “Child At Play” signs
on Jarman Lake Road, and that these signs be located along the segment of Jarman Lake Road
between Jarman’s Gap Road (Rt. 691) and Grayrock Drive.
__________
Item 6.5. Requested Appropriations.
The executive summary states that the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment that exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser,
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds,
E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of this requested additional FY 2005 appropriation is $183,562.54. This amount, when
combined with the FY 2005 appropriation approved in January of $117,089.90, brings the total new FY
2005 appropriations to $300,652.44. It is anticipated that these appropriations will be incorporated into the
next budget amendment, possibly in March.
This request involves the approval of three (3) new FY 2005 appropriation as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2005040) provides $54,288.54 for various education programs and
donations;
• One (1) appropriation (#2005041) provides a transfer of $100,774.00 from the Glenmore
proffer to the school CIP for Stone Robinson Elementary; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2005042) provides $28,500.00 to fund a vehicle for ECC operations.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2005 Appropriations #2005040, #2005041, and #2005042.
Appropriation #2005040 $54,288.54
The Albemarle County Public Schools received donations in the amount of $3,000.00. Luck Stone
Corporation donated $1,000.00 and the Stone Robinson Elementary PTO donated $2,000.00. These
donations will be used to offset the cost of installing a climbing wall at Stone Robinson Elementary School.
Albemarle County Schools received a donation in the amount of $425.00 from Gary W . Taylor. This
donation will be used to support the fine arts programs for elementary schools.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
The textbook fund collected $580.54 for textbooks sold to Resource Books, LLC. It is requested this
money be appropriated for FY04-05 to purchase replacement textbooks.
W oodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Fred and Suzanne
Karem. This donation will be used by the School Community Group for sponsoring the “Reading Nights
Program”.
Monticello High School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $2,500.00. This donation will
be used to purchase instructional materials and athletic materials for the school.
Broadus W ood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $225.00 from Buck Mountain
Episcopal Church in memory of Mrs. Robbie Proffitt. Mrs. Proffitt was a reading volunteer for Broadus
W ood Elementary School for many years. This donation will be used to purchase reading materials for
the school.
Albemarle County Schools has received a grant award in the amount of $47,458.00. “Opening Doors,
through English Literacy and Civics Program” has been funded through a competitive grant awarded by
Virginia Adult Education. The goal of the two-year federal grant is to help ESOL students to integrate into
the community by focusing on employment and work skills as they learn English. “Opening Doors” is
designed to partner the successful methodologies, curricula, community partnerships, and staff of the
Albemarle Adult Education Program with the potential of the community at large and the ESOL community
specifically, to determine employment needs, develop classes/workshops to address those needs, and
implement on-going efforts to expand opportunities to improve language acquisition and job skills services.
It is a cost effective program to connect the ESOL population to the community, while at the same time
improve English language, job skills, and job opportunities, provide area employers and volunteer/service
organization with a more informed, qualified and productive job pool, provide information to students and
their children on career planning, improve the job force and increase volunteerism in the Central Virginia
area, and ultimately increase ESOL students involvement in their community.
Appropriation #2005041 $100,774.00
Funding is needed for roof repairs at Stone Robinson Elementary School. Funding is available from the
Glenmore proffer to be used for this purpose.
Appropriation #2005042 $28,500.00
At its meeting on Tuesday, January 18th, the ECC Management Board approved the transfer of funds from
the ECC Fund Balance Account in the amount of $28,500.00 to be used towards the purchase of a new
vehicle from the State Contract for the ECC.
The Management Board has approved this vehicle since the ECC now has responsibility for the radio tower
sites. The ECC is making frequent trips to deal with operational issues and construction of the 800 MHz
radio system. This will only become more frequent as the completed system comes on line which will
include system testing. The vehicle will also be used to conduct testing of the Mobile Data Computer
system. In addition, it will be used by the Emergency Services Coordinator during official functions and
duties. Specifically, it will be used to tow the CERT Emergency Trailer when needed in addition to
meetings, public presentations, and responding to assist Public Safety agencies when requested.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following appropriations were approved:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005040
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Various Education Programs and Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2111 61338 601300 Inst Supplies J 1 3,000.00
1 2111 61339 601300 Inst Supplies J 1 425.00
1 2212 61411 580500 Staff Development J 1 100.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Inst Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 2304 61105 580000 Misc Expenses (Athletic) J 1 1,500.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Inst Supplies J 1 225.00
1 2114 61101 602000 Textbooks J 1 580.54
1 3218 61101 111400 Salaries-Other Manag J 1 2,829.00
1 3218 61101 114100 Salaries-Teacher Aide J 1 7,800.00
1 3218 61101 132100 Salaries-P/T Teacher J 1 21,500.00
1 3218 61101 210000 FICA J 1 2,458.00
1 3218 61101 221000 VRS J 1 328.00
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1 3218 61101 231000 Health Insurance J 1 235.00
1 3218 61101 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 8.00
1 3218 61101 341000 Public Carriers J 1 500.00 .
1 3218 61101 520100 Postal Services J 1 500.00
1 3218 61101 550100 Travel/Training/Educ J 1 500.00
1 3218 61101 601300 Inst Supplies J 1 800.00
1 3218 61101 601700 Copy Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 3218 61101 800700 Data Processing Equip J 1 8,100.00
1 3218 61101 800710 Data Processing Soft J 1 900.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 6,250.00
2 2000 19000 190214 Textbook Fund J 2 580.54
2 3218 33000 330001 Opening Doors/ELC Grant J 2 47,458.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 6,830.54
0701 Appropriation 6,830.54
3218 0501 Est. Revenue 47,458.00
0701 Appropriation 47,458.00
TOTAL 108,577.08 54,288.54 54,288.54
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005041
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Transfer funds from Glenmore proffer to school CIP for Stone
Robinson Elem.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 62420 950165 Stone Robinson J 1 100,774.00
2 9010 51000 512040 Trs, from Glenmore Prof J 2 100,774.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 100,774.00
9010 0701 Appropriation 100,774.00
1 8521 93010 930004 Trs. To School CIP J 1 100,774.00
2 8521 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 100,774.00
8521 0501 Est. Revenue 100,774.00
8521 0701 Appropriation 100,774.00
TOTAL 403,096.00 201,548.00 201,548.00
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005042
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Funding of vehicle for ECC operations.
GENERAL LEDGER SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31040 800500 Vehicle Purchase J 1 28,500.00
2 4100 51000 510100 ECC Fund Balance J 2 28,500.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 28,500.00
4100 0701 Appropriation 28,500.00
TOTAL 57,000.00 28,500.00 28,500.00
__________
Item 6.6. Set public hearing to consider proposed Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, regarding membership appointment and terms of office.
The executive summary states that the Board has requested that all boards and committees be
established with specific membership terms and term limits.
The County Code currently provides that the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee
shall consist of ten members, including four County landowners who are engaged in agricultural and
forestal production, four other County landowners, the County Assessor, and one member of the Board of
Supervisors. In addition, the County Code sets forth the compensation and the powers and duties of the
Committee. It does not address the terms of office of the Committee members.
The proposed ordinance amends the County Code to add subsection 3-103(B) to provide terms of
office and term limits for the landowner Committee members. To establish staggered terms, it proposes
transition terms for current members by having the Board designate an initial one-year, two-year, three-
year or four-year initial term for each member upon adoption of this ordinance. The current Committee
members would remain eligible to be appointed to two additional four-year terms. All future members shall
be appointed to four-year terms and shall be limited to no more than three consecutive four-year terms,
provided, however, a member appointed to complete the unexpired term of another member may serve
the unexpired term and up to three additional consecutive four-year terms. Finally, the proposed ordinance
provides that a member whose term expires shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed.
Staff recommends that the attached proposed ordinance be set for public hearing on March 2,
2005.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set this item for public hearing on March 2,
2005.
__________
Item 6.7. Copy of notice from the Albemarle County Service Authority of proposed changes in
fees for certain services, was received for information.
Mr. Boyd asked why Glenmore had been eliminated from the wastewater treatment discussion;
Ms. Thomas replied that they have their own wastewater treatment facility.
Mr. Boyd asked about the surcharge for Buck Mountain. Mr. Tucker explained that the payment
for the property has been through fees through the Albemarle County Service Authority and the City’s
Public W orks Utility Department. He clarified that Rivanna borrowed money to purchase the land, and
now they’re repaying that.
__________
Item 6.8. VDOT monthly report for February, 2005, was received for information.
_______________
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 7. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Gordon W alker, Chair of the Albemarle County School Board, addressed the Board and noted
that he had distributed a narrative of his presentation. He noted that there would be a fine arts display at
Fashion Square Mall featuring the artwork of county students.
Mr. W alker reported that the Superintendent has appointed a redistricting committee at the
recommendation of the long-range planning committee to look at the possibility of realignment. He said
that the redistricting committee has put together a proposal that goes to public hearing February 8th at
6:00 p.m., and the results of that hearing will go back to the committee for consideration, then onto the
Superintendent and back to the School Board.
Mr. W alker said that the Board has asked the Superintendent to put forth a “needs-based budget”
as required by state statute, and the total funding request is $127 million. He stated that the budget
addresses issues of compensation to help reach market goals as agreed to by the Board of Supervisors
and School Board, while emphasizing the increased responsibilities for testing, professional development,
and community outreach. Mr. W alker stated that the School Board approved the division calendar last
week, and is attached in the packet presented today to the Supervisors. He added that holidays, spring
break, and teacher workdays are accounted for in the calendar.
Mr. W alker reported that officers were elected for the School Board, and he will serve as Chair;
Sue Friedman will serve as Vice-Chair; Brian W heeler has been reappointed to serve as PREP
representative, and Pam Moynihan, Diantha McKeel, and Steve Koleszar will serve on the CATEC Board.
He indicated that Mr. Rooker has agreed to do a Board to Board, which is scheduled to begin on February
24th.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the possibility of having a strategic planning session with both boards.
Mr. W alker responded that the School Board members were waiting on reports from the focus groups so
that they would be better informed, noting that late spring might be an appropriate time.
Mr. Tucker said that staff had recommended meeting after the budget work sessions.
Ms. Thomas asked how all religious holidays were observed or not observed as far as school
attendance. Mr. W alker responded that he was not certain how religious observations not reflected on the
calendar are currently handled, but the issue has been given to the diversity committee for
recommendations, and other school systems have granted a “floating day.”
Mr. Rooker asked if a joint budget work session with the School Board was planned. Mr. Tucker
replied that nothing had been officially scheduled. He added that normally the School Board presents at
the Board’s first budget work session, and most School Board members attend.
Mr. Rooker commented that during the CIP work sessions, Board of Supervisors members had
questions based upon projected growth in student population about school requests. Mr. Tucker
responded that that information has been shared with school staff, and a committee is going to be formed
with school and local government staff to consider a formula for future CIP funding. Mr. Rooker
suggested addressing operating and CIP issues at the same work session.
_______________
NonAgenda.
At this time, Mr. Rooker recognized Mr. Kelvin Dodd, one of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club’s
founding members. Mr. Dodd said that he has been a member since January 13, 1950. Ten years ago
they opened up the facility for use by the sheriff’s department, police force, and joint security complex, for
just a $75 cost per participant.
Mr. Rooker commended him and the entire club for their “generosity and community spirit” in
providing the firing range for the police departments, which “have saved the community a great deal of
money.”
Mr. Dodd thanked him, accepted a certificate of recognition, and noted that the club has 900
members.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Utterback addressed the Board, noting that he started his job January 10th. He has
already been busy with storms, water and snow. He indicated that there will be a meeting soon with
Staunton officials and state police to discuss coordination of events on I-64.
__________
Mr. Utterback noted that he was planning on taking the VDOT monthly report and turning it into an
executive summary. Ms. Thomas suggested including names of roads as well as state route numbers.
Mr. Utterback agreed, and offered to let the Board provide input on his first draft.
__________
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. W yant suggested that there be better communication about which areas are cleared first and
why, as there is often a noticeable difference in roads being cleared, strips being mowed, etc. He stated
that the guard rail along Route 810 one mile north of Crozet is getting clipped when drivers come around a
curve there. Mr. W yant also mentioned another water situation in one of the subdvisions, and offered to
show Mr. Utterback the problem.
__________
Ms. Thomas reminded Mr. Utterback that they are going to discuss Morgantown Road. She
added that there is a particularly dangerous place on Dry Bridge Road, and she has learned that there is
not much space for a guard rail. Mr. Utterback said that they have contacted property owners because
there is right-of-way to be donated, and they are “moving in that direction.”
Ms. Thomas suggested raising the curve along the road. She added that she had heard feedback
from parents on school closings and suggested better communication about road conditions.
Mr. Utterback replied that he has suggested that transportation officials be in contact with school
officials to raise awareness of poor road conditions and associated travel dangers. He added that there
was a funding shortfall for snow removal last year and “conservation measures” were carried forward
which have now been re-addressed.
Mr. W yant indicated that there needed to be better education for the public to explain why roads
cannot be traveled in some cases even when others appear clear.
Ms. Thomas noted that school bus drivers are “docked” whenever they get scratches on their bus.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that the two issues he was concerned about – snow removal at Forest Lakes and
the guard rail on Route 20 South – had been passed onto Theresa Butler, and he assumed she was
working on them. Mr. Utterback confirmed this.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked about the rustic roads projects. Mr. Utterback responded that there are several
roads preparing to go to advertisement in the next few months. They were initially delayed because of
funding issues. He agreed to provide a schedule for those.
__________
Mr. Boyd added that it would be helpful to have the VDOT reports in the Board packets instead of
the meetings so they would have time to review them. Mr. Utterback agreed. Board members agreed
that black and white was acceptable for copies.
__________
Mr. Utterback reported that getting sand for road snow treatment has been an issue statewide this
year, adding that the last shipment received was gray and couldn’t be seen on the roads.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked if reflectors could be installed on several roads – Route 20 from Carter’s Bridge
to Scottsville, noting that there were four fatalities on Route 20 South last year – and Ash Lawn Road
between Route 53 and Ash Lawn on Route 795, as requested by the curator of Ash Lawn. Mr. Utterback
agreed to check into those items.
__________
Mr. Rooker stated that there are three roads in his district that could benefit from reflectors also –
Garth Road, Earlysville Road, and W oodlands Road – all two-lane roads that serve large volumes of
traffic. He noted that Earlysville Road is the most crucial of those, as construction vehicles are using that
route to get to Hollymead Town Center. Mr. Utterback agreed to check into those items.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that there was a process to finish schematic work on the Georgetown Road
improvements, and asked that that project be moved along.
Mr. Utterback responded that task force recommendations were provided to designers, with a
preliminary design and informational meeting planned for the near future.
Mr. Rooker commented that the preliminary design was done six years ago, and has been stalled
since then. He noted that Georgetown Road is serving about 16,000 vehicle trips per day, with lots of
school buses and pedestrians.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about the Southern Parkway, and whether it qualifies for secondary road
funding. Mr. Utterback replied that there has been correspondence with Richmond, and they were
planning on revisiting it and getting back to the local transportation office within a month.
Mr. Rooker said that there have been several verbal assurances that it qualifies for funding, but
nothing formal.
__________
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Rooker asked that proffers for the North Pointe development receive VDOT feedback as soon
as possible, so that the Board understands VDOT’s view of the traffic situation there based on the
proffered improvements.
Mr. Davis noted that the county had received a new revised set of proffers on Monday.
Mr. Rooker suggested getting those to Mr. Utterback’s office, noting that there were items in the
past promised to be phased in over time.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if the work on the 250/Barracks Road bridge was just painting. Mr. Utterback
responded that the noise there is from sandblasting, and he has asked the traffic engineer to look at the
impact of lane closures instead of doing the work at night. He mentioned that the weather has also been
an obstacle, but they are hoping for a two or three week project. Mr. Rooker suggested explaining that to
the neighbors in that area.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Utterback if he had been contacted regarding a traffic light at Briarwood
and possible connection with Camelot, and if the connection would impact traffic safety in any way. Mr.
