2001-08-01August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 1,
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., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, Chief of Planning and Community Development, David W.
Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 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.
Ms. Ann Dunn said she and seven residents of the Corville Farm Subdivision in Greenwood were
present this morning. She complained about their faulty water system referencing documents from Mr. Jim
Moore at the Virginia Department of Health noting violations of VDH regulations pertaining to the water
system. She said the water was off again recently. The distribution system in the subdivision is old, was
never built according to approved plans, and the pipes in the system are supposed to be two-inch and four-
inch pipes and they are not that size. The pipes are one-inch, galvanized steel pipes which are rusting,
corroding, breaking and leaking. Some pipes in the system are black plastic. When the pipes break, the
water is brown and stains. She has to purchase bottled water, but some people in the subdivision cannot
afford to do this. Aside from the bacterial contamination, which has been documented in their water
system, the subdivision is less then two miles from the Greenwood Chemical Plant which was a Superfund
Clean-up site.
Ms. Thomas said Ms. Dunns time to speak had expired. She asked if Ms. Dunn had a final
=
request. Ms. Dunn said she understands the County has a Capital Improvement Program and that
$150,000 has been dedicated to upgrade their water system and the road which is in disrepair. She said
the road was to have been brought into the State Highway System in 1974. Now, more than 20 years later,
that has not happened. She would like to see an actual plan to implement the fixing of the distribution
system first, then to fix the road. The water lines have to go in along the roads, and it is the most important
issue at this point. Another point is that in January, 1995, their water system, which was monitored and
tested by the Virginia Department of Health because it had 21 connections, was divided by the owner into
two parts thereby enabling it to be known as a private well system. The owner no longer has to test the
water for anything. They have concerns about bacterial contamination, but there are also chemical
analyses which should be performed, and they are not being done. She would like to see some action.
They have been patient, but she intends to pursue this, even down to taking legal action. She is sure this is
a public health threat.
__________
Ms. Rosa Hudson said she lives in Esmont and is concerned about activities for senior citizens.
She said that one more day is being cut from the Esmont senior citizen site. About 20 years ago it operated
three days a week, was cut to two days a week, and now will be cut to just one day per week. She would
like to have the Center operate two days per week because there is a need for it.
__________
Ms. Shirley Dickson, Chairperson for the Esmont Senior Citizens Advisory Committee, said this
community has nothing for seniors if the Center is taken away. There is no drug store, no super market, no
park, no place to discuss community affairs. There is only the Center two days a week and church. This is
primarily a black community and where the people primarily spend their time. They are given a nutritious
meal, screening for diabetes, blood pressures monitored, and they depend on this service. The Center
allows a place for socialization which enhances the well-being of the participants. JABA has said that the
enrollment at this center is not as large as at other places. That is true, but they do have an average
attendance of 22. These people are retired teachers, nurses; people who have contributed to the
community. Ninety-nine percent of these people own their own homes. If there is any money available, it is
worthwhile to keep the center open for two days.
__________
Mr. Gary Honeywell said he is concerned about the Ivy landfill situation. What will happen to
construction debris if the landfill is closed? He has heard no alternatives as to what will happen with their
materials, except that it might have to be hauled 90 miles away. He said the price of everything will go up,
and he would like to express his concern.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board members would like to hear from staff about what has been done
about the Corville Farm water system. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. David Hirschman to give a report. He said
Corville Farms has been a private system since the early 1970's. The County does not operate the system.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
With the problems they are having, the County is trying to see how they can help these residents.
Mr. Hirschman said he is the Water Resources Manager for the County. He said the system goes
through periodic crises. About five years ago, there was a similar crisis. At times, there is only water once
or twice a day. When there are repairs, the pumps go on and off which creates a greater chance for
sediment to get into the lines. Ms. Dunns account of the original distribution system is accurate. It can be
=
described as woefully inadequate. Five years ago, the County allocated money to put in a new well and
lines. At that time, the system was split so that it no longer fell under the regular Health Department
monitoring requirements.
Mr. Hirschman said there are only 22 homes on this system so the system is in a different class
when it comes to financial capability. Most recently the crisis had to do with leaks in the pipes which caused
the pumps to run continuously. A lot of the water does not get to the taps, so every few years the pumps
burn out. Recently, staff had an agency in Roanoke called the Southeast Rural Community Assistance
A
Project come and hold a community meeting. The owner has said that last week the pumps were
@
replaced and some funding has been committed to bring the pumps up to where they were before they
burned out. However, that does not address any problems with the distribution system. This may alleviate
some of the emergency situation, but does not address the long-range problems and or the capital needs
of this system. He has been doing what he can to facilitate the involvement of other agencies, but without
the involvement of this Board no funds can be spent. He would like to get an engineering study to
determine the price for bringing the distribution system up to a good standard. No one even knows where
the lines are located in the ground at this time. There are some important decisions to be made about long-
term responsibility and maintenance. The County itself does not operate and maintain water systems.
Ms. Humphris asked if it was a legal move when the owner of the system divided it into two parts so
he would not have to meet certain requirements. Mr. Hirschman said it was done with the concurrence of
the Health Department, and is not the only system where that has occurred. He said Health Depart-ment
standards are put into place to protect the public and the consumers of the systems. As the Safe Drinking
Water Act has added regulations, it has become virtually impossible for a system of this size to meet those
requirements, and put in the needed treatment mechanisms. It is a Catch-22" situation for systems of this
A
size because of the financial burden created by that need.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many systems in the County have problems like this. Mr. Hirschman said
this is the only system which has a problem of this nature. Other systems, such as those in Peacock Hill
and Earlysville Forest, have experienced water shortages. Those systems are much larger, and have an
active homeowners association so they have been able to pay to haul water in, and do studies for the
=
drilling of new wells. He said there are about 20 community water systems around the County which
depend on wells.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Hirschman has any idea what it would cost for an engineering study. Mr.
Hirschman said it probably would be no more than $4000. At this time, the County is under contract with a
firm which is doing a groundwater study in Ivy and at the Mechum River. They have the capability to do this
type of study. They may be looking at Corville Farms as early as Friday to determine how much it would
cost to do a study.
Mr. Davis said the County has limitations on what it can do when expending public funds on private
property. There needs to be information gathered as to available options. Going in and making repairs to a
private system can be problematic, legally. There is no precedent for the County to take over a private
system, and is something the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) could do, but has long resisted
doing.
Ms. Thomas asked if the County could condemn a system and take it over. Mr. Davis said that is
something he would need to look at. He understands that the system is privately owned, and has a value.
Other localities have purchased private systems. Supposedly, the private operator operates the system for
a profit. He is not familiar with the operation of this particular system.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any civil remedies the County might take against the owner of the
private system. Mr. Davis said there are probably no effective civil remedies the County could take. There
are remedies the homeowners can take. They can sue the operator.
Mr. Bowerman asked how close this subdivision is to the ACSA lines. Mr. Hirschman said they are
probably two-plus miles.
Mr. Martin said he believes the Board should get some additional information regarding this
particular request from staff.
Ms. Dunn said she has gathered a lot of the background information on the system.
Mr. Perkins said the owner of the system has told him that the supply of water is adequate, but the
distribution system is worn out and needs to be replaced. There are no water meters, so everybody pays
the same price. The system needs to be replaced, and apparently there are various funding sources which
can be used. It might also involve sweat equity on the part of the homeowners. He thinks the County
A@
needs to do something about this situation. This is affordable housing for a number of people in the
County.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is an area where the Board might look into the question of service districts.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Davis said the area is too rural for that consideration.
Mr. Perkins said it might be a chance to involve VDOT in bringing the road into the State System.
Ms. Thomas said there is the Rural Additions project. She suggested there be a report given at a later date.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked about the request for the center at Esmont. Mr. Tucker said staff will have to
find out more about this question. This is the first time he had heard about this, so will bring a report to the
Board in a couple of weeks.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) is working as hard as it can on
the question of what to do with construction debris. Mr. Tucker said there should be an announcement on
this very soon.
Ms. Thomas said if people have no place to take large items, it will probably affect the road sides
throughout the County again. Mr. Tucker said that is also being taken into consideration.
Mr. Martin said for the last two years, this Board has been bombarded by a small minority of people
trying to close down all operations at the Ivy Landfill. Now, it is finally dawning on the users of the facility
that a very valuable resource is being lost. He hopes that in the near future more people will come to the
Board and remind people that it is a valuable resource since the Board has only been hearing one side of
the story.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: Certificate of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. A. B. Brown, Jr. for service on the Region
Ten Community Services Board. He served as Chairman and President of Region Tens companion non-
=
profit corporation, Regional Ten Community Services Board, Inc., from 1997 to 1999 during which time he
also chaired the Executive Committee. Before that, Mr. Brown chaired the Region Tens Personnel
=
Committee and led that committee to become a strong and positive force. Early on he recognized the need
to enhance the visibility of Region Ten in order to maintain its strength and community support. He initiated
and developed a plan for increasing public awareness in fund-raising, the first of which was the Region Ten
softball extravaganza which brings together the media, elected officials and other local and state political
figures to focus attention on mental health and mental retardation needs and lets a lot of people have fun.
