2001-06-06June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 6,
2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:15 a.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel A. Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. John Springett said he is President of the Dunlora Community Association Board of Directors.
He thanked the Board for allowing the residents of Dunlora to participate in the design of the intersection
between Dunlora Drive and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. He said they look forward to working
with the County as this project comes closer to reality.
__________
Mr. John Martin said he lives in Free Union. He asked to address the letter dated May 30, 2001,
that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) sent to DEQ. He said that in that letter, the RSWA
demonstrated intolerable financial hardships if the extension of time for Cell #2 is not granted. He thinks
the letter shows that RSWA, which has so many environmental responsibilities, is practically bankrupt. It is
a crisis which exists now, but which dates back to 1993 when they had to decide if it was an open dump or
not. They decided that it was not, and filed the certificate which led to the consent order last year. He said
RSWA states that if the extension for Cell #2 is not granted, RSWA will not have income from Cell #2 for a
three-month period, and it has inadequate cash reserves for administrative costs, remedial costs, for
household and hazardous waste programs, for capital costs, for debt service, and unfunded recycling and
educational costs; i.e., it will be insolvent unless the three-month extension is granted.
Mr. Martin said a number of possible consequences are listed, one of which is that higher tipping
fees might have to be imposed, and that would result in illegal dumping. Another possible consequence
cited is that RSWA would be in breach of its financial covenants with their existing lender. Additionally, they
say that if this extension is not granted, people will have to go other places to get rid of their trash, and they
might lose 40 percent of their customers. All of this concerns the financial future of the landfill even if they
build Cell #5. Also, the letter does not address what will happen if they get the extension to December 31,
2001, and Cell #5 is not permitted and built within five months. The letter does not address whether they
will have funds to meet their obligations under the settlement agreements from the Ivy Landfill law suit. The
letter puts to rest any hope that the paint pit situation will be resolved. With respect to the gag order, it
becomes clearer and clearer that it was financial desperation which led to that governmental action. He is
afraid the public and the environment will get the short end of the stick because of all these financial
A@
problems. He suggests that the City and the County get together and audit the situation with the landfill and
its effect upon the community. He said this letter should be a wake-up call to the community.
Mr. Bowerman said it is clear that the environmental issue will have to be addressed. It is an issue
of whether the RSWA will address it, or whether it will be addressed by the City and the County. He said
the costs will have to be borne, whatever they are. That will either be entirely public or based on the
revenue the RSWA is able to generate with construction and demolition debris.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner, Assistant Lacrosse Coach at Albemarle High School, advised the Board of the
team's successful season. He said the Senior Class of 2001 has won 50 games in four years. They have
won four straight Western District titles, four straight Northwest Region titles, and this Saturday will go to
their fourth straight State final. Out of 1600 schools ranked nationally, Albemarle is ranked in the top 150.
It is currently ranked fourth in the State. He said everyone can be proud of these boys.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve/adopt Items No. 5.1 through 5.5 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent
Agenda as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2001-2002 Operating Budget.
It was noted in the staffs report that the FY 2001-02 Operating Budget was approved by the Board
=
of Supervisors on April 18, 2001, in the amount of $173,117,976. Since then, several adjustments have
been made. These adjustments represent a net increase of $75,168, for a revised County budget of
$173,193,144.
General Fund: Total General Fund expenditures remain the same as the adopted budget
($130,916,018), although several adjustments were made and taken out of the Board's Contingency
Reserve. These adjustments were:
Based on the Board's approval, merit compensation increased from 3.9 percent to 4.2
percent for all classified staff, for an adjustment of $62,255.
Revised market salary adjustment numbers increased expenditures by a total of $85.
Although it had been anticipated that the budgeted amount would only bring employees
to 97 percent of market, the revised numbers, which included some position changes and
vacancies, allowed the originally intended 100 percent market adjustment to be
implemented with only an additional $85 contribution from the Board's Reserve.
The transfer to the Bright Stars Fund increased by $2105 due to the approved merit pool
change for Bright Stars staff.
The Board's Contingency Reserve was thereby decreased by $64,445. The new reserve
amount is $597,098.
School Fund: The revised School Fund budget is $96,184,095, which is a $239,411 increase over
the FY 02 School Fund adopted in April. This increase resulted from several revenue adjustments, which
=
included an additional $265,000 in Federal Special Education Funds offset by other minor revenue
reductions.
School Self-Sustaining Funds: The FY 02 appropriation for all of the School Self-Sustaining
=
Funds totals $9,410,397, which includes approximately $0.1 million in local funds transferred from the
School Fund. Excluding the School Fund transfers, which are also appropriated in the School Fund, the net
Self-Sustaining Funds total is $8,382,314.
Other Funds: The Other Funds section of this resolution of appropriation includes the Compre-
hensive Services Act Fund totaling $4,338,755; the Bright Stars Program Fund totaling $475,555; the
Family Support Fund totaling $849,422; Towe Memorial Park Fund totaling $223,675; the Emergency
Operations Center Fund totaling $2,766,718; the E-911 Service Charge Fund totaling $897,960; the
Visitors Center Fund totaling $68,000; and the Courthouse Maintenance Fund totaling $44,000.
=
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Resolution of Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-02
which allocates a total of $173,193,144 to General Government and the School Division operating budgets
and a total of $9,664,085 among various other County funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001-02:
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2002
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002; to prescribe the provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation
ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA:
SECTION I: GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2002:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND OTHER REFUNDS$ 92,100
1. Refunds and Abatements$ 92,100
$ 92,100
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT$ 6,984,447
1. Board of Supervisors $ 343,106
2. County Attorney487,196
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
3. County Executive863,253
4. Finance2,843,356
5. Human Resources421,327
6. Information Services1,698,914
7. Voter Registration/Elections 327,295
$ 6,984,447
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL$ 2,567,697
1. Circuit Court$ 79,529
2. Clerk of the Circuit Court579,145
3. Commonwealth's Attorney534,998
4. General District Court21,565
5. Juvenile Court41,653
6. Magistrate20,245
7. Sheriff 1,290,562
$ 2,567,697
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY$15,104,443
1. Emergency Communications Center (E-911)$ 1,191,756
2. Fire Department (City)735,185
3. Fire Department (JCFRA)868,960
4. Fire/Rescue Administration1,531,993
5. Fire/Rescue Credit40,000
6. Forest Fire Extinction Service13,758
7. Inspections764,072
8. Juvenile Detention Home266,210
9. Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)54,493
10. Community Attention Home42,205
11. Police Department8,008,387
12. Regional Jail Authority1,340,783
13. SPCA Contract44,545
14. Volunteer Rescue Squads (JCFRA) 202,096
$15,104,443
Paragraph Five: PUBLIC WORKS$ 2,962,629
1. Engineering & Public Works$ 2,829,338
2. Water Resources Management 133,291
$ 2,962,629
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES$10,450,622
1. Aids Support Group$ 3,358
2. Chville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS)20,698
=
3. Charlottesville Free Clinic5,570
4. Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)78,882
5. Commission on Children & Families (CCF)128,259
6. FOCUS - Teensight25,001
7. Health Department 762,174
8. Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)175,910
9. JAUNT389,335
10. Madison House7,638
11. Music Resource Center5,500
12. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)22,060
13. Region Ten Community Services376,360
14. Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)24,000
15. Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)71,543
16. Social Services8,144,334
17. Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled 210,000
$10,450,622
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE$ 4,315,491
1. Darden Towe Memorial Park $ 132,260
2. Jefferson-Madison Regional Library2,109,042
3. Albemarle County Fair10,000
4. Ash-Lawn/Highland8,240
5. Gypsy Moth Program16,840
6. Lewis and Clark Festival2,500
7. Literacy Volunteers16,635
8. Municipal Band15,450
9. Parks and Recreation1,603,196
10. Piedmont Council of the Arts10,321
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
11. Virginia Discovery Museum 10,362
12. Virginia Festival of the Book10,300
13. Virginia Film Festival10,300
14. Visitors Bureau352,259
15. WVPT Public Television 7,426
$ 4,315,491
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT$ 4,037,106
1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)$ 389,141
2. Housing Office443,040
3. Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA)150,210
4. Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)125,466
4. Planning and Community Development1,679,631
5. Planning District Commission (TJPDC)98,393
6. Route 29 Bus Service168,009
7. Soil and Water Conservation 60,698
8. VPI Extension Service169,273
9. Zoning 753,245
$ 4,037,106
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS$ 5,590,188
1. Transfer to General Government CIP $ 5,290,188
2. Transfer to Stormwater Fund 300,000
$ 5,590,188
Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT$ 6,482,712
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement$ 6,482,712
$ 6,482,712
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS$72,328,583
1. Transfer to General Govt Debt Service-Ongoing$ 910,202
=
2. Transfer to School Division Debt Service8,532,000
3. Transfer to School Fund - Recurring60,788,526
4. Transfer to School Fund - One-time1,500,757
5. Board Contingency Reserve 597,098
$72,328,583
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$130,916,018
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources$100,732,459
Revenue from Lcl Srcs-General Fd Bal/Transfers2,645,192
Revenue from the Commonwealth23,918,623
Revenue from the Federal Government 3,619,744
$130,916,018
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$130,916,018
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND$96,184,095
1. Administration, Attendance & Health$ 5,533,445
2. Debt Service Fund295,925
3. Facilities Construction/Modification62,200
4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance9,169,142
5. Instruction72,812,413
6. Pupil Transportation Services6,515,134
7. Other Uses of Funds 1,795,436
$96,184,095
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
SUMMARY
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$96,184,095
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Lcl Sources (Gnl Fd Tnsfr-Ongoing)$60,788,526
Revenue from Lcl Sources (Gnl Fd Tnsfr-One-time)1,500,757
Revenue from Other Local Sources592,470
Revenue from Sch Fd Balance, Carry-over, Tnsfrs964,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth30,608,342
Revenue from the Federal Government 1,795,436
$96,184,095
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2002:$96,184,095
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes
herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES$ 3,116,296
1. Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeterias$ 3,116,296
SUMMARY
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 3,116,296
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources$ 2,281,316
Revenue from the Commonwealth52,450
Revenue from the Federal Government 782,530
$ 3,116,296
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 3,116,296
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND$ 56,714
1. Special Ed Pre-School Program$ 56,714
SUMMARY
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 56,714
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government$ 56,714
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 56,714
Paragraph Three: McINTIRE TRUST FUND$ 10,000
1. Payment to County Schools$ 10,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 10,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust$ 10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2002:$ 10,000
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM$ 1,285,299
1. C.B.I.P. Severe$ 721,695
2. E.D. Program 563,604
$ 1,285,299
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year
year ending June 30, 2002:$ 1,285,299
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees$ 1,285,299
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002$ 1,285,299
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS$ 1,192,624
1. Adult Education$ 78,033
2. Carl Perkins115,000
3. Chapter I606,042
4. Chapter II47,598
5. Drug Free Schools42,195
6. Migrant Education264,119
7. Title II 39,637
$ 1,192,624
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 1,192,624
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tnsfr fm Sch Fd)$ 12,747
Revenue from the Commonwealth105,931
Revenue from the Federal Government 1,073,946
$ 1,192,624
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 1,192,624
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND$ 1,374,650
1. Community Education$ 1,374,650
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 1,374,650
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition$ 1,374,650
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 1,374,650
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL$ 463,378
1. Summer School$ 463,378
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 463,378
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Lcl Srcs (Transfer fm Sch Fd)$ 164,243
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Revenue from Lcl Srcs - Tuition198,185
Miscellaneous Revenues950
Revenue from the Commonwealth 100,000
$ 463,378
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 463,378
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT$ 870,000
1. School Bus Replacement$ 870,000
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 870,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles)$ 25,000
Revenue from Lcl Srcs (Tnsfr fm Sch Fd) 845,000
$ 870,000
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 870,000
Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND$ 400,000
1. AIMR Summer Rental$ 400,000
SUMMARY
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 400,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (rental)$ 400,000
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources available for
fiscal ending June 30, 2002:$ 400,000
Paragraph Ten: RETURN II GRANT FUND$ 65,114
1. Return II State Grant$ 65,114
SUMMARY
Total RETURN II GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 65,114
To be provided as follows:
Miscellaneous Revenues$ 11,520
Local Revenue (Transfer from the School Fund)6,093
Revenue from the Commonwealth 47,501
$ 65,114
Total RETURN II GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2002:$ 65,114
Paragraph Eleven: ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND$ 60,000
1. ALCOA Foundation Educator-in-Residence$ 60,000
SUMMARY
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 60,000
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources$ 60,000
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 60,000
Paragraph Twelve: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND$ 255,000
1. Vehicle Maintenance$ 255,000
SUMMARY
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 255,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources$ 255,000
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 255,000
Paragraph Thirteen: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND$ 8,205
1. General Adult Education$ 8,205
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2002:$ 8,205
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth$ 8,205
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 8,205
Paragraph Fourteen: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND$ 165,262
1. Drivers Safety Fund$ 165,262
SUMMARY
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 165,262
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition$ 149,254
Revenue from the Commonwealth 16,008
$ 165,262
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2002:$ 165,262
Paragraph Fifteen: OPEN DOORS FUND$ 87,855
1. Open Doors Fund$ 87,855
SUMMARY
Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2002:$ 87,855
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition$ 2,400
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements) 85,455
$ 87,855
Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 87,855
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - III OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2002
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:$236,510,510
Section I General Fund$130,916,018
Section II School Fund96,184,095
Section III Other School Funds 9,410,397
$236,510,510
Less Inter-Fund Transfers($63,317,366)
General Fund to School Fund($62,289,283)
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds( 1,028,083)
($63,317,366)
GRAND TOTAL$173,193,144
SECTION IV: OTHER FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002.
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND$ 4,338,755
1. Comprehensive Services Act Expenditures$ 4,338,755
SUMMARY
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2002:$ 4,338,755
To be provided as follows:
Fund Balance$ 78,900
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer fm Gen Fd)1,315,000
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer fm Sch Fd)600,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth 2,344,855
$ 4,338,755
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 4,338,755
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND$ 475,555
1. Bright Stars Program$ 475,555
SUMMARY
Total BRIGHT STARS FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 475,555
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Trnsfr fm Gen Fd)$ 290,921
Revenue from Local Sources (Trnsfr fm Sch Fd)21,479
MJ Child Health Grant5,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth 158,155
$ 475,555
Total BRIGHT STARS FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 475,555
Paragraph Three: FAMILY SUPPORT FUND$ 849,422
1. Family Support Program$ 849,422
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
SUMMARY
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 849,422
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government$ 849,422
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 849,422
Paragraph Four: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND$ 223,675
1. Darden Towe Memorial Park$ 223,675
SUMMARY
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 223,675
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)$ 132,260
Miscellaneous Local Revenue 18,075
City of Charlottesville 73,340
$ 223,675
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 223,675
Paragraph Five: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND$ 2,766,718
1. Emergency Communications Center Operations$ 2,766,718
SUMMARY
TOTAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 2,766,718
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)$ 1,191,756
City of Charlottesville1,102,581
University of Virginia215,391
Miscellaneous Local Revenue 256,990
$ 2,766,718
Total EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 2,766,718
Paragraph Six: E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND$ 897,960
1. E-911 Fund Expenditures$ 897,960
SUMMARY
TOTAL E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 897,960
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources-E-911 Fees$ 860,000
Revenue From Local Sources-Interest Income 37,960
$ 897,960
Total E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 897,960
Paragraph Seven: VISITOR CENTER FUND$ 68,000
1. Debt Service$ 68,000
SUMMARY
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
TOTAL VISITOR CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2002:$ 68,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources$ 68,000
Total VISITOR CENTER FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 68,000
Paragraph Eight: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND$ 44,000
1. Transfer to General Government CIP Fund$ 44,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 44,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources$ 34,000
Fund Balance 10,000
$ 44,000
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 44,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer
monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in
excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this resolution of appropria-tion.
The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are
hereby designated as authorized signators for all bank accounts.
SECTION V
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through IV are
appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with
said terms and those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be
maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriationsthe purpose being to make the appropriations
C
payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues
collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all
of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total
sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to
be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the
School Board or by the Social Services Board not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the
fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the
control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board without the
consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make
expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
All balances of appropriations at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 2002,
are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the
appropriations which may be made in the resolution of appropriation for the next fiscal year, beginning July
1, 2002. Any balance available shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of the respective
funds for the next fiscal year.
Paragraph Four
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose
may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items
exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no
requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent
shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said
contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the
Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the
County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such
obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County
departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and
employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles
in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of
Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed
or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
All previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that they are inconsistent with
the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and one.
__________
Item 5.2. Road Name Change Request for Short Horn Court.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering
=
Manual allows the Board to make road name changes at the request of landowners. All property owners
on Short Horn Court have asked that the name Short Horn Court be changed to Glenview Court. The
property owners will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Staff recommends approval of
the new road name as requested.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved changing the name of Short Horn
Court to Glenview Court and granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change.
__________
Item 5.3. McIntire Skate Park Funding.
It was noted in the staffs report that in July of 1999 the County Executive received a letter from the
=
City Manager requesting a County financial contribution to the McIntire Road Skate Park project. At the
time of the request, the City's total cost estimate for the project was $68,560. The County was requested to
fund 40 percent of the public cost for improvements. After deducting the proceeds from fund-raising efforts
and private donations, the County's share was determined to be $23,400. In September, 1999 the Board
appropriated that amount. In January, 2000 the Countys Director of Parks and Recre-ation received a
=
letter from the City's Chief of Recreation requesting payment of the County share of $23,400. That letter
stated the total cost of the skate park to be $90,575.
The County Executive then received a letter from the City Manager dated April 30, 2001, requesting
additional financial assistance from the County. That letter stated construction costs of the park to be
$123,565 with annual operating costs estimated at $34,679. According to information obtained from liability
waiver forms, 90 percent of the park users are non-residents of the City, with 32 percent being County
residents. It should be pointed out that waivers are only signed the first time an individual comes to the park
and, therefore, are not a true measure of park usage.
The City plans to institute a daily fee of $3.00 for non-City residents to help recover the cost of
construction and operation. The County can avoid the fee being charged to County residents next year by
agreeing to pay an additional $27,681. That amount is the sum total of 32 percent of the projected annual
operating costs ($11,541) and 32 percent of the construction costs minus the previous contribution of
$23,400 or $16,140. The $16,140 is a one-time payment. Future requests for operating cost
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
reimbursements to the City will be based on usage.
Staff thinks the County should feel no commitment to reimburse capital costs since those costs
were incurred without prior County approval. Staff favors user fees as a method to recover some portion of
operating costs particularly when supervision is already required, as long as residents who cannot afford the
fee are not turned away. Staff does not feel it would be fair to charge County residents the same price as
other non-residents, since the County has already made a significant contribution to the project. Staff
agrees the skate park has become very popular and is a valuable community recreation facility.
In the spirit of cooperation, staff recommends that the Board agree to fully fund the City's capital
request of $16,140 and participate proportionally in the future expense of operations if the City agrees to
charge a reasonable fee for all users of the skate park. Non-residents of the City and County should pay a
significantly higher fee and existing methods for allowing low-income residents access to programs should
be extended to the skate park. If the City does not agree to implement some type of user fee for all users,
and it is staffs current understanding that they will not, the County should only agree to pay the operating
=
cost of $11,541 (exclusive of the additional capital costs) for FY 2001-2002 with the understanding that no
fee will be charged to County residents during that period. It is requested that the City implement a system
as of July 1, 2001, to gather accurate daily usage figures and that any request for future operating costs be
made in time to be considered during the regular budget preparation cycle.
(Note: Ms. Humphris said she thinks the staffs recommendation is an excellent one. She believes
=
it is important to note in this complex issue that only 10 percent of the kids using the park are from the City,
32 percent are from the County, and the rest are from surrounding areas. She finds that to be unusual, but
she likes the solution to the problem.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board endorsed staffs recommendation as set out
==
in the last paragraph of the executive summary.