Tucker pointed out that he believes Mr. Graham is handling that, and would be working with VDOT.
__________
Mr. W yant asked about the bridge at Old Trail and the western connector in Crozet, and wondered
if it would be dealt with at Culpeper or Richmond. Mr. Utterback agreed to look into it.
__________
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Utterback for attending the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: W ater Supply Alternatives, Tom Frederick.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director for the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority, addressed the
Board with a slide presentation, noting that his group’s goals include meeting the water supply needs
determined for the community, meeting environmental requirements that conform to state and federal
regulations.
Mr. Rooker asked if the 9.9 million gallons per day of “added safe-yield capacity” were over the
current capacity. Mr. Frederick replied that that incorporates 5.9 million gallons per day that has been
projected as growth in water demand plus 4 million that are recognized as the sediment issue in the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He noted that the “safe yield” is under drought conditions, and best practices
indicate that the public be alerted early in a drought to educate them to encourage conservation, as well
as adopting water restrictions if necessary.
Mr. Frederick stated that demand projections have been done, in response to EPA questions, and
it is an averaging of four widely accepted methods, reviewed by DEQ. They are presuming on that basis it
is accepted. There is a forecast in these projections. Through continued education efforts the Service
Authority and City are actively doing, it is forecasted that we can achieve a minimum of five percent
additional reduction in per capita usage. He added that the goal should be to do better than that through
water conservation uses.
Mr. Frederick noted that their calculations do factor in growth in the community.
Mr. W yant pointed out that the sediment increase will influence capacity as well. Mr. Frederick
agreed, noting that what alternative is selected will affect the phasing of that replacement capacity. He
emphasized that the worst years are planned for, using the drought records, so that the public will always
have an adequate water supply.
Mr. Frederick explained that to obtain approval from state and federal regulators, his staff must
identify the “least environmentally damaging practical alternative,” taking into account the overall project
purpose – which is additional community water supply in this case – feasibility, logistics, and cost.
Ms. Thomas asked what is considered least environmentally damaging, noting that mitigation
costs may be viewed too simply. Mr. Frederick replied that there is a preference to avoid what the federal
regulators define as “environmental impacts,” and the impacts from even the least damaging one chosen
has to be mitigated. He emphasized that the idea is to choose the least damaging, even if the financial
resources are available to mitigate more damaging alternatives. W ith respect to wetlands, and with
respect to stream inundation, or any kind of stream impacts, there are specific formulas that have been
developed. Mr. Frederick added that they are planning to put the regulatory references on their website.
Mr. Frederick stated that the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries can veto any plan that
compromises rare and endangered species in a location, but he added that the four concepts being
considered for Albemarle do not have those issues at this time, nor are any cultural resources threatened.
He added that the biggest issues facing them at this point are related to wetlands and stream impacts.
Mr. Frederick said that they are working with the Nature Conservancy to address as many local concerns
as possible, while keeping within the Comprehensive Plan.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Frederick emphasized that their objective has been to get as much information as possible out
to local communities. He added that there are several public meeting scheduled in the next few months.
Mr. Frederick added that they have a speakers’ bureau available, but they have not had a lot of requests
for that.
Mr. Rooker asked if the water conservation figures were used in reaching the 9.9 million gallons
per day figure. Mr. Frederick responded that those figures were used in deriving the 9.9 need.
In response to a previous Board question, Mr. Frederick explained that the dredging equipment
being used is the same as the Decatur, Illinois example. He stated that in all reservoirs built, there is
“dead storage” at the bottom not counted, and Albemarle has a long, narrow reservoir, that traps sediment
in the upper part rather than the lower part. Mr. Frederick indicated on a slide presented where that water
storage pool is located.
Ms. Thomas asked if the water intake could be lowered to take advantage of the larger pool of
water. Mr. Frederick responded that the intake is built into the dam structure itself, noting that the poorer
quality water is located in that pool.
Mr. Thomas said that the plan to use water from the James would require significant treatment, so
that’s “apples and apples.” Mr. Frederick replied that with reservoir-stored water, there are different levels
of oxygen, and the top part of the pool is the best water; a running river has continuation aeration.
Mr. Rooker commented that as the water is used, it goes down, and the pool near the dam should
have improved oxidization as the water moves. Mr. Frederick stressed that best practices in the industry
don’t plan for use of that pool water, but he acknowledged that in a dire situation that water would be
considered.
Mr. Tucker said that in the most recent drought, the “dregs” were being considered for use.
Mr. Frederick said that in the summer months, the water does tend to stratify, but it moves more
in the fall and winter.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to lower the intake. Mr. Frederick said that in the event
of a severe shortage, he would recommend getting a temporary submersible pump, but again emphasized
that generally you don’t plan for use of that lower water.
Mr. Bowerman noted that one of the characteristics of the county’s reservoir is that the speed of
the water as it enters the upper reaches slows down and drops to sediment.
Mr. Frederick showed examples of hydraulic dredges, pumps, etc., noting that there would need
to be some disposal. He explained that the county does not own a sufficient amount of land adjacent to
the reservoir, but there are some empty parcels that could be adapted to de-watering that are now
privately owned. You must have the ability to have erosion control. There are mechanical ways to dry it,
and it dries faster, but the electrical costs of doing something like that are quite high.
Ms. Thomas said that the airport needs a tremendous amount of infill soil by 2008, and surmised
that possibly the dredged soil from the reservoir could be used. Mr. Tucker stated that are trying to get
Delta engineers to talk with Gannett-Fleming engineers about that very issue.
Mr. Rooker asked about the size of de-watering area needed for dredging. Mr. Frederick
responded that it would depend on how much would need to be moved – for 100,000 cubic yards per year
at 50 percent sand, 50 percent silt/clay would require approximately 40 acres. He added that 75,000 cubic
yards per year is currently steady, but the additional is needed to meet the MGD. If you go below 75,000
then you may be slowing the siltation of the reservoir, but you’re not stopping it.
Mr. Frederick reported that the regulators focused on the wetland and stream environmental
impacts, and the dredging alternative fits very well because the de-watering and disposal sites can be
designed to avoid sensitive environmental areas. They have to respect the buffer rules that are local, and
they have to respect the federal and state laws regarding protection of the streams. He added that buying
enough land at higher levels will minimize those impacts.
Mr. Frederick said that technology can aid in minimizing impacts such as noise and odor,
including using a turbidity curtain to allow recreation to continue at the reservoir. He mentioned that
upland impacts are not considered as significant as the wetland and stream impacts, and transportation
impacts on trucking would be a factor if the soil were marketed and/or disposed of.
Mr. Rooker asked if technology could eliminate the noise and odor problems associated with
dredging. Mr. Frederick replied that they cannot be completely eliminated, but could be reduced
significantly with mufflers, etc. He added that the best affordable technology would be used.
Ms. Thomas noted that in the Decatur example, there have not been noise complaints, but there
is no information regarding proximity of homes to the site.
Mr. Frederick indicated that if there could be a market for 50 percent of the material removed.
The county could get the cost down to $127 million over 50 years. If there were no market, the worst case
figure would be $145 million.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Rooker asked what the up front costs are for dredging, versus the year by year cost. Mr.
Frederick responded that if the county contracted to have the dredging done, the cost would be spread
over the project time, instead of buying a dredge and undertaking the dredging independently. He added
that the land costs for de-watering facilities would be $660,000, with the basins themselves costing
$450,000 up front. Mr. Frederick said that the hauling and disposal costs could be paid for as they occur,
and the costs would be evenly spread over the 50 years. He mentioned that they are working on
calculating impact rates, so that phasing can be considered.
Mr. Frederick mentioned that a significant portion of the cost is related to transportation and
disposal of the dredge material, noting that the Decatur example is “considerably cheaper” than what
Gannett-Fleming had shown. He explained that Decatur is just dredging and de-watering, but has not
found a market for the dredge material yet.
Mr. Frederick said that the other concepts require building something new.
Mr. Frederick said that the sediment presence is due to the geology of the soil, the conditions of
the stream banks, and how land is developed and used. He commented that “our best bet” is to continue
focusing on minimizing the effect of human activity on the streams, while recognizing there are some
factors not in our control.
Ms. Thomas asked if mitigation monies could be used to protect stream banks. Mr. Frederick
agreed, noting that there are so many miles of streams in the watershed area, and tackling them all would
be unfathomable. He added that they try to maximize opportunities for stream bank issues. “You sort of
chip away at it a little at a time, but you really can’t solve it that quickly.”
Ms. Thomas asked about shallow dams to help capture the sediment. Mr. Bowerman said that
whenever dams are created, all of the problems they are trying to avoid appear.
Mr. Frederick stated that it is important that those who develop land need to find ways to capture
sediment before it leaves their property. Once the sediment is in the stream, the problem becomes a lot
more difficult. He added that Gannett has suggested that there is not a much better alternative to
removing sediment than to deal with it on site.
Mr. W yant asked about using turbidity curtains instead, noting that the regulations might not be
quite so tight. Mr. Frederick replied that water velocities might cause breakthrough with a turbidity curtain,
but they are very useful during dredging to prevent sediment from getting through where the dredge is
turning.
Mr. W yant noted that reducing the volume of stormwater is important to minimize sediment. Mr.
Bowerman said they do that to the greatest extent possible today.
Mr. Frederick commended the Board for staying on top of regulations for stormwater containment
and erosion control.
Mr. Rooker stated that the public perception is that the reservoir will be full of sediment and sand,
and asked what the reservoir would look like in 40 or 50 years without dredging. Mr. Frederick replied that
there is no perfect picture, but they are taking what has been experienced in other localities and trying to
apply it here. He mentioned that data suggests that there are sufficient levels of nitrogen and phosphorus
that would support vegetation, which needs to be closely monitored. Mr. Frederick emphasized the
importance of periodic chemical tests and bathometric surveys as a way to anticipate problems at their
earliest stages, then develop practical solutions.
Mr. Rooker asked what solutions are available. He also asked why he thinks the reservoir would
not become a mud bog if no dredging took place. Mr. Frederick explained that sediment settles out in a
reservoir because there is a wide pool, and velocity of the water slows down to the point that the sediment
can fall out of the water. He added that when the water is moving fairly rapidly, sediment stays in
suspension. Mr. Frederick noted that if the reservoir is growing smaller in the upper reaches, the velocity
at some point will be great enough that no sediment will accumulate in that area. You can visualize that
the lake will become more like a river over time. He thinks that would start in the upper reaches, how far
down it would go is really hard to say because at some point, you’ve got enough velocity that you’re
probably carrying over more sediment over the dam and not settling it out in the reservoir at all.
Ms. Thomas noted that there will be something leading up to that “river,” and it will probably be a
mud bog. Mr. Frederick acknowledged that in the reach that is shallow, there could be vegetation. That is
something he could not rule out. He added that there are invasive species, but there are also helpful plant
species. Mr. Bowerman said that you definitely do not want to remove the dam, because all the sediment
will eventually go downstream.
Ms. Thomas commented that 96 percent of the water makes it over the dam anyway, but the
county just has no pool storage.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were other options to deal with excessive vegetation other than
dredging. Mr. Frederick replied that a popular option used by water suppliers is applying copper sulfate,
and there are other chemicals that can be used. He acknowledged that great care must be taken in using
chemicals, and there are strong regulatory measures to monitor their use. If they do not dredge for water
supply but encounter an issue later, they should look for the best long-term solution to address the
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
problem that has been defined. He would not rule out dredging as a maintenance option. Mr. Frederick
added that there are a variety of options with dredging, including phasing possibilities.
Mr. Frederick reported that there are some marketing options available, and indications are that
zero to 50 percent of the sediment could be marketed.
Mr. Rooker asked if the estimated dredging costs assume that no four-foot bladder has been
added. Mr. Frederick said that the figures do not include the bladder possibility.
Mr. Rooker commented that in order to reach the 9.9 benchmark, dredging, the four-foot crest,
and something else would all have to be done. He asked if the cost of dredging increases or decreases if
you are trying to dredge from a larger reservoir with a higher pool. Mr. Frederick responded that four feet
of water is not going to substantially change the cost of actually doing the dredging. He added that you
can always release the bladder and drop the water level if necessary, but typically the barge will be sitting
wherever the water level is, and the impact of depth is negligible.
Mr. Frederick presented an example of the four-foot crest, with a crest gate at the top of the dam
to back up an additional volume of water – in this case, four feet. He said that Gannett recommends the
rubber inflatable or hydrogate over other alternatives for this purpose, and noted that there would be
property acquisition necessary around the perimeter of the lake; the lake itself is owned by the City of
Charlottesville, but beyond that is private property. Mr. Frederick said that there is a possibility of needing
to replace the bridge over Ivy Creek where it hits the reservoir if the pool is raised.
Mr. Frederick reported that the four-foot crest has the highest environmental impact in terms of
wetland and stream inundation. He added that the issue of instream flow release amount must be
negotiated with the regulators and could change. From a recreational standpoint, he noted, the raised
water level could be an enhancement, but there might be temporary construction impacts. He stated that
there is a significant mitigation cost, although a math error discovered does lower the original $18 million
estimate slightly. Mr. Frederick presented public comments received emphasizing that there would not be
an additional flooding impact.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were topographical maps available to show people who owned property
around the reservoir where the impacts would occur. Mr. Frederick replied that there would be an hour
before the public meeting available for staff to answer questions, with maps available at that time.
Ms. Thomas asked what the phrase “public input in bridge replacement” means. Mr. Frederick
responded that during the VDOT design process, the public stated that they may not have had a
reasonable opportunity in the past to express their opinions, and want to make sure they do during future
projects.
Mr. Tucker noted that the county’s GIS system would allow them to produce a map that showed
property owners based on tax map and parcel numbers.
Mr. Frederick mentioned that the technical memo explains updated costs in detail, and the
regulations would be posted on their website.
Mr. W yant asked where raising the water level ranks in terms of cost. Mr. Frederick replied that it
falls in the middle, with Mr. Rooker noting that 70 percent of those costs related to environmental
mitigation. Mr. Frederick noted that a lot of the wetlands are “emerging” or “fringe” wetlands, and if new
wetlands could be created by raising the pool that would possibly provide “credit” in the eyes of the
regulators.
Mr. Frederick explained the James River option, which involves intake from the James River and
a pipeline back to Charlottesville, and could possibly be a project solely to serve the Service Authority and
the City through Rivanna, or could be a larger regional project incorporating Fluvanna and Louisa
counties.
Mr. Dorrier asked how that decision would be made. Mr. Frederick replied that discussions with
those neighboring counties have taken place. At this point they are closely watching what Albemarle is
doing. He added that they do not see a future in regional cooperation from a water supply standpoint if
dredging or four-foot crest or Ragged Mountain or some combination is chosen, but they would be
interested in discussing a James River option if Albemarle leans in that direction.
Mr. Boyd said that he has heard that those localities are moving ahead with their own plans, and
there seems to be misinformation being circulated.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Rivanna Board has been reluctant to say anything other than “this
is one of our alternatives.” He emphasized that no alternative has been selected, and Fluvanna and
Louisa want to move forward more quickly, although they are aware that for a joint venture they need to
wait for Albemarle. The Rivanna Board does not have a number one priority. They are still trying to
submit this to their governing bodies – City, County, and the Albemarle Service Authority – so a joint
decision can be made.
Mr. Dorrier stated that with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, a good decision must be
made.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Rooker commented that the question is whether there would be an impact on the cost if there
were a joint project undertaken, and perhaps the consultant can provide that information.
Mr. Frederick replied that they have hesitated going to Gannett Fleming to go to great expense to
explore a regional solution. He added that he has made it clear that the James River option has not been
chosen.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would make a difference as to which water treatment plant is used,
depending on which route is taken from the James, because those figures have been backed out of the
projected costs presented. Mr. Frederick replied that because of South Fork’s location, a raw water
pipeline to that area is not the most economical. He added that water quality regulations are moving in a
direction that emphasizes minimizing the amount of time after the water is disinfected to when it is
consumed. They are taking a very guarded approach toward treating it at the James River. He added
that the water would probably be treated at a site closer to Charlottesville, noting that the county might not
want finished water in the corridor in the rural area between Scottsville and Charlottesville.