During Mr. Browns leadership on the Executive Committee, and as Chairman of the Board, he stabilized
=
Region Tens operations and assured its future by moving from the leasing of facilities to the development
=
and ownership of program and residential facilities. Region Ten now owns six major facilities and four
residential programs thanks to his leadership.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Frank Kessler is also retiring from his position and Mr. Bowerman would like
to say a few words.
Mr. Bowerman said Frank Kessler served since the inception of the Architectural Review Board and
retired very recently due to health conditions. He was not able to be present to receive appreciation. With
the Boards permission, Mr. Bowerman delivered the certificate of appreciation to Mr. Kessler at his home
=
two weeks ago. Mr. Kessler very much appreciated the plaque. He put many years of experience and time
into that Board. Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to publicly acknowledge that service.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker said he had asked Officer William C. Reynolds to be present this
morning to give the Board a quick briefing on Open Gym Night which the Police and Parks & Recreation
Departments are working on together. Mr. Reynolds said each year the patrol officers of the Police
Department are challenged to come up with a project which will have impact on the community. This year,
Officer Scopelliti and he received permission to open up the new gym in the rear parking lot at Albemarle
High School. It will be open from 9:30 p.m. to midnight, and will be available to teens and young people in
Albemarle, Charlottesville and surrounding counties. He said young people are parking in the parking lots
of shopping centers. There is nothing for them to do and the parking lots are posted for no-trespassing
after dark. The gym will offer them a place to go where there will be basketball, volleyball and other means
to keep them occupied during these summer months. This starts on August 10 and will run for three
weekends as a test program. Next year, they will ask for Federal grant funds to have the facility open for all
13 weeks of summer. Next week, there will be news releases to the public and they hope for a good
turnout.
Ms. Thomas said it is a wonderful program, and is certainly what community policing is all about.
Mr. Martin said he is pleased that the gym will be closed at 12:30 a.m. Personally, he does not like some of
the programs that start at midnight because he does not want his teenage kids to have a reason to be out at
that time of the night.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is an age limit. Mr. Reynolds said this year it will be held from 16 to 20 so
these teenagers are able to drive. This is a pilot program, and he does not believe it has ever been
attempted before. They want to keep control of the program, and will stop any hint of alcohol involvement.
Next year it may be extended to 25 years of age and offer more activities.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is successful, might the program be expanded to other areas in the County.
Mr. Reynolds said they had not thought about that, but there is money available through Federal grants
which could be used for that purpose.
Mr. Bowerman said officers on all shifts are encouraged to do things like this. It is a very positive
approach the Police Department has taken toward community policing.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Martin made motion to approve Items 6.1 through 6.7
on the Consent Agenda with the changes noted to the Lickinghole Creek Stormwater Basin resolution (Item
6.4) (Note: conversation concerning items on the consent agenda will be shown as part of that item.) and
to accept the remaining items for information. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Request to set public hearing for September 5, 2001, to amend Leash Law in County
parks to allow designated off-leash areas.
It was noted in the staffs report that historically the City of Charlottesville has not had a leash law in
=
City parks. An increase in conflicts between unleashed dogs and park users has caused the City to
reevaluate this position. The City has created a fenced-off leash area referred to as a dog park in its
Azalea Park. The dog park has been very heavily used. The City would like to expand the number of dog
parks in the area, but available space in the City is limited. Some of the dog owners using City parks are
County residents. The City has requested that a dog park be located at Towe Park and the Towe Park
Committee has approved the request. Towe Park is managed by the Albemarle County Parks and
Recreation Department for the City and County and is governed by the Albemarle County Code. Section
11-120 of the Albemarle County Code requires all pets to be on a leash and under control while on
parklands. This section of the Code needs to be amended to allow dogs off-leash in areas designated for
that purpose. The County Attorney has advised that changing the County Code will require a public
hearing. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on September 5, 2001, to consider
amending Section 11-120 of the County Code.
(Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, was present. He said this is a pilot program
approved by the Towe Park Committee. It will probably cost $3000-$4000 to put up a fence and signs.
The request is that the Board allow the committee to have a section in the Park to set up this program.
Currently, the County Code does not allow this activity.
Mr. Bowerman asked the involvement of the dog owners who want this area in the park. Mr.
Mullaney said the Committee has talked about the dog owners having a responsibility to fund the operation.
He, personally, would like for the owners to clean-up after their pets. He said the City has been dealing
with this issue for a very long time.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Mullaney has told her that the County does not patrol parks to catch people,
but responds only to problems, and she encourages the Parks Department to continue that. Government
gets enlarged when it anticipates problems to the point of creating them.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set a public hearing for September 5, 2001, to
consider amending Section 11-120 of the Code of Albemarle, Leash Law in County parks to allow
designated off-leash areas.
__________
Item 6.2. Resolution to accept Peter Jefferson Place into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following resolution was
==
adopted by the vote set out above:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, Peter Jefferson Parkway in Peter Jefferson Place Subdivision
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 19, 2001, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that Peter Jefferson Parkway meets the requirements established
by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Peter Jefferson
Parkway in Peter Jefferson Place Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated July 19, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
to 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
'
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Peter Jefferson Parkway from start of Phase 2 construction and end of Phase
1, location of commercial entrance (Station 19+35), to the end of Phase 2
construction, location of commercial entrance (Station 30+50), as shown on plat
recorded 9/28/99 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1861, page 91, with a variable right-of-way width (>80'), for
a length of 0.21 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.21 mile.
__________
Item 6.3. Resolution to support detouring of Route 250 during replacement of drainage structures.
It was noted in a letter from James L. Bryan, Resident Engineer, to Robert W. Tucker, County
Executive, dated July 13, 2001, that VDOT is planning the replacement of two drainage structures on Route
250 east of Charlottesville over Carroll Creek and Limestone Creek. The projects are to be advertised in
December 2002, while the road closing and majority of the work will be done in the summer of 2003 when
the schools are closed. VDOT would prefer to close this section of Route 250 during construction and
detour traffic around the site via Route 616 and Route I-64. The road would be closed approximately 90
days. In view of the cost and time savings, VDOT requests the Countys support for the detouring of Route
=
250 during the replacement of the two drainage structures.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution regarding
bridge replacements on Route 250 East:
RESOLUTION
ROUTE 250 BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS
(Project 0250-002-114,115,C501)
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) is planning the
replacement of two drainage structures on Route 250, east of the City of Charlottesville,
over Carroll Creek and Limestone Creek. During construction, VDoT desires to close
this section of Route 250 and detour traffic around the site via Route 616 and Route I-64;
and
WHEREAS, VDoT has indicated that if the drainage structures are constructed
under traffic, a temporary detour would have to be constructed at each site, which would
increase costs for right-of-way and construction, increase the environmental impact and
require additional construction time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that given VDoT plans to undertake
the majority of this work during the summer months of 2003 while schools are closed,
and in view of the cost and time savings, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,
does hereby support the detouring of traffic from Route 250 as proposed by VDoT during
the replacement of the two drainage structures.
__________
Item 6.4. Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Pro-rata Share Rate Adjustment.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Regional Stormwater Management Facilities policy was
=
adopted by the Board on July 10, 1991. This policy established a pro-rata share policy for the recovery of
costs paid by the County for the design and construction of regional stormwater management facilities. The
policy also established the pro-rata share contribution calculation formula (based on Engineering
Department recommendations) for the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Facility. The formula was based
on the best available cost estimate of the facility (until the total cost of the facility had been determined) and
used a rate of $428.85 per cubic foot per second (cfs) of increased stormwater runoff generated as a result
of development. The increase in runoff is determined by calculating and comparing the amount of post-
development stormwater runoff to the pre-development runoff. In our review of this policys
=
implementation, we discovered inconsistency in the procedures used to calculate the runoff. This
inconsistency resulted in considerable differences in the pro-rata share paid by the developments. The
essential difference was the departments acceptance of using the Lickinghole dam as the point for
=
determining the runoff, rather than a developments property lines, as prescribed by the adopted policy.
=
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Department files indicate that the first development to which this policy applied took issue with the
policy and the fee it imposed. Ensuing debates followed and the best we can ascertain is that in 1991 the
developer and consultant convinced staff that use of the dam as the point of the analysis was the intent of
the methodology that had been the basis of the policy and was, therefore, an acceptable practice.
However, in our review of the pro-rata contributions we found that this difference in the procedure resulted
in underassessment of the pro-rata share paid by the developer. To ensure compliance with the Boards
=
policy, and realizing that continuation of this practice would eventually result in a significant shortfall in the
total cost recovery from the developable area, the department suspended this practice earlier this year.
Development plans for Grayrock and Stonegate (submitted March 7, 2001) were under review at
the time the change was being considered and these developers were informed that their pro-rata share
would be computed based on strict compliance with the adopted policy and formula. Several discussions
ensued and three memos were prepared by Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering & Public Works, regarding
the administration and cost recovery for the Lickinghole Basin. On April 10, 2001, representatives from the
offices of the County Executive, the County Attorney and the Department of Engineering & Public Works
met to discuss the Lickinghole Basin pro-rata share policy. After discussion of the history of the Lickinghole
program and review of the Boards policy, the group agreed that no change in the adopted policy was
=
necessary. However, the group did agree that the Engineering Department would reevaluate the pro-rata
share rate specified by the policy and meet with representatives of the development community to discuss
potential changes.