__________
Item 5.4. Adopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds in
an Amount not to Exceed $7,000,000 for Biotage, Inc., a Dyax Corp.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution, re:
application of Biotage, Inc., a Dyax Corp. Company, for the issuance of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $7.0 million:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "Authority"), has considered the application of Biotage, Inc., a Dyax Corp. Company
(the "Applicant"), a Delaware corporation doing business in Virginia, for the issuance of
the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed
$7,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing the acquisition of approximately 7.1 acres
of land in the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork in Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "County"), the construction of an approximately 50,000 square foot
manufacturing facility thereon and the acquisition and installation of manufacturing
equipment therefor (the "Project"), to be owned by the Applicant and used in the
Applicant's business of manufacturing drug purification equipment, and has held a public
hearing thereon on May 7, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board to approve the issuance of
the Bonds to comply with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Tax Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution agreeing preliminarily to assist
the Applicant with the financing of the Project, upon terms to be agreed upon by the
Authority and the Applicant as expressed in such resolution, a record of the public
hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with
the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, approves the
issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia, for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent required by the Tax Code and the
Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by the Tax Code and
the Virginia Code, does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the
creditworthiness of the Applicant, but, as required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia
Code, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated
to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing
power of the Commonwealth, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 5.5. Lease Agreement - Howardsville/James River Access.
It was noted in the staffs report that since 1964, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
=
(DGIF) has maintained a river access at Howardsville. This access has been very popular with residents of
Albemarle and other counties. The property was originally purchased from Mr. Charles Baber who retained
a 15-foot wide strip of property so he would always be assured the right of access to the river. There is also
a state road right-of-way remaining from when there was a bridge over the river at Howardsville. Mr.
Baber's property lies between Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) land and the DGIF land. Most
of DGIF's land and the concrete ramp were lost due to hurricanes in the early 1970s. In early 1980, DGIF
replaced the ramp but incorrectly sited it on Mr. Baber's 15-foot strip. Relations between Mr. Baber and
DGIF have deteriorated over the years. He has demanded that DGIF put a barrier between his land and
their land. This past May, DGIF advised the County of its intent to close the access due to the situation with
Mr. Baber unless the County was interested in taking over responsibility for the access. Mr. Baber has
stated that he will work with the County but not with DGIF. This past winter DGIF closed the access. In
February, the Board authorized the signing of a lease agreement for the DGIF property at the site. The
access remains closed pending a lease agreement with Mr. Baber.
A lease has been drafted for a one-year term with a rental fee of $3000. The lease agreement
may be extended for multiple one-year terms by mutual agreement. The lease spells out in detail the
County's responsibilities, as agreed to between staff and Mr. Baber for the set-up and operation of the site.
The lease has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Historically, it has been the
County's position to maintain existing public access to rivers whenever possible. Staff recommends that the
Board authorize the County Executive to execute the lease agreement.
By the recorded vote above, the County Executive was authorized to sign the Lease
Agreement between Charles R. Baber and the County of Albemarle, which is set out in full below:
LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT made by and between CHARLES R. BABER
("Landlord") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("Tenant").
SECTION 1
1.1Date of Lease. June 1, 2001.
1.2Property. That certain lot or parcel of land located in Howardsville, Virginia, and
described as a 15-foot strip of land to the river consisting of .049 acres, and
additional property to be used for parking (collectively the "Property").
1.3Commencement Date. June 1, 2001.
1.4Term. June 1, 2001 to May 31, 2002. This Lease Agreement may be extended
for multiple one- (1) year terms by mutual agreement of Tenant and Landlord.
Tenant may terminate this Lease Agreement for convenience at any time, upon
giving written notice to Landlord.
1.5Rent. Tenant shall pay a total annual rent of $3,000 during the initial and any
renewal term(s) of this Agreement. Rent shall be due at the commencement of
the initial and any renewal lease period(s).
1.6Permitted Uses. The County intends to use the Property in order to provide
public river access for fishing and related recreational uses, and parking for cars
and trailers using the boat ramp.
SECTION 2
Maintenance and Upkeep of Property
2.1Maintenance and Upkeep. During the term of this Agreement, Tenant shall:
(a) Establish a parking area for cars and trailers on landlord's TMP 139A-16
as near as possible to the railroad property.
(b) Provide fencing with access gates outside of VDOT's right of way from
parking area to boat ramp on all property owned totally or in part by
landlord.
(c) Post and enforce "No Parking" between parking area and boat launch.
(d) Fence off and post closed VDGIF river front property with the exception
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
of that area necessary to maneuver vehicles and trailers loading and
unloading at ramp.
(e) Post signs at limits of Property stating, "No Trespassing. Persons
proceeding beyond this point without the written permission of the owner
will be treated as trespassers."
(f) Pending receipt of letter from landlord to Chief of Police, tenant will
instruct police and sheriff department personnel to enforce Property
rules as well as trespassing on landlord's property from Property.
(g) Maintain all fencing and signage placed by the County on the Property
and provide additional fencing and/or signage if Landlord and Tenant
jointly agree.
(h) Provide a minimum of twice-weekly trash pick-up of the Property and to
adjacent landlord's property if trash is related to use of the Property.
(i) Provide regular mowing and trimming services of the Property as
needed.
(j)Provide 270 hours of on-site police or sheriff department supervision.
Tenant intends that direct police supervision will be targeted during peak
use hours or other times as may be needed. Costs of such supervision
will be the responsibility of Tenant. Additional on-site police or sheriff
department services will be provided for security reasons if Landlord and
Tenant mutually agree.
(k) Provide portable toilet service for the site; and
(l) If desired by Landlord, Tenant will provide protective fencing around
Landlord's garden area on adjacent TMP 139A-17.
2.2Condition of Property upon Surrender. Tenant accepts the Property "as is"
and will, at the expiration or other termination of the term thereof, surrender and
deliver the Property in the same order and condition as the Property shall be at
the Commencement Date of the term of this Agreement, ordinary wear and tear
excepted.
SECTION 3
Liability
3.1Loss or Damage to Property or Persons. Neither Landlord nor Tenant, nor
their respective officers, employees, agents or representatives shall be liable for
any loss, damage or injury to property or persons caused by the negligent or
intentional acts or omissions of third parties in connection with the uses
contemplated by this Agreement.
3.2Waiver of Liability. Landlord assumes no liability or duty to third parties
because of Tenant's occupation or use of the Property, and Landlord assumes
no liability or responsibility for Tenant's conduct and operation of Tenant's
business on the Property during the term of this Agreement, except as otherwise
specified herein. Landlord and Tenant are separate entities with separate duties;
they are not engaging in any joint venture, partnership or concerted action.
Neither party assumes any liability for the wrongful acts or omissions of the other.
SECTION 4
Damage or Destruction by Casualty
4.1Damage. If during the term of this Agreement, all or any portion of the Property
shall be damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, windstorm, strikes, riots, acts of
public enemy, acts of God, or other casualty, this Agreement shall terminate at
the option of Tenant in accordance with Section 1.4.
4.2Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or the
application thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid
or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such
term, covenant or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to
which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each
term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to
the fullest extent permitted by law.
4.3Approvals. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon approval of its terms by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia.
SECTION 5
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Governing Law
This Agreement shall be in all respects governed by and interpreted in accordance with
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Exclusive venue for any dispute arising under
this Agreement shall be in the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia. In the
event of any material breach of this Agreement by either party, the non-breaching party
shall have the right to obtain an immediate injunction or other equitable or legal relief.
SECTION 6
Entire Agreement
This Agreement sets forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and
understandings between the parties concerning the Property and there are no other such
covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings, either oral or written,
between them other than herein set forth. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, no subsequent modification, alteration, amendment, change or addition to
this Agreement shall be binding upon Landlord or Tenant unless reduced to writing and
signed by them.
This Agreement may be executed, acknowledged and delivered in counterparts and each
such counterpart shall constitute an original, but together such counterparts shall
constitute only one instrument.
SECTION 7
Notices
7.lAddresses for Notices. All notices required or desired to be given hereunder
by either party to the other shall be personally delivered and addressed as
follows:
Landlord:Tenant:
Mr. Charles R. BaberMr. Pat Mullaney,
Route 3, Box 161 RDirector of Parks and Recreation
Scottsville, VA 24590County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
7.2Effective Date of Notices. Notice shall be deemed to be effective when
personally mailed via first class mail, postage prepaid, unless otherwise
stipulated herein.
__________
Item 5.6. West Nile Virus, Update on.
It was noted in the staffs report that the West Nile virus is a mosquito-borne virus that can cause
=
encephalitis or meningitis in humans and other animals which appeared for the first time in the United
States during a 1999 outbreak in New York that killed seven people. Last fall, several cases of infected
birds were reported in Virginia. The Virginia Department of Health is encouraging local governments to
take steps to respond to the potential threat of West Nile virus in their respective areas.
West Nile virus is spread to humans, birds and other animals through the bite of an infected
mosquito. The virus is not spread from person to person. A mosquito becomes infected by biting a bird
that is carrying the virus. In areas where West Nile virus has been detected, only a small proportion of
mosquitoes are likely to be infected, and most people bitten by an infected mosquito do not become
sick.
The Virginia Department of Health, along with multiple other agencies, is monitoring for
mosquito-borne viruses in birds, mosquitoes, horses and humans. The information collected will be
used to advise local authorities and the public about the potential threat of West Nile virus in Virginia. All
dead birds are to be reported to the local Health Department for data collection and testing.
The Virginia Department of Health is recommending that local governments respond to this
issue in several ways: participate in an aggressive public education program to help citizens become
aware of source reduction, mosquito prevention and personal protection strategies; assist as appropriate
with the reporting of all dead birds to the local Health Department; identify and respond to existing
mosquito breeding sites; discourage potential mosquito breeding sites through source reduction.
County staff is meeting with local Health Department representatives to review our procedures
in light of these recommendations and to create a public education program to inform citizens of issues
related to West Nile virus. Staff will continue monitoring the situation to see if any conditions arise which
warrant further action. No action is required by the Board at this time.
This report was received for information.
__________
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item 5.7. 2001 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received for information, and is on file.
__________
Item 5.8. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for year ended
June 30, 2000, as prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Auditor of Public Accounts (on file in the
Clerk's office), was received for information.
(Note: Ms. Thomas commented that this report shows that Albemarle is below the state
average in all areas of expenditures per capita except for police services. She said the report compares
Albemarle to all other counties, most of which do not have a police force. She said it was a good
comparative view of how frugal Albemarle is.)
__________
Item 5.9. Water Supply Report - Proposed Process for Decision Making, as recommended by
the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, was received as information.
(Note: Ms. Thomas said the report does not ask that there be a public hearing held until after
the draft report has been revised. Then, the Rivanna Board, City Council, Board of Supervisors and the
Albemarle County Service Authority would hold a public meeting. She would prefer that this public
meeting be more of a public hearing. Mr. Tucker said RWSA did not intend to call for a public hearing,
but the process allows for that option. After the public meeting, a decision can be made as to whether
one or both bodies would hold a public hearing.)
__________
Item 5.10. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes of May 8, 2001, was received for
information.
__________
Item 5.11. Copy of report "Environmental Status and Trends in the Southeast 2000" as prepared
by the Southeastern Natural Resource Leaders Group (on file in Clerk's office), was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Charlottesville Transit Development Plan, Report on.
Mr. David Sampson said he is a Senior Vice President with Urbitrsan Associates who have been
reviewing the transit system of the City of Charlottesville for the last nine months. They were asked to make
recommendations, if necessary, for improvements. The objectives of the study were to enhance current
operations and to look for new transit opportunities.
Mr. Sampson said they found the system in Charlottesville to be very positive. Ridership over the
past couple of years has gone up. As new services have been added in the County, the County has picked
up additional costs. They reviewed the organizational chart and looked at individual responsibi-lities, and
the appropriateness of the organization. They looked at the regional setting in order to understand the
community, and where new development is expected to occur. They looked at the census to decide where
people who might need transit, live. They did surveys, talked with City Council and talked with employees.
Mr. Sampson said most people in the community have a positive image of CTS and feel coverage
is excellent. However, people would like for it to be more direct, more on time and more flexible. This
would help in attracting discretionary or choice riders, people who otherwise would use their car.
Mr. Sampson said they did a financial assessment against CTSs national peers, and it is an
=
excellent system. It is better than most of its peers. However, productivity, at the time they did this study,
needed to be increased. They did their study based on 1998 data with 800,000 passengers a year. The
system now is up to 1.2 million passengers per year. With some of the changes made since 1998, the
effectiveness of the system would be above its peer average.
Mr. Sampson said additional staff is needed in administration and maintenance. Also, the
administrator is required to make too many direct reports. The organization needs streamlining. He said
they used strategic analysis in putting together this report. They did a complete running time analysis and
how people use the system in terms of transfers. If a lot of people are transferring, it means people are not
getting the direct trip they want. He said they looked at coverage of the routes. There is good coverage in
the City, but decreasing coverage in the County. Their study shows that coverage does get to most
commercial areas. The high schools are just outside of the root network, but the hospitals are on the root
network. They looked to see how well the system serves major employers including the Research Park.
Mr. Sampson said that over one-half of the ridership is on the shuttle and Route 7 which is the
Seminole Trail to Fashion Square route. That route, however, would not be doing so well if it were not fed
by all of the other routes. Looking at the question of productivity, they looked at how many passengers per
hour each route produces, which is a measure of effectiveness. There is lower productivity on the new
routes, night routes and Saturday routes. They also studied fare-box recovery which is a significant
measure of how much money is received in revenues. The most popular route on the system is the route
which brings in no revenue because it was a policy decision that Route 11, the trolley, be free. That goes to
the issue of trying to move people around in transit, rather than by auto.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Sampson said they ranked seven routes as above average, five routes as average, and six
routes ranked below average. These are all daytime routes, and three of the routes which are below
average are new routes. Since they did the study last October, ridership to Wal-Mart has significantly
increased.
Mr. Sampson said that all of this information was used to arrive at a Five Year Plan (FY 2002 - FY
2006). The first year operating plan (FY 2002) is: Integrate Route 7 (main route to Fashion Square), Route
9 (alternate route to Albemarle Square which runs once an hour when Route 7 is not running) and Route
12 (Wal-Mart route), improve operations along Seminole Trail and eliminate the need to transfer to reach
Wal-Mart; combine Route 2/Barracks Road and Route 5/Georgetown into a single route, eliminating the
need to transfer between the two for trips to downtown and the University Central Grounds; revise the
running times on Route 4/Frys Spring and Route 6/K-Mart and link the two, creating better schedule
=
reliability for both. Operate both every 30 minutes on Saturday; provide a peak period service along Park
Street to Charlottesville High School; implement a CTS parking shuttle in the downtown area operating to
fringe park and ride facilities in the area; and, review CTS fare policy options as contained in Chapter 9 of
the plan, and select a preferred approach for Year 2.
Mr. Sampson said that they did not recommend putting services into new areas in the first year,
instead concentrating on making the system more reliable and streamlined. The expansion program is
intended to continually improve the core routes and hours of services. Then service will be moved into new
areas and they will try to get commuters interested in using the bus instead of the auto. In Year 2, they want
to reduce the headways from 60 to 30 minutes on some of the key City routes; implement a new route
serving Avon Street Extended, the Mill Creek neighborhood and Monticello High School; expand service to
Charlottesville High School to an all-day route, offering a route deviation in the Greenbrier neighborhood;
add evening service to the Frys Spring and Wal-Mart routes; develop a weekday commuter service
=
program; integrate the south side park and ride location with the new Avon Street Extended route while
continuing its like to the downtown parking shuttle.
Mr. Sampson said that in Years 3, 4 and 5, there will be a continuation of improvements. In Year 3,
the key thing is a new eastern corridor bus route along Route 250 East past the intersection at I-64 out to
Shadwell. He said this corridor will expand with the addition of Peter Jefferson Place, Martha Jefferson
Hospital and the Giant Store. The system will have to keep up with these additional needs. In Year 4, night
routes will be expanded, and Sunday service implemented on four or five routes. In Year 5, a route
deviation circulator service for the Fifth Street Extended and Old Lynchburg Road neighborhood will be
implemented, and Sunday service expanded to one additional route.
Mr. Sampson then explained their recommendations in terms of staffing. He said this is an
ambitious program. They estimated a cost for every individual improvement and allocated the costs
according to whether the mileage was in the City or the County. If the City and County choose to do the full
program, the increase in cost is substantial. It goes from $2.28 million in the base year to $3.8 million. The
Countys share would rise from $156,000 to $770,000. That is largely because expansion of service would
=
be in the County. The commuter van program would be shared because a lot of that would be County
people staying off of the highways and using the Transit System. Fleet acquisition costs are inexpensive
because between the Federal share and the State share, the locality puts up only about five-percent of the
total cost of capital.
Mr. Sampson said they were asked to look at a long-range plan, and proposals are included in the
plan. Ultimately, the plan says that CTS services would be free to maximize the number of people using
the system. If only 15 percent of the costs come from the fare box, people might want to look at what that
means in terms of putting up the 15 percent from other local moneys, versus the opportunity for access to
the system. There needs to be an integrated network of services between the UTS, CTS and JAUNT. In
order to make transit work, everybody has to be behind the system in terms of parking, traffic and TDM
policies. If downtown parking remains abundant, or free, or low cost, people have no reason to use the
transit system. If highways continue to be increased such that it makes it easier to drive, that works against
transit.
Mr. Sampson said the report also includes several recommendations for Route 29 North and the
east side. He said transit is a significant program, but decisions can be made individually on transportation
issues. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board will be able to use this information as it receives requests
for expansion proposals. He appreciates the outside look at the whole system.
Mr. Tucker said the proposals mentioned by Mr. Sampson today will come back to this Board as
the County receives budget requests. It is interesting to note that something like the Sperry property could
have a major impact on transit. There will be mixed use and commercial use on that property. Most of the
routes which are the most successful are the routes serving commercial areas.
Ms. Thomas said Ms. Helen Poore has said that CTS would like to know if the Board supports this
plan in general terms. When the City is making their plans, they need to know whether it is a year-to-year,
hand-to-mouth existence, or whether the Board buys into the general concept of greatly increasing bus
service. Mr. Tucker said what has been outlined for each fiscal year in the report can be used by Ms. Poore
for planning. There is, of course, no guarantee about revenues. Mr. Sampson said many people in the
community felt something needed to be done about transit, and asked for estimated costs. Although the
costs are large, they are broken down into many segments so choices can be made on the various
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
individual recommendations.
Ms. Thomas said the Eastern Planning Initiative is showing that most households take the same
number of trips every day. If any portion of those trips could be changed from automobile trips, the savings
made, in terms of the miles of asphalt that has to be laid and the hours spent in congested travel situations,
is amazing. Getting people on a bus is one thing, but designing neighborhoods so that people can take
more of their trips as walking trips is even more significant in its impact. This all ties in with where the Board
hopes the County will be going in the future. This is a more expensive part because there is no state
support for these dollars.
Mr. Perkins said this is a complex issue. He asked if there are any bus systems which are in the
business to make money. Mr. Sampson said no. Mr. Perkins asked if it has to be made difficult for one to
A@
drive a car, thus forcing them to use the bus. What is the trade-off? Mr. Sampson said part of it is the
communitys decision. He said people ignore what it costs to build and maintain parking facilities, and to
=
build and maintain roads. Unfortunately, people are accustomed to using a car and not waiting for things.
Until traffic congestion or parking become so bad or too expensive, people will be reluctant to use transit. If
fares increase, it will further depress the number of people using transit because they will feel they can save
money by driving. Also, the price of gas will have an impact. He said that a "no fare" policy could be
offered which would let everybody ride. They estimated that this would increase ridership by 90 percent.
He said you cant expect people to ride the transit system just because it is a good system.
=
Mr. Bowerman said he doesnt know of anymore subsidized, widely-used item, than automobiles in
=
terms of the public expense for each individual car on the road. That cost is never looked at. Mr. Sampson
said that cost is always hidden. When making transit studies, people do not see that expense.
Mr. Bowerman said it also affects the environment and there are remediation costs. Mr. Sampson
said this community understands that issue. That is why the study turned out as it did. There was an
opportunity in this community to work with some of the activities which are on-going.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Sampson is working on a continuing status, or is this study completed?