Ms. Thomas noted that having public water there would be totally contrary to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said that if a regional approach were chosen, that treatment plant would need to
be as close as possible to the three or four participating users. Mr. Frederick responded that that might
not be the case, as there may be preliminary treatments closer to the source, and final treatment would
take place closer to the localities.
Mr. Boyd said that a fifth option with a regional approach might need to be considered, as there
are significant cost-sharing issues to be determined.
Mr. Dorrier commented that there might be state and federal grant money available if a regional
project were chosen.
Mr. Bowerman said that it is a dynamic situation, and the Board needs to prioritize the four
alternatives. W e are just a little bit too early in the process – keep it as an alternative, but let it dwindle
itself down by the process.
Mr. Boyd stated that a regional program with water from the James will have a significantly
different look.
Mr. Rooker added that it would require a huge expenditure of time and money for a consultant to
evaluate the regional approach for the savings it might bring the county.
Mr. Frederick said that the county has not taken the approach at this point that they should ask
the Rivanna Board to fund on their own a full-blown evaluation of the regional alternative. He added that
they have approached the other parties and asked them if they would participate if Albemarle moves
ahead. The other localities have indicated they will wait to see what Albemarle does.
Ms. Thomas stated that the James River option seems to be the hardest to get a cost handle on.
Before this gets to final public comment, there is going to have to be a much better description of exactly
what the cost figures are and what they are based on in that alternative.
Mr. Boyd noted that there may be federal funding available, as Mr. Dorrier had pointed out.
Mr. W yant mentioned that if only Albemarle County is served, the pipe would be smaller.
Mr. Frederick stated that his staff would be willing to look at that option to get more information.
Mr. Dorrier said that he has met with Cecil Todd, Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of
Supervisors, and asked Mr. Tucker if he had met with Fluvanna staff.
Mr. Frederick replied that he has talked with staff and Jennifer W hitaker has spoken with the
Fluvanna County Engineer.
Mr. Dorrier suggested establishing communication with the localities to discuss these issues.
Ms. Thomas said that it is important to get a better picture of how that water would be used. This
community doesn’t need more flow of water in ordinary times. In a drought, we need more storage and
that’s why Beaver Creek, for example, as a reservoir, doesn’t add new water – it’s capturing water that
otherwise goes in the Rivanna Reservoir. She added that the pipeline is new flow of water, which is not
what is needed except in drought. It’s a new type of solution, so she thinks it needs more description of
how it is going to work than the others, which are all sort of things we can all visualize because they are an
enlargement of what we already have.
Mr. Frederick responded that with respect to water infrastructure, you are designing for the
drought year, so no matter what facilities you build, you are building larger facilities than what you would
need in an average year. Your objective and your goal is the same. He added that whether it is a
reservoir or a pipeline, the county can only build it for what they need to satisfy a drought year because of
federal regulations.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Ms. Thomas commented that the reservoir only needs the extra four feet in time of drought.
Everyone can visualize how we are going to constantly be taking water out of the reservoir. She asked if
you would keep pumping water all the time, or do you only pump it when you need it in a drought, and if
so, you ought to look at the cost and divide it by a different figure because you’re only going to be using it
every seven years or something.
Mr. Frederick replied that if a pipeline is built to supplement needs, there are a lot of options. He
emphasized that if your objectives are purely economy, the pumps would not be run often; if your
objectives might include placing more water in streams, the pumps might be run more often.
Mr. Bowerman said that part of that 9.9 would be used every day.
Mr. W yant stated that other localities might need it more often.
Mr. Frederick explained that if the pump were only going to be used for Albemarle – along with
South Fork and Sugar Hollow – it would not have to be run every day, except in a drought situation. You
do have to run it often enough to keep the equipment in good maintenance and repair.
Mr. Rooker noted that regardless of the option chosen, there would be an investment for the
drought of record computation – whether it is additional reservoir space, the pipeline, Ragged Mountain,
etc.
Mr. Frederick mentioned that the regulations do not require selection of the exact pipeline route,
so the numbers could change. The numbers in the technical memo are based on the routing presented
which goes to the Observatory Mountain water treatment plant. He noted that Gannett is looking into the
possibility of connection with the Ragged Mountain reservoir.
Mr. Frederick reported that the environmental impacts for the James River alternative are minimal
– less than one acre of wetlands impacted based on the generic route chosen, and there are some
temporary stream crossings. He revealed that the cost is about $5 per gallon of safe yield added. Mr.
Frederick noted that the public comments had included concern about the quality of water compared to
the reservoir drinking water, and the potential for spill hazards since the river traverses a large part of the
state. There are ways to deal with these issues in emergency response. They are a little bit different than
the way you would deal with the reservoir.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a significant difference in the quality of water drawn out of the
James and the way it has to be treated, and the quality of water that is drawn out of Ragged Mountain or
South Fork. Mr. Frederick replied that there are differences. The differences are not substantial enough
that they cannot remove the impurities in the treatment plant process.
Mr. Rooker asked if the impurities would be removed by adding chemicals. Mr. Frederick
confirmed this.
Mr. Rooker commented that the EPA regulations long ago had recommended removing chlorine
in water treatment facilities, but never proceeded because of the cost to localities. Chlorine causes
carcinogens in the water. He asked if the James River water would need to be more heavily or less
heavily treated than the typical South Fork or Ragged Mountain water.
Mr. Frederick replied that there would be times when the treatments are comparable, but there
would also be times – especially during rainfall events when the flow of the river is moving stronger – more
chemicals would be needed for adequate treatment.
Mr. Rooker commented that it would be helpful to know a little more about that at some point.
Ms. Thomas noted that Lynchburg is well-known for having problems with water, and there have
been numerous reports of dioxin and other toxins in fish from the James. This just does not sound like
water you would want to be drinking. She added that in 25 years, treatment plants will supposedly be
much better, and perhaps considering doing a pump-back would be the preferred solution.
Mr. Frederick said that the Virginia Department of Health has made it clear in writing that they
would reject an application for a pump-back.
Ms. Thomas replied that other communities are doing it, and more information will become
available.
Mr. Frederick continued with his presentation, noting that Ragged Mountain would have to be
rehabilitated. Mr. Rooker said that all of the options assume that rehabilitation will take place.
Mr. Frederick acknowledged that that would be factored into cost comparisons. He said that
Gannett has concluded that rather than raising and rehabilitating the old dam, a new dam would be built
instead, and all the capacity of the existing reservoir could be used during construction. Mr. Frederick
mentioned that there needs to be a practicable refill time in the event of a drought, and the site is currently
relying on rainfall in the watershed and pipeline transfers from Sugar Hollow and Mechums pump.
Mr. Frederick said that the environmental impacts of the Ragged Mountain option are “very low on
the wetlands side,” and “moderate on the stream inundation side” that would require mitigation. The cost
of this option would be $4 per gallon minimum safe yield, the lowest of the four options if the replacement
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
of the Sugar Hollow pipeline is not included. He noted that the pipeline would eventually need to be
replaced.
Mr. Frederick said that the cost of the existing dam replacement is in the CIP, and is around $4
million. He added that the cost presented includes the new dam and the refurbishing of the Mechums
pump station, and would include environmental mitigation and other costs as well. That is the whole
package. Mr. Frederick reported that public comments have included concern about the ability of refilling
and the possibility of spills. He added that they have had very close discussions with VDOT about the use
of the embankment, and have been told verbally that it will be approved conditioned upon technical issues
being worked out to make sure the embankment is not in danger. Mr. Frederick said that the health of the
Moorman’s River has been raised as a concern, and more information is needed.
Mr. Rooker agreed that this is an important factor, and wondered how more information could be
gathered.
Mr. Frederick acknowledged that this is a difficult issue, and would need to be dealt with at the
regulatory phase, with the DEQ defining minimum conditions, and the county taking further steps if
desired.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that this option would need to be chosen in order to subsequently
find out information about the health of the Moorman’s River, and that information is needed ahead of time
in order to make a decision about that option.
Mr. Frederick said that he can comment in general terms that in most years, the county can
increase the flow in the streams in most years. W hat is not yet understood is what happens during the
year of the drought of record. He added that one concern from the regulatory standpoint is that if the
proposed solution is to build a reservoir or larger pipeline, the environmental impacts of wetlands and
stream inundation are evident. Regardless of what DEQ rules, he believes that through further inflection
of what is going on in our community and what this study is entailing, that in most years we can make
some improvements regardless of which option is selected.
Mr. Frederick concluded that they are working on final cost comparisons to be released later in
February, and they are continuing to work with the Nature Conservancy and an outreach meeting is
scheduled for mid-February to obtain public comment on all alternatives. He noted that there is a joint
meeting March 3rd with City Council, this Board, the Rivanna Board, and the Service Authority. After that,
he said, a process will need to be defined for selecting a preferred alternative, and incorporating into that
will be some more engineering work, as well as answers to questions that have been raised. He added
that a final report and regulatory agency review, as well as permit and approval, would be part of this
process, with simultaneous public outreach.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a timetable for the final product. Mr. Frederick replied that he is
hoping that a target date in July can still be achieved.
Ms. Thomas said that when she asked the dam safety people what was driving the July deadline,
they implied that a change in administration was driving it. She does not see how they can make a final
decision by that point. She thinks that if they want the best decision, we ought to be able to request an
extension.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that it is important to keep the process moving forward, noting that they
have been through this before. Now, things that were discovered in the interim – once those options were
selected – we have had to go back through that process again. This is the second time as a community
we have gone through that process at great expense. He added that he thinks there is a general
sentiment in the community that we need to move forward with some deliberate speed here to make a
decision and get it permitted, so that we know that we’ve got solutions.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Rooker, adding that if a technical issue arises, more time may be
needed.
Mr. W yant asked if they could meet the July deadline with a final report. Mr. Frederick responded
that they can meet that deadline, but decisions need to be made in the very near future. He said that the
concepts all need to be taken and turned into 9.9 MGD options, with the treatment and rehabilitation, etc.
put in and a full report compiled. Mr. Frederick suggested narrowing the choices down by early March for
the engineer to review in detail.
Mr. Tucker said that the joint meeting taking place March 3rd is very important.
Mr. W yant asked if there could be some lead time with issues prior to March 3rd. Mr. Tucker
responded that the meeting would focus more on discussion than presentation.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are decisions that have been made prior to where they are now
that he finds questionable, especially those related to Beaver Creek and Chris Greene Lake. He would
like to get some information between now and that March meeting, if you find that you can include a
couple of additional million gallons from other sources that we’re not presently including, that 9.9 million
may be diminished somewhat, and may expand potential options you have.
Mr. W yant pointed out that he would want to see the sedimentation rate at Beaver Creek. He
thinks the Board needs to have the data.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Frederick replied that there is not comprehensive data available, but he could make a “short
paper” that should give enough basic information. He agreed to include some comments on ConAgra and
the use of water in the Crozet area.
Mr. Rooker recalled discussions about using Chris Greene in times of drought. Mr. Tucker said
that using that water usage would need to be weighed against the recreational use of the lake.
Mr. Rooker stressed the importance of considering all available options before an expensive new
system is created.
Mr. Frederick said that the issue with Beaver Creek is how much should be allocated to the urban
system, and how that might take away from Crozet. It is a question of growth. He added that
implementing a program to increase instream flows could yield enormous benefits. If you’ve allocated
every drop of water in every reservoir, you don’t have any more to play with in a management scheme.
_______________
(At 11:48 a.m., the Board took a recess, and then reconvened at 11:57 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Commission on Children and Families Annual Report.
Ms. Roxanne W hite, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, noting that the
Commission is part of the county’s strategic approach to human services. She explained that in 1995, the
human services plan adopted by the Board identified as one of the four major goals to address
development of an integrated, efficient, accessible, and humane system for human services that’s based
on accurate information and community needs. She added that one of the specific objectives was to
charge an appointed group to oversee the assessment, and provision of human services in implementing
the human services plan.
Ms. Saphira Baker addressed the Board and introduced Commission members Shirley Copeland,
Kathy Ralston, Martha Carroll, and Gretchen Ellis and Lori Carpenter of her staff.
Ms. Baker said that the Commission was formed through regional cooperation between the city
and the county for human services, and was a vehicle to administer many mandated programs that had to
be administered regionally. In that same agreement, she said, there were eight charges set forth. She
reported that their main goal is to improve services to children and families, and to be accountable for the
efficient use of resources and responsive to the needs of the community. Ms. Baker said that the CCCF
serves as an information source on data and services for children and families, a coordinator of nonprofit
and public agencies to increase efficiencies, an advisor for policy and planning, and a catalyst to bring
new resources into the community, supporting innovative solutions.
She explained that the core of the CCF’s work takes place in workgroups, which consist of about
180 individuals representing ad-hoc work groups that take a pressing issue identified by data and propose
solutions and recommendations; ongoing coordinating bodies such as the Juvenile Justice Advisory
Committee; and project-specific groups such as the one that produces Stepping Stones. She noted that
they have 5.2 FTE’s, most of whom focus on the mandated programs.
Their first charge, Ms. Baker said, was to serve as administrator and oversee the CSA funds;
there is a coordinator in their office and a half-time FAPT coordinator for those jobs. She explained that
last year, one role was to try to get a handle on the reason for the increasing case loads and cost growth
in the CSA program, and a report was published in November with those results. Ms. Baker reported that
many of those recommendations are underway, including a single Family Assessment Planning Team of
four, an automated form to measure outcomes and costs, additional clerical support, and a soon-to-be
hired utilization manager.
Ms. Baker noted that providing short and long term planning for family services is done by
publishing trend data for the community. In addition to their reports, she said, they try to bring people from
different sectors of the community together to solve a problem that is presenting a barrier in many entities.
She noted that they are developing an internet-based electronic information sharing system, where
families sign off on the information to be shared and it comes to providers more quickly.
Ms. Baker said that since 1999, the Commission’s outcome measurement workgroup has been
working to recommend an investment strategy and partnership with local community agencies to meet
identified community needs. She noted that last year an intern worked with them to compile this
information into several reports, and this year, they are hoping to recommend priority areas for investment
based on the data and based on inventory on what has already been spent in human services. Ms. Baker
mentioned that they recently used state Department of Criminal Justice funding to evaluate the juvenile
court system, and found that parents, children, and providers simply wanted better information about how
the system worked; the CCCF developed the Juvenile Court Guide to provide that to the court, and it is
also used as a teaching tool in middle school as a “warning tool” for kids to stay out of trouble, and is also
used to orient staff across the community about how the court system works, as well as an orientation for
kids in detention centers. She added that it would be coming out in Spanish in a few weeks.
Ms. Baker explained the Family Violence Prevention W orkgroup came out of the CCF’s research,
and was initiated as a response because the negative impact of family violence was seen in kids in foster
care, the juvenile court system, and intensive out of community placements. W hile the group was looking
at what would improve the system locally, she said, they also implemented a multi-disciplinary team with
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
all major public agencies and nonprofits involved; they have been meeting bi-weekly and has reviewed
over 65 cases for children who have been seriously abused or victimized. She indicated that the team
focuses on effective investigation, prosecution, and intervention for those kids.
Mr. Rooker asked what the size of the CCF staff is. Ms. Baker responded that they have 5.4 full
time employees – a director, a part-time planner, part time administrative assistants, part-time
information/outreach person, a full-time juvenile justice coordinator, a full time CSA coordinator, and half-
time FAPT coordinator.
Mr. Boyd asked where CCF funding comes from. Ms. Baker replied that the funding comes from
the city and the county, and there are CSA state dollars for part of the administrative piece, and there are
juvenile justice dollars for part of that piece as well. She added that their staff is frequently involved in
community public and nonprofit agencies to bring in new approaches and leverage resources better. She
presented a map that shows positive and negative indicators in a neighborhood to point out places that
need to be watched, where intervention is needed, and where there are positive things happening.
Ms. Baker reported that the CCF was involved in getting the 21st century grant that’s coming to
Yancey Elementary School, and supervised the fundraising for that. She added that the CCF is frequently
using their data to address community needs.