The original pro-rata share formula did not consider Federal funding received for the project and
overestimated the costs paid by the County. In addition, it was based on the best available information and
estimates for future development. Reevaluation of this rate was considered appropriate since the actual
costs of the facility were known and historical data was available. The departments reevaluation was
=
compiled into a document titled the Lickinghole Basin Pro-rata Evaluation. In summary, it was determined
that the pro-rata share rate for 2001 should be $343.00 per cfs of increased runoff from the developed
property and that this rate should be adjusted annually for inflation. This rate adjustment has been
reviewed with representatives from the development community and everyone is in agreement that it is
appropriate for cost recovery for the basin.
Because development plans for Grayrock and Stonegate were under review at the time a change
was being considered, and the previously lower calculation had been accepted, staff allowed this practice
to continue. However, because there was some question regarding the previous application of Board
policy, we indicated that this decision was subject to Board review and additional fees might be assessed.
Staff continues to believe that allowing payment at the lower calculation was reasonable given the
circumstances. If the Board should disagree with this decision, staff will need to be directed to assess
additional fees based on strict application of the policy in place at the time of their original submittal. Staff
recommends adoption of a resolution to revise the pro-rata share rate in the Policy Governing Calculation
A
and Collection of Fees for Development for Land that lies in the Drainage Basin of Stormwater Manage-
ment Facilities adopted July 10, 1991, to reflect a new rate of $343/cfs effective upon adoption of the
@
resolution.
(Ms. Thomas asked if there is anything in this change that will help undo what was probably a
mistake and has led to a shortfall? Mr. Davis said the enabling legislation limits the County from charging
additional development more than their pro-rata share. Unless there is some way to go back and collect it
from the developments which have already paid, been approve and built, there is no way to legally
recapture that money. It is not just the last two mentioned, but there were a number of prior developments
which paid less than they should have paid.
(Ms. Thomas said the recovery amount does not include what is called opportunity cost so this
A@
barely recovers costs. Mr. Tucker said an item inadvertently left out of the resolution was a request for a
CPI rate adjustment. He said there is a new resolution on the table this morning which includes that
request. In addition, wording asking that the rate be retroactive to March 1, 2001, needs to be deleted from
the resolution.
(Mr. Perkins asked why the new rate is less than the old rate. Mr. Tucker said it was determined
that the rate was higher initially than it should have been. Mr. Perkins asked if there is a different way of
calculating the rate. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Davis said when the rate was originally set, the basin
A@
project had not been completed. There were still land acquisitions needed, and it turned out that the land
did not cost as much as anticipated. There was Federal grant money included in the cost which was not an
appropriate cost to recover. The fee was set in 1991. The final cost of the project and a final calculation of
developable area, were factors that lowered the fee originally set.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution Establishing
Rate to Recover Portion of Costs for Constructing Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin :
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RATE
TO RECOVER PORTION OF COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING
LICKINGHOLE REGIONAL STORMWATER BASIN
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
adopted a "Policy Governing Calculation and Collection of Fees for Development of Land
that Lies in the Drainage Basin of Regional Stormwater Management Facilities"
(hereinafter, the "Policy"); and
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
WHEREAS, the Policy established a formula to determine each proposed
development's pro rata share for the Lickinghole Creek Regional Stormwater Basin, and
the formula was based on the best available cost estimates for the facility at the time; and
WHEREAS, the pro rata share was calculated by determining the increase in
runoff (in cubic feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development in a
ten-year storm and multiplying that increase by four hundred twenty-eight and 85/100
dollars ($428.85); and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a new rate for the Lickinghole Creek
Regional Stormwater Basin pursuant to the Policy in order to assure that the County
recovers the appropriate costs for the construction of the Basin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors establishes a rate of three hundred forty three and 00/100 dollars ($343.00),
which shall be multiplied by the increase in runoff (in cubic feet per second) projected to
be caused by a proposed development in a ten-year storm, in order to determine a
development's pro rata share.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this rate shall be adjusted annually by the
percentage of change in the Consumer Price Index.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board reaffirms the statement in the
Policy that the calculation of the increase in runoff volume and velocity shall be
measured from the point at which the runoff leaves the boundary of the property
proposed for development.
__________
Item 6.5. Appointment of Mark B. Graham as Director of Engineering and Public Works.
At the request of the County Executive, the Board appointed Mr. Mark B. Graham as the
Director of Engineering and Public Works effective July 16, 2001.
__________
Item 6.6. Authorize County Executive to execute Townwood Mobile Home Park, LLC, Stormwater
Drainage and Access Easements.
It was noted in the staffs report that a final site plan and plat for the Townwood Mobile Home Park
=
(SDP-2001-21) have been tentatively approved, subject to recordation of the necessary drainage easement
plats. These easements are to be dedicated to public use in accordance with the Board of Supervisors
=
stormwater control program action on April 5, 2000. To clarify the purpose of and the responsibilities for
the easement, it was the desire of the applicant (Townwood Mobile Home Park, LLC) to prepare a project
specific deed of easement to be recorded with the plat. Since this deed of easement is specific to this
project, the Board should authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement which has been
found to be acceptable by both the County Engineer and the County Attorney.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
following deed of easement between Townwood Mobile Homes Park, LLC, and the County of
Albemarle:
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT dated this 12th day of July, 2001, by and between
TOWNWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company
("Townwood"), the Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (the "County"), a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Grantee;
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, Townwood is the owner of that certain tract or parcel of land
containing 12.569 acres, more or less, designated as Tax Map 61, Parcel 8 (the
"Property"), a portion of which is shown on the plat of Kurt M. Gloeckner, Land Surveyor,
dated June 18, 2001, captioned "Variable Width Drainage Easement For Extended
Detention Facility To Be Dedicated To Public Use Townwood Mobile Home Park,
Albemarle County, Virginia" (hereinafter "Plat One"), and also shown on the plat of Kurt
M. Gloeckner dated June 18, 2001, captioned "Variable Width Access Easement For
Extended Detention Facility To Be Dedicated To Public Use Townwood Mobile Home
Park, Albemarle County, Virginia" (hereinafter "Plat Two"), attached hereto, made a part
hereof and recorded immediately following this Deed of Easement; and
WHEREAS, Townwood acquired such Property by deed of Charles Wm. Hurt
and Shirley L. Fisher, as Trustees for the West Rio Road Land Trust, dated July 21,
1999, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Book 1840, Page 42; and
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
WHEREAS, Townwood has agreed to grant unto the County certain drainage
and access easements for extended detention facility purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing premises and TEN
DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which
is hereby acknowledged, Townwood does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, and DEDICATE to
public use with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, unto the
County, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, non-exclusive variable width drainage
easement (the "Drainage Easement") and a perpetual, non-exclusive variable width
access easement related thereto (the "Access Easement") (collectively, the
"Easements") to construct, install, maintain, repair, change, alter, replace and extend
storm drainage facilities, consisting of pipes, manholes, and appurtenances thereto,
within those certain areas designated and described by metes and bounds on Plat One
(as to the Drainage Easement) and on Plat Two (as to the Access Easement)
respectively.
Reference is made to said Plat One and Plat Two for the exact locations and
dimensions of the Easements as they cross the property of Townwood.
As a part of these Easements, the County shall have the right to enter upon the
above-described property within the Drainage Easement for the purpose of installing,
constructing, maintaining, repairing, changing, altering, replacing and extending storm
drainage facilities and appurtenances thereto, within such easement, and the right of
ingress and egress within the Access Easement as reasonably necessary to construct,
install, maintain, repair, replace and/or extend such facilities.
Grantor, its successors or assigns, agrees that new trees, shrubs, fences,
buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be placed within the
Easements.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Easements, the County
agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore
surface conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to the excavation.
In the event that any damage results from said access, the County agrees to correct and
repair such damage in a proper and workmanlike manner, including the restoration of
any such damaged or disturbed grass surfaces, but not the replacement of structures,
trees, or other facilities within the Easements.
The Easements shall include the right of the County to cut any trees, brush, and
shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to
provide economical and safe storm drainage installation, operation, and maintenance.
The County shall have no responsibility to Townwood to replace or reimburse the cost of
said trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions if cut, removed or otherwise damaged.
The facilities constructed within the Drainage Easement shall be the property of
the County, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and
make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the
boundaries of the Drainage Easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed
herein.
The Grantee specifically reserves the right to assign the Easements as its
interests require.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by
resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the
conveyance of the interest in real estate made by this deed.
__________
Item 6.7. Proclamation recognizing August 26, 2001, as Women's Equality Day.
There was no one present to accept the proclamation, so Ms. Thomas summarized the wording.