Mr. Sampson said this is the end of the project. Whether or not there is any continuation, or further
discussion, is up to the City.
Mr. Perkins said the study went east toward Zion Crossroad, but there was no mention of the
Crozet community. A few years ago there were more than 250 people with Crozet addresses working at
the University of Virginia who asked for bus service to transport them to work in the morning, and home in
the evenings. Mr. Sampson said they looked into what had been done previously, talked to people at the
University, and looked at the congestion coming in from that direction, but it appeared that people would still
want to drive. It was suggested that a park and ride facility might be located at the Fontaine Office Park.
Or, the University should encourage people to park at Scott Stadium or some other location, and then
shuttle them in. The numbers they saw did not indicate spending public dollars on this service would be
valuable and that Route 10 would have a much bigger impact on service.
Mr. Perkins asked if anyone had considered asking businesses to subsidize bus service for riders
coming into their businesses. Mr. Sampson said yes. Part of the commuter program mentioned in the
A@
study would be to talk to businesses and get them to subsidize their employees in some manner, by taking
advantage of the Federal Program for tax subsidies for commuters, or to directly subsidize a van or shuttle
to their business. He said a lot of that would be through the City TDM Coordinator working one-on-one with
businesses.
Ms. Humphris said that had been tried. Particularly, when the Board was trying to get the Pantops
Mountain service started. It was almost impossible to get merchants to participate. Mr. Sampson said that
generally you cant get money for a general purpose bus route. Where you might get money from
=
employers is for a well-designed, tailored shuttle, or commuter van, or park-and-ride van, or express bus for
them or their neighbors.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Sampson has been talking about employee-employer transit, but what about
promotional transit for customers. Mr. Sampson said there is even less interest in doing that.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the possibility of having bus service for tourists. Mr. Sampson said that was
included in the report, but the system would have to be made more user-friendly. They talked with the
Monticello Memorial Foundation and as they continue with development, they are interested in talking with
CTS about working out something so that people do not have to drive, but can leave their cars at their
hotels, and use the trolley. That is another area where the system would need to work with the Visitors
=
Center and the Convention Bureau. It is a part of the recommendation in reference to private operators. It
is not a core program.
With no further questions from Board members, Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Sampson for this
important report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters: Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase 1 - Park & Urban
Planning, Presentation.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Acting Director of Engineering and Public Works, said that on March 1, 2000, the
Board requested the Engineering Department to hire a consultant to provide assistance in the analysis of
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
the design and alignment of the County section of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway, to consider the
Parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park, and to review the relationship of the Parkway to the
development of adjacent urban land. The scope of work and budget was approved by the Board on
September 6, 2000, and a contract with Jones & Jones was executed. Since that time Jones & Jones has
worked closely with a staff committee that included representation from the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors. Alternatives and concepts were developed and finalized. Three work sessions were
held with the Planning Commission. A joint work session was conducted with the staff committee and
VDOT representatives from the Richmond, Culpeper and Charlottesville offices. A work session was also
conducted with the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee.
Mr. Kelsey said he is pleased with the work of Jones & Jones. He is fortunate to have had the
opportunity to work on this project. Present today are two representatives from that firm, Mr. David Sorey
and Mr. Nate Cormier. Also present is Mr. Gary Okerlund from Okerlund Associates, who is a sub-
consultant to Jones & Jones.
Mr. Cormier said he is a landscape architect with Jones & Jones. They are here today to share the
results of a process initiated by the Board last year. It is a visionary process. They tried to simultaneously
consider and integrate concerns for transportation, where we work, where we live, and protection of the
environment. He said it was a pleasure for them to work with a community which recognized from the
outset that all of these things need to be considered together.
Mr. Cormier began by showing slides of the analysis they used. They looked first at the vicinity
(metropolitan area), and then specifically at the conditions and features of the site of the project. He will
present the range of alternatives they developed after meeting with people in the community, and looking at
the site. He will also talk about the concepts for urban design and for the park lands.
Mr. Cormier said beginning at the vicinity scale, they identified a number of important relationships
the project area has to the community. First, the area is situated in such a way that it is inside Albemarle
Countys identified development area. It is identified for higher density development so the rest of the
=
region can be protected. From the beginning, it was understood that this is a place that serves the City; it is
on the boundary of the City and in the Countys development area.
=
Second, it is important to recognize where it is situated in terms of the open space for the
community. It is a project that could serve to link the various large, existing resources in terms of open
space. It is an opportunity to link habitat, it could potentially create greater integrity to the park system of
Charlottesville.
Third, the area is ringed by schools. There are four high schools surrounding the project, and one
elementary school. This project could be a model for children as a way to live, to work, and to commute in
a sensible fashion. From the start, they were excited about having the opportunity to work with a number of
the schools in the area. They have talked to some teachers about ways, as the project moves forward, to
have environmental education and restoration components.
Mr. Sorey said they began their study by looking at existing conditions and features on the site.
That was important for planning for both transportation and development, as well as park land and open
space. They divided the site into several distinct areas. To the north near Rio Road and the intersection
with the Southern Railroad tracks, there are fairly open rolling uplands which have had recent agricultural
activity. Another prominent feature is Meadow Creek itself which flows through the site. On the west side
the project area is bordered by the Southern Railroad tracks, and at the southern end there is the division
between the County and the City portion of the project at Melbourne Road, with Rio Road wrapping around
the east side. There is an apartment complex and several housing developments on the east side of
Meadow Creek. West of Meadow Creek are wooded highlands and an old railroad grade. It is a remote
area, with no access, and it is densely wooded. To the south there are the existing high school athletic
fields and the intersection of Schenks Branch with Meadow Creek. The associated wetlands and the flood
=
plain of Meadow Creek lay to the north of that area.
Mr. Sorey said they used this analysis to look at the suitability of land uses (transportation,
development and park land). They identified areas which seem to be suited to each of these. They looked
at the transportation corridor first. The area which would be good for transportation would be the rolling
uplands to the north because it is the most open in terms of vegetation. Also, the wooded highlands and
old railroad grade area contain no existing development. It is a fairly good area in terms of constructing a
road. He said the Meadow Creek bottom land and the Schenks Branch convergence (which is a sensitive
=
area within the one hundred year flood plain of Meadow Creek), is appropriate only for pedestrian trails, as
are the steep hillsides and ravines. The rolling uplands on the east side of Meadow Creek could potentially
connect to other neighborhoods with trails, but his firm did not see any possibility of there being roads in that
area because of the steepness of the hills.
In reference to urban development, Mr. Sorey said several areas were identified as being suitable
for this purpose. The rolling uplands to the north have fairly moderate slopes and good access from Rio
Road. The wooded uplands are areas which are in between existing development. Most of those areas are
suitable for more development. The wooded highlands and the old railroad grade, although there is high
ground with moderate slopes and good scenic value, would be limited in terms of development because
there is currently no access. There are some fairly steep slopes there and potential fragmen-tation if a
parkway were put through that area. There would be a road having development on each of its sides.
Also, there is proximity to the railroad on the west which would be a noise factor in terms of residential
development.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
As for parks and open space, Mr. Sorey said areas identified as being good for these uses are the
rolling uplands, because of their excellent views and park like quality. Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch
=
converge in a nice area for wildlife, and there is a natural park like setting. The wooded highlands and the
old railroad bridge are currently used as open space. There is an existing recreation trail there, with wildlife
and a natural habitat. The steep hillsides and ravines are good areas for green space. The rolling uplands,
and the wooded areas between the existing development, are nice areas for park lands. They would
separate existing developments and would give an opportunity to build small pocket parks in the area.
Mr. Cormier said this analysis was presented to the community, and many questions were raised.
Originally, they had planned to present only one recommendation, but because of questions, they came up
with a series of alignment alternatives which had different implications depending on the kind of urban
development that might result from those alignments. If the developable area were split in half, there would
be a character of development which is more auto-focused than swinging the roadway around an area
which has critical mass for a walkable community. He said Mr. Sorey would describe several alignment
alternatives, and then Mr. Okerlund will talk about the implications for urban development.
Mr. Sorey said there are three different roadway alternatives. Starting at the southern end just
north of McIntire Road where the Meadow Creek Parkway would tie in with the City portion (which has
already been designed), there are the ballfields and the Schenks Branch convergence area. The road has
=
to be placed between those two things. Going toward the wooded uplands from the ballfields to where
Meadow Creek crosses under the railroad, the road could go across the top staying away from the river. It
could go closer to the old railroad grade which would have more impact on the quality of the natural area
near Meadow Creek, giving two options for that area. North of Meadow Creek, there were three options
identified. Since the rolling uplands were identified as being prime development area, they looked at not
splitting that area, but going around it to the north up a small ravine. Alternative B (which is similar to the
VDOT alignment) passes up another ravine to the south and east, but it splits the area which has been
identified as being good for development. Alternative C stays close to the railroad and squeezes between
CATEC and the church and the railroad.
Mr. Sorey said Alternative A goes around the area identified as good for development, and it also
crosses Meadow Creek at a place where the one hundred year flood plain is narrow. This allows for a short
bridge to get across the flood plain. By keeping the bridge and the road close to the railroad, more of the
flood plain is preserved for recreation, and would keep it as a quieter area. Alternative B bisects the
potential development area and crosses Meadow Creek where the flood plain is very wide. That means a
berm would have to be built for the road to keep it above the flood plain, and there would be a longer bridge
in the natural park area. The bridge would be more prominent, so the experience of the pedestrian in the
park would be much different from Alternative A. They decided not to study Alternative C further because
the area between the church, the school and the railroad is so narrow that a lot of regrading would have to
be done, with a lot of tree removal. It would be difficult to maintain a parkway feel on the road through that
area. If two lanes were ever added to these alternatives in the future, it would be almost impossible to deal
with the narrowness of Alternative C in that area.
Mr. Okerlund said this area is programmed for fairly intense development. It is an area that is
sensitive ecologically and environmentally. After the analysis, they looked at the site in more detail to define
the areas which are developable. The configuration of the site has all the potential connections from the
Meadow Creek area itself. Much of the area is owned by a single entity, but some of the area is
fragmented. A major concept was to create a framework to guide incremental choices in the future. They
tried to give it a vision on the one hand, and flexibility and choice of marketplace on the other. There are
about 40 developable acres. With the route going to the north just below CATEC, it keeps the 40 acres as
a contiguous area which gives it critical mass. In the DISC report there is discussion about the kind of mixed
uses which can take place and it does take a certain amount of area to do that. Plan B is the opposite
because the road is truncated and cuts the area in half. That would tend to produce more single-use
subdivisions, rather than mixed use and integrated uses.
Mr. Sorey referred to the written report which is on file in the Clerks Office. He said they looked at
=
the charge they were given, the contract, the MPO design criteria, and a number of documents which had
already been prepared: the Reilly report, the DISC report, The City as a Park, and a Citizens Guide to
A@A=
Charlottesville Parks. Gleaned from these were a number of concerns related to urban development and
@
parklands. They evaluated which of these alternatives strongly reflect that value. They found that
Alternative A is the most balanced approach satisfying all of those concerns. Alternative B excels as a
parkway giving a great view from the bridge, but ignores the impact of the environment being crossed, and
the other people who might be using the recreation area below. Alternative C, while it protects the
environmental quality of the area, does not create much of a parkway experience. He said when they
presented these alternatives to the community, they received strong feedback to go ahead with Alternative
A. Their concepts reflect Alternative A and it was presented to the Design Advisory Committee.
Mr. Dorrier asked if VDOT was involved in this planning. What route did VDOT want? Mr. Sorey
said the VDOT proposal is similar to Alignment B. In terms of a roadway, it is the path of least resistance
for construction. It follows a natural ravine and moves up that ravine in a natural manner which would not
require extensive cutting and filling, but there is a lot of existing vegetation there which would have to be
removed. Alternative A crosses Meadow Creek and immediately ascends a very steep hill which would
need to be cut in a significant manner. However, there are no trees on that hill so it would be fairly easy to
sculpt it so it would appear natural.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the consultants ranked that alternative against having the wider crossing
at Meadow Creek. Mr. Sorey said the VDOT alignment is a good one just in terms of the road, but there is
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
the opportunity here to consider potential urban development, and potential development of a parkland.
When those things are considered, Alternative A is the best option. If the other two things are not
considered, then VDOTs alignment is very strong although it does require a lot of filling and removal of
=
vegetation.
Mr. Bowerman asked if engineering on Alignment A is easier than on Alignment B, environ-
mentally. Mr. Sorey said they do not know how many feet of cut and fill would be needed. Their initial
analysis says they are about equal. Their alignment is more curvilinear and it follows the existing grade to a
greater extent than the VDOT alignment. He thinks the savings associated with having a shorter bridge and
crossing of the flood plain at a narrower point would compensate for the cutting which would occur directly
north of that bridge.
Mr. Sorey said they had prepared an animated drive-through of Alternative A. Ms. Thomas said
while they were getting the presentation ready to view, she would like to say that she got to ride along in the
airplane while air photos of the site where being taken. The presentation today was based on that film. She
was the Boards representative on the Design Advisory Committee, and what Jones & Jones has come up
=
with is the whole reason the County hired consultants. VDOT has people who are fully competent to design
a road, but the Board promised the community this would be a parkway. There was also the potential for
this being an asset to the DISC project, or it might have ruled out land for use in DISC. That decision could
have gone either way. Mr. Sorey then showed the aerial animation and visual simulation of the parkway.
Mr. Sorey said another benefit of Alternative A is that the area to be developed is actually a natural
drainage area, so it would allow this community to be in a bowl that would focus on that drainage. Existing
drainage would also be used for stormwater collection and detention, and a series of weirs could be built to
collect all of the stormwater from that area and gradually let it down into Meadow Creek.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this parkway concept could be converted to a four-lane road. Mr. Sorey said
two lanes could be added to the east side of the proposed roadway. Where the road passes between the
ballfields and Meadow Creek, it would be difficult to do in that area, but it would be possible. Certainly,
another lane could be added that might be used for buses or a mass transit system. Their aim was to
design a good two-lane road, but they also looked at the possibility of adding two more lanes in the future.
Mr. Okerlund said in the report is an outline of certain things. It shows conceptually how Alternative
A works. It breaks the concept down into development patterns showing roadway street systems and how
they integrate with open space. It shows how mixed use development can take advantage of the tops of the
hills, it diagrams the future internal traffic system and how that system interrelates with Rio Road which is
the access point to this development area. No access is provided from the parkway itself. It outlines the
potential for pedestrian systems and how the parkway would relate to the open space system. The
recommendation is for an urban design framework plan. It shows how an integrated street system would
work. It recognizes that all of this would occur in phases. There are certain emphases on roads and the
development pattern itself recognizing that there is potential for trails and paths. The addition of two lanes,
or the potential for transit in some form, was a factor in both alternatives.
Mr. Cormier said he would like to speak about the park concept. They identified basic goals for the
parklands based on walking the site, talking with people in the community and the reports they studied. The
first goal was to: restore and protect the Meadow Creek channel and its bottom lands; restore and protect
the scenic and historic resources and the rural character of the site; restore and protect pervious surfaces
for groundwater recharge. Many of the effects from development in the area on the watershed and,
specifically, on Meadow Creek, can be seen. There is a lot of shredding and scouring on the Creek itself,
and they wanted to consider the project as a way to improve those conditions rather than to add to the
damage that has already been done.
Mr. Cormier said their second major goal was to: connect and integrate, specifically in the project
vicinity; connect and integrate Charlottesville and Albemarle County parks and trail systems, the neighbor-
hoods and schools with the parks, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat. For example: at the place where
Meadow Creek comes out from under the railroad, there is a very big concrete pan which is an obstruction
to wildlife or fish trying to move through that corridor. As part of the larger project there is the opportunity to
break down those barriers for people and for wildlife. Third, a major goal was to: learn and act. There is a
need to get people to consider the natural history of the creek, the valley and the region. There needs to be
environmental education about the impacts of urbanization and ways to cleanup the area. Especially, the
interdependence of parks, urban development and transportation for smart growth. They looked at the
water system, where it moves and how it is related to urban development. They looked at development of
the transportation corridor and the vegetation associated with that. Finally, they looked at the recreation
and education systems.
Mr. Sorey said they did a couple of visual simulations. What he showed earlier was an animation,
but he now had some photo-simulations to show. He said that in the southern section of the corridor just
north of Melbourne Road the road fits in between the ballfields and the river. There would be some
minimal filling into the one hundred year flood plain which would need to be mitigated. In the northern
portion of the parkway near Rio Road, they tried to show a cut bank next to the road and as it curves around
to a short straight-away segment, there would be some filling and cutting. They felt that since this is
primarily in grassland now, it would be easy to re-sculpt that land and make it look natural. They show a
proposed extension of Rio Road intersecting with Meadow Creek Parkway, and Dunlora Drive is extended
to intersect with the Parkway as well. Just a little north of where Dunlora Drive would intersect with the
Parkway, they left some of the existing Rio Road intact. That could be used to access the residences in that
area, but a good portion of the existing pavement could be removed thus making driveways or access roads
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
into those properties.
Mr. Bowerman said the major flow of traffic would be east/west along Rio Road. He asked what is
envisioned at the intersection where traffic on Rio wants to use the Parkway. Mr. Sorey said the intersec-
tion would probably be signalized. They have not done a complete traffic analysis. Their engineers, H. W.
Lochner in Richmond, are working on that.
Mr. Cormier said at the present time, many people use Rio Road as a cut-around. It was intended
that the Meadow Creek Parkway take a portion of that traffic off of Rio Road. If they left Rio Road, and
brought the Meadow Creek Parkway in at a T, that would encourage drivers to continue on Rio. In
A@
consultation with the Design Advisory Committee, it was clear they should try to bring the main flow onto the
Meadow Creek Parkway and have Rio become a secondary road that Td onto it.
A=@
Mr. Bowerman said that intersection has not been completely engineered yet. Mr. Sorey said that is
correct. It has not been completely designed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are bike paths along the full parkway. Mr. Cormier said in the report in
the Parklands concept (page 21), the fundamental aspect is circulation and how to experience the
A@
landscape. On the parkway there will be a bike lane and trail and pedestrian trails which parallel the
parkway. They proposed one trail that connects the neighborhoods on Rio Road with the new
development. Mr. Sorey said there will be sidewalks on the bridge to make a connection to the bike trails
as well.
Ms. Thomas said this has been a tremendous amount of work and a good presentation of that
work. She asked if the Board members had more questions.
Ms. Humphris asked if the cost estimates on Page 23 in the report are in 2001 dollars. Mr. Sorey
said they are. Ms. Humphris asked if the unit costs shown in the third column are VDOT unit costs. Mr.
Sorey said the engineers worked off of the VDOT cost estimates and adjusted their numbers to what they
felt were appropriate. They are closely related to the numbers VDOT used.
Ms. Humphris said the report notes these as being parkway associated costs in the way of
landscaping and a separate pedestrian trail. She asked what additional costs are involved. Mr. Cormier
said the cost to which Ms. Humphris is referring is for the parkway, not restoration of Meadow Creek and
development of the park. Mr. Sorey said there would be additional costs associated with stormwater
collection and dispersion. Mr. Cormier said in the design of the park and urban development, there would
be an opportunity to integrate those considerations so you are not putting in a whole set of infrastructure for
stormwater and then trying to buy parkland. The parkland could, in effect, be part of the stormwater
solution.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be easy to terminate the parkway at Melbourne Road. Mr. Sorey
said they had not considered that, but had only considered this as an extension of the Citys portion of the
=
Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Cormier said they used the Reilly report for things like the design speed.
There was close collaboration on what the character of these roadways would be. Mr. Bowerman said he
understands that, but there are some realities the Board has to consider. Right now, traffic backs up
eastbound on Rio Road all the way to Dunlora. It would be a nightmare at Melbourne and Rio, but it could
be engineered. He is just looking at the need to improve Rio Road, at least through this area. He feels
traffic entering Rio is making it impossible to move traffic through.
Mr. Dorrier asked the time frame to build this project, and the phasing of aspects other than the
roadway itself. Mr. Cormier said they had hoped that would be the next step discussion with the Board.