Mr. W yant asked if they had been observing neighborhood trends over several years.
Ms. Baker replied that they do have three years of trends for the City of Charlottesville data piece,
and crime is going down there. She noted that they have mapped single parent households, free and
reduced lunch homes, social services cases, etc., so that progress can be measured.
Ms. Baker noted that their data are used to raise money, as people use their information to apply
for grants. She explained that this year, organizations raised $600,000 by using their data, and there are
other groups using the CCF website to obtain data as well.
Ms. Baker said that this year, they wanted to explore why more low-income kids were not involved
with after-school activities, and the workgroup asked the kids initially. She reported that they received a
grant to do the study, which will train 22 student youth leaders to go to every middle and high school in the
county, and ask what the barriers and opportunities were for getting involved in after-school activities. Ms.
Baker mentioned that they produced three brochures, which have been distributed to 16,000 students in
the county.
Ms. Baker reported that their legislative forum attracts a diverse group of people interested in
talking to legislators about children’s needs, and they put together a legislative packet for the General
Assembly and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District legislative agenda.
Ms. Baker said that the CCF also produces an annual report, and asked the Board last year about
their usage of this information. She indicated that three-fourths of Board members said they used this
information, and several indicated the need for more detailed recommendations with specific dollar
amounts, etc. Ms. Baker said that they are working on concise reports, better ways to engage the public,
and continuation of research on trend in limited English-proficient residents.
Ms. Baker reported that the Youth Voices report has just been published, and they are
recommending increased youth engagement, new resources in different areas of the county, and a
promotional campaign to get the word out about after-school activities, as well as talking to parents about
the value of after-school time as a protective factor.
She mentioned that the Family Violence Prevention workgroup is also developing an
implementation plan, with help from the Darden Business School, for the potential of a children’s advocacy
center here.
Mr. Boyd noted that the CCF does a lot of needs assessment and work with other nonprofits/
agencies, and asked if they had ever taken a look to see how much redundancy there might be in services
among those groups. He stated that a lot of these services seem to overlap.
Ms. Baker replied that the workgroups themselves coordinate their services so they will have
strategies to avoid duplication. She said that they have mapped the nonprofit investments, but they have
not looked broadly at every human service program in the community – that would involve Region 10, the
Health Department, etc. Ms. Baker said that they would like to do a “human services budget,” but need to
find the resources to undertake that effort.
Ms. Thomas asked if they would also take a look at where there might be gaps.
Ms. Baker responded that they are now trying to map out where the needs are first, and then try to
establish whether those needs are being met. Some of those needs are already obvious, she added. Ms.
Baker said that they have issued reports to the Board, but more dialogue would be helpful. She noted that
the “Focus Areas” document is a compilation of 40 studies – housing, transportation, human services,
etc.- that identifies community needs.
Mr. W yant said that he interpreted the report as leaving the door open for CCF to come to the
Board with information as they get it.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Baker added that now with outcome measurement, there is a good sense of what is invested
in nonprofits and public agencies and what they’ve been able to accomplish each year.
Ms. W hite commented that staff is trying to make more specific recommendations based on the
findings of CCF and other analytic sources.
Ms. Baker said that right now, they are working on the nonprofit piece more than the agency
piece.
Mr. Rooker thanked her for her report, and noted that there is a tremendous amount of work
involved in compiling the CCF’s data.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Baker how committee members were appointed. Ms. Baker replied that
out of brainstorming sessions, meetings, and citizen comments, a diverse group forms around a specific
issue.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation: Streamwatch Program, John Murphy.
Mr. John Murphy, who manages the Streamwatch Program, addressed the Board. He explained
that Streamwatch collects, consolidates, and disseminates high-quality scientific data information about
Rivanna watershed streams and rivers. Mr. Murphy said that their reports go out to program volunteers,
cooperating landowners, organizations, and agencies involved in watershed management, the media, and
local decision-makers. He noted that they don’t engage in regulation, policy development or advocacy,
adding that the entities that sponsor Streamwatch are Albemarle County, the Nature Conservancy,
Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority, Rivanna Conservation Society, the Planning District Commission,
and the Soil and W ater Conservation District. He noted that these entities embody differing and even
conflicting uses of Rivanna resources, but all agree that the streams and rivers of the Rivanna basin are
highly valuable resources.
Mr. Murphy emphasized that Streamwatch is a vehicle by which diverse stakeholders can agree
on the condition of the resources. He mentioned that he is an ecologist, and their program also benefits
from input from other scientists. Mr. Murphy explained that they study streams because of their intrinsic
value – fishing, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, etc.; their aesthetic value to the community; sewage
treatment; and drinking water. He noted that streams are also indicators of the condition of the stream as
well as the areas of land that drain to the streams, an effective and economical way to obtain a reading on
an area of land analogous to “taking a blood sample.”
Mr. Murphy reported that he had taken samples of ventric macro-invertebrates that are invisible to
the naked eye but live in the bottom of streams. He said that these organisms serve to report water
quality information to those who study them, and the best streams are those that support a robust
biological community. Mr. Murphy explained that they collected 115 ventric samples at 25 core monitoring
sites, and most were collected at 21 tributary monitoring stations. In addition to collecting this data, they
also analyze land use and land coverage.
Mr. Murphy said that they also analyze population density, forest cover in riparian areas and the
subwatershed, and equivalent impervious surface. He reported that they put all of these factors together
into an index of land use intensity. Mr. Murphy said that 14 of 21 tributary sites were found to be in “fair”
condition, two were in “good” shape, and five were in “poor/very poor” condition. He noted that he feels
these select sites are representative of the Rivanna system and its basin as a whole, and deduced that
this system is in “fair” condition.
Mr. Murphy presented a map that shows the very healthiest streams as being Upper Buck
Mountain Creek and Middle Fork in Fluvanna. He pointed out that streams assessed to be in poor
condition are Ivy Creek, Mechums River, and Carroll Creek in Glenmore, as they are more heavily used;
the macro-invertebrate communities there are impaired, and a lot of those organisms are tolerant of
pollutants. Mr. Murphy said that the more severely impaired streams are Moore’s and Meadow, which
drain urban areas.
As for the mainstem of the river, he explained, the assessment is less precise because the data
gathering tools used are not intended for a river that size. He reported that they assessed most of the
Rivanna to be in poor to fair condition, based on three observations – the river is the sum of the tributaries;
this range of fair to poor accords with general patterns of land use throughout the watershed; particular
problems such as urban runoff and waste collection leaks affect the mainstem but not always the
tributaries.
Mr. Murphy noted that impervious surface includes roads and rooftops, but also takes into
consideration lawns, pastures, and other surfaces that drain water differently than a native forest. He
noted on a map the areas of most impervious surface, which included Charlottesville and Lake Monticello.
As land use intensity diminishes, biological health increases. Mr. Murphy stated that many, many studies
from around the world show that the best water comes from those watersheds that are not overdeveloped,
overfarmed, overforested, overpopulated. He concluded that now Albemarle has its own study to support
this long-held finding, and added that he hopes this information will serve as tool in striking a balance
between meeting human needs and maintaining key ecological functions on which our economies and
well-being rely.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. W yant asked about the specifics of his data collection. Mr. Murphy responded that the 115
samples were collected over an 18-month period, with three to four samples taken per site.
Mr. W yant noted that the map clearly shows the relationship between land activity and water
quality, which will be helpful in comprehensive planning.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that green lawns can turn out to be the worst impact on waterways.
Mr. W yant commended Mr. Murphy for his unbiased work in gathering data.
Mr. Rooker thanked him for the significant amount of work that went into the study.
_______________
(Noting the time, the Board moved Items 12a and 12b to the afternoon portion of the
meeting.)
________________
Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:50 p.m., motion was
offered by Mr. Dorrier that the Board adjourn into a closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 of the
Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions;
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to a site plan
denial and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters
requiring legal advice relating to two interjurisdictional agreements.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:05
p.m.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session
The motion was seconded by Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15a. Vacancies/Appointments
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Lynn Holt to the DISC II
Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None
__________
Agenda Item No. 15b. Proposed terms of office and term limits.
This item was moved deferred until March 2, 2005.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public hearing: Community Development Block Grant Program.
(Advertised in Daily Progress on January 25, 2005).
Mr. Ron W hite, Director of Housing, reported that Albemarle County does not get block grants
directly by entitlement, but must compete through the state Department of Housing and Community
Development for any funding for these activities. This presentation is to provide information on the block
grant program. The state has notified them that March 23rd is the deadline for applications, and
Albemarle is eligible to apply for up to $2.5 million in grants. Mr. W hite explained that CDBG funds can be
used for housing production, housing rehab, community facilities, and other community projects. In the
past, they have been used to benefit low to moderate-income persons.
Mr. W hite noted that the last block grant was used for W hitewood (Park’s Edge) Apartments, and
that facility was completed last September, and was successful as a housing project and for its after-
school activities. He added that there will be small business assistance and GED programs at that site in
the near future. Mr. W hite suggested setting a public hearing for March 16th if any applications would be
coming forward at that time.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Thomas asked if staff had recommended projects, if the public did not move forward with
anything. Mr. W hite responded that they may recommend a planning grant, noting that AHIP is
considering developing land on Rio Road adjacent to Village Square. He added that there was a
community meeting held at JABA last week, and numerous residents came out against the plan because
of transportation issues. Mr. W hite said that he does not believe that proposal is ready to go forward as a
housing production grant, but may be ready to go forward as a planning grant, to pay for engineering
studies, architectural studies, etc.
Mr. W hite added that the other AHIP project considered was a housing rehabilitation and
improvement grant for the Black Cat Road and Hacktown Road area, but they have not done sufficient
studies on that to identify and have all the information that is necessary to be competitive. He is hoping
that his staff and the University of Virginia will be able to do surveys in that area so that a grant could be
pursued in the future.
W ith that in mind, he said, the planning grant would be the only item on the table, and that amount
would be $25,000 and would be applied for by letter.
Mr. W yant asked if that grant would be for Rio only, or if it would include the Black Cat project.
Mr. W hite responded that it would cover the Rio plans, and would only be needed if new infill development
were planned for Black Cat.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Since no public comments offered, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Bowerman moved to set a public hearing date of March 16, 2005. Mr. W yant seconded the
motion.
Ms. Thomas added that Southwood mobile homes would be a good candidate for CDBG grants,
but it will not work for this type of grant.
In response to Mr. Rooker’s inquiry, Mr. W hite said that the only way that funds could be used for
construction or placement of manufactured housing would be if there was a nonprofit owner. He added
that if there were a developer coming in and 51 percent of the population served would be low to moderate
income, the grant could be used for that.
Mr. W yant asked if there was anything in Crozet that the grants could be used for.
Mr. W hite said that Jordan development is likely to go in for rural development money, not CDBG
grants, which is less competitive with less strings attached, and rental assistance is available with that
type of funding. He emphasized that money cannot be used to upgrade a private system, unless the
county or water authority was willing to take it over.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. CPA 2004-0005. Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan.
Proposal to amend the Comp Plan to include, by reference, the updated Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Master Plan. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is located on Bowen Loop at the intersection of
Dickerson Rd (Rt 606) & Airport Rd (Rt 649). The Airport is located on 558 acs. Znd RA & Airport Impact
Area (AIA). The Comp Plan designates this property as Institutional in the Hollymead Community. TM 32
P 10. W hite Hall Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24, 2005)
Mr. Kurt Goodwin, Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, addressed the
Board and requested their approval to amend the county’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate and
recognize the August 2004 Charlottesville-Albemarle Master Plan as the guiding document for
development of infrastructure and facilities over the next 20 years. He said the 2004 plan represents the
culmination of an intensive two-year study of the airport and its capital development needs, to preserve
existing facilities, enhance its safety and security, as well as further facilitate the movement of airline
passengers, general aviation aircraft and cargo to and from our region.
Mr. Goodwin explained that the projects undertaken during this period represent an investment of
approximately $92 million, which would be funded through a combination of federal, state and airport
authority funds. W hile ambitious, he noted, the successful implementation of this plan is critical to ensure
that our region continues to provide efficient and modern air transportation services to businesses,
citizens, and guests of our region.
Mr. Brian Elliott, the Airport Authority’s Executive Director, addressed the Board. He explained
that the document presented follows requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration for planning
projects on airports, and is necessary in order for the airport to be eligible for federal and state funding.
Mr. Elliott said that to date the document and drawings have been accepted by the FAA and Virginia
Department of Aviation.
Mr. Elliott explained that there is an eight-step process in developing the plan, which begins by
looking at existing airport conditions and then forecasting using FAA models what can be expected in
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
terms of passenger, aircraft and cargo activity. He said that this is interpolated on top of existing facilities
to produce a recommendation about whether or not new facilities are needed. Mr. Elliott reported that
they concluded all aviation activities should continue to grow for Charlottesville/Albemarle in the coming 20
years, and that is precipitating a number of the projects proposed with this plan.
Mr. Elliott noted that an environmental review is incorporated in this master planning process, and
a more detailed environmental assessment will be necessary for some of the development projects within
the plan, such as the runway extension. He said that the extension is the “keystone” project within this
plan, and they are looking at accommodating this to the north, which will necessitate the relocation of
several existing facilities such as a snow equipment removal facility and airport lighting vault. They are
proposing to move them to the west side, where the Authority owns 132 acres of undeveloped property.
Mr. Elliott noted that because of topography and stream impacts, not all of that land could be developed
as some of it feeds Chris Greene Lake.
Mr. Elliott mentioned that the Authority is planning for parking expansion both in the air carrier
terminal and general aviation areas, and continued development of hangers. He added that the east side
of the runway is pretty much “built out,” so the focus will now move to the west side. Mr. Elliott concluded
by recognizing the work of Juan W ade and David Benish, who worked on development of the plan.
Mr. W yant asked about the relocation of the road to the south, and asked if this was a VDOT
effort or an airport authority effort. Mr. Elliott responded that the Authority has taken that on, and VDOT
has reviewed the plan. He said that VDOT would be installing a traffic signal at the temporary intersection
of Routes 606 and 743, and the last two elements of that safety project do involve relocating Route 743
further to the west, but that will take another 2 years or so to complete.
Mr. Rooker commented that that will be helpful because the site distance is not very good there.
Mr. Elliott agreed, and said that the rising elevation of Route 606 makes the line of site very difficult, so the
traffic signal will be necessary. He added that the historic tree at the end of the runway protection zone
will not be impacted by the new projects.
Mr. W yant asked if the screening issues with the pine trees on the west side have been resolved.
Mr. Elliott replied that five or so years ago, there was a pine bark beetle infestation, and they harvested
those trees and planted loblolly pines instead, which are doing well. He noted that the screening of the
west side will be very important. Mr. Elliott added that they are in negotiation with a homeowner at the
intersection of Bedford Hills, and they are waiting to hear back from the landowner regarding the
authority’s most recent proposal for land acquisition, screening, etc.
Ms. Thomas said she had read the minutes from the Authority’s discussions with the Planning
Commission, and asked if the Authority prefers to have industrial zoning around the airport. Mr. Elliott
responded that a heavier, denser use around an airport facility is preferred, and throughout the U.S.,
airport impacts are measured in noise contours. He noted that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
currently has all noise impact areas on airport property. Mr. Elliott added that most residential
developments have occurred east and west of the airport, and not necessarily over the approaches on the
north or south end. He added that the airport has worked with the county on full disclosure statements
that go on deeds, plats, and marketing materials. Mr. Elliott mentioned that Loudon County has used that
same approach for properties near Dulles.
Mr. Rooker asked if the noise contours were measured by an average decibel over a period of
time. Mr. Elliott confirmed this. Mr. Rooker commented that while the noise is averaged, it can still be
significant, and people can be misled by noise impact areas. Mr. Elliott said that they encourage potential
landowners to go to their homesite and observe.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
airport plan.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Martin of Free Union addressed the Board. He commented on the master plan, noting
that the airport “needs dirt” and the county “has dirt.” Mr. Martin explained that the airport needs 1.82
million cubic yards to fill an area on the north end of the runway to do the extension. He said that Mr.