By the recorded vote shown above, the Board approved the following proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, many decades of efforts by women and men were required to give
women the right to vote; and
WHEREAS,citizens must always be willing to work to assure that the laws and
policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America,
and this County do not unjustly discriminate against females, and any
other group; and
WHEREAS,unjust treatment based on views of inequality is often subtle; and
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
WHEREAS,it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates
the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, the amendment that gave the right of suffrage to American
women;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim
August 26, 2001
as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to
develop a more equitable community that acknowledges both the real
similarities and the important differences between women and men; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors urges all citizens to eliminate
all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women, and ensure equality of rights,
privileges, and responsibilities for all women and men.
__________
Item 6.8. Copy of letter dated July 6, 2001, from C. F. Gee, Acting Chief Engineer, Department of
Transportation, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Route 29 Improvements from South Fork
Rivanna River to Airport Road - Albemarle County, was received as information.
It was noted in the letter that the current VDOT roadway plans for the subject Route 29
improvements call for widening Route 29 from four to six lanes. The plans also include providing frontage
roads to manage access and create a more efficient operating condition for the corridor. VDOT presented
this concept to Albemarle County officials and residents at a Citizen Information Meeting held on July 20,
2000.
Following that meeting, it became evident that the citizens and the local government officials do not
support the frontage road concept. VDOT also examined the possibility of gaining support for just an
upgrade of the existing four-lane corridor to an eight-lane facility, with three through lanes and one
continuous right turn lane in each direction. This is the same typical section used throughout the rest of the
corridor, south of this project.
The cost of the frontage road concept is considerably greater than the upgrade. However, neither
concept is sufficiently funded in the Virginia Transportation Development plan. VDOT will abandon the
service roads concept because of the financial considerations and public reactions. VDOT strongly urges
the County to consider prudent access management strategies and that it work with the development
community to provide service roads, and minimize direct access to Route 29 to enhance its operating
capacity. Mr. Gee said he is proposing to defer this project until sufficient funds are available, at which time
an alternative will be considered.
__________
Item 6.9. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, August, 2001 was received as
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, apologized for not getting the report listed under Consent
Agenda Item No. 6.9 out to the Board members earlier. He hopes this report will be useful to the Board.
He said it is a great internal management tool. He said VDOTs maintenance teams have finished several
=
special projects to improve sight lines. With the wet weather, they will be able to dress up gravel roads
better than during the dry month of July. He said they have finished the construction project on Route 605
(Durrett Ridge). The other projects are on schedule. They have not finished the drainage project on Route
791 (Wyants Road). VDOT will meet with citizens about Morgantown Road on August 22.
__________
Mr. Bryan said he is interviewing applicants for the Assistant Resident Engineer position; Mr. Bill
Mills has announced his retirement. There is also an opening for a construction person.
__________
Ms. Humphris asked about the timetable on the study for the Sperry property. Mr. Bryan said they
submitted comments on the study to staff, and are waiting for that first cycle to come back to them. Mr.
Benish said staff met with the applicant yesterday who indicated that the report should be back to the
County by the end of the month.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he received a call from a person on Route 628, north of Route 810, on Simmons
Gap Road, about potholes. Apparently he had talked with the person at the Free Union office about that,
but they patched other potholes, and not the ones he called about.
__________
Mr. Perkins said that on Route 240, just before the shopping center in Crozet, there is a place
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
where the paving is breaking up.
__________
Mr. Perkins said a huge tree on Route 250 just east of the stop light at Routes 240/250 has been
dropping limbs into the road. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:50 a.m.)
__________
Mr. Dorrier said at the intersection of Route 6 and Route 20 there is a stormwater drainage
problem. The County has looked at it. The town of Scottsville is interested in studying the matter further
with the County. VDOT will be involved because of culverts under the pavement. He suggested having a
meeting in the near future to discuss the problem.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Bryan had an answer to his question at a previous meeting about a
pedestrian walkway along Avon Street Extd. Mr. Bryan said he believes the shoulders can be widened and
paid for from the next paving contract. That should alleviate some of the problems. Long-term, sidewalks
would have to be incorporated into the Six-Year Highway Plan. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the
meeting at 9:55 a.m.)
__________
Ms. Humphris said there was an article in the Daily Progress on July 24 about the construction on
the Universitys arena on the North Grounds. It gave a complete change in plans for the North Grounds
=
connector road. The University is now saying that they will pay for the road and incorporate it into the
budget for the arena. VDOT said the road would be part of the State System and Jim Jennings at VDOT
said if the planning begins soon, it is possible the road could be completed by 2006. She said this is new
information to her. This connector road has been an important part of County planning for a long time.
Mr. Bryan said he has no information concerning this matter. Mr. Tucker said he had heard that the
University may end up paying for the connector. When he recently talked with Mr. Leonard Sandridge it
was not a firm proposal.
Ms. Humphris said that at this time, the connector road is part of the plans for the Route 29
Western Bypass. She thinks the County needs to know more about the proposal.
Mr. Martin asked about the agenda for the next PACC meeting. Mr. Tucker suggested that this
question might be discussed at that time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Water Supply Project, Recommended
Alternatives, Presentation of report dated May, 2001.
Mr. Tucker said Rivanna staff sent the Board a Fact Sheet regarding development of planning for a
future water supply. Today, Mr. Gene Potter will make a presentation regarding the various alternatives. At
the same time, he has a planning schedule regarding the process to be used in reviewing the future water
supply resource study. He said this is the first part of the process. This briefing is being provided to the
Board of Supervisors, and then on August 16 a briefing will be given to the Albemarle County Service
Authority Board. On August 20 there will be a similar presentation to Charlottesville City Council. On
September 27, there is to be a joint public hearing at 7:00 p.m. at Monticello High School. He said that Mr.
Cole Hendrix, Acting Executive Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, is also present this morning.
Mr. Gene Potter said he is Director of Water and Sewer for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
He distributed a corrected version of notes on the current water supply planning efforts, which includes a
fifth alternative which was missing from the earlier set of notes. He said the 1959 report on the water supply
for the City of Charlottesville actually started a planning process which continues today. A provision was
made at that time for the addition of flashboards to the spillway of the South Fork Rivanna Dam which was
built in 1966. Today, because of technological changes, flashboards are now known as crest control
A@A
measures. Starting with the Malcolm Pirnie Report in 1972, the projected future demand for water has
@
consistently gone down during the planning period from 19.5 mgpd in 1972 to 12.1 mgpd as recently as
1994. Actual urban area water usage in the year 2000 was 11.04 mgpd. However, the year 2000 was a
relatively wet year.
Mr. Potter said that based on bathymetric survey data, the volume lost in the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir due to sedimentation was slightly less than the projected 19.6 million gallons a year loss when
the reservoir was designed. Current survey data in March, 2001 indicates the loss of capacity due to
sedimentation over the 35 year life of the reservoir to date has been 15.6 million gallons a year. Finally, he
brought the Boards attention to wording in the hand-out The prevailing legal and professional advice is
=A
that regulatory approval will only be granted to the most practicable, least environmentally damaging
solution(s) to the areas water needs. He noted that the future need for water resources is being driven
@
equally by loss of capacity in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, and growth.
Mr. Potter brought the Boards attention to the planning schedule which had been distributed. He
=
said that November, 2001 is the earliest date at which a decision can be made to go forward in a permitting
process. Any significant changes in the recommended alternatives will extend the planning period. All
subsequent dates are based on a November decision date.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Potter noted that the Board had been given copies of the Appendices to the
Rivanna Water and
dated May 16, 2001 as prepared by Vanasse Hangen
Sewer Authority Water Supply Alternatives Report
Brustlin, Inc., with OBrien & Gere Engineers, Inc. serving as subcontractors. He said the current planning
=
efforts have resulted in three final and one draft report. The and the
Supply and Demand Analysis Reports
have all been presented to the public and revised as a result of staff and
Analysis of Alternatives Report
public input, and have been presented to the applicable state and Federal regulatory agencies. Regulatory
review and buy-in was adopted early in the strategies to expedite ultimate permit approval. The supply
analysis report concludes that the 2000 system safe yield is between 11.9 and 12.6 mgd based on a 1930s
type drought event and the calculated volume of the 1994 bathymetric study. The bathymetric study in
2001 indicates a slightly higher volume loss which lowers the calculated safe yield given in the supply
analysis report. The reality of this is that if a severe drought were to begin today, existing water resources
would be marginal based on current demand. The predicts a total water demand
Demand Analysis Report
in the year 2000 ranging between 18.0 and 21.0 mgpd. In the year 2000, actual demand was 11.04 mgpd.
He said the started with a list of 33 identified alternatives and has been
Analysis of Alternatives Report
pared down to five alternatives recommended for immediate implementation, and a second list of 11
alternatives for future consideration. He said the also makes a statement
Analysis of Alternatives Report
based on the fact that the demand curve crosses the supply curve in the year 2000, that the supply relative
to demand is deemed to be acute.