A@
They hope this study does not just move into VDOTs hands and VDOT works on the roadway. They hope
=
all three continue to be considered together, with design of the park and investigating ways urban design
can follow the framework to continue to move forward. They do not know how long that process takes in
this area. He asked what the Boards next step would be with these recommendations.
=
Ms. Thomas said the recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Department and to VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg said Planning staff has been involved throughout this process so there is not much left for
them to do. The purpose of this study was to provide VDOT with what the County wanted to do.
Mr. Cormier said for the City portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway, Will Rieley had to do a follow-
up report to Council. It has been a continuing dialogue about what the character is of that parkway. They
also recommend that the Board stay vigilant after the report leaves its hands and consider continuing the
relationship with his firm or with someone who can keep an eye on all of the concerns which are part of the
parkway project.
Ms. Thomas said what has been suggested to the Board is that staff draft a resolution for adoption
at the next meeting of the Board in two weeks. If there is anything the Board wants to say to staff other than
to move forward with Alternative A as strongly and forcefully as possible, this is the chance to do so.
Mr. Bowerman said this report answered all of the questions he had related to the relevant issues
the roadway could have on the Countys urban plans and on the environment. He thinks it is an excellent
=
addition to the information the Board has had prior to this time.
Ms. Humphris said the last time she talked with the people involved, it was her understanding that
VDOT and everybody had met, and all of the people who needed to be accepting of the plan before the
Board today, were in agreement and it could go ahead. She understands the remarks about being vigilant,
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
but the Board is accustomed to being vigilant. The resolution which the staff will bring back to the Board in
two weeks needs to say VDOT should proceed with the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway in
A
conformance with this proposed alternative roadway alignment. She said that is her motion.
@
Mr. Martin seconded the motion. He said the two things left out still remain at each end of the
project. There is the City portion of the Parkway to connect to, and the connection to Rio Road.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there has been a good relationship with Jones & Jones. She suspects the
Boards vigilance is not totally over. As a person who was a member of the Design Committee, she was
=
most interested in the educational component. Sometimes it takes people from the outside to recognize
the fact that there are four schools in the area. It has turned into an exciting aspect for the community.
Mr. Cormier said that tomorrow they will meet with a number of teachers in the area and several
University faculty members. He has spoken with people from the Environmental Education Center, and
other environmental organizations. Hopefully, they will continue to play a role. He thanked the Board for
being a part of the visionary process it initiated.
Mr. Sorey said this is just a draft report, and they will be making some revisions. The Board should
let them know if there is anything else it would like to have them include.
_______________
Note: Ms. Thomas said there are many people in the audience at this time, and they have been
kept waiting for their agenda items to be heard. She suggested that the Board not discuss the Six-Year
Primary Road Improvement Plan (Agenda Item No. 6c) at this time, but include it on the agenda later in the
meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Bill Mills, VDOT representative, presented a written report concerning the Earlysville Area
Residents League request (on file in the Clerk's office). He gave a copy of the report to Mr. Juan Wade in
=
the Planning Department. He said it is an extensive report. VDOT has done an extensive counting of trucks
on the roads. Mr. Bowerman asked that VDOT send its monthly report to the Clerk in time to include it in
the Boards packet each month.
=
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had a request from a citizen that the sequencing of the new traffic signal on
Route 250 West at Broomley Road be looked at again. They feel the red light on Route 250 is too long
during most of the day.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Hunting Enforcement Program, Update on Year 2000-01.
Mr. Tucker said he has talked with Sheriff Robb who said he has to leave the meeting soon. Since
this is just an informational report, he suggested that it be included on an agenda for another meeting, and
the Board go to the next agenda item.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Foxfield Spring 2001 Races, Report about the.
Mr. Tucker said he had asked Sheriff Ed Robb and Capt. Doug Rhodes from the Police Depart-
ment to give a briefing about some of the issues they encountered during this event. There are items to
discuss about how the State ABC Board may be involved. The Board also received a copy of a letter from
MADD dated May 29, 2001, addressed to Mr. Clarence Roberts, Chairman of the ABC Board.
Capt. Rhoads said all officers involved in the Foxfield event this year were asked to prepare a
written report. He said there was good cooperation between Foxfield staff, the Sheriffs Department, and
=
others involved with the Event. This issue is not one of lack of communication. There are three important
points which all relate to saturation. First is saturation of the roadways. These roadways were not designed
to accommodate this volume of traffic. His second point has to do with the number of officers involved.
There were nine police officers assigned to this event, but he will recommend that at least six more be
added. The salary of these officers is paid by Foxfield. If the Police get into an enforcement mode at this
type of event, it defeats the purpose of having additional officers there. The third issue has to do with
alcohol. In the end, everything related to the problem deals with alcohol.
Capt. Rhoads said he asked all of the officers who worked with the Dave Mathews concert at the
University to analyze that event and present comments on how that concert functioned. It had twice as
many people in attendance, but there were fewer problems. He said there were isolated problems at
Foxfield. There were problems getting people into the event. Trash is a big issue also. At the Dave
Mathews concert that was not a problem because they had a hot line number to call, and then went
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
immediately and picked up the trash. He will be recommending this to the people at Foxfield. He said
there are always isolated problems with the Police, the attendees or private security. There were a couple
of private security people who took an intoxicated person and dumped them outside of the gate. That
person was injured and had to go to the emergency room. There was the case of people not leaving after
the event was over, and the police were called to remove them from the premises. The security people
themselves were eating with the people they were trying to remove.
Capt. Rhoads said they have looked at Richmond which has a Fridays After Five type of event,
A@
they looked at the Fridays After Five in Charlottesville, the Statler Brothers Fourth of July celebration in
A@
Staunton, and all of these events have control over alcohol consumption. It comes down to an alcohol
issue.
Sheriff Ed Robb thanked the Board for its financial support of the Sheriffs Office for the coming
=
year. He said the Sheriffs Department also participated with the Dave Mathews event. It was incredibly
=
controlled. The main difference at Foxfield is the road situation. Whether alcohol consumption at the two
events was different, he does not know. He believes the staff at Foxfield is doing what they can to deal with
the crowd. At the 2000 Foxfield spring event, in addition to the eight officers the County Police had outside
of the gate, the Sheriffs Department had nine officers present. Capt. Rhoads said the State Police also
=
assisted them with the intersection at Owensville Road and Route 250. Sheriff Robb said that although last
years event may not have been any more orderly, the officers were there. This year, because of the
=
overtime issue related to the Sheriffs budget, he took the position that unless the event operators were
=
willing to pay contractual overtime, the Sheriff could not provide that kind of manpower. They did, however,
provide the same number of certified officers to respond to and help with private security inside. There
were five arrests made. Four people were charged with being drunk and disorderly inside of the grounds.
There were six officers inside to help backup the security people, and it took two of them to make those
arrests. That left four officers inside, and he understands it was near chaos from time to time where there
was not enough private security to deal with that size crowd, or enough law enforcement officers to deal
with that size crowd. The situation appears to be mainly driven by alcohol. He does not have any facts,
other than observations, to support that feeling. He said it is a situation that only the Board can address.
Mr. Tucker asked Sheriff Robb to comment on the letter written by MADD to the ABC Board.
Sheriff Robb said that Mr. Clarence Roberts told him last week that the ABC Board has initiated an
investigation related to the Foxfield Spring event. The Sheriff said the Spring event is quite different from
the one held in the fall, that one is family-oriented.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be worthwhile to organize a group of the people involved in the Foxfield
event to meet and develop a list of recommendations. Sheriff Robb said Foxfield management is doing
everything they can do. Mr. Dorrier said he was thinking about a coordinated approach. Mr. Tucker said
that was done two years ago. Capt. Rhoads said they meet every year. They had the ABC people come in
1996 and do an analysis. It is not an issue of failure to meet or failure to communicate. It is just that the
large issue is one of saturation. The roads can only move so many people. Alcohol is the basis for those
problems that come after the event. At some point, alcohol consumption will have to be addressed. He
said the Police Department only has so many officers, so they have to rely on those officers who can work
on their day off. The officers don't want to work the event and they have to be ordered to do so.
Mr. Bowerman said Foxfield has not prohibited alcohol being brought into the event. Capt. Rhoads
said they have looked at other events, such as the Kentucky Derby. There, alcohol is at the event, but is
sold only by the managers of the event, so they can restrict the flow. If there is unrestricted access to bring
in as much alcohol as is wanted, there is no control over the alcohol. He said that 95 percent of the people
attend the event with no problems arising. The other five percent bring in as much alcohol as they want,
and in a sense, infect the rest.
Ms. Thomas said there are people present from Foxfield and from MADD, but she did not want to
open this meeting to that discussion. She said it is important to know what the Board's options are. Every
two or so years, this problem occurs again. The Board does not have any power zoning-wise. What can
the ABC Board do? She thinks there should be a meeting and then a report to the Board on what can be
done.
Ms. Humphris said Capt. Rhoads said that alcohol consumption was a problem after the event, but
it has gotten to be a problem before, during and after the event. She got a call yesterday from a person
representing the Canterbury Hills Association who said there were people urinating in their yard right along
the urban part of Barracks Road. She has had complaints from Felicia Rogan about people breaking down
her fences at Oakencroft Vineyards, and from people whose properties along that road are being
destroyed. She said the roadways can no longer deal with this event. This was the worse that had been
seen since the beginning of the event. Traffic was at a standstill along Emmet Street in the Barracks Road
area and along the Route 250 Bypass where it empties into Barracks Road. People could not get either to
or away from their homes in that whole area. There was no traffic control in the Barracks Road or
Georgetown Road areas, or the Old Garth Road area. There was no control over alcohol consumption,
there was urination in public before and after the event. Trash was abominable. The complaints that she
received after she mentioned her own experiences to the Board, came pouring in. She thinks this Board
has arrived at the end of the line. The Board has done everything it can possibly do. The fall event
evidently went off well because it was family-oriented. But, the spring event is easters east.
A@
Mr. Martin said a lot of people in the community dont remember what happened, but "Easters"
=
used to be called the biggest party of the year, second only to Mardi Gras. He said that was mentioned in
Playboy Magazine back when he was a student at the University. When the University closed down
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
"Easters", he remembers students saying they were going to Foxfield, and that was the beginning of moving
Easters. It is still that spring party for the University of Virginia. Another way of looking at this is, what is a
A@
release valve for that spring fling at the University?
Capt. Rhoads said this event is not being attended by just University of Virginia students, but from
students everywhere. Mr. Dorrier said there are ways to reach those groups outside of the Foxfield races.
Capt. Rhoads said Foxfield has worked with the Inter-Fraternity Council, etc. in the past. Ms. Humphris said
everybody has done everything possible up to this point, and this year was a disaster. She thinks there will
be a true disaster if there is not some kind of change. Sheriff Robb said some people say this is an
enforcement issue, but it is not.
Ms. Thomas asked that a group meet and bring the Board a recommendation. This should include
the ABC Board. Mr. Tucker said if the Board supports having the ABC Board review this event, it might
adopt a resolution to support whatever they can do along with what MADD has requested. That was the
consensus.
__________
Mr. Tucker said the Sheriff is going through the accreditation process just as the Police Department
did a year or so ago. He wanted the Board to know that the Sheriff has initiated that process.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Water Protection Ordinance Violation Boat Shed in South Fork Rivanna
C
Reservoir Buffer, Tax Map 45, Parcel 5D6 (Phyllis Koch-Sheras), Appeal.
Mr. Stephen Bowler, Watershed Manager, said that in the early fall of 2000, while on the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, he noticed a new structure roughly 20 feet from the edge of the Reservoir pool,
and about six feet above the Reservoirs surface. The structure was a boat shed for rowing shells with an
=
8'x30' roof supported by four center posts. No building permit application was filed with the County. The
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services requested a building permit application to trigger a
formal review of the structure retroactively. Upon review, the Department of Engineering determined that
the structure was not in compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance which restricts structures within
200 horizontal feet of the flood plain of a reservoir, but allows specific activities in the buffer either by-right
or through a mitigation plan filed with the Department of Engineering. Staff offered a compromise of
removing the roof from the structure and leaving the racks in place which is similar to advise given other
homeowners on the Reservoir. Storing a canoe on a rack a few feet off the ground is not much different in
terms of impervious surface than storing a canoe on the ground, which would not be regulated.
Mr. Bowler said through adoption of the Run-off Control Ordinance, and since 1998, the Water
Protection Ordinance, the Board and the County have tried to keep the Reservoir from developing into a
recreational waterfront, and have protected it as a water supply source. Recreational facilities have been
concentrated at a couple of boat ramps, and a University of Virginia facility which is used as a rowing club.
Staff feels it is a longstanding policy of the community. It does recognize that this one small boat shed is
not a major impact on the reservoir, but is concerned about what it opens up for the future. He has already
received a call asking if that person can build a similar structure, a call from a person whose request was
denied who asked if the rules had changed, and a report that there is another structure downstream from
this one which he needs to investigate. If this shed is allowed to remain, it makes it hard to distinguish
between an attractive, fairly minor structure like this one, and a more significant structure with walls and a
floor, and there would be no way to see if hazardous materials were stored inside of it. He said staff
recommends that the Board affirm staffs determination and continue to keep these kinds of structures off
=
the margin of the reservoir.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this structure has an association with the rowing club. Mr. Bowler said no.
A@
Mr. Bowerman asked if the structure is a for-profit thing. Mr. Bowler said it is a private homeowners
A@
structure. Mr. Bowerman asked how many shells it stores. Mr. Bowler said he believes it can store six.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Koch-Sheras to speak. Ms. Koch-Sheras distributed some photos of the
rack. She said the report refers to it as a shed, but it is just a rack to hold shells. They have lived on the
property for 17 years and are committed to preserving it and the reservoir. They have consulted with the
County engineers in the past about drainage issues. They consulted with a contractor this time whom she
presumed was well-meaning and said this structure was fine. They have found out otherwise since that
time, and are trying to make this work. They were told they would have to take the roof off, and that they
could not make any modifications to help the situation. She has consulted with several landscape people
and environmentalists and civil engineers. The footprint of the structure is less than 300 square feet. There
is heavy leaf cover on the ground. The roof protects the shells, which unlike canoes can be destroyed by
sun, etc. To cover the shell in some way is essential. There is no more room at the boat house for any
boats or shells. They did this in what they felt was the most environmentally safe and attractive way. They
do not believe this roof (300 square feet) creates anymore runoff than the boats themselves (26 feet long
by three-plus feet wide). Possible modifications were suggested by a number of engineers and contractors.
She thinks they all want to protect the reservoir, but some people bought land there so they could use and
enjoy the reservoir. It was not her intent to subvert the law. The contractor said it was not a shed, or a
structure, only a roof with racks. She asked that they be allowed to make some modification since they did
not know about the law. She thinks it would be a loss for all of those people who live on the reservoir. She
said they would like to keep the rack with the roof intact.
Ms. Humphris said this land does lie in her district, so she met with the applicant and Mr. Bowler
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
about the situation. He explained in detail his rationale and his interpretation of the Water Protection
Ordinance. She understands the applicant's plea, however, as she is very familiar with the whole
background of the need to protect the reservoir to be consistent with protection of the water supply, she
believes it is essential that the Board support the Watershed Manager's interpretation of the ordinance. Mr.
Bowler provided an option so the structure does not need to be torn down. That was to remove the roof so
that removes the large runoff problem and to individually protect the shells on the rack. She feels that is a
reasonable option. She does not think the Board should put the Watershed Manager in a situation of
having to deal with a precedent, which Mr. Bowler said would be a problem because he has already had
telephone calls about this. Ms. Humphris then offered to affirm the Department of Engineering's
determination of violation and of its proposed solution. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrier said he has rowed and he knows the dynamics of the shell and the potential harm that
could result to the reservoir from use of the shell. He thinks only minimal harm would result from the
rowing of the boats and that has already been allowed for the University crew and other residents. He
looked at the structure and the pictures of it, and it appeared to him that there is no threat to the reservoir
from direct run-off into the reservoir. While taking off the roof may be one solution to the problem, that
works against the possibility of preservation of the shells. The shells will rot and disintegrate with rainfall on
them over a period of time. That does not seem to be a reasonable solution to the problem. He thinks this
is an isolated incident, and there are other solutions which could help solve the problem. In this instance,
with this particular landowner, he thinks an exception could be made and a design made to solve the
problem without creating a precedent.
Mr. Bowerman said there is an ordinance on the books which says that no structure is allowed
within 200 feet of the reservoirs edge. Staff said there are a couple more of these structure already in
=
place. There are a lot of homes on the reservoir. The issue is, if this is allowed, anything would be allowed.
There is a reason for the ordinance, and enforcement of it. The shells can be covered with some sort of
flexible cover, it is not necessary to have a roof. He thinks that offering to leave the structure intact goes
beyond what he would recommend because this Board has denied requests for boat launches. Other
individuals have come forward with requests that sounded reasonable on the surface. But, collectively, that
is why there is an ordinance.
Mr. Martin said if there is more than one person out there who would like to have something for the
shells, then the Board could take the time to see if there are mitigating circumstances or alternatives that
would work. Would it be worth looking to see if there is something that works?
Ms. Humphris said if there had been an application for a legal building permit (as the contractor
should have done), the shed would not have been allowed to be built where it is; it should not be there. The
Watershed Manager has gone way beyond what she feels is necessary (she would not allow the structure
to remain). She said the Board has worked hard to get protection for that reservoir and to make sure it
does not approve precedents. She feels strongly about this because of the whole background of the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, and people always wanting to do things there. No one has been prevented from
rowing on the reservoir. This structure could be elsewhere. She thinks Mr. Bowler has gone beyond what
is necessary in allowing the structure to remain without the roof. She thinks that is as far as the Board
should go. It is something that seems small, but it would be a major change.
Mr. Martin said the Board has allowed recreational use of the reservoir, as well as Chris Greene
reservoir which may one day be a future public drinking water reservoir. If the Board allows that use to
stand at Chris Greene, he wondered if there should be a look at whatever other alternatives may exist that
might be mitigating to the damage to the reservoir.
Mr. Davis said the appeal is based on whether this structure is a water-dependent facility. That is
the key because the ordinance only allows water-dependent facilities to be located at this location. If the
Board expands the definition for this structure, it will have expanded it for every structure unless the
ordinance is amended to narrow it. He said Mr. Bowler has pointed out the dangers of expanding the
definition of water-dependent facilities to a structure which looks like this one. The mitigation proposed is
something that could be put into an ordinance, but when the ordinance was first developed one of the major
concerns about those types of things was the on-going maintenance and enforcement of mitigation
measures. Once in place, unless a mitigation measure is maintained, the facility creates a serious impact
to the reservoir. He said staff did not think it could be adequately monitored in the long term.
Mr. Perkins said the impact on the reservoir is not so much the structure itself, but from getting the
boat from the structure into the reservoir.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not think there was any intent of putting sides on the structure, it was only
to protect the shells. Rowing shells in the reservoir, in his opinion, does not create a problem.
Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris said that is not the issue.
Mr. Perkins said this is a water impoundment which is supposed to be for drinking water, but it is a
major recreational facility. He thinks the reservoir is already being used too much for recreation.
At this point, Ms. Thomas asked for a roll call on the motion to support the Department of
Engineers determination on this appeal. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
=
vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Ms. Thomas called for a short recess. The Board took a break at 11:57 a.m. and returned at 12:02
p.m. without Mr. Bowerman being present.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter Six, Article 3 of the
Albemarle County Code involving the regulation of fireworks. (Notice of this public hearing was published in
the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said recently the Circuit Court found that, while the County is authorized under State law
to require a permit for storage of legal fireworks anywhere in the County in connection with a business, that
language had not been included in the County Code. State law and the Statewide Fire Prevention Code
authorizes the County to regulate the storage of fireworks within its boundaries. This amendment is
intended to clarify existing County practice, and it does not enlarge or expand upon the regulation of
fireworks in the County beyond those currently being enforced.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin immediately offered motion to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Article III,
Fireworks, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Perkins said when the Board adopted the change to do with the permitting of burning, the Board
was told that the regulation did not change anything. Then, Fire Rescue started enforcing the ordinance,
and started charging for permits. He sees this as going overboard. It is not necessary. He is worried about
how aggressively the County will enforce this new ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said the current process will not change. This change is to clarify regulations regarding
storage because the ordinance did not specifically speak to storage of fireworks. Mr. Davis said the Fire
Marshal has been enforcing the Statewide Fire Prevention Code which empowers him to regulate the
storage of fireworks, which can be a serious issue. The County had never specifically addressed this issue
in the County Code, but had adopted the Statewide Code by reference. In the court case about commercial
storage of fireworks on private property, the Court ruled that the permitting requirement needed to be
incorporated into the local ordinance. Staff does not necessarily agree with that ruling, but rather than fight
that battle, it was decided to include it in the local ordinance. That is why this ordinance is before the Board
today. In 1997, the Board adopted a fee schedule which included a fee for application and storage of
fireworks. From that point to date, the fire marshals office has been employing a formal process to
=
regulate this activity. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 12:07 p.m.)