Elliott told him the airport would have to pay an estimated $20 million for that fill. This is a perfect
opportunity to take care of the reservoir and take care of the airport in a symbiotic kind of way. He
acknowledged that the soil would need to be tested, but he encouraged the county to explore this.
Mr. Alan Kendrick addressed the Board. He said that there is a right of way at the airport access
that serves two pieces of property, and he is uncertain how that would be affected by this plan. Mr.
Kendrick said that this is a 50-foot right of way to two parcels, one of which is 250 acres he owns. He
noted that he wants to put that property in the ACE program but still maintain the right of way. He
explained that when the airport was initially built, that right of way came up through the end of the runway
through the terminal building. Mr. Kendrick asked how an old family cemetery on the northeast corner of
the property would be protected, as it has been in his wife’s family since 1739. Mr. Kendrick added that
water runoff was re-routed when the runway was extended, and the water initially went east toward 29 and
entered the Rivanna River where the bridge crosses the river. Now it is dumped into the head of Chris
Greene Lake. He noted that that runoff has basically filled the south fork of Chris Greene Lake at the west
end. It is full of mud. Mr. Kendrick added that the retention pond made of “pea gravel” was washed away
by the first rain, and most likely into the lake. He mentioned that two 36-inch culverts still have water
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
running over them, which seems to indicate that the catch basin is not large enough, so the stream is still
being eroded.
Mr. Elliott responded that the Authority proposes to maintain the roadway that Mr. Kendrick had
mentioned, and said that the cemetery would need to be documented and identified, but he cannot see
any impacts to that based on the current plan. Mr. Elliott noted that there is a sizable stormwater
detention basins on the north end constructed in the mid 1990’s when Route 606 was relocated, designed
per state and county water control guidelines. He acknowledged that Mr. Kendrick is correct about the
water flow, and there are detention basins now north, south, and east of the airfield. Mr. Elliott added that
there was a temporary basin constructed on the northwest end of the airport during some construction, but
there were problems with it and it has since been closed off.
In response to Mr. Rooker’s question about site plan requirements, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that
as different sections are developed, they would come back to the county for site plan approval.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that at this point, there is a fourth airline that will use the airport – Northwest
Airline – and that should be added to the airport proposed language. He noted that for the Hollymead
Community section, the language included here will be part of the transportation improvements in that
description within the plan, and the airport reference would be moved from the public facilities section to
the transportation section. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board’s action today on the Comprehensive Plan
incorporates by reference the master plan. He added that staff will soon be bringing the necessary zoning
text and zoning map amendments that also reflect the plan, after the Planning Commission reviews them.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Master Plan in any way limits the ability to impose stormwater
management facilities as needed.
Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Tucker replied that this approval does not preclude review of stormwater at
a later time.
Mr. W yant moved for approval of CPA 2004-005, to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include
by reference, the update of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan, as set out in the language
on Attachments B and C, as modified by the addition of Northwest Airlines in paragraph 3. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Elliott if the Airport Authority could acquire some of the silt from the
Reservoir to determine if it is useable for the airport expansion. Mr. Elliott responded that his office has
begun discussions with the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority staff, and both engineering staffs are
going to pursue the issue. He indicated that at this point, it is a technical question to be answered, and
they will certainly work on it.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted language is set out below:)
General Principles for Transportation
Other Transportation Types
Air Travel
The purpose of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Master Plan August 18, 2004 is to provide the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Authority with useful, understandable information and guidance to develop and maintain a
safe and efficient airport. It also provides the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Virginia
Department of Aviation with information concerning the planned development at Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport. The Airport Master Plan is a comprehensive planning guide that ensures the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport remains a safe, efficient and environmentally sensitive air transportation facility, while serving the
growing needs of air travelers throughout the region.
The Airport has maintained a Master Plan for facility development since 1972. Prior updates include 1982 and
1994. FAA requires an airport to maintain a master plan in order to be eligible to receive grant-in-aid funding
through its airport improvement program. There are no set guidelines from FAA on how often an airport
master plan should be updated. Each master plan includes forecasts of aviation activity that are applicable for
5, 10 & 20 year periods. Historically, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has conducted an update every 10-
12 years.
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO) is the only commercial service airport in the region (the Louisa County
Industrial Airpark is a general aviation airport). The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is located in northern
Albemarle County west of Route 29 at Routes 649 and 606, approximately eight miles north of Charlottesville.
It is both a general aviation and a non-hub, commercial service airport offering 60 daily non-stop flights to and
from Charlotte, Philadelphia, New York/LaGuardia, W ashington/Dulles, Cincinnati, and Atlanta. The airport is
served by DeltaConnection, United Express, US Airways Express and Northwest. Service was initiated at the
Airport by Piedmont Airlines in 1955. Since then, the facility has grown to include a 60,000 square foot terminal
facility with modern customer amenities offering on-site rental cars, ground transportation, and food service.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
General aviation facilities include an executive terminal offering a full-service fixed base operation, flight
schools, and aircraft charter firms. Significant increases in the number of passengers departing from the
airport on commercial flights have occurred. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport continues to grow, from
65,620 passengers departing on commercial flights in 1980 to 132,432 in 1990, and serving 163,416
passengers in 2003.
The County is aware of the need to address infrastructure needs which would improve airport operations, such
as public utility and road improvements. Any future land acquisition and development by the Authority will also
need to be coordinated with the County to insure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable
ordinances, and to minimize negative impacts of expansions.
Recommendations
• The Charlottesville-Albemarle Master Plan- August 18, 2004 is recognized as a guide for the
development Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Continue to recognize the Airport Authority as
responsible for the management, planning and expansion of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport facilities. The County and the Airport Authority should coordinate long-term land use
and development plans for the airport area.
Hollymead Community
- Re-alignment of Route 606 (and Route 743) to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety
requirements.
- The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and the improvements included in the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport Master Plan Update –August 18, 2004. The Master Plan is recognized as the guide for the
development of the Airport.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. ZTA-2004-0009. Gas or Oil Transmission Line. An Ordinance to amend
Section 3.1, Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would
amend Section 3.1, Definitions, by amending the definition of “transmission line, gas or oil” to mean
pipelines that convey gas or oil for the purpose of supplying gas to a system, or which serve as a common
source of supply from a system station or substation to one or more distribution lines as delineated in the
definition if any portion of the pipeline is within the rural areas (RA) zoning district or within a public right-
of-way abutting such district. (Advertised in Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24, 2005)
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Board, noting that this amendment is
to Section 3, the definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance. She said that this issue was brought to their
attention because the Charlottesville Gas Division is proposing a six-inch gas main trunk line from the GE
plant in Albemarle along Route 29, extending to also provide gas service to Greene County. Ms. McCulley
reported that she determined the main trunk line is a transmission line requiring a special use permit. The
city appealed that decision to the BZA, and it is still pending there and is scheduled for review on February
8. She explained that the current pipeline expansion project raised questions and concerns about future
pipelines which could cross the rural areas and potentially impact resources. Ms. McCulley noted that
installation and maintenance of major gas pipelines involve certain widths of “clear zones,” areas which
are kept clear of landscaping and structures.
Ms. McCulley said that with any text amendment, a public purpose to be served must be
considered for that change to regulation. In this case, staff contends that broadening this definition to
require that more pipelines are subject to special use permits would allow the county to consider both land
use impacts and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She added that a special permit also
facilitates a public notice process and the imposition of conditions of approval. Review for compliance
with the Comp Plan would include adequate provision of natural gas services to the development areas;
providing lesser levels of public service delivery to the rural areas; and minimizing the impact of resources
and the rural areas. Review for impacts on those resources could include impact on the Entrance
Corridors, established agricultural operations, agricultural and forestal districts, historic resources, and
natural features such as streams.
Ms. McCulley said that land use impact from this type of use is short term and long term, with
short term effects during the construction process. Installation of a line that is subsurface can have a
greater environmental impact than installation of a line that simply goes across a stream, road, or
something else. She added that longer-term impacts can occur with the requirement of a clear zone.
Ms. McCulley reported that this item was first heard by the Planning Commission on January 11,
and was deferred to January 25th to allow staff time to consider revised language as proposed by the city.
She said that the Commission recommended approval at that time with staff’s recommended language,
which was revised to incorporate some language as recommended by the city to allow some existing gas
lines that would have become nonconforming under the new definition, to be grandfathered unless they
are extended or enlarged.
Ms. McCulley added that staff prepared an alternative in the event the Commission or Board didn’t
want to expand the definition of transmission line and make them all subject to special use permits. She
said that that alternative requires review for compliance with the Comp Plan, and is not staff’s favored
recommendation. The first choice is to expand the definition and make more pipelines by special permit.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. McCulley noted that county and city staffs have met, and the city will request that the Route 29
pipeline be exempt from the special use permit process.
Mr. Rooker asked how the grandfathering exempts this application.
Ms. McCulley responded that it would only exempt existing lines in the ground, not this application.
She emphasized that staff has not evaluated the impacts of this particular pipeline, but have worked on a
zoning text amendment, and some preliminary factors that would allow this project to move forward which
are: the fact that the project would be located partially within existing utility easements along Route 29 –
the existing utility easement is 20-feet wide, and 10 additional feet need to be acquired; Route 29 is a four-
lane divided highway. She mentioned that items of concern are the project’s one and one-half mile length,
the location within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and the fact that it crosses three streams.
Ms. McCulley concluded that the Board may choose to adopt the recommended ordinance as
proposed by staff (Attachment A), which would make the proposed pipeline on Route 29 be subject to a
special permit. The Board may adopt the alternative ordinance (Attachment B), which would allow
pipelines such as that by right but be subject to review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; or
the Board may set aside the Route 29 project to move forward by right and defer action on the zoning text
amendment and allow staff to review the impacts of that project and craft some ZTA language that would
specify that that project is not subject to a special permit. She noted that March 2nd would be the earliest
date that staff could get it back with that kind of evaluation.
Mr. Rooker asked if the entire pipeline is outside of the VDOT right-of-way on Route 29. Ms.
McCulley responded that it is out of the right-of-way, and the city had wanted to use the right-of-way, but it
has not worked out.
Mr. Rooker noted that Route 29 in that area has been targeted for widening, and he would like to
avoid a situation where utilities are being put in that might have to be moved later.
Mr. W yant asked how other transmission lines are being treated. Ms. McCulley clarified that
electrical and oil transmission lines are subject to special permit, water and sewer are treated differently –
they are by-right but are reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Craig Brown, representing the City of Charlottesville’s Gas Division, addressed the Board. He
presented a handout relative to the Route 29 project, and brought in a sample of a six-inch natural gas
pipeline.
Mr. Brown presented a map of the city’s existing gas distribution with lines that run into the county.
He said that the Route 29 line runs to the GE Fanuc facility, and there are retail users at Forest Lakes
and Hollymead as well as in the city. Mr. Brown said that as a general principle, the city has tried to utilize
either existing street rights-of-way or utility easements typically belonging to a power company or water
and sewer authority. He commented that that approach is least likely to have an adverse impact on the
county’s rural areas, and that’s what they’ve done in the Route 29 corridor. Mr. Brown said that the line to
GE is in the median of Route 29, and VDOT no longer allows the median to be used for that purpose,
especially with the center being targeted for widening. He added that the outer five feet of the right of way
may be used for pipe placement, but there are steep slopes that can preclude this use.
Mr. Brown explained that a 30-foot easement immediately outside the Route 29 right of way would
be necessary, and it runs across private property. He said that the first 20 feet of that easement would be
consistent with an existing overhead utility line easement for Rappahanock Electric Cooperative. Mr.
Brown emphasized that the gas line needs to be at least 10 feet from those power poles, for a total of 30
feet of easement area.
Mr. Brown said the installation would be relatively straightforward – trenching, installation, and
backfilling – about a mile and a half from the current location to northern Albemarle. He added that his
engineers have indicated that the can accomplish 500 to 800 feet per day, and there are usually no open
trenches during the construction process.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the pipe was flexible. Mr. Brown replied that it felt rigid to him.
Mr. Rooker asked if the project could be accomplished in a few weeks. Mr. Brown responded that
the entire project, which is five miles, is scheduled over six months, with the majority of that in Greene
County. He added that only the very end of the pipe is left open overnight. Mr. Brown said the project is
anticipated to go out to bid in the spring, with construction to begin in July. He noted that their goal is to
have gas available to customers in Greene by the end of the year, but that schedule is not realistic if the
project is subject to a special use permit process.
He commented that the ZTA brought forward by staff “is much broader than this project,” and his
first preference is to defer action to allow staff the time to study the impacts that would arise from this
project and come forward with a recommendation about whether it should be included or excluded from
the scope of the ordinance. Mr. Brown concluded that the city is committed to being responsible with line
extensions into Albemarle County in the past, whether a special use permit is required or not. He added
that the city brought this to the county in August for the review to begin.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Brown mentioned that the photos provided show where the pipeline would be located, and the
second picture shows a tree with survey tape that indicates the outer boundary of the right of way, and
their easement would be 30 feet from that, with the gas line being 10 feet from the pole.
Mr. W yant asked why the line was carried all the way to the asphalt plant in Greene County rather
than terminating it at Route 33. Mr. Brown replied that the asphalt plant would be a very important
customer for the city, and residential gas customers have a peak load in the winter, but the plant’s peak
use would be in the summer. He mentioned that the plant owner, Mr. W illiamson, has expressed an
interest in having gas at the plant, but has not been able to persuade Columbia Gas to serve that area.
Mr. Brown added that Greene County was considering text amendments to make the City of
Charlottesville’s gas lines by right.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any intention to make gas available to county residential properties
along the line. Mr. Brown responded that in Albemarle County, it was determined that it would not be
feasible to build lines to the residential units currently on north 29, but if a new development were to go in
with 50 or more homes, they would talk to the developer about making gas available there. He confirmed
that gas is not available in Camelot or Briarwood, as Mr. Rooker had inquired.
Mr. Brown emphasized that bringing gas to existing subdivisions would require enough customers
to convert from their current electric systems to natural gas, and it’s economically more attractive to “put in
the line before the asphalt is down” in new subdivisions. He mentioned that the city uses an economic
model that factors in the cost of extension versus the anticipated revenues, and looks for a certain return
over five years.
Mr. Brown said that historically, the lines as shown on the map presented have been considered
distribution lines, with the exception of one line determined in 1999 to be a transmission line and certified
by the BZA. He stated that that line is 400 pounds per square inch – a high pressure gas line. The ones
on the map are 90 pounds per square inch.
Mr. Rooker commented that the issue of whether it is a transmission or distribution line is under
the purview of the BZA.
Mr. Bowerman said that if staff’s language is adopted, a special use permit would be required for
the North 29 line regardless of the BZA’s ruling.
Mr. Brown stated that the only issue before the BZA is Ms. McCulley’s interpretation of the
ordinance, and if the Board takes action, that ordinance is no longer in existence.
Mr. W endell W ood addressed the Board, and said that he has requested gas for Briarwood
Subdivision, but the city levied a heavy charge to come onto the line, so that option was not taken. He
mentioned that the gas line in front of Hollymead Town Center has had to be relocated, and they are
having to pay the city $142,500 to relocate a line, without much cooperation from the city. Mr. W ood
suggested that there be a surcharge when the line runs from the city through the county to Greene.
Mr. Boyd commented that it makes sense to clarify the definition of transmission or service line for
future projects.
Mr. Rooker agreed that the language needs to be clarified, and expressed concern that lines
through the county might cost the county later if they have to be moved for road improvements. He said
that it would be helpful if new housing developments would be considered for gas from a line that goes
right by the entry to their subdivision. It’s hard to imagine based on the earlier discussion that that
wouldn’t be something that would be reasonably economically.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it would need possibly eight or ten units an acre. He added that
he has constituents that have been wanting gas, and this line must be a transmission line if it is carrying
gas past subdivisions but not providing them service because they haven’t met economic criteria
established by the city. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to him to [extend the line into Greene] unless
the county can get more gas service in the urban area of our community, because they are not getting it
now. He reported that residents of Raintree and W oodbrook have canvassed their neighborhoods to find
out who wants gas, and it has been marginally profitable to put that service in beyond the first five years.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman commented that the areas in Greene targeted for gas are no
denser than these Albemarle neighborhoods.