Mr. Potter said that included in the second tier of alternatives, are two alternatives which received
quite a bit of discussion by the public and regulatory agencies. First is the idea of dredging the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, and increased use of Chris Greene Lake. They are the most practicable to consider at
this time, and in the future, but these projects are in the second tier because they are less practicable and
create a greater impact on the environment. Both the State Health Department (SHD) and the Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) expressed concerns over utilizing drawdown of Chris Greene Lake
below 0.5'. That is what would be necessary to support the existing plant capacity of 2.0 mgpd. The SHD
has a policy of not allowing contact recreation in a body of water designed as a public water supply, but they
would be willing to accept that the cost to drawn down the 0.5' would be so limited that they would not take
specific objection. Anything beyond that, they would have to review future.
Mr. Potter said the DGIF is concerned about the impact to fish stocks in the lake. The cost
associated with the drawdown of greater than 0.5' would come into play and would include replacement of
the lost recreational assets at Chris Greene Lake due to the type of funding used to create those assets. It
would include upgrading the capacity of the North Fork Rivanna Treatment Plant and improvements to the
transmission system to get the water from the North Fork into the central urban area. The North Fork
system is tied into the rest of the urban system, but it operates at a higher pressure ban and is isolated by
valving in the system itself. That system averages about 260,000 gpd so the full capacity of the plant is not
being utilized at this time. As growth in that area occurs, that alternative may be more attractive in the
future.
Mr. Potter said common sense should dictate close scrutiny at the idea of dredging since the
sediment is causing half of the problem. The costs of this is very high relative to other alternatives. He
noted that dredging carries two options. A single event dredge is listed at a unit cost of $9.86 a gallon. An
annual dredging is listed at $1.00 per gallon. What is not clear from this recommendation is the annual
Operation/Maintenance (O&M) costs. The $1.00 represents the up-front capital cost to acquire the land,
put in environmental controls and be ready to initiate the dredging process. An annual dredging would
require dredging on an annual basis over the next 50 years at a cost of $800,000 a year. So the bottom line
long-term cost to both alternatives is about equal.
Mr. Dorrier asked what is envisioned by dredging. Mr. Potter said he does not know what technique
would be selected. The idea is to use some sort of pump or excavator to remove the silt in the reservoir,
pump or transport it to a mechanism to separate the water from the silt, treat the water and let it go back to
the reservoir, and either pile up or haul to some other disposal site.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this deepens the reservoir. Mr. Potter said yes. He said the sediment is the
A@
most prevalent in the upper and middle reaches of the reservoir. It is a function of the carrying velocity of
the water itself. From the bathymetric survey, it is known that in some places in the reservoir, it approaches
ten feet in depth now. It is the shallower water that is the important part of the water supply. The deepest
intake at the dam is only 15 feet below the surface. In looking at the reservoir as a whole, it is the upper 15
feet of water which is available for the water supply.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Potter to discuss the disposition of the sediment. Mr. Potter said there are
many ideas about what to do with the sediment. The report mentions that there may be some economic
benefits to the dredge. This is fertile, rich, flood plain type soil. He will mention at this time that the amount
of material that would have to be removed just to keep up with what is coming in on an annual basis without
even making a dent in what has happened over the past 35 years, is equivalent to 9.5, 20-cubic yard
tandem dump trucks every day, 365 days per year for the next 50 years. That does not make any progress
toward restoring what has already happened. He said that is a relative sense of what is being discussed
whether it is done on a one-time basis or whether it is done on an annual basis.
Mr. Bowerman asked what amount would be removed daily under the $800,000 operating costs.
Mr. Potter said that assumes restoring the reservoir capacity to what it was in 1994. That means 3.0 million
cubic yards would need to be removed to restore the reservoir to the 1994 capacity. In addition, the 9.5
cubic yards would have to be removed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the dredging would reduce algae. Mr. Potter said it would not. However, there
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
has not been an algae problem for several years. He said there are some secondary environmental
impacts associated with dredging, wetlands being a direct impact. Secondary impacts which have not been
talked about are noise, the additional traffic, and the odors. That material cannot be uncovered without
generating odors.
Mr. Dorrier asked the affect on the reservoir if there is no dredging. Mr. Potter said if there is no
dredging, leaving things as they are now, there would be zero safe yield in the South Fork reservoir in the
year 2050. He said that at some point, because of the velocities of the water, what is coming in will be
carried out. How much storage will be left at that time is unknown.
Mr. Dorrier asked why there has been no dredging to this point. Mr. Potter said it is due to costs.
Also, there has been no need for a supplemental water supply until now. And, relative to other alternatives,
it is not the most cost-effective.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Potter discuss some of the other alternatives, as time for this
presentation is limited.
Mr. Potter said five alternatives were recommended by the consultants, but are not recommended
by Rivanna staff or the RWSA Board at this time. The first is to modify the release from the South Fork
Rivanna in the event of a severe drought. When this planning process began, RWSA staff believed there
was a regulatory requirement that 8.0 mgpd be released from the SFRR. This belief was based on their
understanding of the water quality model used in the early 1970s to develop discharge standards for the
Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. That figure has been used in all water supply studies including
the current study (with the exception of the 1959 report). In talking with regulatory agencies, they found
there is no current regulatory or other requirement to release 8.0 mgpd. This alternative proposes to limit
the release during a severe drought to 8.0 mgpd or the natural inflow to the reservoir, whichever is less.
This would limit nature flow in the river if the dam were not there, but it alters the practice which has been in
effect over the last 30 years. Review of historical data indicates the flow would be less than 8.0 mgpd, less
than one percent of the time for the next five years if this alternative became necessary while seeking
permitting approval and construction of the crest control. It is presented by the consultants as a temporary
alternative until other alternatives can be implemented.
The second and third alternatives are to implement a demand management plan in the event of a
drought, and to develop and implement water conservation plans. He said both the City and the County
have adopted ordinances to facilitate demand management, and are also continuing to implement and
develop water conservation plans.
The fourth alternative is to add a four-foot crest control to the SFRR dam spillway. This would raise
the storage level in the reservoir by four feet, would flood the surrounding shoreline accordingly, would
impact existing wetlands, would create new wetlands, and would probably necessitate raising the Ivy Creek
bridge on Route 676. That is not a conclusion reached in the study, but examination of the bridge piers
indicates that a four-foot rise in level comes right to the top of the lowest bridge pier. The water level would
not get to the decking or the girders themselves. The Black & Veitch Study in 1994 indicated that the bridge
does not meet current VDOT standards for clearance.
Ms. Thomas asked if it can be concluded that if the level of the water were raised, the bridge would
have to be raised that much and more in order to meet VDOT standards? Mr. Potter said he thinks it is
reasonable to conclude that the bridge will have to be raised if the operating level of the reservoir is raised.
An engineering study would be the basis for determining how much the bridge would have to be raised.
Some additional land, estimated at 100 acres for costing purposes, would need to be purchased. Also, the
type of crest control being considered is similar to that at Sugar Hollow Reservoir. It is an inflatable bladder.
It is important to remember that during a high water storm event, that bladder would be deflated to the
normal operating level of the spillway. Even though the operating level of the reservoir is being raised by
four feet for storage purposes during high water events, it would be deflated so that the expected flood
levels would be the same as have historically been present. Implementation of this alternative would
extend the water supply through the year 2035.
Mr. Potter said the final alternative is to reduce sediment loadings into the SFRR. This is a
common sense alternative. However, the cost and benefits of this cannot be readily quantified. The two
most recent bathymetric surveys (the period between 1994 and 2001), indicate the loss of capacity due to
sedimentation was 25.89 million gallons. This is almost double the historical rate of sedimentation over the
35-year period. The cause of that is based on pure speculation, but the June, 1995 storm depleted the
capacity of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir by 17 percent in one event. Mr. Stephen Bowler has looked into this
question, and there were some other hydrologic events involved during that seven-year period. If it is these
high-water, high-storm events impacting the sedimentation rate in the reservoir the most, they will be
difficult to prevent.
Mr. Bowerman said when there are high-flow events, they carry sediment that would otherwise be
deposited, and they also pick up sediment because of the faster stream flow. He asked if those problems
are also associated with the four-foot bladder. If the height of the reservoir is increased, there would be
stiller water upstream which would allow for more siltation, and when the bladder were lowered during a
storm event, some of it would be washed away and loaded downstream. There are associated
environmental problems. Mr. Potter said that is true. Increasing the storage capacity of the reservoir would
increase the travel time through the reservoir and decrease the velocity of the flow going through it. More of
what is being transported would have an opportunity to settle out. As the upper reaches continue to silt in,
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
that velocity will carry things further into the reservoir and probably deposit more material nearer to the
dam. There are a lot of different things which need to be studied.
Mr. Potter said they are asking for a commitment to study, plan and implement measures to extend
the useful life of the SFRR, and for sediment reduction to the extent that it is economically and
technologically possible. In summary, the modified release alternative, along with demand management,
are recommended in the event of a severe drought until a four-foot crest control can be constructed and
placed into service. This is the engineers recommendation. These measures would meet the urban area
=
water demand through the year 2035. The success of conservation, demand management and reduction
in sediment loading, along with the accuracy of growth projections will determine when other alternatives
will be necessary for implementation. He offered to answer questions. Also present this morning are Mr.
Thomas Dunn, Project Engineer for OBrien and Gere.