Mr. Carl Pumphrey, Director of the Fire Rescue Division, said this will not change their enforcement
practices. They already work with agencies and individuals each year to be sure the site is safe, and there
has been proper training for people who present fireworks displays.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there have been any problems with the sale of fireworks. Mr. Pumphrey said
there were some problems in the past with the selling of illegal fireworks.
Ms. Thomas said she spoke with someone who sells fireworks and his concern was with the
Countys fee schedule. In fact, he actually suggested that the ordinance be even stronger to prevent the
=
sale of fireworks to minors.
With no further discussion, Ms. Thomas asked that the roll be called. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-6(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE III, FIREWORKS, OF
CHAPTER 6, FIRE PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Article III, Fireworks, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 6-300
(Purpose of article); Section 6-301 (Manufacture, sale, discharge, etc., of certain
fireworks prohibited); Section 6-303 (Permits for public displays--Required); Section
6-304 (Permits for public displays--Application); Section 6-305 (Permits for public
displays--Investigation; issuance or refusal; Section 6-306 (Permits for public
displays--Conditions); Section 6-307 (Permits for public displays--Liability insurance or
bond required); and, Section 6-308 (Permits for public displays--Nontransferable), as
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
follows:
CHAPTER 6. FIRE PROTECTION
ARTICLE III. FIREWORKS
Sec. 6-300 Purpose of article.
The purpose of this article is to provide administrative procedures for the
regulation of the use, possession, manufacture, discharge, storage and sale of fireworks.
(Code 1988, 9-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
'
Sec. 6-301 Manufacture, sale, discharge, etc., of certain fireworks prohibited.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful for any person to
transport, manufacture, store, sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, buy, use, ignite,
possess or explode any firecracker, torpedo, skyrocket or other substance or thing, of
whatever form or construction, that contains any explosive or inflammable compound or
substance, and is intended, or commonly known, as fireworks, and which explodes, rises
into the air or travels laterally, or fires projectiles into the air, other than sparks, and other
than those fireworks excepted under the provisions of section 6-302.
(Code 1967, 10-4; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, 9-10; Ord. 98-A(1),
''
8-5-98; Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
State law reference--Va. Code 59.1-142.
'
Sec. 6-303 Fireworks permits--Required.
A.Notwithstanding the other provisions of this article, public displays of
fireworks may be given by fair associations, amusement parks or by any organization or
group of individuals in accordance with a permit from the fire official. It shall be unlawful
for any person to hold, present or give any such public display of fireworks without first
having obtained such a permit from the fire official.
B.Any person, business, organization or other entity engaged in the sale,
storage, distribution, manufacture or public display of fireworks anywhere in the County of
Albemarle must obtain a permit from the fire official and must comply with all terms and
conditions imposed by the fire official in connection with the permit prior to engaging in
any sale, storage, distribution, manufacture or public display of fireworks. The fee for
such permit shall be as established in the fee schedule maintained by the fire official, as
may be amended from time to time.
(Code 1967, 10-6; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, 9-12; Ord. 98-A(1),
''
8-5-98; Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
State law reference--For state law as to authority of county to adopt this section, see Va. Code
''
27-98 and 59.1-1484.
Sec. 6-304 Fireworks permits--Application.
Any person, business, organization or other entity required by section 6-303 to
obtain a permit shall make application to the fire official at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date of such fireworks display or other activity requiring a permit. Such application
shall be on forms provided by the fire official. The applicant shall furnish such
information as may be required by the fire official, comply with all terms and conditions
imposed by the fire official and pay the required fee(s).
(Code 1967, 10-7; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, 9-13; Ord. 98-A(1),
''
8-5-98; Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
Sec. 6-305 Fireworks permits--Investigation; issuance or refusal.
Upon filing of an application for a permit required by section 6-303, the fire
official shall make an investigation to determine whether the applicant is properly
qualified to present a public fireworks display or engage in other activities requiring a
fireworks permit and whether such activities can occur within the County of Albemarle
without danger to property or person. If the fire official is satisfied with the results of such
investigation, and the applicant complies with all requirements imposed by this chapter
and any applicable regulations or procedures, the fire official shall issue the permit. If he
is not satisfied with the results of such investigation, or if the applicant has not complied
with any or all requirements imposed by this ordinance and any applicable regulations or
procedures, the fire official shall refuse to issue such permit.
(Code 1967, 10-8; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, 9-14; Ord. 98-A(1),
''
8-5-98; Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
Sec. 6-306 Fireworks permits--Conditions.
The fire official may specify, in any permit issued pursuant to section 6-303, any
conditions that he shall deem necessary to protect persons and property. Such
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, the type of fireworks to be used in a
fireworks display, the hours when such display may be presented, required fire
extinguishing equipment, the presence of trained fire fighters and police officers at such
display, the manner, place or other conditions of storage of fireworks by anyone required
to obtain a permit pursuant to section 6-303 and any other requirement that the fire
official may deem necessary.
(Code 1967, 10-9: 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, 9-15; Ord. 98-A(1),
''
8-5-98; Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
Sec. 6-307 Fireworks permits--Liability insurance or bond required.
Each person, business, organization or other entity required by section 6-303 to
apply for and obtain a permit (the "permittee") shall file with the fire official evidence of a
valid policy of liability insurance from an insurance company authorized to conduct
business in the Commonwealth of Virginia or a bond in an amount deemed adequate by
the fire official to insure the payment of all damages which may be caused either to
persons or to property by reason of the permitted display, sale, storage or other activity
subject to the requirements of this article and arising from any acts of the permittee or his
agents, employees or subcontractors.
(Code 1967, 10-10; 4-13-88; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, 9-16; Ord.
''
98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
Sec. 6-308 Fireworks permits--Nontransferable.
No permit issued pursuant to section 6-303 shall be transferable.
(Code 1967, 10-11; Ord. No. 97-9(1), 1-8-97; Code 1988, 9-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98;
''
Ord. 01-6(1), 6-6-01)
This ordinance shall be effective upon passage.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2,
Administration, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in 2-202, Compensation of Board of
'
Supervisors. This amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by 4.2 percent, to
establish compensation at $11,197 per year. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said this amendment speaks for itself. Advertised, was a 4.2 percent increase to
establish compensation at $11,197 per year. The Boards current compensation is $10,777. Mr.
=
Bowerman noted that the compensation amount should read $11,230. Mr. Davis agreed.
The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and
the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an Ordinance to
Amend and Reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes it is important that whatever stipend is received for work on the
Board remain the same in terms of monetary value. He said the Board generally gets whatever percentage
is given to General Government employees, which is somewhat close to inflation. It would help the person
who might not otherwise be able to run for the Board because of lost income.
Ms. Thomas said that one year in the recent past the Board did not take a raise, and so now the
salary is a little below inflation. She believes it is important that the Board take the increase each year so
the salary does not fall way behind.
At this point, roll was called, and the motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the $35.00 per day which is paid to the vice-chair for chairing is too
low. He asked that this amount be looked at next year.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION,
ARTICLE II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 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 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202,
Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows:
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be eleven thousand two hundred thirty dollars
and no cents ($11,230.00) for each board member. In addition to the regular salary, the
vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every
meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight
hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; Code 1988, 2-2.1; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90;
'
Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1),
6-17-98; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2),
6-6-01)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2001.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public hearing on proposed amendment to the budget for Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 2001. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May 28, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County hold a public hearing to
'
amend its current budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of the original budget
or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code section applies to all funds, not just the adopted operating
budget. This budget amendment totals $703,848.68. After holding the public hearing, staff recommends
that the Board amend the budget and approve the following appropriations:
Appropriation #20067, $53,000.00 - Emergency Communications Center;
Appropriation #20068, $370,989.00 - Community Development Block Grant 00-32;
Appropriation #20069, $214,802.73 - Miscellaneous reasons.
Bus Replacement Fund, $83,741.78 - fund balance.
Murray Elementary School, $2,500.00 - anonymous donations. Monticello High School,
$167.00 - donation.
Alcoa Grant, $13,258.71 - fund balance from FY 99-00.
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities, $7,971.01 - fund balance.
Refugee School Impact Grant, $3,559.00.
Adult Basic Education, $1,500.00 from Farmington Country Club, $4,762.90 in tuition
fees from the English as a Second Language class, and $3,900.80, fund
balance from FY 99-00.
Office of Adult Education and Literacy, $74,733.00, ESOL students and service
providers.
Miscellaneous grants: Virginia Commission for the Arts, $1,121.00 - Meriwether Lewis
Elementary School; $300.00 - Sutherland Middle School; Virginia Department
of Health, $805.00 - Murray High School; Optimist Club of the Blue Ridge,
$200.00 - Red Hill Elementary School; Miscellaneous Grant Fund Balance,
$45,832.43 - for State Farm Mobile Classroom Grant at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School and various Artist-in-Residency Programs.
Appropriation #20070, $600.00 - Henley Middle School donation.
Mr. Tucker said that this budget amendment also includes four appropriations totaling $64,456.95,
which have already been approved by the Board at various meetings since April 5, 2001. These are
Appropriation #20063, $10,746.95 for Fire/Rescue Training and Equipment; Appropriation #20064,
$25,000.00 for Whitewood Village Planning Grant; Appropriation #20065, $27,110.00 for funding for
Democratic Party Primary Election; and, Appropriation #20066, $1,600.00 for State funding for a laptop
computer.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Ms. Thomas noted that the appropriation for the ECC is a grant from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to expand radio coverage to areas in Virginia not currently covered by the National
Weather Service. She said there should be a public announcement made when this service becomes
available.
Ms. Thomas said about twice a year she asks that staff look at the DARE Program. National
publicity for this program is becoming worse and worse. It is simply not doing what people expect it to do in
terms of addressing drug abuse. She will not vote against this appropriation this time, but has serious
reservations about the program. Mr. Tucker said staff will look into this matter.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve the budget amendment as advertised and to
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20067
FUND: ECC
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR NOAA WEATHER RADIO SYSTEM
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 4100 31040 800300 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT$53,000.00
TOTAL$53,000.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 4100 24000 240055 DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES$53,000.00
TOTAL$53,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20068
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PORTER ROAD/YANCEY SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING
IMPROVEMENT GRANT
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1224 81031 300205 ADM SERVICES$ 20,297.00
1 1224 81031 563100 AHIP350,692.00
TOTAL$370,989.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1224 33000 330009 CDBH-HUD GRANT$370,989.00
TOTAL$370,989.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20069
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 3905 62320 800506 SCHOOL BUS-REPLACEMENT$83,741.78
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT2,500.00
1 2111 61339 580000 MISC EXPENSES250.00
1 2304 61104 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES167.00
1 3137 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES13,258.71
1 3107 60000 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES7,971.01
1 3123 61101 132100 PT WAGES-TEACHER2,458.50
1 3123 61101 210000 FICA189.23
1 3123 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES911.27
1 3116 63348 132100 PT WAGES-TEACHER7,315.03
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA548.77
1 3147 63330 111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAG3,198.00
1 3147 63330 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER23,220.00
1 3147 63330 132100 PT WAGES-TEACHER24,768.00
1 3147 63330 210000 FICA3,916.00
1 3147 63330 221000 VRS365.00
1 3147 63330 231000 HEALTH INS138.00
1 3147 63330 232000 DENTAL INS5.00
1 3147 63330 241000 LIFE INS23.00
1 3147 63330 312700 PROF SVC CONSULTANTS2,050.00
1 3147 63330 520100 POSTAL SVCS100.00
1 3147 63330 550100 TRAVEL1,050.00
1 3147 63330 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES1,400.00
1 3147 63330 601700 PRINTING2,000.00
1 3147 63330 800100 EQUIPMENT12,500.00
1 3104 60301 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES3,750.00
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
1 3104 60304 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES3,750.00
1 3104 60201 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES1,500.00
1 3104 60207 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES500.00
1 3104 60212 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES1,000.00
1 3104 60202 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES500.00
1 3104 61311 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES7,332.43
1 3104 60206 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES1,121.00
1 3104 60207 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES200.00
1 3104 60255 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES300.00
1 3104 60602 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES805.00
TOTAL$214,802.73
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 3905 51000 510100 APPROP FUND BALANCE$83,741.78
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION2,917.00
2 3137 51000 510100 APPROP FUND BALANCE13,258.71
2 3107 24000 240233 GRANT REV-STATE7,971.01
2 3123 24000 240359 REFUGEE IMPACT GRANT3,559.00
2 3116 16000 161206 TUITION-ADULT ED5,812.90
2 3116 51000 510100 APPROP FUND BALANCE2,050.90
2 3147 33000 330113 GRANT REV-FEDERAL74,733.00
2 3104 18000 181257 OPTIMIST CLUB GRANT200.00
2 3104 18000 181252 CHILD HEALTH GRANT805.00
2 3104 24000 240332 AIETIG-MWL1,121.00
2 3104 24000 240368 AIETIG-SUTHERLAND300.00
2 3104 51000 510100 APPROP FUND BALANCE18,332.43
TOTAL$214,802.73
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20070
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATIONS TO SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2252 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES$600.00
TOTAL$600.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$600.00
TOTAL$600.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Greenway Committee, Plan of Action for Development of.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said staff had been directed to respond to a
request from Mr. John Conover of the Rivanna Trails Foundation (RTF) to establish a Greenway Study
Committee. This would be a first step toward the establishment of a permanent Greenway Committee as
proposed in the Greenway Plan section of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
He said staff feels the RTF is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plans recommenda-
=
tion for a committee. There is one obvious difference in that the RTF proposal is for a study committee for
a certain period of time. Staff agrees with the process to set a time limit with certain specific expectations.
One of those is that the matter be returned to the County as to how to establish a permanent standing
committee to help manage greenways.
Staff is in general agreement with the RTF's proposed committee membership. It has proposed a
series of duties, missions and tasks for that committee. He said the concept proposed is for a more
informal committee than was initiated by the Citys Public Works Director. That committee did include
=
representation from the County and RTF, but did not have specific general citizen representation. It was
useful, but did not have enough standing to have the initiative to move forward. Based on how that
committee worked, staff believes this committee would improve its ability to plan, coordinate and develop
the greenway system proposed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be helpful to have this as a City/County committee. She realizes that
one of the recommendations is that this committee evaluate and make recommendations to the County
and City (within 18 months from first meeting) for the ultimate formation of a permanent greenway advisory
body to serve the County and/or region. Mr. Benish said it is staffs position that it would be best for this
=
committee to work toward a process that would establish what is best for development of green-ways in the
County. He said two study tasks have been identified for the committee. The first is to coordinate and
reconcile the emerging plans both regionally and with the City, and, second, to make a recommendation for
a permanent committee.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Martin moved that the Board establish a County Greenways Study Committee subject to the
parameters recommended.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Ivy Creek Natural Area would be represented by a staff person or one of
their members. She felt they should be allowed to choose who they want to represent them. Mr. Martin
said he would amend his motion to include that suggestion. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Parameters set out in the staffs report are listed below.)
=
Duties/Mission: To advise and coordinate in the planning, development, maintenance and promotion of
greenways in the County in a manner consistent with the objectives, principles and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan and to identify issues affecting greenway planning and development in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle community. Specific functions to undertake are:
Coordinate/reconcile greenways in the City and County and other regional plans as they develop;
Prioritize greenway projects in the County;
Establish tasks (with time lines) to be completed to assist in greenway development, including: 1)
mapping of trails in priority areas, 2) establishing methods to promote interest/participation in
County trail development, 3) establishing a process for fostering creation of RTF-like groups for
other areas of the County;
Pursue funding for trail development;
Review trail plans (public projects and development proposals) to insure consistency with plans
and standards for development and advise on location, connectivity and design issues;
Evaluate and report to the County and City (within 18 months from first meeting) on recommenda-
tions for the ultimate form for a permanent greenway advisory body to serve the County and/or
region.
Membership: A working committee consisting of eleven members. Representation includes: County
Planning staff (1); County Parks and Recreation staff (1); City Planning staff (1); City Parks staff (1);
University of Virginia representative (1); TJ Planning District Commission staff (1); Rivanna Trails
Foundation Board member (1); Chamber of Commerce representative (1); Ivy Creek Natural Area Board
member (1); County citizen from Piedmont Environmental Council (1); County citizen from Citizens for
Albemarle (1); possible additional or alternate member, County Planning Commissioner.
Length of Term of the Committee: 18 months from first meeting.
Frequency of Meetings: Regularly scheduled monthly meetings.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6c. Albemarle County's Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan (Statement for
Pre-Allocation Hearing in Culpeper), Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Board will recognize a lot of this information is from prior pre-allocation
statements. Staff included statements which reflect the Boards resolution regarding the Route 29 South
=
Corridor Study, and the Comprehensive Plan amendment for transportation improvements in the
Hollymead area. He said staff reflected things as they understood the Boards past positions regarding
=
primary road projects. Last year, the Route 20 South improvements were moved to the No. 2 spot following
the Route 29 North and the Meadow Creek Parkway emphasis from CHART and the resolution that the
City/County/University agreed to in 1992 which remains the No. 1. priority.
Mr. Cilimberg said since the Board received the Meadow Creek Parkway project report this
morning, he spoke with Mr. Benish. They think that when this actual resolution is before the Board on June
20, included in that resolution could be a statement of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to adopt
that document. The necessary public hearing could be held on that intent as a follow-up. That would firm
that up as a policy action.
Ms. Thomas asked if that would require different wording in the pre-allocation resolution. Mr.
Cilimberg said no. Staff had already made reference to the fact that the study was underway, and the
A@
County would want VDOT to acknowledge and accept those recommendations as to the Meadow Creek
Parkway design.
Ms. Humphris said the statement says ... the County asks that this section be designed in accord
A
with the Countys forthcoming design recommendations .... Mr. Cilimberg said the statement could be
=@
changed to reference the Countys design recommendations, and a copy of the Boards resolution be
==
attached.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Thomas said she had a couple of editorial comments. She suggested that a, b, c and d
A@A@A@A@
paragraphs be included under the main headings to make the statement easier to read. She said that
under the category of "Safety Improvements where it talks about Route 250 West, the Tilman Road
@
intersection is not mentioned even though it is dangerous. If a site plan is approved for a major business
site just off of that intersection, it is going to be made even more dangerous. She asked staff to look at that
intersection and decide if it would be appropriate to add it to the list.
Ms. Humphris said No. 6 on Page 3 should not say Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to
A
the Route 29/250 Bypass because the City no longer agrees with that recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg
@
said he was not aware this was the City's position. Ms. Thomas said the City wants to take the money that
would be involved in that project and do something else with the money. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not
anticipate that it would be a project in the County until after it is a project in the City. Mr. Cilimberg said the
language could be changed to say, "consistent with the City's interests".
Ms. Humphris mentioned No. 5, Page 4, regarding possible safety improvements for Routes 22
and 231. She thought VDOT did not agree to conduct an origin/destination study regarding truck traffic on
these routes. Mr. Martin said he thought VDOT had agreed to do the study. Mr. Cilimberg said he will
check on that again. Mr. Bowerman said a constituent told him that when a small bridge off of Route 29
North was reconstructed after the flood, its loading bearing was limited, which led to truck traffic being
increased on Routes 22/231. The bridge is located either in Greene or Madison counties.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff had received sufficient instructions from the Board to finalize the
resolution. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board wanted to have the resolution regarding the Meadow Creek
Parkway include the intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas said yes.