Mr. Dorrier stated that providing gas would help the county meet its affordable housing goals.
Mr. Bowerman said that there needs to be cooperation.
Mr. Rooker explained what is before the Board, which is staff’s proposition that they adopt the
language on Attachment A which would clarify that lines of this kind are subject to a special use permit
process; Attachment B requires determining that a line is consistent with the Comp Plan, and Mr. Brown’s
plan proposal is that this line is exempt from a special use permit process.
Ms. McCulley added that if the Board adopts Attachment A, it would be subject to special permit;
and Attachment B would be subject to review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Davis said that how quickly the city made an application would determine when a special use
permit for this project would come before the Board. It would require the city to get permission from
property owners for the path of the line. Once they had that permission, it would probably be 90 to 120
days after that.
Mr. Bowerman asked if they would need permission from all the properties along that proposed
route. Mr. Davis responded that they would need permission from any property for which they do not have
an easement.
Mr. Rooker said that he has no desire to substantially impede the city in the process of extending
a gas line, but he does have a concern to make certain that the county does not impose on itself a
situation where future transportation costs would be incurred by allowing a gas line to come in without
some kind of county review. He added that the county should also be able to consider accessibility of the
gas line to county users in areas where it is appropriate, such as Briarwood. He supports Attachment A,
although he does not like the thought of causing delay.
Mr. Brown replied that initially a six-month timeframe was predicted, but one property owner could
hold it up significantly.
Mr. Bowerman commented that permission would have to be secured anyway for the easement.
The only difference is now that has to be secured prior to the city making application.
Mr. Rooker added that the city could exercise the right of imminent domain. He asked if there
was any way to allow the application process to go forward prior to the time that they acquire the property
owners’ permission. Mr. Davis responded that the state code and county ordinance require that a special
use permit application has consent of the owners that are affected. He added that because the city has
condemnation powers, there may be some way to view this that as long as they acquire that permission
before the final action, they can go ahead and move forward.
Mr. Tucker suggested a condition that requires those easements to be acquired before the special
use permit be approved.
Mr. Davis said that the property owners would have to consent to the action prior to the Board
taking action.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that that would allow the application to go forward, and staff review to
occur, with recommendations.
Mr. Bowerman said that he would like to work with the city to get service to county citizens in this
process.
Mr. Boyd then moved for approval of ZTA 2004-005 as presented in Attachment A. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1. Definitions.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions.
. . .
Transmission line, gas or oil: The term “gas or oil transmission line” means: (1) a pipeline that
conveys gas or oil for the purpose of supplying gas or oil to a system including, but not limited to,
the pipelines owned and operated by the City of Charlottesville extending from the Columbia Gas
Transmission System at the Buck Mountain Gate Station to the City of Charlottesville’s Route 29
Substation; or (2) a pipeline that conveys gas or oil, any portion of which is within the rural areas
(RA) zoning district or within a public right-of-way abutting such district, serving as a common
source of supply directly from a system station or substation to: (i) two or more distribution lines
within the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, or the Town of Scottsville; or (ii) one or
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
more distribution lines located within a county abutting the County of Albemarle. For purposes of
this definition, the term “distribution line” means a pipeline other than a transmission line serving
as a common source of supply directly from a transmission line to a service line, or a pipeline that
serves as a service line. For purposes of this definition, the term “service line” means a pipeline
other than a transmission line that distributes gas or oil from a common source of supply to an
individual customer, to two adjacent or adjoining residential or small commercial customers, or to
multiple residential or small commercial customers served through a meter header or manifold,
and which ends at the outlet of the customer meter or at the connection to a customer’s piping,
whichever is further downstream, or at the connection to customer piping if there is no meter. Any
nonconforming transmission lines existing on February 2, 2005 shall be deemed to be distribution
lines for the purpose of repair, reconstruction or replacement but not for extension or
enlargement.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. ZMA-2004-0014. Briarwood (Sign #17). Request to rezone 123.612 acs
from PRD to PRD to amend proffers of ZMA-1991-13 & ZMA-1995-5 & to amend the Application Plan.
TM 32G, P 1; TM 32G, Sec 3, P A; & TM 32G, Sec 3, P 83. Loc on Seminole Trail (Rt 29) at intersec of
Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575). (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density
Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on January
17 and January 24, 2005) (Deferred from January 12, 2005)
The executive summary states that the Planning Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on December
7, 2004. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the ZMA request, citing the
following reasons for their recommendation of denial:
1. The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period had
ended. Comments from reviewers have just been received and the applicant has not had
a chance yet to respond to those comments and revise his submittal appropriately.
2. An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed
changes to Phase 4 on the application plan.
3. It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8
will be.
4. The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.
5. The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.
6. At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases,
including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.
The Board of Supervisors heard this item on January 12, 2005. At that meeting, the Board voted
to defer the item to allow resolution of outstanding issues on the plan and in the proffers.
In order to address the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission and staff, the
applicants provided a revised Application Plan, dated 1/19/2005 and received 1/20/2005. That plan is
attached (on file in the Clerk’s office) to this document. Planning, Zoning and Engineering staff have
reviewed the plan. The previous comments and concerns of Planning Commission and the staff have
been addressed as follows:
Regarding the orientation of buildings in Phase 8 and the impact to Camelot Drive, a note
has been added to the plan that "Vegetative screening shall be provided adjacent to Camelot
subdivision along Camelot Drive in accord with section 32.7.9.8(a) and 32.7.9.8(c)(4)." Staff
believes that, from a design standpoint, orienting the buildings to face towards Camelot Drive is
the preferable alternative to screening from Camelot Drive. However, given the applicant's desire
to orient the rear of the buildings towards Camelot Drive, staff believes that this note will ensure
adequate screening of the buildings from Camelot Drive.
The resource protection area has been appropriately labeled on both sheets of the
Application Plan. Further, inconsistencies between the "old" and the "new" Application Plans have
been reconciled by attaching the two plans together and clearly labeling the "new" plan as sheet 1
of 2 and the "old" plan as sheet 2 of 2.
In previous comments, concern was expressed about access to the open spaces on the
plan. Particularly, there was concern about the ability of pedestrians to access the area labeled
"Passive recreation area- to consist of walking and jogging trails" on the existing Application Plan.
A note has been added to the plan stating: "Access to the recreation areas shall be provided in
general accordance with the original Briarwood Application Plan, now designated as sheet 2 of 2".
This comment has been adequately addressed.
W ith the previous submittals, no commitment was made to streetscape or install
sidewalks in the remaining phases of Briarwood. At the public hearing on January 12, 2005, the
Board advised the applicant that it recommended providing streetscape improvements, including
curb and gutter and sidewalks, in a manner consistent with the existing Briarwood development,.
The existing phases of Briarwood include curb and gutter and sidewalks along one side of the
streets. The existing infrastructure was provided voluntarily and was never required of the
previous ZMA approvals. A note has been added to the plan stating: "curb and gutter,
streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood, in
a manner which is consistent with the existing development and ZMA-79-32 and ZMA-91-13".
Zoning staff is concerned that this note, as written, will prove difficult to interpret in the future.
Staff recommends that this note be revised to state: "Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent
with the existing development and sidewalks will be provided on a minimum of one side of all
streets in the remaining phases of development."
The applicant has requested a modification for section 4.11.3, which is based on section
19.8. This modification would allow the buildings to be separated by less than 30 feet. The
requested modification would allow the setbacks in the remaining phases of development to be
consistent with the setbacks in the existing phases of Briarwood. Specifically, setbacks would be
6' in the side yard, 25' in the front yard and 10' in the rear yard. Staff supports this modification
request.
The applicant’s engineer has satisfied concerns regarding the need for a traffic analysis.
Remaining questions on traffic capacity will be addressed with VDOT approval of the entrance
onto Route 29. W ith regard to the need for interparcel connections, the applicant has provided a
note on the plan indicating that a road connection will be made at either Phase 1A or Phase 4.
Staff would prefer the connection be with Phase 1A but finds this alternative acceptable. If the
connection is not shown with the Phase 1A plans, it will then be required with the Phase 4 plans.
Staff previously noted the applicant has not shown critical slopes or resource protection
areas. W hile that concern remains unaddressed, staff has examined the site based on provided
topography and delineated areas considered sensitive and inappropriate for development. Staff
has offered to review that delineation with the applicant so the applicant has an advance
understanding of the areas that staff believes should remain undisturbed. As the applicant has
not sought any critical slope waivers as part of this plan, it is presumed any development in those
sections would be required to comply with the County’s critical slope requirements and
understands staff’s position on the protection of sensitive resources.
Since the January 12, 2005 Board meeting, the applicant has worked with the County Attorney's
office, Planning, Engineering and Zoning staff to put the proffers into an acceptable format for adoption by
the Board. No substantive changes have been made to the proffers and no new commitments have been
made. Proffers that do not offer anything beyond what is required by regulations have been eliminated.
The previous proffers of ZMA-91-13 and ZMA 95-05 have been combined with the currently proposed
proffers of ZMA 2004-014 into one set of proffers for all of Briarwood. The language has been refined to
ensure clear interpretation in the future.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2004--014, with proffers, with the recommendation that note 2
on Page 1 of the Application Plan be revised to read:
"Curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of
Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks will be
provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of development."
Staff recommends approval with the understanding that approval of this ZMA and Application Plan
does not obligate the board to approve critical slopes waivers in the future.
Staff further recommends approval of the requested setback modification to allow a building
separation of less than 30 feet.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executive summary as provided to the Board and set out above.
He further noted that in the report, areas of slope impact have not been analyzed, and approval of this
zoning map amendment and application plan does not obligate the Board to approve critical slopes
waivers in the future; those would need to be analyzed with the sections brought into the county. Mr.
Davis confirmed that no special action is needed for that review.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there has been work to consolidate the proffers into one set, and Mr.
Davis has a set of recently signed proffers. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the applicant wants to change
“two basketball courts” to “two half basketball courts” in the sentence in Proffer #4 that starts “This
recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase IV….” Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant
has concern about incidents that can occur when people congregate at full-court games. He added that
this corresponds with what the county has done at elementary schools for the same reasons.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Proffer #8 refers to the Briarwood Drive connection through the
commercial area being built as approved by VDOT and bonded to the county. There is already an
approved/bonded plan on record for a 38-foot curb to curb section.
Mr. Cilimberg concluded that staff is recommending the plan as presented with the notes
and proffers included, with the request that the note regarding streetscape be specific to sidewalks
being provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of the development.
He added that staff also recommends approval of the setback modification to allow building
separations of less than 30 feet.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that the interconnection would be
done as part of the construction of either Phase I-A or Phase IV. Mr. Davis stated that that connection
was not proffered, but the note offered should suffice because it has to be built according to the master
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that it would have to happen in one of two subsequent phases, noting that Phase
IV is the more internal connection, with Phase I-A as the Camelot Drive connection.
Mr. W yant commented that if the phases follow the sequence of their numbers, because in Phase
IV the road could be built first. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is not a particular phasing sequence noted
here, but Briarwood Drive connection is happening as part of improvements that occur in the phases. He
said that they would be addressed as they come in, but the order is not known yet.
Mr. Rooker said that his only concern would be that if the phase closest to Route 29 is built first,
there may not be a connection available for a while, until future phase are built. Mr. Bowerman said that
the applicant may rely on the builder to determine the order.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. W ood about the timing of the road connections. Mr. W endell W ood, the
applicant, responded that he would have to show that the connection will be there when his site plan is
approved. He noted that Phase IV may not be a good location because of the grades, but they would like
to have the discretion to decide where either or both connections would be built.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the most likely placement would be. Mr. W ood replied that the one on
Camelot Drive, from a cost standpoint, would be most likely.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to be certain that when Phase I-A is done, the connection be made,
and not held back while there is a decision on Phase IV. Mr. W ood responded that the traffic would not be
there until the houses are built, and they will have to provide for that road to come through.
Mr. Bowerman said that they would like to have the road done sooner than later, so that citizens
are not complaining to the Board about a lack of connection.
Mr. Rooker added that from a citizens’ standpoint, it is easier to build the road before the houses
are built than after. He mentioned that Meadow Creek Parkway was shown on the Forest Lakes plans
long ago.
Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. W ood is just hedging because he does not know what
housing type is going to sell. Mr. W ood responded that was correct.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like for a decision to be made about where the connection will be
and build it whenever that phase is built out. Technically, the way it is worded right now, Mr. W ood could
build out Phase I-A and not make a decision on the connection. Mr. Rooker said that it’s possible that
years could pass before the connection would be made, and people would already be living in the
subdivision.
Mr. W ood said that he would like to have the option to build either road, depending on how the
development goes.
Mr. W yant suggested having the road built at a timeframe based on percentage of occupancy.
Mr. W ood said that he will retain control of the development.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not understand why Mr. W ood cannot just commit to make the
connection off of Camelot when he develops Phase I-A. Regardless of how much help connections
provide, the people that live on the road where the connection is will oppose it. If it is put in before they
move in, there is no problem, because they’ve moved into an area and the road network is there.
Mr. W ood said he understood that the road would have to be approved before he can get the go
ahead for Phase I-A. He said that by the time the connection would need to be built, if he were to decide
not to put it at Camelot, he assumed he would have to show that it would have to be reserved as a right of
way.
Mr. Rooker asked where on the plan does it says Mr. W ood has to build a connection. Mr. Davis
said that it is a note on the plan. Mr. Cilimberg read the note: “The developer shall provide one inter-
parcel connection to the Camelot subdivision. The said connection shall be provided at Point A or B as
shown, and will be determined with final engineering design.”
Mr. Davis added that Mr. W ood would have to elect which connection. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that
he has to provide it at one of those two locations, and it will be determined with final engineering design.
He thinks that would be interpreted as part of reviewing that particular phase.
Mr. Rooker said that if he does not elect the Camelot Drive option, he must make the other
connection.
Mr. Graham said that the way it was suggested by Mr. W ood, and acceptable to staff, was that
when he came in with Phase I-A, he would make the determination whether to connect at Camelot or St.
Ives. Mr. Rooker responded that if he does not make the Camelot connection, he has foreclosed that
option and must make it at St. Ives.
Mr. Graham said that when Mr. W ood comes in to build Phase IV, he must have the connection.
There was a difference in how staff interpreted it at first and what the language actually says. He does not
think the language precludes him from having the opportunity to come back to Camelot at a later date.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. W yant stated that there are a number of final engineering designs, and suggested that the
note say “final engineering design of I-A,” so that it is not open to interpretation.
Mr. Rooker said that the issue is not where the connection is made, but when.
Mr. Graham clarified for Mr. W ood that that means he would not be able to get a subdivision plat
approved until the road plans are approved, and he would have to make that decision as part of the road
plans. Mr. W ood expressed concern with this option.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. W oods needs to make it so he can make the decision up front when he is
selling the houses. Find out which one works, so he can do it in Phase IV or Phase I-A. He asked when
Mr. W ood is planning to start the development. Mr. W ood replied that he is going to start Phase I right
away.
Mr. Rooker noted that the infrastructure for roads is built all the time ahead of the houses. Mr.
Tucker said that the road is going to be designed based on total number of units. Mr. W ood is not going
to lose any units.
Mr. W yant suggested once Mr. W ood build 50 units anywhere in there, he has to make a
connection. Mr. W ood said that market forces change will dictate what is built.
Mr. Rooker said that the only issue is this one point of connection, and he doesn’t understand why
the decision is so difficult. He does not see the connection as dictating the type of house Mr. W ood is
selling in this community. He emphasized that the Board is not saying Mr. W ood has to build it at any
particular time. The Board is saying Mr. W ood has to make the election, and build it whenever he builds
that unit section out.
Mr. Graham stated that there is no intent that he has to build all the lots in Phase I-A, for example,
but he has to have to make that decision when he plats Phase IV where that connection is going to go.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff was confident from the language on that plat that when he builds the
road back to Phase IV, he has to have made his decision.