=
Ms. Thomas said time is limited, but she believes the Board members will have some questions.
Mr. Perkins asked the plans for the Buck Mountain properties. Will RWSA hold onto those
properties indefinitely? Mr. Potter said the current plan is to hold the Buck Mountain property. There has
been discussion at the RWSA Board meetings driven by property owners from whom property was
purchased as to the long-term outcome of that project, but there has been no decision other than
continuing to hold the property.
Ms. Thomas said the public hearing is in September. She personally feels as if she has been
preparing for this decision for the last 30 years. There are tremendous implications to the Countys decision
=
to maintain the SFRR, and not look to another reservoir. This involves the Boards dealings with VDOT on
=
any possible Western Bypass so they will know this is not a throw away reservoir they are building next to.
A@
There is a lot which is not known about saving the reservoir. With DISC having master plans in different
areas, should the County be timing the development of certain areas to coincide with the parts of the
County which will have water? Are there ways to keep usage under control? Downstream release is a very
short-term idea. The whole situation with the landfill points out that regulations change and there is no way
of knowing what will be allowed in the future. There is the whole question of the Sugar Hollow system
which contains the very best water. At this time, some of that is going into the Ragged Mountain Reservoir
and not being used because it is an old system. She said this is a huge issue which this report just gets
started. It certainly does not make any of the decisions which need to be made. She asked if the Board
members want to wait and discuss this issue again after the public hearing, or would they like to discuss it
before that time.
Mr. Dorrier said it interacts with the Countys growth policies. That fact is pointed out in the report.
=
The County needs to look at growth policies for the urban areas, and how that will interact with the water
supply.
Mr. Bowerman said he is struck with the incredibly dynamic nature of the problem. In terms of the
modeling that can be done, there are so many variables that it becomes problematic as to whether one of
these solutions might be quantified as to its effect except for demand management. The measurement of
all the proposals seems to be very complicated in order to arrive at a good conclusion. The effects of some
rain events are not known. He used to think there would be solutions offered and the Board could easily
pick one or two. He has become aware that this is much more complicated than he had thought. The
dynamic nature of the problem needs to be in the public domain in a way in which they can understand.
Mr. Dorrier said it is fortunate that there are so many alternatives. Some states in the western part
of the U.S. do not have these alternatives. Ms. Thomas said it is also fortunate that the watershed itself is
basically the Countys. In some communities they have to deal with other communities to decide how they
=
are going to get enough water.
Mr. Tucker said the Countys Watershed Management staff, David Hirschman and Stephen Bowler,
=
have been working on the issue of sediment reduction. They are working on an update of the SFRR
Management Plan which will help identify some of the issues. There is no one answer that will solve the
problem. All RWSA has tried to do is outline for the Board what it sees as a start to the process. This is a
continuous effort that will be worked on forever.
Mr. Martin said that is the way he sees the problem. There is no way to have decisions made on all
of these issues before making decisions for the immediate future. It is an on-going process.
Ms. Thomas said her question was whether the Board wants to discuss this again before the public
hearing. She assumes the Watershed Management revision will not be ready before that time. Mr. Tucker
said no, it will not be ready by that date. Mr. Bowler said staff plans to take the plan to the RWSA Board
A@
first.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board can see some alternatives on funding.
Ms. Humphris said that is RWSAs responsibility.
=
Mr. Tucker referred Mr. Dorrier to the matrix included with the paperwork today. He said the costs
are listed there.
Ms. Thomas said the Federal government is no longer providing the kind of infrastructure funding
they used to provide. She said that in some communities, the water bills are actually contributing to the
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
affordability of living in certain areas. This can be a very expensive process.
Ms. Humphris asked if the ideas which have been verbalized this morning should be put together
before the public hearing. This is only the beginning of dealing with the water supply problem. This report
is the basis. There are still a lot of things to deal with involving minimum in-stream flows, etc. She thinks
the public wants an opportunity to present certain things as this process goes forward so RWSA can make
a final decision on what will be done first. There are other things which need to be considered in the
decision-making process which are not spelled out in the report. Particularly, she is talking about the E-mail
the Board received this morning which contains many good questions. This Board is responsible for
thinking about and making sure these things will be considered as Rivanna makes its decision. Built into
the schedule presented this morning, there is no time for that to take place. She thinks that the Board might
want to have a work session in September where the public is permitted to participate.
Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Humphris was suggesting the Board have a work session before
September 27. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board should hear from the public before that date. Ms.
Thomas asked if that meeting should be held with City Council. She has a concern that the Board might
hear different comments from those presented to Council. Mr. Dorrier said the September hearing is only a
few weeks away. He does not think the Board will be able to do much in that short time period. Mr. Martin
said he is remembers the last meeting on this subject, and an under-riding theme at that meeting was to
decide how many people should live in Albemarle County, and then limit the water supply in order to
facilitate that. He hopes that type of philosophy will not be considered. To him, that meeting was a waste of
time.
Mr. Bowerman said there may be a lot of public emphasis placed on some areas of this subject
which are well thought out, and which the Board needs to hear. It may lend some specificity to what Mr.
Martin mentioned about measures which can be implemented knowing the total solution will always be
dynamic.
Mr. Dorrier asked if RWSA had a financial consultant working with them in terms of alternative
funding from the region. Mr. Tucker said no.
A@
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, said they have been
interested in what the customer and property owner will be paying instead of the financial scheme RWSA
will be using to fund whatever improvements are made. Until the project and its cost are known, there will
be no discussion between RWSA and the City as to cost-sharing. There will need to be a definition of
benefits to be derived by the City and RWSA. This issue does not deal just with additional growth and
passing that cost to new customers, but they are facing a declining supply and a good portion of the cost of
this will have to be passed to and paid for by existing customers. Much of the hard work is yet to be done.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there should be some overview of the whole financial scope of this in
more detail than presented today. Mr. Brent said that work is yet to be done. Negotiations will have to take
place between the RWSA and the City. Until the scope of the project is determined, that is all that can be
done at this point.
Ms. Thomas said Ms. Humphris would like to have a work session on this issue before September
27.
Mr. Bowerman asked what information the Board would discuss. Ms. Humphris said she would like
for the Board to deal with questions which have arisen from both this Board and the public directly and
indirectly related to this report, and the recommendations from the consultant. There are things which she
thinks the staff should discuss with the Board as it goes into the big public hearing. She does not want there
to be questions left over after that public hearing, which is the last time scheduled for discussion.
Ms. Thomas asked staff to determine a date when this discussion can be held. These will be
County issues. Staff may be working on some of these issues now.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the public is supposed to submit questions and concerns. Will there be
public discussion allowed at that work session? Ms. Thomas said she prefers that questions be in writing.
Ms. Humphris agreed, but said the public should be allowed to speak. Mr. Tucker said September 5, 2001,
would be an appropriate time to schedule discussion of this topic. It was so agreed.
__________
(Note: At 11:10 a.m., the Board recessed. They reconvened at 11:18 a.m. with Mr. Bowerman
being absent at this time.)
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Mark Graham, newly-employed as Director of Engineering and Public
Works.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel said the progress of construction of the Baker-Butler Elementary School can
be followed on the School Divisions website. They are changing those pictures about every two weeks.
=
They are also working on the Burley renovation/addition. That project is being phased in, and there will be
construction going on while school is in session. Walton Middle School, Albemarle High School and Crozet
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Elementary School also have projects in progress.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board has approved a two-year pilot swimming program for the County
high schools. Staff had been directed to work with parents and representatives from the schools. In
conjunction with that, they adopted a policy to allow a process to consider additions and deletions to high
school athletic programs.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board has approved Student Fees for the 2001-02 school year. The
fees did not change from those of the current year.
Their 2000-2002 Board/Superintendent priorities are in the process of being updated. For the
coming year, the Board is going to place special emphasis on increasing parental involvement. The start of
the next school year for students will be August 27. There have been many instructional programs going on
during the summer for both teachers and students. There has been a significant amount of staff
development focused on the .
Standards of Learning
The Division has received the individual student results from the Spring 2001 SOL tests. The
reports went directly to the principals, and they have been mailed directly to the individual students at their
homes. Once official test results are received from the testing service, the accreditation status of the
schools will be verified and then released to the public. They anticipate progress and that more schools will
be fully accredited. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 11:23 a.m.)
Mr. Dorrier asked if the School Board is optimistic that there will be a high school swimming
program in the next five years. Ms. McKeel said they approved a pilot program. Assuming it works well for
the two years of the pilot, the School Board will examine it further. Mr. Perkins said there was a swimming
team at Western Albemarle at one time. Ms. McKeel said she believes it is important to support athletics.
Life long sports that can be done individually are also important activities to support.
Mr. Perkins asked the design of Monticello High School and its energy efficiency. He said that was
looked at closely in the construction of this school, and he believes it is time for the Board to get a report on
the energy savings at that school compared with other schools. He asked if there is any information
available on his question. Dr. Kevin Castner said the School System has rented the building the last two
summers and has recovered over $300,000 from that contract because they chose this school because of
its lighting. That payback itself is greater than the immediate payback in energy efficiency. He will talk to
Mr. Al Reaser and provide some information to the Board. Mr. Perkins said he is interested in heating and
cooling costs per square foot as compared to other facilities. Mr. Bowerman asked that occupancy days be
factored into the answer.