A@
_______________
Not Docketed: Ms. Thomas said Ms. Humphris has asked for a couple of minutes in which to
make a statement to the Board.
Ms. Humphris said while all of the Board members are together she would like to explain her
decision about running for a fourth term on the Board of Supervisors. When she became a candidate the
first time in 1989, she never thought about how many times she would run for office. Now, all of a sudden,
it is 2001. She loves the work on this Board and has loved the opportunity she has had to serve the public
and do all in her power to help keep Albemarle County the wonderful place it is to live. She wanted to
serve on this Board because she gets to vote and that is very important. Voting at the local level is on the
issues which affect each and every one personally. This is where she can really be effective.
Ms. Humphris said to Mr. Martin that she cannot image that he wants to move on since she thinks
this is the most important place to be. She has voted for eleven and one-half years and has had the
cooperation of the Board members all this time, and a very generous, supportive public. She said this
Board is very special, and it has patted itself on the back a number of times at how well the members get
along together. It does not always agree, the members coming from different backgrounds in all ways.
She said the Board is fortunate that it has each other and that it has the excellent staff it has, especially Bob
Tucker.
Ms. Humphris said the best time to leave a party is when you are still having a good time. Since
she is, it is time for her to leave. She would not be able to leave with a smile on her face if she did not know
there was somebody out there who is ready, willing and extremely able to stand for election to the Jack
Jouett seat on the Board of Supervisors. She feels he is the best person in Albemarle County to serve as a
member of this Board. The voters in Jack Jouett could not have a better candidate. This gentlemen
received a degree in Economics from UVA, is a Phi Beta Kappa, he has a law degree from the University of
Virginia and has already served the County well. He has served on the MPO Technical Committee for the
past 11 years, served on the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committee, the Countys Fiscal Impact
=
Committee for the past six years, is a member of the County Planning Commission of which he is now
Chairman. He has a broad and deep understanding of all the issues the County is currently facing. He has
a lot of business experience. He will be able to deal with these issues for the benefit of all the people in
Albemarle County. She said that Dennis Rooker will announce his candidacy for the Jack Jouett seat on
the Board of Supervisors today. She will support his candidacy in any way she can.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 1:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, that the Board go
into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider
appointments to boards and commissions and to conduct an administrative evaluation; and under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to a site plan
denial and pending litigation regarding a personnel matter and regarding specific legal issues requiring
legal advice relating to a tax collection matter.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:45
p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
=
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman recommended the appointment of:
Mr. C. Marshall Thompson to serve as the Rio District representative on the Equalization Board,
with term to run from June 6 through December 31, 2001.
Ms. Candace M. P. Smith to the Architectural Review Board to replace Mr. Rudolph A. Beverly, who
had resigned. Term will run from June 6, 2001, through November 14, 2004.
Mr. M. Kirk Train to the Architectural Review Board to replace Mr. Timothy M. Michel, who had
resigned. Term will run from June 6, 2001, through November 14, 2004.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2001-04. Rainbow House (Signs #29, 32 & 33). To allow community
center. Znd R-1. TM 90A1, PD. Property contains 88.1 acs, and is loc on Hickory St in Southwood Mobile
Home Park. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May 21
and May 28, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant, Jefferson Park Baptist Church, proposes to re-establish a
community center in the Southwood Mobile Home Park. The Church has been providing a satellite
ministry/community center to Southwood MHP for about 12 years. This ministry, referred to as Rainbow
House, had taken place in a mobile home located at 750 Java Court for seven years until April, 2000. They
found out during this last year that they did not have the permit required for them to operate this facility. The
Church is now getting a new modular unit in which to conduct these activities. (Note: Ms. Humphris arrived
at 2:47 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the request subject to two conditions. He said
that on May 8, 2001, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the staffs
=
conditions.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Jeff Riddle said he was present to represent the Church, and would answer questions.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier immediately offered motion to approve SP-2001-04 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The community center shall be located at 750 Java Court; and,
2.The community center is approved for activities discussed in this staff report.
Other activities that will produce the need for parking are not allowed.
__________
(Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 2:50 p.m.)
_______________
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-2000-52. John Adams/Triton (Signs #51, 52 & 53). To allow personal
wireless fac, incl 91' high wooden pole, antennas & ground equipment on 30'x30' lease area. Znd RA. TM
59, P 20. Property contains 140.982 acs & is loc at 785 Verdant Lawn Ln, W of Rt 250 & Rt 677. Samuel
Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is for a wood pole, 91 feet high, with two panel antennas, one future
antenna and ground equipment. The pole would be visible from some areas of Route 250. The
Architectural Review Board reviewed this request and conditioned the approval with a requirement to
conserve the trees within the boundaries of the subject property, between the facility and Route 250. This
site is located in a grove of trees. Its elevation, in comparison to that of West Leigh Drive, will make this a
very visible site to other areas along West Leigh Drive. Although the trees between the pole and West
Leigh Drive would not form a visual barrier or even a backdrop for the pole, they would serve to divert
attention away from the higher object. Should the trees be removed, there would be heightened awareness
of the pole above the tree line.
Mr. Cilimberg said the facility site could have been reached through a direct access route crossing
a field that would not require any disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant has provided that direct
access through a road which would be constructed by removing six-inches of sod and spreading three
inches of gravel on the base of the road, and replacing three and one-half inches of top soil and sod over
the gravel. That would result in a roadway of sufficient strength for heavy vehicles and would be invisible to
the eye.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of this special use permit subject to conditions.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 2001, unanimously recommended approval subject to
the staffs conditions, but changed 2(i) to read The diameter of the pole shall be determined prior to the
=A
Board of Supervisors meeting on June 6, 2001. Originally, staff had recommended that the diameter not
@
exceed 48 inches. The Commission asked that staff look at the wooden pole in Bellair to determine its
diameter. It was a little less than 30 inches, so staff now recommends that Condition 2(i) read The
A
diameter of the pole shall not exceed 30 inches.
@
Mr. Perkins referred to the applicants construction method for the access road. He said that if
=
there is runoff, when there is wet weather, the road will still be mud on top of that gravel. He thinks it would
be better to just put the gravel on top of the existing ground and then add gravel as it is needed. He said it
will be a tremendous disturbance to remove six inches of sod and topsoil. Mr. Cilimberg said this was
offered by the applicant based on concerns of the property owner. Their concern was the visibility of a
gravel driveway across the pasture land. Staff just wanted to get direct access instead of having it indirect
as originally proposed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if gravel can be seeded. Mr. Perkins said yes, grass will grow through
A@
gravel.
At this point, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long said she represents the applicant, Triton PCS. She said the applicants original
=
goal was to have a gravel access road in the same location. Mr. Adams was concerned about having a
gravel road in his pasture which is a very pristine area. They devised a route that was more circuitous,
around next to the railroad tracks and the power line. County staff had concerns with that proposal
because it did disturb some critical slope areas. In developing a compromise, they used a technique in
place at one of their Richmond locations, which is to gravel the access road during construction so the
heavy equipment trucks would have stability, and then put down grass seed which would then grow through
the gravel. Mr. Adams was concerned with that approach because construction would occur in the
summertime, and if there were a drought the area might not reseed appropriately. It was then suggested
that a sod road might be a good alternative. She said she could discuss the issue with Mr. Adams.
Mr. Perkins said the staffs report says to remove six inches of sod and top soil and then put gravel
=
and topsoil on top. That is a major disturbance to the earth. His point is that if the sod is put back on top,
and run trucks over that during wet spells, it will mash through to the gravel. He thinks it would be better to
just put the gravel on top of the earth, and let the grass continue to grow up through it. If there are slopes
that must be leveled to make the road flat, there would need to be transfer of soil in that area. He thinks
the proposal creates a bigger problem than would occur by just putting gravel on top of the earth.
Ms. Thomas asked if she was right in thinking this is not part of the conditions. It is just something
that the landowner and the applicant are planning to do. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. Ms. Thomas
said Mr. Perkins is giving good advice, but it is not part of the Boards action.
=
Ms. Long said she will discuss this with their consultants, Crown Communications, but it is her
understanding that when the construction process is over, there will probably be only four trips to the site
per year on the average. She said Mr. Cilimberg covered most of the points in the staff report. She did
provide the Board members with some photographs. She said three of the pictures were taken in early
March when the trees were bare of foliage. She said the wood pole would be visible from a great distance
through the trees, but it will blend in well. She also provided a photo of the site taken in October when the
trees still had leaves. She said this pole is a standard design made of wood. She would like to mention the
issue of diameter of the pole. Triton does have concern about limiting the diameter of a wooden pole
because it is an issue which is out of their control. She said the Planning Commission did discuss allowing
some flexibility. If 30 inches is the diameter the Board prefers, they will work with that, but there is concern
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
on the part of Triton. It makes it difficult for them to find a pole that is tall enough.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a diameter that Triton would prefer. Ms. Long said that originally
they preferred a pole of up to 48 inches. She has suggested that 34 inches might be appropriate. Triton is
concerned about having a permit approved and not being able to comply with its conditions.
Ms. Thomas said 48 inches would be huge. Ms. Long said Triton does not desire to find a very
large pole. They are fairly confident they can find a pole that is 30 inches in diameter or smaller. She
asked if the condition could be written to allow staff approval if the pole is 32 1/2 inches or something like
that.
Mr. Bowerman asked who decides whether the pole is wood or metal, the applicant, or this Board?
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board does in the conditions. Ms. Long said Triton has applied for a wooden pole at
this site. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any difference cosmetically or structurally
between a metal pole in terms of usage and visibility, if it is painted. Mr. Cilimberg said the other application
on todays agenda is for a metal pole which will have to be painted.
=
Mr. Bowerman suggested that if a certain diameter for a wooden pole is set as the limitation, and
the applicant cannot meet that diameter, they have the option of using steel as long as it conforms with a
preset series of guidelines, unless that opens up new items he has not thought of at this time.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think there are any metal poles in the County at this time, so she is
not sure about those aesthetic features. She thinks the applicant worked with the landowner to figure out
what material is most desirable. Ms. Long said that was not an issue of concern to the landowner, in this
case.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the permit could be conditioned so if the wooden pole exceeds the limit,
they could come back to the Board. Mr. Martin said nature plays the biggest role in the diameter of a
wooden pole. He thinks this is something the Board does not need to worry about until it becomes a
problem.
Mr. Bowerman said he was trying to understand how a tree of a similar height could be anywhere
from 22 to 40 inches. Mr. Perkins said trees dont necessarily grow that way. The trees could be turned
=
down to whatever diameter is wanted. The diameter of a pole depends on the load it will have to carry.
The reason the company selects a wood pole in one situation, and a metal pole in another, is because of
ground conditions. There has to be a massive foundation to support a metal pole, where with a wooden
pole, it is inserted in the ground at ten percent of its height. To support a metal pole there must be a
cement structure that is capable of keeping that metal pole from tipping over.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not want to make this an issue, but was trying to determine a way to
keep this from being a point of discussion in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has previously
discussed the significance of diameter for metal poles versus that for wood poles. The Boards concern
=
were more about metal because of the nature of them, and they do not look as natural as a wooden pole in
the natural setting. There was also concern about the width needed for support. He said the Planning
Commission felt there was importance in also having a diameter for wood poles, but what is really a
question here is whether there is a need for diameters for wood poles when they are offered.
Mr. Martin said the question is whether it is a problem. Mr. Davis said poles 90 feet or taller in
height do exist and can be obtained by the applicants, so if the Board set a 32-inch measurement, that
would take care of the problem.
Ms. Thomas said 48 inches in diameter is too big, and that is what started this discussion. It is a
hypothetical question. There are no poles of this size in Albemarle County. Now, the Board has found that
the pole is 30 inches, and that seems to be about right. The question is whether the Board needs to say
anything. Maybe the Board does not need to get into that. The Board would like to say the poles should be
as unobtrusive visually as possible, and that means as small in diameter as will do the job. She does not
know if that needs to be put in writing. She asked if the smaller poles cost less. Ms. Long said she does
not think cost is the issue. She asked that Mr. Dale Finocchi be allowed to address the Board.
Mr. Finocchi, of Crown Communications, said the reason they have reservations about the limitation
on diameter is simply because with the wood pole they are dealing with a natural commodity. It is not easy
to get trees of this height. This is a reason they have been pushing for steel poles. There is difficulty in
acquiring the wood poles. They come from the west coast, from Oregon and Washington. Typically they
are Western Cedars. Although the pole is 91 feet tall, when they are ordered they have to be about 120
feet. The wood pole is put 10 to 15 feet in the ground and then it is topped at the height needed. Limiting
the diameter at 30 inches makes them nervous because if they cannot find a tree at that diameter, they
could not meet the condition.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not think the Board needs to set any limits. What started this
discussion was staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission that the diameter of the pole be limited
=
to 48 inches. He does not understand where that recommendation came from. Mr. Cilimberg said staff
provided that at the request of the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked who made the determination for 48
inches. Mr. Cilimberg said staff worked with the applicant to determine the maximum diameter that would
never be exceeded. The applicant said 48 inches and that is what staff used for the Commission.
Originally, staff did not put any diameter in the conditions.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Martin said the Board is in to too much regulation, and it is not needed or required. Somebody
just thinks up a question, and all of a sudden it is regulated.
Ms. Long said now that Triton knows about this concern, their construction and procurement people
will be directed to find the tree that is as thin as possible which still meets the needs. But, there is not an
overabundance of such trees. Sometimes, it is hard to find one which is the appropriate height.
Mr. Perkins said he does not believe the tree mentioned is a Western Cedar, but a Douglas Fir.
Ms. Long thanked the Board for discussing this issue.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Thomas said in the tree protection zone being placed on the property, it includes a lot of
sycamore trees that are falling along the creek. She asked if the landowner will be able to remove fallen
trees without amending this plan. Mr. Cilimberg said from an enforcement standpoint, the natural falling of
trees is considered as acceptable. It does mean that if the tree that the height of the tower is determined
against were to fall, then the tower height would have to be adjusted. Sycamore trees will not be the
determining height.
Ms. Thomas said her house shows on the map of this area, and she considered recusing herself,
but she is part of a large neighborhood that will be seeing this tower, so she believes she can deal with this
issue clearly.
At this point, Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve SP-2000-52, John Adams (Triton PCS),
subject to the nine conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but to delete recommended
Condition 2(i) concerning the diameter of the pole.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed
5.6 feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility,
as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the
exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole;
2.The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The pole shall be a wooden pole, dark brown in color,
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted,
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as
provided by condition number nine (9) herein,
d.The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to
the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the
specifications as shown on the plan entitled Adams Property/Triton PCS
and last revised on 5/10/01 (on file in the Clerk's office),
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole,
and with a width not to exceed one-inch (1") diameter at the base and
tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole,
f.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying
the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1),
g.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall
provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of
the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above
Sea Level,
h.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as
described in condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval,
without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as follows:
a.The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the plan entitled
Adams Property/Triton PCS (on file in the Clerk's office) and last revised
on 5/10/01;
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the plan entitled Adams
Property/Triton PCS and last revised on 5/10/01 (on file in the Clerk's
office),
b.No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole,
c.Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support
structure shall be permitted. However, in no case, shall the antennas
project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment
cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan,
developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and
procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both
inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installations associated with the pole and equipment building, including
necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this
tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the
Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not
remove existing trees within the area shown on Attachment C (on file in the
Clerk's office). A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future
tree removal within the tree preservation buffer;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is
discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning Administrator one (1) time per
year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the
pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number
one (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than two-to-one (2:1) unless retaining walls, revetments,
or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are
employed; and,
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of
the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminary is a complete lighting
unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute
the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the
power supply.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2001-05. Jensen (Triton PCS) (Sign #49). To allow 69' high wireless
telecom pole. Znd RA. TM 62, P 91. Property contains 3.01 acs & is loc on Stony Point Rd (Rt 20) approx
2 mls from intersec of Rt 250 & Rt 20. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2001.)
Ms. Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner, summarized the staffs report. She said this is a request for
=
a 69-foot tall metal monopole on the Jensen property off of Route 20. The site was chosen after viewing a
balloon test because it is less visible. Staff did recommend approval of the proposal, subject to conditions,
finding that the backdrop of large oak trees and some other trees provide sufficient camouflage. The
Architectural Review Board approved a certificate of appropriateness with conditions.
Ms. Doherty said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 29, 2001, by a vote of 5:2,
recommended approval with more stringent conditions than those proposed by staff. Specifically, they
lowered the permitted height from 69 feet to 66 feet. They changed the material from metal to wood, and
they required that if any tree of 12 inches in diameter were trimmed, cut or removed by natural conditions or
otherwise, the permit would need to be amended. Some members of the Commission found this site too
visible and conditions were created so that if anything happened to conditions as they are today, the permit
for this monopole could actually be revoked, amended or rescinded. She said the applicant has brought a
list of revised conditions today and she proceeded to hand copies to the Board. She said the applicant will
discuss the request for changes.
Mr. Michael Fogarty was present to represent the applicant (Triton PCS). He distributed
photographs of the site to the Board, along with photo simulations. To reiterate, the applicant originally
requested a pole of 69 feet, standard treetop design. The site is located off of Route 29 North, 230 feet
from the road. It was specifically sited to take advantage of the large oak tree seen in the photographs. As
the staff report indicates, the site is virtually invisible as one travels northward. It is minimally visible
traveling south on Route 20 from a point one-tenth of a mile north of the site at a crest of the ridge where
most of the photographs were taken.
Mr. Fogarty said he would like to discuss three conditions recommended by the Commission.
Condition No. 1 of the Commission reads: “As shown on the latest revised plan entitled Jensen (Triton
PCS), the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of 66 feet or exceed a top elevation of 555
feet, as measured Above Seal Level (ASL), nor shall it ever be more than 5 feet taller than the tallest tree
within 75 feet of the monopole, whichever is less. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the
grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. He is requesting that the condition be modified
@
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
to read: “The top of the pole shall not exceed a total height of 66 69 feet or exceed a top elevation of 555
558.5 feet, as measured above sea level (ASL), nor shall it ever be more than 5 9 feet taller than the tallest
tree within 75 feet of the monopole, whichever is less. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the
grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. He said when the difference in base elevation is
@
factored in, the language of this condition ultimately conditions a 65-foot pole, not 66 feet. That would leave
them with a pole which is five-feet above the reference tree. There are four-foot long panel antennas, so
that leaves just one-foot of clearance. At that height, the signal attenuation from the panels is already
interfered with. It is of particular concern in this case. He said the Commission did not tie this height to “x
@
number of feet above the tallest tree. They mandated that it be a maximum height of 65 feet. There is no
room to increase the height of the tower, but it is only 12 inches above the top of the tree, which will cause
diminished capacity of the facility. If the tree grows 12 inches in the next year, it would physically obstruct
the pole. For that reason, and given the backdrop that is provided by the oak tree, an increase of four feet
will have a minimal impact on the visibility. He asked that the condition be reinstated at 69 feet as originally
requested.
Mr. Fogarty said the second issue is with Condition No. 5, the third and fourth sentences. The
Commissions language is: “Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning
=
and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within six-hundred (600) feet of
the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any
future tree removal within the six-hundred foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. He is
@
recommending that this sentence be changed to read: “Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by
the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within
six two hundred (600 200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the six two-hundred foot buffer, after the
installation of the subject facility. He showed a graphic to the Board to illustrate the area of a 600-foot
@
radius. He thinks the original intent of the 600-foot radius was to preserve the oak tree, which is the
backdrop tree which is 585 feet to the southeast. The reasoning behind the condition is sound, but as a
practical matter, it encompasses almost 10 acres of the Jensen property, and is excessive. He said it is not
necessary.