Mr. Graham said that Mr. W yant’s suggestion to add the term “of Phase I-A” to “final engineering
design” would ensure that when he comes into plat Phase I-A, the decision would be made.
Mr. W ood said that he did not like that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker commented that most people, when they tender a plan, they show the roads and they
show the connections. Mr. W ood is getting more leeway than anybody he has ever seen come before a
board with an application plan on where his road connections are going to be.
Mr. W yant suggested that when the lots are platted for Phase I-A, at that time Mr. W ood can
make the decision about the road.
Mr. Graham said that if Mr. W ood wants to build Phase IV first, he has to make the decision
where the connection is going to go as part of platting that phase. If he builds Phase I-A, he would have
the possibility of building the connection with I-A, or waiting and make the decision when Phase IV comes
in.
Mr. W ood said he has no trouble with making the decision when Phase IV is platted, because they
would not go to Phase IV first, unless the market says ‘townhouses are dead and single family is hot.’”
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. W ood if he is saying that the connection will be made when the roads are
built back to Phase IV. Mr. Rooker said he is interested in when the connection is going to be made. The
way it’s worded right now, Mr. W ood can build back to Phase IV and never build that connection.
Mr. Tucker told Mr. W ood that the Board is concerned he will build 90 percent of it, and won’t
have a connection for people to get out. Mr. Rooker said nothing in Phase IV will be built until a
connection is made. Mr. W ood agreed to add that to the note.
Ms. Thomas said that would make the language read “….will be determined with final engineering
design of Phase IV.” Mr. W ood said that it probably will already have been made, but that would be the
latest.
Ms. Thomas asked about the term “will be provided” over “will be created.” Mr. Davis suggested,
“built or bonded prior to any construction of housing in Phase IV.”
Mr. Rooker said if it is a private road, he assumes Mr. W ood could build the road. It may not get
accepted into VDOT’s system for a year or so.
Mr. Graham stated that it will be a public road. He asked if the Board is saying approved and
bonded – which means he can be under construction for it – or is the Board saying built. To him, built
means it is ready to be accepted by VDOT.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Rooker commented that every road in here is built before it’s accepted by VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the “normal process” has roads approved by VDOT for their ultimate
acceptance and are bonded or built before the actual final plat is signed, and many times they’re bonded.
The key is getting them approved and bonded.
Mr. Graham mentioned that routinely as part of the bonds, a schedule for completion is required,
which is typically one year.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. W ood if he agreed to the statement: “Election will be made and the
connection will be approved and bonded before the construction of any homes in Phase IV.”
Mr. Cilimberg suggested, “approved, built, or bonded.”
Mr. Davis said, “The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the construction of any
homes in Phase IV.” He added that would mean when the Phase IV plans are approved, it will be part of
his road plans which will be bonded prior to platting Phase IV.
Mr. Graham stated that the language should stipulate that the connection has to be approved and
bonded, or built, prior to platting of Phase IV which would treat it like any other road connection.
Mr. W yant said he sees the first platted lot in Phase IV as the key deadline.
Mr. Davis repeated the suggested language again: “The connection shall be approved and
bonded prior to the construction of any homes in Phase IV.” He added that it could be approved and
bonded as part of Phase I-A, or as part of Phase IV. Before Mr. W ood builds any homes in Phase IV, he
will have had to make an election that would have to be approved and bonded. He added that this allows
for it to be in either section Phase I-A or Phase IV.
Mr. Graham suggested, “prior to the issuance of any building permits in Phase IV.” He said that
normally it would be “prior to approval of the Phase IV subdivision plat and the applicant obviously could
not get a building permit for any houses in Phase IV until the subdivision plat is approved.
Mr. Davis said that this does not change the normal requirements for platting a subdivision, but
just says that if the applicant has not platted Phase I-A and made the election, he cannot build any homes
until the election is made.
In relation to the previous comment during the meeting about Southwood mobile home park, Mr.
W ood invited Board members to visit Forest Springs, where he has built 100 units without any public
assistance. He said that the homes are as low as $29,000 and as much as $72,000, with lots rented at
$22,000, and homes owner-occupied.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was a community center there, and Mr. W ood indicated that they do
not have one at Forest Springs. Mr. W ood said that they do provide some financing for tenants.
Mr. Boyd asked about the half-courts and the language about sidewalks related to the Briarwood
subdivision. Mr. W ood said that his plan was to run them from Route 29 all the way back to Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff asked the note on the plan to be changed, but Mr. W ood did not
want to do that at the time he met with staff.
Mr. W ood commented that he wanted the sidewalks to run the same way that had in the first half,
with sidewalks on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, down the commercial roads on both sides.
Mr. Cilimberg said the note says “curb and gutter streetscapes, and sidewalks will be provided
throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with existing
development in ZMA 79-32 and ZMA 91-13.” He stated that staff wanted to say, “…in a manner which is
consistent with existing development and sidewalks be provided on a minimum of one side of the street
for the remaining phases of development.”
Mr. W ood noted that the sidewalk now is on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, and all the way down
to Route 29.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was clear from the note which streets would get sidewalks or not. Mr.
Cilimberg said that it is not clear in the current language on the plan.
Mr. Davis stated that Proffer #5 which was carried over from a previous plan says “the southerly
side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood and along the westerly side of the entire length of
Briarwood.”
Mr. Cilimberg said that between the note and the proffer would provide: sidewalk along Austin
Drive from Route 29 back to Dixon Road, and a sidewalk from Austin Drive on Briarwood Drive onto
Route 29. He added that they do not have sidewalks internal to any of the sections that are being built
residentially as required by the notes, and right now there are no sidewalks in these internal sections. Mr.
Cilimberg clarified that staff has recommended sidewalks on one side of the street throughout the new
sections, not just on Briarwood.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Davis emphasized that this would only provide for the new sections, not the existing ones.
Mr. Graham confirmed that the speed limit internally throughout the subdivision is 25 mph.
Mr. Rooker said that if this were a new plan, sidewalks would be requested, but this plan
represents changes to a previously approved plan.
Mr. W yant commented that Mr. W ood has shown a commitment to affordable housing, and he
likes this request.
Ms. Thomas said that it is a largely established plan, but she would like to see more awareness
that there would be pedestrians who will be walking throughout.
The Chairman asked if there were other persons from the public who wished to speak regarding
this request. There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve ZMA 2004-14 subject to the proffers presented
dated 02/01/05, and with the additional note to the application plan: “The connection shall be approved
and bonded prior to the issuance of any building permits for homes in Phase IV” and the approval of
setback modification to 20 feet. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Original Proffer ZMA 91-13
Amended Proffer ZMA 95-05
(Amendment # 2) (ZMA 2004-014)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 1/27/2005
ZMA #ZMA 2004-014
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 32G-1, 32G-3-A, 32G-3-83
123.612 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the
property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed
that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings, exclusive of the Ray Beard lots identified on
the Application Plan, subject to conditions contained herein. The locations and acreages of various land
uses shall be as shown on the approved Application Plan. As part of the final site plan and/or subdivision
plat processes, the aggregate area of established open space shall at all times be at least proportional to
the aggregate number of dwelling units (site plans) or lots (subdivision plats) approved. After each
primary recreation area identified on the Application Plan is established, it shall be conveyed to a
homeowners association whose formation documents shall be reviewed and approved by the County
Attorney. Off street parking and access for the recreation area shall be limited as shown on the original
PRN plan for ZMA 79-32, as referenced on the Briarwood Application Plan most recently revised January
19, 2005 (hereinafter, the “Application Plan”). The means to limit such access shall be addressed as part
of the site plan or subdivision plat review.
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued by the County in any phase until the
owner obtains final site plan and/or subdivision plat approval for that phase, with the exception that
necessary permits for the construction of Briarwood Drive may be issued by the County once the owner
obtains VDOT approval of the road plans for Briarwood Drive.
3. Critical slopes may be disturbed for the construction of roads only with the prior approval
of the County Engineer. Otherwise, the disturbance of critical slopes is permitted only as authorized by
the applicable Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulations as provided by Zoning Ordinance §
8.5.5.2.
4. The owner shall obtain County approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot lot with
Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase 1B; the dedication of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and
5 for the passive recreational area which shall include the construction of walking/jogging trails; and, the
primary recreation area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its construction prior to final plat
approval of Phase 4. This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase 4 and shall consist
of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two half basketball courts, playgroup equipment and picnic facilities. All
recreation facilities shall be installed by the owner. The walking/jogging trails shall be constructed and
maintained by the owner as a primitive path in accordance with the applicable design and construction
standards in the County’s Design Standards Manual.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
5. Sidewalks shall be constructed at the time of corresponding road construction along the
southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the westerly side of the
entire length of Briarwood Drive. The sidewalks shall be constructed to VDOT standards.
6. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads,
and other improvements are to be located, as shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat,
shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. This proffer does not apply to individual
residential lots.
7. Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units as shown on the
Application Plan.
8. The unconstructed portion of Briarwood Drive through the commercial areas shown on
the Application Plan shall be built as approved by VDOT and bonded to County.
9. The mix of units permitted in each phase is as follows:
Existing Lot Mix
Phase Type of Dwelling Unit Totals
SFD Duplex Townhouse
1A - 98 - 98
1B - - 53 53
2 - 96 - 96
3 (ABC) - 72 37 109*
4 - 66 - 66
5 - 70 - 70
6 - 30 - 30
7 - 78 - 78
8 32 20 - 52
TOTALS 32 530 90 652
Lots to be added by
Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2 4 656
____________________________________________________
Lots to be added in final engineering 5 661
____________________________________________________
Totals 661
*Lots 97 & 98 are included in the Phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date.
Proposed Lot Mix
Phase Type of Dwelling Unit Totals
SFD
Lots
SFA
Lots
Townhouse
Lots
1A 28 - 22 50
1A (Existing
Subphase 1 and
2)
- 48 - 48
1B 15 - 31 46
2 (Existing) - 96 - 96
3, 3A, 3B, 3C
(Existing)
- 70 37 107
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 18
6 31 - - 31
7 (Existing) - 78 - 78
8 - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
10. Landscaping to provide screening shall be provided as required by Albemarle County
Code § 18-32.7.9.8 along the rear of all townhouse units located on double frontage lots.
11. The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with the
construction of Phases 1A (subphases 3 and 4), 1B, and 8 as identified on the Application Plan. The
owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the subsequent purchaser of
the subject property. The current owner or the subsequent owner shall create units affordable to
households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income such that housing costs consisting of
principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the gross
household income. All purchasers of these units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing
Office or its designee. The owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of 90 days to
identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 90 day period shall commence
upon written notice from the owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
more than 60 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period, the owner shall have the right to sell
the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser.
For the lands subject to this rezoning, these proffers supersede the proffers accepted by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05.
_______________
At 4:30 p.m., the Board recessed, and then reconvened at 4:40 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Audit Committee Report and Annual Financial Report.
Mr. Boyd said that the Audit Committee decided to establish their charge and clarify who
committee members were, meeting times, and how to conduct meetings. He said he was elected to chair
that committee. Mr. Boyd reported that the committee felt it might be necessary to add an internal auditor
to the county staff, as they are spending $100,000 annually on the outside audit process, which would be
offset if some of that work were done internally.
Mr. Boyd stated in reviewing audit departments in other counties, there is no consistency in who
has internal auditors and who does not. He said that an internal auditor could also perform other tasks
such as management review that currently are not done by the outside auditor.
Ms. Thomas commented that she did not like the idea of only an internal audit.
Mr. Boyd responded that the internal auditor would save the county time and money, but an
external auditor would still be required.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that the internal auditor could report directly to the Board.
Mr. Dorrier then moved to approve the proposed charter of the Albemarle County Audit
Committee. Mr. W yant seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Albemarle County
Audit Committee Charter
I. Charge:
The Audit Committee is a committee of the Board of Supervisors. Its primary function is to assist the
Board in carrying out its oversight responsibilities by reviewing financial information provided in the
County’s Annual Financial Report, by reviewing any material weaknesses in the County’s system of
internal accounting controls, as reported by the external auditor, and by reviewing the annual audit
process and its results.
II. Membership:
The Audit Committee shall be appointed annually at the first meeting in January by the Board of
Supervisors and be comprised of the following members. Only elected officials will be voting members of
the Audit Committee.
• Two members of the Board of Supervisors
• One member of the School Board (appointed by the School Board)
• County Executive or designee
• Director of Finance
• Superintendent of Schools or designee
III. Responsibilities:
• Recommend the selection, retention or termination of the County’s external auditors.
• Review the overall plan for the audit with the external auditor and County management
• Review the annual financial statements and external audit results with the auditors and County
management.
• Review any material weaknesses in internal accounting controls, as outlined in the auditors’
Management Letter to the County
• Prepare the Audit Committee’s report to the Board of Supervisors.
IV. Operating Procedures:
• The Committee will meet twice a year, or more frequently at the discretion of the Committee, in
conjunction with the County’s external audit process. The Committee may meet more frequently
at the discretion of the Committee to discuss other matters of concern.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
• The purpose of the first meeting in June will be to discuss the auditor’s preliminary fieldwork and
review the auditor’s scope of work and scheduling for the upcoming audit. The second meeting,
to be held in December, will focus on the Annual Financial Report, prior to its presentation to the
Board of Supervisors, as well as any issues raised by the external auditor in the Management
Letter.
• The Audit Committee may select a Chairperson whose responsibility it will be to preside over the
meetings. W ith assistance from the Director of Finance, the Chairperson will schedule the
meetings and prepare a written agenda.
• Audit Committee meetings will be public meetings. The meeting agenda for regularly scheduled
meetings shall be posted three days prior to the meeting date. Notice for all meetings shall be
given pursuant to the requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
• Agendas and any written material to be reviewed at the meeting will be sent to committee
members prior to the meeting.
• The Director of Finance will assist the Auditor in preparing presentation materials and will prepare
and distribute minutes to Committee members after each meeting.
Approved for Submission to the Board of Supervisors - December 2, 2004
__________
Mr. Richard W iggans, Director of Finance, presented the Fiscal Year 2004 Certified Annual
Financial Report. He pointed out that there are a few items noted in the Executive Summary of specific
interest. There is a transmittal letter that includes a summary of the county’s geographic, demographic,
and economic features. Mr. W iggans said that the “Management Discussion and Analysis Section” is
required by code, and provides a good summary of the county’s financial activities for the fiscal year, and
mentioned that there are 12 pages which reveal more detail.
Mr. W iggans said that the county increased their general fund balance by approximately $3.5
million in Fiscal Year 2004 to a total of approximately $21.7 million. He added that the school fund
balance increased by $3 million from $4.9 to $7.9 million. Mr. W iggans noted that there is discussion
about the county’s total cash and investments, which increased by $11 million from $80 to $91 in FY-04.
He mentioned that long-term debt obligations – largely because of school bond issuance at the 800 MHz
system – increased from $103 to $111 million.
Mr. Rooker asked why debt would be increasing if there is cash available. Mr. W iggans replied
that the county has always done pay as you go financing. Mr. Tucker said that there is a balance that the
county tries to maintain, and the county has only recently started borrowing.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, mentioned that some of
that increase is borrowed funds for projects that have not yet been expended.
Mr. Jack Farmer addressed the Board, noting that there is information about revenue streams and
expenditure streams, and noted that per capita debt went down. He noted that the opinion on the financial
statement precedes the management discussion and analysis, and his office has to evaluate that prior to
making their required comments. He explained that he provides a “clean opinion,” and he has to consider
both the internal control structure of the county and also compliance matters with administration of federal
funds. “There were no findings, there were no material weaknesses, there were no ‘reportable conditions’
in relation to the overall internal control structure.
Mr. Boyd noted that Mr. Farmer was very helpful in the audit committee’s work.
Mr. W iggans recognized Mr. Ed Koonce and Ms. Heather W elcher in helping to prepare his
report.
Mr. Boyd moved to accept the FY 2003-04 Annual Financial Report. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(At this time Mr. Tucker suggested the Board take up the items from the morning session.)