Ms. Thomas said she recently returned from Italy. Everyone was very impressed with Albemarles
=
students. She got lots of reports about how wonderful these students had been and how wonderful their
music skills had been. Teachers from all over Europe who are bringing students to this contest made their
students all come to the final performance to hear Monticello High School students play. The towns of
Poggio a Caiano and Prato are very interested in having more student exchanges. She thinks there is a
>
need to set up a steering committee to talk about what can be done. There were some in the 1980s which
created a lot of work, and the students had a lot of other things to do in the summer. It became an option
that was not that popular. She asked for School Board assistance in deciding what can be done to further
the exchange.
Ms. McKeel then presented flowers to Ms. Humphris in appreciation for her support of students
from the Jack Jouett district, and of the education system.
Mr. Martin said the Standards of Quality (SOQ) have been described for years as being unfair to
Albemarle County. They have not been talked about in terms of the whole State and not just Albemarle.
There are some reports to come out soon, and he wondered if Albemarle County would like to be in the
forefront by providing comments on what might work better. Dr. Castner said they have had some Saturday
meetings in the Northern Virginia area to discuss this issue, and there was a meeting in the Lynchburg area.
Dr. Frank Morgan attended those meetings and the SOQs around the State are being revised. When they
talked about per pupil reimbursements, they were talking about class sizes which are different from those in
Albemarle. In talking about per pupil costs at the high school level, they were talking about staffing for a
six-period day. Automatically, across all of Virginia, it would have been 25 percent short. That information
is being discussed now and a report should be delivered in November. The issue that comes up with
increased support of the SOQs is the funding source. As far as the data, some of the information he has
received is that the original support is not present now. He asked if that is what Mr. Martin was referring to.
Mr. Martin said it is, but in somewhat of a smaller picture. He said he will discuss this further with Dr.
Castner at another time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2001 Budget Amendments. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 22, 2001.)
Ms. Roxanne White summarized the executive summary saying the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507
'
stipulates that the County must 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. This
proposed FY 01 Budget amendment totals $141,436.66.
>
ESTIMATED REVENUE
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
General Fund/Other Funds
Federal Grant Revenues$ 10,025.00
General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue$ 10,025.00
Education Funds
Local Revenues$ 7,429.00
AIMR Summer Rental40,000.00
State Revenues489.00
Fund Balances 83,493.66
Education Funds Estimated Revenue$ 131,411.66
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE$ 141,436.66
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Operating Fund
Human Development$ 10,025.00
General Operating Expenditures$ 10,025.00
Education Operating Fund$ 131,411.66
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES$ 141,436.66
This budget amendment consists of three appropriations that will need approval subsequent to the
public hearing. A detailed description of these appropriations follows:
APPROPRIATION #20078, $10,025.00, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Project.
The social services departments of the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville, in partnership with
the Region Ten Community Services Board, were awarded a Federal grant to establish mental health and
substance abuse services in each of the departments. The purpose of this project is to provide services to
social services clients who are public assistance recipients or "welfare-to-work" participants with the goal of
improving their employment prospects and outcomes. The project will hire two mental health and
substance abuse clinicians with salaries and fringe benefits paid by Region Ten. Both social services
departments will make "in-kind" contributions, including clerical and supervisory support and professional
consultation services as necessary. Supplies and equipment will be funded by Federal grant monies. The
program startup costs will be funded by a $10,025.00 Federal grant. There is no local match.
APPROPRIATION #20079, $5070.19, Math SOL Grant. Teaching the Math SOL Grant was not
fully expended in the FY 99-00. The grant carryover amount of $5070.19 may be appropriated for FY
>
00-01. These funds will be used to pay teacher salaries.
>
APPROPRIATION #20080, $126,341.47, Donations.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $949.00.
This donation was used to purchase a Mac Computer for the reading specialist.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $90.00 from John and Kristine Bean.
This donation will be used for the gifted program at the school.
Golden Apple Award. Three Albemarle County Public School teachers have been awarded Staff
Development Stipends in the amount of $1000.00 each under the Golden Apple Award. Better Living, Inc.
is the sponsor for the Golden Apple Award.
The Learn and Serve Virginia Grant from the Virginia Department of Education, has a fund balance
in the amount of $1794.18. This grant will provide funding for the project Reading Together to Reach the
Stars. This project will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies, which pairs second
and third graders with preschool children to ease transition of preschoolers into elementary school and to
provide the second and third graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing
skills. This fund balance will help to support this program.
The Virginia Commission of the Arts has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools an Arts
Education Technical Assistance Grant in the amount of $489.00. This grant will fund a graphic design
project for art teachers.
Yancey Elementary School received a donation from B. F. Yancey P.T.A. in the amount of
$1500.00. These funds are to maintain the services of a school nurse for the Extended Learning Time
Program this summer.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized
needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our
existing classes. Additional revenues in the amount of $1400.00 have been received from Farmington
Country Club in tuition fees for English as a Second Language Class.
The Standards of Learning Training Initiative Program provides the implementation and evaluation
of a comprehensive teacher training program to be conducted within the School Division in the core content
areas and leadership training for administrative staffing implementing the SOL. The program collected
$490.00 in tuition fees. There is also a fund balance of $76,629.29 from FY 99-00. These funds will be
>
used to purchase instructional materials, pay for staff development and consultants.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
AIMR Summer Rental. During its April 12, 2001 meeting, the School Board approved a contract for
Albemarle County Food Services to provide catering services for the Association for Investment
Management and Research (AIMR) staff during the rental of Monticello High School. Some expenses for
food were incurred prior to the end of the current fiscal year. The remaining expenses will be incurred in FY
01-02.
>
Subsequent to the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the FY 01 Budget in
>
the amount of $141,436.66, and approve Appropriations #20078, #20079 and #20080.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was
immediately closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the FY 2001 budget
>
amendment as advertised by adopting Resolutions of Appropriation #20078, #20079 and #20080 as set out
in full below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20078
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES PROJECT
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1660 53014 410000 Data Processing$100.00
1 1660 53014 520300 Telecommunications800.00
1 1660 53014 540000 Rent1,800.00
1 1660 53014 550100 Travel-Mileage175.00
1 1660 53014 550402 Training500.00
1 1660 53014 600100 Office Supplies300.00
1 1660 53014 800200 Furniture and Fixtures3,900.00
1 1660 53014 800700 ADP 2,450.00
Total$10,025.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1660 33000 330001 Federal Grant$10,025.00
Total$10,025.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20079
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR MATH SOL GRANT
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 3141 61311 132100 Salaries$4,709.88
1 3141 61311 210000 FICA 360.31
Total$5,070.19
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 3141 33000 330212 Math SOL Grant$5,070.19
Total$5,070.19
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20080
FUND: EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS AND
SCHOOL-RELATED GRANTS MONUMENT
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 2115 61320 800700 ADP Equipment$949.00
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies90.00
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Dev 3,000.00
1 3126 63328 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,794.18
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Dev489.00
1 3310 61120 133100 P/T Wages-Nurse1,393.40
1 3310 61120 210000 FICA106.60
1 3116 63348 132100 Teacher Wages1,300.51
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA99.49
1 3139 60607 312500 Consultants26,974.00
1 3139 60607 580500 Staff Dev31,258.14
1 3139 60607 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies18,887.15
1 3002 63115 600200 Food Supplies 40,000.00
Total$126,341.47
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$1,039.00
2 3104 18000 181258 Golden Apple Award3,000.00
2 3126 51000 510100 Learn & Serve Grant1,794.18
2 3104 24000 240345 Virginia Commission of the Arts489.00
2 3310 18000 181246 Donation - Summer School1,500.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition - Adult Education1,400.00
2 3139 16000 161201 Revenue - Tuition490.00
2 3139 51000 510100 Appropriation-Fund Balance76,629.29
2 3002 16000 161247 AIMR Summer 40,000.00
Total$126,341.47
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendments. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 22, 2001.)
Ms. Roxanne White summarized the executive summary saying this proposed FY 02 Budget
>
amendment totals $393,586.00 as set out below:
ESTIMATED REVENUE
General Fund/Other Funds
Local Revenues$ 2,300.00
State Grant Revenues78,000.00
Federal Grant Revenues34,339.00
Transfer from School Fund11,447.00
Fund Balance 500.00
General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue$ 126,586.00
Education Funds
AIMR Summer Rental$ 167,500.00
State Grant Revenues 99,500.00
Education Funds Estimated Revenue$ 267,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE$ 393,586.00
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Operating Fund
Public Safety$ 126,086.00
Human Development 500.00
General Operating Expenditures$ 126,586.00
Education Operating Fund$ 267,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES$ 393,586.00
This budget amendment consists of five appropriations that will need approval subsequent to the
public hearing. A detailed description of these appropriations follows:
APPROPRIATION #2001-001, $74,700.00, Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant. This is the
fourth renewal of the Victim Witness Grant, an on-going program. This grant funds personnel and supplies
to provide quality service to victims particularly in the area of property crime. It also assists with
implementation of the Crime Victim Rights Act. The state grant totals $74,700.00. There is no local match.