Mr. Fogarty said the third issue is with Condition No. 14. The Planning Commissions
=
recommended language reads: “Neither the 88-foot tall tree located 585 feet from the monopole nor any
tree having a diameter of 12 inches or greater at chest level within a 200-foot radius of the monopole, shall
be trimmed, cut or removed by any means, natural or otherwise. The removal of such a tree shall result in
a required change to the design of the facility, with additional review and approval of an amendment to the
special use permit. The 88-foot tall tree and the area within a 200-foot radius of the monopole is shown on
page SP-2 of latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS). He is suggesting that it read: “Neither the
@
88-foot tall tree located 585 feet from the monopole nor any tree having a diameter of 12 inches or greater
at chest level within a 200-foot radius of the monopole, shall be trimmed, cut or removed by any means,
natural or otherwise. The removal of such a tree shall may result in a required change to the design of the
facility, with additional review and approval of an amendment to the special use permit. The 88 foot tall tree
and the area within a 200 foot radius of the monopole is shown on page SP-2 of latest revised plans entitled
Jensen (Triton PCS). He said Condition No. 14 specifically mandates that the oak tree be preserved.
@
Also, the ARB conditioned a tree preservation area of almost three acres, so the 600-foot radius condition in
Condition No. 5 could reasonably be deleted as a condition. Condition No. 14 says that removal of any of
these trees shall result in a required change to the design of the facility. He thinks it is important to modify
that sentence to say may result. If any tree within the 200-foot radius were to be struck by lightning, but
A@
had no impact whatsoever on the visibility of the facility, the way the condition is worded, it would require a
redesign of the facility. He would like to institute some administrative approval so in the unlikely event that
one of the trees which has no affect were to be decimated by lightning, staff would be able to say there is
no impact and the facility does not have to be redesigned.
Mr. Fogarty said the applicant had originally requested a steel pole and he will reiterate that
request. In this case, the advantage of steel is that the cabling for the panel antennas can be internal on a
steel pole as opposed to running up the exterior of a wooden pole. Given visibility concerns, he believes a
steel pole is appropriate. He is going to ask that there be a work session with County staff to discuss the
issue of wooden versus steel poles.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the diameter of a steel pole is smaller. Mr. Fogarty said based on poles
constructed elsewhere, and feedback from the engineers, they may be the same. That is another issue
that needs to be addressed in a work session. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas suggested that Condition No. 14 be changed to say: “The removal of any tree within a
200-foot radius may result in a change, and the removal or major change in a specified 88-foot oak tree
shall result in a required change to design of the facility, .... Mr. Fogarty said he would accept that change
@
in language. Mr. Martin agreed.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis to comment. Mr. Davis said when language is changed to "may
result", you do not know what would happen or how it would go forward. The same thing can be
accomplished by saying : “it shall constitute grounds to revoke the special use permit if the Board of
Supervisors determines that it necessitates a change in design." If the Board determined that it
necessitated a design change, the Board could void the permit, or the applicant make an application to
amend the permit.
Mr. Martin said within the 200-foot radius where there might be a lightning strike, he does not see
any problem with saying “may, and add or additional review. Mr. Davis asked who would determine when
@A@
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
“may is the issue. There is no decision-maker specified in that language. Mr. Cilimberg said the
@
Commission was trying to address issues they felt were unique to this application. However, the standard
language used always says all construction installations shall be in accordance with a tree conservation
A
plan, and except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community
Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within the area shown. He thinks that is
@
applicable in this case. It is the same condition which just references a tree which is further out from the
tower. He does not know that the language needs to be included in this unique way. Mr. Davis said if the
tree is essential to approval, if the tree comes down, then the Board would want to revoke the permit, or
amend the permit so they could redesign the pole so it does not have impacts not wanted. Mr. Cilimberg
said that is a part of the recommendation in Condition No. 5. The additional points the Board wants to cover
could be placed in that condition.
Ms. Thomas suggested that staff work on the wording for that condition while the Board continues
with the public hearing. She told Ms. Humphris the Board would return to her comments on No. 14 in a
minute. Ms. Humphris said her thoughts will affect the wording for No. 5. Mr. Cilimberg said No. 14 can be
deleted altogether.
Ms. Humphris said she has an overall problem which she needs to express. She thinks the whole
approval of the Planning Commission was based on the existence of the 88-foot tall tree. She thinks the
condition on the 88-foot tall tree should be separated from the trees within the 200-foot radius. Also, the
condition does not give any indication that the tower would have to be removed if the 88-foot tall tree is
removed. The condition says it will result in a required change to the design with additional review and
approval. That does not mention that there would be any denial of the special use permit. She said that
language must change to reflect that if the tree is not there the permit would be void. Mr. Davis said the
condition was not well drafted to accomplish that.
Mr. Fogerty said if there needs to be further County involvement, he would ask if it could be done at
staff level instead of coming back before the Board and the Planning Commission if there were a lightning
strike that had no effect on visibility. Mr. Bowerman said the conditions are clear; the staff cannot do that.
Mr. Davis said if something did happen it would come to the Board with a recommendation as to whether to
revoke the permit.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed, and the
matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested eliminating Condition No. 14 altogether, and then in Condition No. 5,
change the reference in the next to last sentence to say: “Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. In addition, in no case
shall the 88-foot tall tree located 585 feet from the facility be removed without amendment to this special
use permit."
Mr. Martin asked that the Board agree on the principle it wants, and then let staff draft the exact
language to be included for approval on the consent agenda for the June 20 meeting. He said the Board
needs to agree on the concept of 200 feet versus 600 feet, and the issue of 69 feet versus 66 feet, and 558
feet versus 555 feet.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is important to change the wording of Condition No. 5. He said the
County has the best ordinances and design of cellular towers. The Board started with requests for 200-foot
tall metal towers all over the County, and has ended up with a standard of “x number of feet above the
@
treetop level recognizing there can be individual cases like this one where there is a particular tree which
adds to the approvability and visibility of the tower. What is different about this application? The Board now
has a standard set of conditions which meet every objective that has been thought of. The Board now gets
the treetop towers instead of the big towers, which was a major issue. He does not want to change this with
this kind of micro-management.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman. He said the Board had gotten what it wanted, and
then all of a sudden, somebody decided to pick at it and do something else. He does not see any need for
a change. He thinks the Board should stick with the plan it has in place. Mr. Bowerman said there was a
need to do something different where there was the pasture tower and the equipment cage. Ms. Thomas
said she thinks what Mr. Martin and others have said is to give the staff good directions and they will find the
right words. The unique thing about this application is the one tree which is crucial to making this an
acceptable site.
Mr. Bowerman asked how this recommendation came to the Board without being in the standard
format except for mention of the one tree. Ms. Humphris said it is because it is a problem site. They
wanted to make it possible, but they had difficulty justifying it. Mr. Bowerman said they had the ARBs
=
requirement for protection of the three acres of trees, they had the 200 feet radius, and the protection of
the 585 foot distance from the monopole. He said those are unique things which would address the
possibility. The rest of it as far as height, the Board has dealt with in the past. It is a standard thing, the
Board does not have to dictate the various things. What is wrong with his thinking?
Ms. Thomas asked what advice the Board wanted to give staff. Mr. Bowerman said it should be
whatever has been used in the past, unless it is not applicable in this case.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Martin said the Board has gotten away from the norm. He said directions to staff should be to
bring back conditions in the standard format unless there is something else needed. He said that he and
Ms. Thomas went to the site at the same time. He said the site is over one of those “roller-coaster hills and
@
at the same time, the road makes a left hand dip, so if you were able to look up at the same time, one might
be able to see the tower. If one were walking or standing, it could be seen. The backdrop is the 88-foot
oak tree which is actually in the backyard of the property owner. It is about 600 feet away. He does not
think there would be much of a difference between the 69 feet and the 66 feet, particularly for the driver on
Route 20. He has no problem with what the applicant is proposing in the way of modifying Condition No. 1.
Ms. Thomas said Mrs. Jensen took them around the property, and tried to find a place where the
tower would be skylighted, and could find no such place on the property. She thinks its visibility is well
=
protected by that oak tree.
Mr. Martin said the 200-foot area is part of the Jensen property, and part of it is there due to
recommendations of the ARB. When one stands back where the tower can be seen, if something
happened to one of the trees in that area, it would make no difference.
Ms. Humphris said the Board has already agreed to that. Mr. Martin said that is okay. Mr. Davis
said there is one thing about which he is not clear. If the 88-foot tree is removed by natural reasons or any
other reasons, does the Board want to have the ability to revoke the permit, or should the permit be revoked
automatically? Mr. Martin said he thinks the permit should come back to the Board for that decision.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff will work on the conditions. It was the consensus of the Board members to
have the conditions placed on the consent agenda for June 20.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments.
Mr. Tucker said the Board did not finish with appointments earlier in the meeting. Motion was
offered by Mr. Martin to make the following reappointments:
Mr. Mark D. Kindler to the Commission on Children and Families, with the new term to run from
June 30, 2001, through June 30, 2004.
Mr. Dan M. Maupin, Mr. Fred W. Shields, Jr., and Mr. Montie Pace to the Land Use Tax Advisory
Board, with new terms to run from September 2, 2001, through September 1, 2003.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Approval of Minutes: March 7, March 19(a), March 21(a), April 4 and April
11, 2001.
Mr. Bowerman had read April 11, 2001, and found them to be in order, and offered motion for
approval of same. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda:
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning and Community Development, said a request was received
May 24, 2001, from a citizen, Ms. Barbara Harris, asking for a change to the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for sewerage service. She owns a 1.97 acre piece of property located
on Barracks Road just east of Barracks Market. The applicant wants to place a house on the property, and
applied for a building permit, but was denied approval by the Health Department. Apparently that site has
been subject to extensive cut and fill activity. There are no original soils left on the site, and the way the site
is graded, it created a funnel down into a stream below it. The applicant has ordered a manufactured
house to the placed on the site and the lease at her current residence expires at the end of June.
Mr. Benish said that given the date the request was submitted to the County, staff has not had time
to do the normal evaluation and go through the process normally held with the Board, that being to discuss
the merits of the application at the first meeting and decide if it will hold a public hearing, and then at the
second meeting hold the public hearing itself. What staff has done in this instance is advertise this
request for a public hearing on June 20. In the event staff does not have the necessary information to
adequately complete its review for that meeting, the next available public hearing date is July 11, 2001.
Mr. Benish said there are complications to the proposal which need to be resolved. There is a
parcel determination going on at this time. Apparently this parcel was subdivided in 1904, and at some
point in time, the Countys tax maps did not carry it forward. It has to be determined if there actually was a
=
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
subdivision, and if not, the site for this house is actually on a parcel of two acres which already has a
residence on it, so it would not be eligible for a house anyway. He has spoken with the Health Depart-ment,
and they do not feel there is any available site on what is claimed to be the 1.97 acre parcel, and there does
not appear to be any reasonable site on any adjacent parcel. All of the adjacent parcels are also small, so
any use of a septic site on this property would make it difficult in the long run for those properties to be
developed.
Mr. Benish said he just wanted to make the Board aware that this request was being handled under
a different process. If the Board members have a concern, staff would like to know now, and it will make a
quick determination as to whether it can move forward with the public hearing on June 20. He noted that
the property already lies in the service area for water service, but not for sewer service.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board does not usually discuss these requests, and then decide if there
will be a public hearing. Mr. Davis said usually staff brings the request to the Board before it is advertised.
Because of the circumstances, the request was advertised in todays paper. This is the Boards opportunity
==
to pull the second advertisement if it does not want to go forward with the request.
Mr. Martin said this was done at his request. When the applicant called him, he did not think this
parcel could be considered for service (parcel is in the Jack Jouett District). He knows how the Board
members feel about granting any sewer service to properties lying between town and Crozet. He contacted
staff and asked them to let him know if the applicant could be fast-tracked. Staff felt it might be a request
A@
that could be granted, the request was fast-tracked, and then Ms. Humphris was notified of the request. He
said he was completely wrong, but he contacted staff with the idea in mind that the application did not have
a chance of being heard.
Ms. Thomas said staff asked her opinion, and she encouraged them to go ahead with the process.
The Board has fouled up things by making a change in its meeting schedule for this summer. If staff can
make all its determinations in time, she encouraged them to post the public hearing.
__________
Ms. Humphris advised the Board that she had received a letter from a citizen who enclosed an
article from the May-June, 2001 issue of the USAA Magazine regarding cell phone driving distractions. He
says that the US Automobile Association is one of the oldest and most respected insurance companies in
the United States. It was noted that 25 percent of traffic crashes are due to distraction, and by far, the
greatest distraction is the use of the cell phone. This citizen said he does not think there will be either a
Federal or State law banning hands-on use, so he requested that Albemarle County pass a law banning
cell phone use while driving. Ms. Humphris said she does not believe this Board has that authority under
State law.
Mr. Bowerman said that some city or state just recently passed such a law. Mr. Martin said he
believes that eating is much more prevalent. Ms. Thomas said there is a column in the Washington Post
which has been focusing on the issue of distractions while driving.
__________
Mr. Davis introduced Mr. Andy Herrick, the newest attorney in the County Attorney's office. He has
been working for a month, coming from James City County. He will initially be responsible for the Social
Services Department, and will work with the Finance Department, the Housing Office, and some others.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she appreciated the work done by Mr. Martin and others who worked on the
Charlottesville Area Regional Transportation (CHART) system, which will guide the area for the next 20
years. They tried to keep the City in the system by letting them discuss the items most important to them,
and it worked. She said this matter will move forward.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Recess and Reconvene in Meeting Room 235 for a Joint Meeting with the
School Board.
The Board of Supervisors meeting was called back to order at 4:00 p.m. by Ms. Thomas, and
=
School Board Chairman, Mr. Ward, called the School Board to order.
Also present at this time were School Board members, Mr. Ken Boyd, Mr. Madison Cummings, Jr.,
Mr. Gary Grant, Mr. Steve Koleszar, Mrs. Diantha McKeel, Ms. Mary Rodriguez and Mr. Charles Ward.
School staff present were: Division Superintendent, Dr. Kevin C. Castner; Assistant Superintendent for
Support Services, Dr. Frank E. Morgan; Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Mark Trank; Human Resources
Compensation and Benefits Coordinator, Lorna Gerome; and, School Board Deputy Clerk, Tiffany Seay.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23a. Board to Board Presentation.
Mr. Ward handed to the Board members a copy of the 2000-2002 School Board/Superintendent
Priorities. He said that also included is an update from the staff showing all of the projects staff is working
on throughout the year to achieve the priorities. He said these things are undertaken by goal and priority, so
the way they tie to the Mission Statement can be seen. Their staff has been very busy, and their success
shows that.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23b. FY 2001-2002 Health/Dental Contract, Discussion.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Tom MacKay with the firm of Palmer & Cay who made a presentation on
the reasoning behind the medical plans. The County did not seek new bids on this plan this year.
Mr. MacKay said he wanted to talk about the current status of the health care marketplace in the
Charlottesville area. He will also speak about how the QualChoice contract is structured today. He said the
Health Care Executive Committee has been working on this for the past four months. Their goal this year
has been to maintain the employee benefit programs at 105 percent of the market as identified as an
objective of the recently-adopted Compensation Strategy. He said the market rating for the benefits was
based primarily on the strength of the health insurance plan. He said there was a big spike last year in the
cost of drugs, and the Committee did spend a lot of time discussing prescription drugs and how to control
the cost of same. He showed some graphics demonstrating Albemarles claims for the last two years. He
=
said prescription drugs have been the same percentage of claims over those two years, sixteen percent.
He showed a graphic showing the average co-pay for a prescription drug, and the average price the
employer pays. The overall cost has gone up per prescription from $42.00 to $53.00, which means the
employers share has gone up from $30.00 to $38.00, while the employees cost has gone up from $12.00
==
to $15.00. He said that $15.00 is now $17.00 due to the last changes made in the drug co-pay.
Mr. MacKay said the reason for the increase in the cost of prescriptions is not the cost of the drugs.
It is utilization. Drugs, on a per employee basis, has gone from $374.00/year to $596.00/year. This is due
to the media blitz being put on by the prescription drug companies so that everyone wants the newest drug.
A significant percentage of the increase in drug costs is due to the use of drugs which were not on the
market five years ago.
Mr. MacKay said when they looked at renewing the QualChoice contract, they looked at what is
taking place in the Charlottesville marketplace. In purchasing a health care contract, two things are being
purchased, claims/customer service, and a managed care network. At this time, the carriers are in a profit
mentality, and not a market share mentality, so are not putting the best deals on the table. They looked at
A@
a couple of carriers and what they looked like in this area. The HMO plan of Trigon/Blue Cross does not
include the University Hospital at this time. Cigna had limited access to the providers in Albemarle County.
Sentara, which is new in this marketplace, is still building its provider network around the Charlottesville
area. A couple of other carriers, Aetna/U.S. Health Care and United Health Care do not have a managed
care network in the Charlottesville area.
Mr. MacKay said QualChoice does have broad access for managed care providers and that is
important to the employees. Their discounts with providers are very competitive. There are also
performance guarantees in the contract, such as: claims processing, the speed and accuracy of claims
processing, the time it takes to answer telephone calls, and overall member satisfaction (there is an 85
percent satisfaction level with their service). If they do not meet these guarantees, there are financial
penalties in the contract.
Mr. MacKay said they did an administrative fee comparison (see Chart IV on file in the Clerks
=
Office).
Ms. Gerome said the Health Care Executive Committee evaluated the health plan and the dental
plan over the last couple of months. They focused on the strategy of keeping benefits at 105 percent of
market, as well as balancing that with cost management strategies. The health insurance is a benefit much
valued by County employees, so they were careful about the amount of the cost to be shifted to the
employee. They slightly shifted the employee premium amount. Currently, POS costs $10.00/month for
the employee, while the new plan will cost $12.00/month; employee plus a child currently costs
$36.00/month, while the new plan will cost $38.00/month; employee plus spouse currently costs
$145.00/month and will increase to $153.00/month; and, family cost is currently $192.00/month and will
increase to $202.00/month. The Committee found these to be very reasonable cost increases.
Ms. Gerome said for this plan year, the tier three prescription drug list will be expanded, which
means that the drugs will have a higher cost. This will be monitored to be sure the impact will be minimal
on employees. The other strategy on prescription drugs is to reduce the refill from a 34-day supply to a
30-day supply. Other cost management changes include: expanding pre-certification and specialty case
management, reducing Emergency Room (ER) department utilization, and implementing a Disease
Management plan to target interventions (presently focused on diabetes and asthma). There are not many
urgent care facilities in this area because people utilize the emergency room. However, in looking
at ER utilization, they found that one employee had been to the ER 19 times over one year, with migraines.
They would like to do some education and hopefully reduce ER costs.
Ms. Thomas asked if each of these strategies has been found to be effective in other locations, and
have reduced costs to the employer, to make it worth the effect it would have on morale. Ms. Gerome said
these are all proven effective strategies.
Mr. Ward mentioned the cost for retirees. He said there is a nine percent increase recommended
for these people who are on a fixed income. He thinks there was a large increase last year also. Ms.
Gerome said it is actually lower than for many organizations.
Mr. Boyd asked when health care was last put out to bid. Mr. MacKay said it was three years ago.
Mr. Boyd said he was curious as to how Albemarle County compared to national averages for the total cost
of medical fees, and not just the administrative fee. Mr. MacKay said there were some figures included in
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
the executive summary. Mr. Boyd asked how it compared on the national level. Ms. Gerome said it would
have to be compared to self-insured organizations. Mr. Boyd suggested that such a comparison be
considered for a future year.
Mr. Boyd said there is a trend for school systems to get together to try and reduce their insurance
costs by volume. He asked if that has been considered for Albemarle. Mr. MacKay said there has been no
interest shown in this concept in the Charlottesville area. It may save cost, but flexibility is lost. The existing
climate is not very competitive.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County renegotiates its own re-insurance. Mr. MacKay said his organization
did it last year. Mr. Boyd asked how much of the total cost is involved with re-insurance. Mr. MacKay said it
about $120,000 out of $10.0 million.
Ms. McKeel said it is stated in the executive summary that Albemarle County would have saved
about $25,000 by reducing emergency room use. Ms. Gerome said it is not a huge savings, but is an effort
she thinks should be looked into.
Ms. Gerome said the dental plan is with Delta Dental and is a fully insured plan with two options for
coverage. The competitive market survey shows that this is not a strong benefit, but the Committee is not
recommending any plan design changes this year, but they are changing the waiting period. At this time
there is a 90-day waiting period for coverage, so it will be changed to match the health insurance. If a
person is hired between the first and fifteenth, coverage begins the first day of the next month. If a person is
hired between the fifteenth and thirty-first, coverage begins the first of the following month. Delta Dental will
continue with their cost management strategies. They are actively trying to recruit more dentists.