Agenda Item No. 12a. FY05 Second Quarter Financial Report.
Mr. W iggans presented two financial reports, including the second quarter financial report for
Fiscal Year 2005. He stated that general fund revenues are up $3.5 million versus what was budgeted, a
significant increase over what was expected. Mr. W iggans reported that this is directly related to
reassessment rates, which reflected a 27.2 percent increase over a two-year period (January 1, 2003 to
January 1, 2005). He added that they are projecting $77 million for the year, based on the new
assessments and the 76-cent tax rates.
Mr. Rooker asked about how tax delinquencies are accounted for in this financial information. Mr.
W iggans responded that they are reflected in property taxes, along with real estate, public service, etc.
Mr. W iggans said that they do forecast for that, and take that into account when budgeting. He said that
properties are foreclosed/sold when taxes are not paid, and confirmed that projected revenues do take
into consideration properties and land use arrangements for which full taxes will not be collected.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Tucker commented that when land use is taken out of the equation, the average [increase]
was about 23 percent.
Mr. W iggans noted that the original budget included $847,000, and that figure ended up being
close to $800,000 for delinquencies.
Mr. W iggans said that revenue from other local taxes – utility taxes, meals tax, sales tax – all
came in higher than anticipated. He noted that the ending balance of $3.5 may actually be conservative,
because it is projecting expenditures at budget.
Ms. Thomas commented that on all the charts, “the bottom is never zero,” so the differences are
greatly exaggerated. This is not gigantic changes in our financial situation so occasionally staff could
show the Board the graphs starting at zero.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that $3.5 million is 1.5 percent of a $200+ million budget.
Mr. Boyd noted that expenses appear to increase by $3.8 million.
Mr. W iggans confirmed that these are because of appropriation increases that have been
approved by the Board.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there were expenses for new police officers, etc.
Mr. W iggans pointed out that the Board allocated $3 million to the CIP at their January 19th work
session.
Mr. Boyd moved acceptance of the FY-05 Second Quarter Financial Report. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Agenda Item No. 12b. FY06 Update Revenue Projections and Budget Guidance.
Mr. W iggans reported that they are projecting an additional $17.83 million in revenue above the
FY-05 budgeted figures, with total revenues for 2006 to exceed $175 million. He said that business
license fees are anticipated to increase by 11 percent to $812,000; utility taxes should increase $440,000,
and meals tax $450,000. He stated that real estate taxes should increase by 17 percent, or $13 million.
Mr. W iggans said that there will be revenue increase of $17.8 million above the current year’s budget,
$4.2 million higher than what was projected in October, largely because of the real estate figures.
Mr. Breeden addressed the Board, noting that there is an additional $4.2 million as Mr. W iggans
said. He reminded them that they had wanted to set up a reserve for that additional funding, and if the
funding formula for capital and debt is followed, $500,000 will go into the capital fund with $2.8 million in
the reserve. If they hold off the reserve, there will be $838,000 new money to be allocated between
general government and schools next year. Mr. Breeden said that there is a $15 million increase in
available revenues, and $1.7 million additional allocation comes off for capital and debt, $3.2 for non-
departmental, leaving about $10 million; based on the 60/40 split, that would be $6 million for schools and
$4 million for general government. He cautioned them that the numbers could change substantially
because they are based on current tax rates, which the Board has discussed changing.
Mr. Boyd asked why the model would not take the changing tax rates into account. Mr. Breeden
said that it does have that capability.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the tax rate would show up. Mr. Breeden responded that the projections
are impacted by a rate reduction.
Mr. Tucker commented that the tax year is January to December, but the revenue affects the
fiscal year budget.
Mr. Davis added that by changing the tax rate, you are reducing the amount of revenue in the
current budget and next year’s budget.
Mr. Breeden said the Board would likely receive what the staff had currently projected in the
original budget, but it is not going to get the additional revenue that is anticipated. He added that other
local revenue is not impacted by the tax rate.
Mr. Boyd asked if lowering the tax rate would lower the revenue sharing amount to the city. Mr.
Breeden replied that it is 10 cents of the tax no matter what, and they get that off of the new appraised
values. Ms. Thomas said that it is based on net worth, and so far the county has been worth more. Mr.
Tucker commented that the county has a very healthy economy.
Mr. Breeden noted that there will be an impact when interest rates rise, but that effect hasn’t been
felt yet. He said that there may be some measures that will make projections better in the future.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Tucker said the action needed by the Board is to: accept the updated FY-06 General Fund
revenue estimates; approve the revised allocation for the General Fund revenues for the CIP; approve
revised allocation of the increased local tax revenues to the Board’s Reserve Fund, as directed by the
Board of Supervisors at its June 19th work session; and to approve additional allocation of new non-
property tax revenues to general government and school division operations.
Ms. Thomas moved for approval of the four action items as described by Mr. Tucker. Mr. Boyd
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Strategic Plan Quarterly Report.
Mr. Tucker reported that his office has been providing quarterly reports on the progress of the
strategic plan. He reminded Board members that they had made four changes to the strategic plan. Mr.
Tucker explained that transportation has been added as a goal in the Enhanced Quality of Life section,
and meetings have begun with City Council already related to that. Mr. Tucker said that they are in the
process of implementing a groundwater ordinance, with continued exploration of water supply alternatives.
He said that staff is working on meeting the Board’s objectives for affordable housing, including
developing incentives to encourage affordable housing, providing comparison benchmarks, and
streamlining the process regarding regulations. Mr. Tucker reported that staff has also made progress on
the goals of accelerating the review and approval of the Rural Area Comprehensive Plan, which goes to
public hearing next week.
Ms. Thomas asked about the effect of the court ruling in Arlington, whereby they were getting
proffers for a certain percent of affordable housing in large projects or money to be put into trust for
affordable housing.
Mr. Davis explained that Arlington was making that requirement at the site plan stage. The
ordinance stated that you had to provide affordable housing or make a cash contribution, without respect
to rezoning. The cash contribution was voluntary, and the court ruled that that was not enabled by
legislation. Basically that was not an available way to assure affordable housing at the site plan stage, but
that does not impact how the county operates at the proffer state. However, there has been legislation
introduced which says that proffers for affordable housing cannot be accepted. Mr. Davis reported that an
amendment to study affordable housing, and a moratorium on any implementation of requiring cash for
affordable housing pursuant to the code section that allows the affordable housing ordinance has also
been proposed.
Ms. Thomas said that she did not see recycling in this financial information, and she has had
many constituents ask her what is going on with it.
Mr. Tucker responded that the county is working with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission on a regional plan, and have made a submittal to the state that was returned with suggested
changes and questions on their recycling numbers. Mr. Tucker said that they have reacted to that, noting
that the county is trying to be regional in their approach. He noted that part of it is trying to establish
strategies for Board review, and added that he would like to do something jointly with the city given the
cost barriers. He added that they are trying to put money in the budget for it for next year.
Mr. Rooker said that unless there is a market for recycled goods, “it’s just a feel good thing.”
Mr. Boyd expressed concern about having the county pay for recycling, when those goods may
just be hauled off and dumped. Mr. Tucker commented that that happened with the McIntire site.
Ms. Thomas said that haulers are required to take newspapers. Mr. Rooker reported that he was
told it goes straight to the dump.
Mr. Tucker noted that the market for recycled material changes, and some of the McIntire
newspaper has been trashed.
Mr. Tucker said that the county is currently negotiating with a Tidewater firm to use the recyclables
in a co-mingled situation. He stated that it is unlikely that it will every pay for itself.
Mr. Davis pointed out that by the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority agreement, all recycling goes to
Rivanna first for them to decide how to handle, and the city and county have not agreed on how to do that.
Ms. Thomas added that the county is required by the state to have a certain percentage of
recycled material, including old cars and such.
Mr. Tucker recognized Lori Allshouse, the county’s strategic coordinator.
_______________
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. W yant said that he has received several calls about housing inspections not being done on
time, and mentioned it to county staff.
__________
Mr. W yant asked about the status of Peters’ Mountain. Mr. Tucker replied that the structure is
being painted.
Mr. Thomas Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that an easement is needed to get to the line,
but there have been some administrative glitches. He will contact ECC to check the progress.
Ms. Thomas stated that the community was concerned about color and lighting.
Mr. W yant noted that AT&T has been generous in giving items to the community, such as towels
and other linens.
__________
At Mr. W yant’s request, Mr. Davis reported that the county has filed a lawsuit to require the
subdividor of property adjacent to the Brown property on Rio Road to come into compliance with the
Subdivision Ordinance.
__________
Ms. Thomas reported that she attended a three-day conference on “New Partners on Smart
Growth,” and will share that information with the Board.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said that the American Legion Auxiliary is requesting the Board to proclaim May
21st as Blue Star Salute Day.
Mr. Rooker said that at one point, the Board had decided not to proclaim days, but after some
discussion, Board members agreed to put this specific day on the agenda.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that he would like the Board to adopt a resolution to recognize the Virginia
Municipal League’s 100th Anniversary.
__________
Mr. Rooker reported that he had received a letter from a Boy Scout noting that school buses do
not have seat belts, and wanted someone to look into it.
Board members discussed possible reasons as to why this is, and agreed to pass this on to the
School Board.
__________
Mr. Rooker stated that he was unclear if Board members had decided on the reappointment to the
Jefferson Area Board for Aging.
Mr. Tucker replied that it had been discussed, but not decided on. Board members agreed to
defer the matter to a future meeting.
__________
Mr. Tucker agreed to get a budget calendar out to the Board.
__________
Mr. Davis reported that the RW SA is required to provide a guarantee that their remediation plans
will be carried out, and local governments served by that landfill could provide a Local Government
Guarantee. He requested the Board authorize the County Executive to execute a Local Government
Guarantee for RW SA post-closure and remediation plans. This is a joint guarantee with the city and
county.
Mr. Bowerman moved to authorize the County Executive to execute the agreement. Mr. W yant
seconded this motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE
Guarantee made this 26th day of February, 2005, by the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGNIA
and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, each a local government created under the laws of
the state of Virginia (herein referred to collectively, as “Guarantor”). This guarantee is made on behalf
of the RIVANNA SOLID W ASTE AUTHORITY (the “Authority”) of 695 Moores Creek Lane,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“Department”),
obligee.
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Recitals
1. Guarantor meets or exceeds the financial test criteria in 9 VAC 20-70-210 and agrees
to comply with the reporting requirements for guarantors as specified in 9 VAC 20-70-
230 of the Financial Assurance Regulations for Solid W aste Disposal, Treatment and
Transfer Facilities (“Regulations”).
2. The Authority owns or operates the following solid waste management facility covered
by this guarantee: Ivy Material Utilization Center, 4576 Dick W oods Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, Solid W aste Facility Permit Number 125. This
guarantee is for the Authority’s post-closure care and corrective action obligations as
incorporated into Solid W aste Facility Permit Number 125, Permit Module Attachment
II-1 (Gas Management Plan), Permit Module Attachment II-2 (Gas Management Plan-
Attachment A), Permit Module X (Final Detection Groundwater Monitoring, Permit
Module XI (Assessment Groundwater Monitoring), Permit Module XIII (Post-Closure
Care) and Permit Module XIV (Corrective Action) .
3. “Closure plans” and “post-closure care plans” as used below refer to the plans
maintained as required by the Solid W aste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-80-10
et seq.) or Vegetative W aste Management and Yard W aste Composting Regulations
(9 VAC 20-101-10 et seq.).
4. For value received from the Authority, Guarantor jointly and severally guarantees to the
Department that in the event that the Authority fails to perform post-closure care or
corrective action of the above facility in accordance with the closure or post-closure
care plans and other requirements of the permit whenever required to do so, the
Guarantor shall do so or establish a trust fund as specified in 9 VAC 20-70-150 in the
name of the Authority in the amount of the current cost estimates.
5. Guarantor agrees that if, at the end of any fiscal year before termination of this
guarantee, the Guarantor fails to meet the financial test criteria, Guarantor shall send
within 90 days, by certified mail, notice to the director and to the Authority that he
intends to provide alternate financial assurance as specified in Article 4 of Part III of the
Regulations, in the name of the Authority. W ithin 120 days after the end of such fiscal
year, the Guarantor shall establish such financial assurance unless the Authority has
done so.
6. The Guarantor agrees to notify the director by certified mail, of a voluntary or
involuntary proceeding under Title 11 (bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming Guarantor as
debtor, within 10 days after commencement of the proceeding.
7. Guarantor agrees that within 30 days after being notified by the director of a
determination that Guarantor no longer meets the financial test criteria or that it is
disallowed from continuing as a guarantor of closure, post-closure care, or corrective
action, it shall establish alternate financial assurance as specified in Article 4 of Part III
of the Regulations in the name of the Authority unless the Authority has done so.
8. Guarantor agrees to remain bound under this guarantee notwithstanding any or all of
the following: amendment or modification of the closure or post-closure plan,
amendment or modification of the closure or post-closure plan, amendment or
modification of the permit, amendment or modification of the order, the extension or
reduction of the time of performance of the closure or post-closure, or any other
modification or alteration of an obligation of the owner or operator pursuant to the
Virginia Solid W aste Management Regulations.
9. Guarantor agrees to remain bound under this guarantee for so long as the Authority
shall comply with the applicable financial assurance requirements of Article 4 of Part III
of the Regulations for the above-listed facilities, except as provided in paragraph 10 of
this agreement.
10. Guarantor may terminate this guarantee by sending notice by certified mail to the
Director of the Department of Environmental Quality and to the Authority, provided that
this guarantee may not be terminated unless and until the Authority obtains and the
director approves, alternate post-closure or corrective action coverage complying with
the requirements of 9 VAC 20-70-10 et seq.
11. Guarantor agrees that if the Authority fails to provide alternate financial assurance as
specified in Article 4 of Part III of the Regulations, and obtain written approval of such
assurance from the director with 90 days after a notice of cancellation by the Guarantor
is received by the director from Guarantor, Guarantor shall provide such alternate
financial assurance in the name of the Authority.
12. Guarantor expressly waives notice of acceptance of this guarantee by the Department
or by the Authority. Guarantor also expressly waives notice of amendments or
modifications of the closure and/or post-closure plan and of amendments or
modifications of the facility permit.
W e hereby certify that the wording of this guarantee is identical to the wording specified in 9 VAC 20-
70-290 K of the Financial Assurance Regulations for Solid W aste Disposal, Transfer and Treatment
Facilities as such regulations were constituted on the date shown immediately below, except for the
Addendum attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Effective Date: February 26, 2005
February 2, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
City of Charlottesville
By: ________________________________
Name: Gary B. O’Connell
County of Albemarle
By:_____________________________________
Name: Robert W . Tucker, Jr.
ADDENDUM TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE
BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2005
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the attached Local
Government Guarantee (the “Guarantee”) by the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the “City”) and the
County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “County”) to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (the
“Department”), and in recognition of the limitations on the incurrence of debt imposed on local
governments under Article VII, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia, to the extent any provision in
the Guarantee requires the payment of money to the Department or performance of an obligation for
which funds must be appropriated by the City and/or the County in order to render such performance,
such promise to pay money or appropriate funds for the performance of such obligation is limited to
the “moral obligation” of the City and the County to provide sufficient funds for such payment or
performance under the Guarantee, and is subject to and conditioned upon the actual approval and
appropriation of such funds by the City Council of the City and the Board of Supervisors of the County,
and is subject further to the condition that the approval and appropriation of any funds by the City and
the County pursuant hereto is solely for the fiscal year in which such appropriation is made, and is
further subject to any prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
By:_____________________________________
Name: Gary B. O’Connell
Title: City Manager
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:_____________________________________
Name: Robert W . Tucker, Jr.
Title: County Executive
Accepted and Agreed To:
COMMONW EALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
By;_____________________________________
Name: Leslie D. Beckwith
Title: Director, Office of Financial Assurance
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. At 5:55 p.m. with no further business to come before the Board,
motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. W yant, to adjourn to February 9, 2005, 3:30 p.m.
for an afternoon work session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/13/2005
Initials: DBM