Apparently, Charlottesville is a very tough market for a Delta Dental insurance PPO plan. There will be a
very small increase in the employee share.
Dr. Castner said there was a report from the Children & Family Committee saying that a lot of the
poor children cannot get dental care. There are only one or two dentists in the entire area who will accept
Medicaid. There has been no success in getting services for the children in the Bright Stars Program. He
asked if there is any way to use leverage when the County has a plan that the dentists will accept. He does
not know if it is appropriate to mention this at this time, but there is a problem with some of the kids in the
school system. He asked if anything like that ever gets leveraged in this type of contract. Ms. Gerome said
it is something staff can look into.
Dr. Castner said Ms. Roxanne White was at that meeting. Ms. White said it has to do with dentists
accepting the Medicaid rates. Dr. Castner asked if the County would have any leverage. Ms. Gerome said
she thinks there would be little leverage since Delta Dental is having a challenge recruiting participating
dentists, in this area. Mr. MacKay said one of the issues is that there are not enough dentists for the
population, so the dentists don't need any kind of third party arrangements to attract patients.
Mr. Bowerman said the Free Clinic offers dental care, and they also have a service where there are
participating dentists who will work on children. If someone cannot get service for their children, that is a
place they should think about. Ms. Thomas said those dentists have agreed to take only one or two
patients. They are not for the most part agreeing to take care of the need which has been identified. Ms.
White said there is more need for dental care than available slots at the Free Clinic.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County is locked into Delta Dental for the next year. He said to gain some
negotiating power, the County could look into having a different dental plan. Ms. Gerome said the County
could do that in the future, but the Committee chose not to do that this year. Mr. Dorrier said there are
probably other competitive plans in the area. He has heard a lot of bad things about Delta Dental, so he
has lost confidence in them. Ms. Gerome said she gets a lot of feedback also. She explained that Delta
Dental insurance only helps to defray some of the costs, not necessarily pay for everything. She said this
plan is competitive with other plans. Where it might be lacking is the premiums that employees pay. Mr.
MacKay said this is a low option plan and it does not pay for any major services like crowns and bridge
work. A high option plan is very expensive.
Mr. Dorrier suggested having a voucher program and giving a voucher to each employee. Mr.
MacKay said that is possible, but what is gained through Delta now is network management which has
dentists who agree to take the fee offered by Delta which results in lower costs. Giving a voucher to an
employee would mean that the employee would pay more for the same services than the fee charged
through the Delta Dental network.
Ms. Thomas said there are recommendations in front of the boards on which they need to take
action. Mr. Martin offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Health Care Executive Committee
that the health care contract for 2001-2002 be renewed with QualChoice of Virginia, with Board contribution
for health coverage being $3,060.00 for 2001-2002; as compared to the Board contribution for 2000-2001
of $2,760.00, a 10.8 percent increase. Employee premiums will increase slightly, but an attempt was
made to minimize the impact of increased cost on the employees by utilizing $128,637 of the reserves. The
premiums are shown on Attachment 1 (on file in the Clerks Office).
=
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
__________
Mr. Koleszar made the same motion for the School Board. Mr. Grant asked if this was also the
recommendation of the Superintendent, to which the answer was yes. The motion was seconded by Mr.
A@
Boyd, who said that before next year, it might be a good idea to look into the issue of Delta Dental concerns.
A voice vote was taken and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: All voiced “aye.
@
NAYS: None expressed.
__________
Mr. Martin offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Health Care Executive Committee
that the 2001-2002 Delta Dental Plan contract be renewed with Delta Dental of Virginia to retain a
fully-insured plan. He suggested that before next year, staff look at rebidding this plan, or find some other
way to do this. (The recommendation also included that the waiting period for Delta Dental insurance for
new enrollment be changed to match health insurance, as follows: If an employee is hired on or prior to the
15th of the month, the Board contribution will start the first of the next month. If an employee is hired after
the 15th of the month, the Board contribution will start on the first of the month following the first full month
of employment. The Board contribution for the Delta Dental plan for 2001-2002 is budgeted at $120.00
annually for full-time employees, as compared to the Board contribution for 2000-2001 of $97.00.
Employee premiums are shown in Attachment 1 (on file in the Clerks Office).)
=
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Koleszar made the same motion for the School Board. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Rodriguez. Mr. Grant asked if the Superintendent also recommends this to the School Board. Dr. Castner
indicated “yes. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried by the following vote:
@
AYES: All voiced “aye.
@
NAYS: None expressed.
_______________
(Note: Mr. Bowerman said he would have to leave the meeting soon. He asked if the Board might
discuss the CIP transfer before he left. Ms. Thomas asked if staff had a problem with doing that before
discussing the site selection for a new southern elementary school.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks there has been a consensus among the School Board members that they
will delay the southern elementary school so the Board can take action on the transfer. Mr. Ward said the
School Board has discussed this. Ms. Thomas suggested the Board skip to Agenda Item No. 23d before
Mr. Bowerman leaves the meeting.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23d. Transfer of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funds to Baker-Butler
Elementary School.
Mr. Tucker said the School System rebid this project, but the total bid still exceeds the amount
budgeted by $875,000. The School Board has proposed a transfer of $200,000 remaining from the school
roof projects completed this year and $675,000 from the Southern Elementary School CIP account. The
$675,000 may need to be replaced in the future depending on the actual cost of site acquisition and
architectural/engineering fees. Unless the Board supports the reductions outlined in information
forwarded from the School System, staff recommends approval of the transfer request in the amount of
$875,000.
Mr. Boyd said the Schools are still going to need the $675,000 in the future, so essentially, they are
just asking for additional funds. Ms. Thomas said that point will be part of the discussion of the southern
elementary school.
Mr. Ward said he thought it was the consensus of the School Board to go ahead with this request,
and let the details be worked out at time of purchase of property. Ms. Thomas said that is a legitimate part
of the discussion also. Mr. Bowerman said if it will confuse matters by taking up this item first, he will
withdraw his request and stay. He thinks the two items can be separated. Mr. Ward said that was also his
belief.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23c. Southern Elementary School, Discussion of a new.
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary. He said the difficult process of locating and
selecting a site for the new northern elementary school (Baker-Butler) emphasized the need for the School
Board and the Board of Supervisors to develop clear parameters prior to beginning the site selection
search. Defined parameters should help reduce the number of sites evaluated in order to allow the site
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
plan approval process to proceed with minimum difficulty. On May 24, 2001, the School Board reached a
consensus to delay the construction of a new southern elementary school by one year, to 2005. This
decision was made based on many issues including a reduction in school enrollment projections, and to
allow time for discussion between the two Boards regarding parameters for site selection and building
design. This delay in construction will be brought forward later as a change in the 2002-03 CIP request.
Mr. Tucker said staff did identify some discussion topics which are appropriate. First, is growth area
location. Then there is school design/topography considerations, and then questions about recreational
facilities being located on the school site. He said staff would like to have guidance to help with future site
selection for the southern elementary school.
Ms. Thomas suggested the items be discussed as listed in the staffs report. The first subject has
=
to do with growth area location (1. Should the search for property be limited to the current growth areas? 2.
Should sites adjacent to the growth areas be considered? 3. Should sites outside and not adjacent to the
growth areas be considered?).
Mr. Martin said he thinks sites adjacent to the growth areas should be considered. Some school
board member agreed. Ms. Thomas said she does not agree. Mr. Perkins said to be realistic, the County
has to take sites where they can be found. Mr. Koleszar said he thought the growth area boundaries were
left intentionally vague. Ms. Humphris said they are not vague. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan
was amended a few months ago to allow the County to look at sites which are contiguous to the
development/growth areas.
Mr. Boyd said as the County goes forward with the DISC model, how will it impact growth and the
Comprehensive Plan? Is there something there that the School Board should be concerned about when
talking about site selection?
Ms. Thomas said if DISC could be boiled down to a single word, it is "walkable". If that goal is used
as a guide to determine where schools should be, a small site in a growth area that did not lend itself to
walking would not be a good site just because it is located in a growth area. If a site can be found where
the children can walk to the site, but it is just outside of the growth area and does not have enough land to
include recreational facilities, walking is the prime focus of DISC. One goal is to reduce the number of trips
taken in an automobile. She personally thinks being in the growth area is very important. She was a
minority in not wanting to change the Comprehensive Plan a few months ago. She said the concept of
being walkable is a major part of what is meant by DISC. She thinks it will be very obvious when looking at
a piece of property.
Mr. Boyd said there are existing schools with people spread all over the area. A major concern is
the feasibility of school sizes. He does not think it is economical for the schools to operate a lot of 330-
student school sizes. He is not opposed to the idea, but does not know how the School Board would justify
a number of that size school.
Mr. Martin said going back to question one, the Board members were of differing opinions, but that
decision was made when a vote was taken and the Comprehensive Plan changed. The question now is,
does the School Board feel the school has to be in the growth area or can it be adjacent to a growth area?
Mr. Ward said the School Board does not have to make that decision today. His concern is that a lot of
these decisions have cost implications. Mr. Martin said the Supervisors are giving the School Board the
option to decide if the school should be in or adjacent to a growth area. Mr. Ward said the School Board
will discuss this issue and make its decision.
Mr. Bowerman said if there is an urban location which has not yet been zoned, there is the
opportunity to have a smaller site property within an urban residential development which may contain
commercial aspects and other things. There is the possibility then of getting a suitable site for a lower
overall cost. It depends on what site someone wants to sell, and when, and what they will do to accomplish
that, and what the Supervisors feel about all of the amenities they propose, and how they fit together. It is
unpredictable. But, there would not be a big development outside of the growth area.
Ms. McKeel said she understands the School Board can look at areas which are adjacent to the
growth areas, but not outside of the growth areas. Although three options are listed, the School Board can
really look at only two of those options.
__________
Mr. Martin said the second item for consideration is School Design/Topography. The questions
A@
are: 1. Should the site search be limited to sites with topography suitable to build the single-story prototype
elementary school? 2. Should sites with more difficult topography require consideration of new multi-level
or multi-story buildings? 3. A change in the prototype design may have cost, schedule and operational
implications.
Mr. Martin said there has been no discussion about this item, the prototype school versus a multi-
level building. Ms. McKeel said this is where cost becomes an issue. The prototype (single-story) school is
significantly cheaper to build and it is safer.
Mr. Ward said the 12 principles of DISC discuss this issue. He said No. 10 talks about preserving
topography. He said there has been no changes to ordinances concerning this. Ms. Thomas said the
Board has frequently discussed the desirability of a second story on a school building. The Board certainly
discusses this for buildings other than school buildings. The Board is increasingly wanting commercial and
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
institutional buildings to fit the topography and to have possible multi-layered parking. There is a trend in
that direction, but to say the School Board has to be a leader and do something not required of others, does
not seem fair. As land costs become more expensive, it will be possible for commercial development to go
to two stories if that is a way to more efficiently use the land. Mr. Martin said the Supervisors did “beat them
over the head on the Baker-Butler School saying they should have built a different type of building.
@
Dr. Castner said while discussing the Baker-Butler School, the Long-Range Planning Committee
decided that if not using the prototype model created a cost implication, it would be brought to the
Supervisors to see if they would support such a change. Mr. Martin said originally the Supervisors pushed
the School Board to build a prototype building. Then, with Baker-Butler, the School Board did what the
Supervisors wanted. Now, in moving toward the 12 principles of DISC, the Supervisors want the School
Board to look at this, along with cost, and once the next site is selected, the Supervisors will take all factors
into consideration, including No. 3 as well.
Ms. McKeel said even though the prototype will cost less, topography considerations may cost
more, and there may be situations where the school principals do not want a two-story building for safety
reasons. Mr. Bowerman asked what the safety issues would be. He asked if there is a bias among the
School Board members that would keep them from seriously considering a two-story building. Mr. Ward
said he may have a bias because the cost of an elevator is a recurring cost. Special needs students can be
taken care of in that way, but that life-cycle cost is there forever.
Mr. Bowerman said if this is to be decided on safety, there needs to be a clear understanding of
what the safety benefits are, and how they cannot be mitigated. If that is an issue which is in the way, it
should be discussed now.
Ms. Humphris said experience shows that when there is a need for schools, there are usually few
options for available land. So, none of this can be fixed in stone, because the Supervisors have always had
to be flexible about everything. When she read through this list of things to be discussed today, she said to
herself, each situation has to be dealt with individually.
Mr. Koleszar said part of the purpose of this discussion is to let people on the Site Selection
Committee know what their flexibility is. He thinks that committee will have more flexibility than it has had in
the past.
Ms. Thomas asked if everyone is satisfied with the discussion about Point No. 2, School
Design/Topography. She suggested the Boards go on to discuss Point No. 3, Recreational Facilities. 1)
Should the current practice of having additional recreational fields at school sites continue for this project?
2) The School Division welcomes keeping these facilities with its projects, but it appears that the
Neighborhood Model would encourage them to be located elsewhere.
Mr. Boyd said the fact that there is more lead time than has been the case in the past, will provide
more freedom for selecting a site. He thinks staff realizes there needs to be some flexibility on the cost of
safety/issues, i.e., single or two-story. Athletic fields are another issue. He thinks the School Board is
cognizant of where the Supervisors stand on the 12 principles of DISC.
Mr. Cummings said there is more than one prototype of building available for use. It is not
mentioned in the executive summary, but as to the size of schools, it is difficult to adequately and efficiently
staff a small elementary school. The size of the school has something to do with how it fits into
the model, the walking neighborhood, etc. The School Board decided that an elementary school would be
in the 600-pupil category, but the DISC model seems to call for something else.
Mr. Martin said DISC implied that at one point, but the DISC Committee had a battle over this issue,
and it moved off of trying to define a small number of students, but stuck with having less athletic fields. At
the time the report was approved, he said this would be a sticking point. Now there are more options
because instead of just looking for the site that could have enough land for all of the fields wanted, sites
that could only have smaller fields can be included. He thinks it behooves the County to have the extra
athletic field space. He is not closed-minded to a site that is walkable, with the additional playing fields
close by.
Ms. Thomas said good sites are harder to find, but a good site that does not have the land needed
for a big complex will now be a possible site. Just because it does not have all of the land needed to have
the extra playing fields will not rule it out. However, if that little site is also not walkable, that will not make
her feel good about that site. The staff report notes that some things may need to be duplicated, and that
would add to the total expenses for recreation.
Mr. Bowerman said there needs to be enough flexibility to accommodate different circumstance
with each site.
Mr. Ward said flexibility means more lead time is needed because more options will have to be
looked at. Mr. Koleszar said this flexibility might actually save on lead time. Mr. Perkins said he thinks
flexibility is the key, but, the process used in the past of having the recreational fields in conjunction with the
schools has worked well for the County. He thinks DISC is saying that will not be the case any longer, and
the developers will build the play fields. He does not think that will happen on the in-fill properties. They
are not big enough. If there is a development of over 1000 homes, then the developer can be required to
build the amenities needed to service the people in their development. Until that happens, there has to be
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
the flexibility to look at different sites, but to still have the play fields on the school site if that is possible.
Mr. Tucker said this conversation has been helpful to staff. Flexibility is the key word.
Mr. Grant asked if the Supervisors and its staff encourage not only playing fields on this excess
land, but also hiking and walking. He hopes the concept is for broader recreation than just basketball and
soccer. He said the School System, along with funding from some PTOs, put in walking trails at some
schools.
Ms. Thomas said earlier today the Supervisors formally established a Greenway Committee which
will advise it on development of greenways. She said the School System might wish to become involved in
that Committees work.
=
_______________
At this time, the Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 23d. Transfer of Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Funds to Baker-Butler Elementary School.
Mr. Martin offered motion to approve the transfer of CIP funds to Baker-Butler Elementary School.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Boyd asked where the additional $625,000 will come from later. Mr. Koleszar said some other
projects may have to be cut or deferred.
Mr. Martin said if the School Board members are not in agreement about this request, that question
should be settled by the School Board first.
Mr. Ward said there was a consensus or the request would not have come forward. If the
Supervisors want the School Board to vote on it right now, that is okay too.
Ms. Humphris said she understood the Supervisors were being asked to do this in support of the
School Board. The executive summary acknowledges that the $675,000 might have to be replaced,
however, because of the one-year delay in the construction of the southern elementary school, the
replacement would most likely be delayed.
Mr. Cummings said that over the eight years he has been a member of the School Board, it has
deferred and moved and shifted money around in the CIP budget, He said there is already a
ad nauseam.
consensus of the School Board members on this issue.
Mr. Perkins said when the monkey is on your back, youve got to get him off and the money is
A=@
needed right now to build a new elementary school. Money has to be made available to do that now.
Ms. Thomas asked for a roll call on the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23e. From the Boards: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said he believes there needs to be more collaborative efforts in certain areas between the
Supervisors and the School Board. Two of the items he thinks need studying are the VERIP Program
(Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program) and the whole budget process. He suggested setting up a
Conference Committee composed of two members of the Supervisors and two members of the School
A@
Board who would study these two issues, and possibly bring back a recommendation as to whether
changes are warranted.
Ms. Thomas said these are two very separate issues. Staff could make a report on the early
retirement issue, first. Mr. Ward said he does not know if the School Board wants to study that or not. He
thinks it may be an issue for the Compensation Committee.
Mr. Dorrier said he agrees with Mr. Boyd about the budget process. It is always a very rushed
process.
Mr. Koleszar suggested that Dr. Castner and Mr. Tucker discuss the length of time the School
Board has to discuss the budget.
Ms. Thomas asked if the School Board is concerned about the length of time it has to consider its
budget. Mr. Koleszar said that is correct.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the School Board has to issue teacher contracts at a specific date. The
answer was yes. Mr. Bowerman said this is one of the reasons for the schedule. The other issue is that if
A@
there is a tax rate change, the Finance Department needs time to deal with that issue. Those two issues
have to be incorporated in a practical way in any increase in the schedule.
June 6, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Ms. Thomas said the question about the VERIP Program will be worked on by the Committee while
they study employee benefits. The second question about timing seems to be an internal matter for each
board, separately.
Mr. Martin said he does not feel rushed by the Supervisors process. Ms. Humphris said it sounds
=
like it is the School Board's problem. Mr. Koleszar said Mr. Tucker needs the School Boards request by a
=
certain date, and that creates a rush on their part. Dr. Castner said this has been discussed, and they
would like to turn in their budget on March 1 instead of February 15. He wondered if that would satisfy the
Supervisors. Should he and Mr. Tucker discuss how this could be done? Would that be the solution to
what Mr. Boyd mentioned? Mr. Boyd said he would like to adjust the whole process.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the School Board needs to work on this question. Mr. Martin said the
School Board needs to present a consensus to the Supervisors on what it really wants. Mr. Tucker said
there are timetables that need to be dealt with during this process. The day the budget must be adopted is
selected, and then working backwards from that date, a schedule is devised. He thinks the two staffs can
work together to devise a calendar that both bodies can agree to.
Mr. Boyd said his point is not so much the time schedule, but he does not think the School Board
received adequate information on which to base its decision about its budget. There are large
discrepancies in what benefits costs will be for health and dental, and in other areas. Mr. Perkins said there
is also the matter of not knowing what funds will be received from the state. He said there may be no
solution. Mr. Tucker said if that is the issue, and not the amount of time needed, he does not know if that
can ever be solved.
Ms. Thomas said the Supervisors have discussed the commonality issue, and that might be
something to discuss at another meeting.
Mr. Grant asked if the Supervisors have done anything with the classified merit pool to raise it to 4.2
percent. Ms. Thomas said yes.
A@
Mr. Cummings said tomorrow night the School Board will have a presentation on the swimming
program which it approved for the short-term for the spring. He said there is a groundswell of parents who
really want Albemarle County to have a pool, a swimming program, or something. The School Board is
receiving a lot of pressure about this issue. He said the discussion is scheduled between 9:25 p.m. and
9:30 p.m. in Room 241.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 08/15/2001
Initials: LAB