APPROPRIATION #2001-002, $267,000.00, Reading Excellence Act Grant. The Virginia
Department of Education has awarded the Reading Excellence Act (REA) Grant in the amount of
$200,000.00 to Yancey Elementary School. The grant funding covers a period of two fiscal years. Funding
for the 2001-02 Fiscal Year is $99,500.00 and the 2002-03 Fiscal Year is $100,500.00. The REA Program
is focused upon training teachers to provide reading instruction that develops systematic phonetic decoding
and comprehension skills and learns to diagnose reading problems and apply specific early reading
intervention.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
AIMR Rental. During its April 12, 2001, meeting, the School Board approved a contract for
Albemarle County Food Services to provide catering services for the Association for Investment
Management and Research (AIMR) staff during the rental of Monticello High School. Some expenses for
food are incurred prior to the end of the current Fiscal Year. The remaining expenses will be incurred in FY
01-02.
>
APPROPRIATION #2001-003, $45,786.00, School Resource Officer Grant. An increase in the
presence of additional School Resource Officers at the middle school level has been identified by staff and
community members as an area of ongoing need. Funding for one officer has been procured by a Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services grant. The grant will be administered by the Police Department
and will cover 75 percent of salary and benefits. This is the third year of a three year renewable grant. The
position will be funded by a $34,339.00 grant and local match of $11,447.00. The local match will be
funded by the School Budget. Additional equipment, training, and other operational costs will be funded by
the Police Department budget. An additional appropriation is not required for other operational costs.
APPROPRIATION #2001-004, $1000.00, EMS For Children Grant. The Virginia EMS for Children
Program administered by the Virginia Commonwealth University has approved a mini-grant providing funds
to assist with a child passenger safety program. The mini-grant is funded by an $1000.00 Office of
Emergency Medical Services grant. There is no local match.
APPROPRIATION #2001-005, $4600.00. EMS Training Grant. The Virginia Office of EMS has
approved a mini-grant providing funds to assist with the purchase of a training manikin to be used by both
fire and rescue squads. The mini-grant is funded by a $2300.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services
grant. There is a $2300.00 local match that will be funded from current training appropriations. No
additional funds are required.
APPROPRIATION #2001-006, $500.00, Charlottesville-Albemarle Youth Summit 2001
Contribution. During its July 11, 2001, meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved a $500.00 contribution
to Youth Summit 2001, organized by Region Ten, MACAA, and Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries.
The purpose of the summit, scheduled for July 21, 2001, is to provide interactive workshops that will help
educate local teens and guide them forward into the future. No additional funds are required.
Subsequent to the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the FY 02 Budget in
>
the amount of $393,586.00, and approve Appropriations #2001-001, #2001-002, #2001-003, #2001-004,
#2001-005 and #2001-006 as detailed on the appropriation forms.
Ms. Thomas asked who gets the EMS grant. Ms. White said it is to be used by Fire/Rescue.
Ms. Thomas said this is the fourth year the County has received the Victim Witness grant. It
certainly is money that the County depends on. She asked if there would be any value in writing a letter to
the State. She said one gets nervous that they might want to give those funds to another locality next year.
She would be happy to sign such a letter. Ms. White said she will discuss a letter with Chief Miller.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to amend the FY 02 Budget in the
>
amount of $393,586.00 by adopting Resolutions of Appropriation #2001-001, #2001-002, #2001-003,
#2001-004, #2001-005 and #2001-006 as set out below. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-001
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VICTIM WITNESS GRANT
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1225 31012 110000 Salaries$52,011.00
1 1225 31012 210000 FICA3,979.00
1 1225 31012 221000 VRS-retirement4,338.00
1 1225 31012 231000 Health Insurance3,036.00
1 1225 31012 232000 Dental Insurance110.00
1 1225 31012 241000 VRS-life Insurance416.00
1 1225 31012 550000 Travel3,423.00
1 1225 31012 600100 Office Supplies 7,387.00
Total$74,700.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1225 24000 240500 State Grant$74,700.00
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Total$74,700.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-002
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REA GRANT AND AIMR PROGRAM
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 3213 61101 112100 Teacher Wages$45,000.00
1 3213 61101 210000 FICA3,442.50
1 3213 61101 220000 VRS4,891.50
1 3213 61101 230000 Health Ins3,225.00
1 3213 61101 232000 Dental120.00
1 3213 61101 241000 Life Ins360.00
1 3213 61101 312000 Other Prof Svcs3,800.00
1 3213 61101 580000 Misc Expense1,000.00
1 3213 61101 580500 Staff Dev14,000.00
1 3213 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies13,161.00
1 3213 61101 800100 Mach/Equip10,500.00
1 3002 63115 139320 P/T Wages-SP Events92,812.00
1 3002 63115 210000 FICA7,688.00
1 3002 63115 600000 Materials & Supplies8,375.00
1 3002 63115 600200 Food Supplies50,250.00
1 3002 63115 800100 Mach/Equip 8,375.00
Total$267,000.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 3213 33000 330204 REA Grant$99,500.00
2 3002 16000 161247 AIMR Summer 67,500.00
Total$267,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-003
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER GRANT
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1000 31013 110000 Salaries$36,755.00
1 1000 31013 210000 FICA2,812.00
1 1000 31013 221000 VRS-Retirement3,065.00
1 1000 31013 231000 Health Insurance2,760.00
1 1000 31013 232000 Dental Insurance100.00
1 1000 31013 241000 VRS-Life Insurance 294.00
Total$45,786.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1000 33000 330406 SRO Grant$34,339.00
2 1000 51000 510307 School Fund Transfer 11,447.00
Total$45,786.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-004
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF EMS CHILDREN GRANT
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1558 32015 601400 Operating Supplies$1,000.00
Total$1,000.00
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1558 24000 240415 EMS Grant$1,000.00
Total$1,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-005
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR TRAINING MANIKIN GRANT
Expenditure
CodeDescription Amount
1 1559 32012 601400 Operating Supplies$4,600.00
Total$4,600.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1559 24000 240415 EMS Grant$2,300.00
2 1559 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F 2,300.00
Total$4,600.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-006
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTION TO REGION X FOR YOUTH
SUMMIT
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1000 59000 560167 Youth Summit$500.00
Total$500.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance$500.00
Total$500.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. GASB 34 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34, Basic
A
Financial Statementsand Managements Discussion and Analysisfor State and Local Governments),
C=C@
Presentation by Jack Farmer.
Mr. Farmer said this new GASB Statement 34 will provide to all local governments, counties, towns,
and various boards and commissions in the United States a uniform way to present financial information
which is different from existing presentation. The only real question is the implementation date of the
standards. Depending on whether the entity is governmental or an enterprise will determine some of the
changes to be addressed.
Mr. Farmer said this project has been accumulating since 1989 when the Government Accounting
Standards were adopted. Basically, Statement 34 rewrote the accounting principles and revised the
reporting model for all the governmental units and entities he just mentioned. It creates the need for a
change in thinking and reading financial statements. Some of the changes will be more drastic than others.
Traditionally a lot of the information in the overall financial report will either disappear or be reported as
supplemental data if the Board wants to keep seeing that particular data.
Mr. Farmer said the main item is referred to as a government-wide financial statement. It will look
at the total entity, and not just a general fund, a special revenue fund, or debt service or capital projects. It
will include everything in one coffer. The concept that went into place was to look at governmental in a
business context. With that in mind, they came up with several different statements. One of the primary
statements is a statement of Net Assets which looks at everything on a full accrual basis of accounting.
A@
Mr. Farmer said there is another new issue to deal with. In the past in the coffer, there was a letter
of transmittal giving an overview of financial operations. Today, there will also be the transmittal letter and
what is being called a MD&A (Managements Discussion and Analysis). It takes the approach being used
=
today in the business sector. Government-wide reporting looked at the County as a total entity with
everything consolidated and merged into one overview. Infrastructure assets will have to be included. In
most cases it will not affect counties as much as it does cities and towns who are responsible for their
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
infrastructure. He said the auditors will have to go through and ask several questions to determine who is
responsible for maintenance of these assets. If maintenance falls on the County as an expenditure, then it
will probably be capitalized and reflected on the Countys assets.
=
Mr. Dorrier asked if this will require the County to find more hidden assets than it has in the past.
Mr. Farmer said there will have to be a thorough examination of the Countys assets, but the primary focus
=
will deal with infrastructure more than just the general assets of the County on which there is already a
good inventory and good accounting.
Mr. Farmer said that traditionally there are enterprise funds which are water and sewer operations,
or other user-fee based, proprietary type operations which are restricted. They will have to be reported in a
particular way. Fiduciary and internal funds as presently known will no longer be seen. Elimination of
general long-term account groups and general fixed asset account groups will no longer be applicable.
They will be incorporated as part of the net assets.
Mr. Farmer said a key point of budgetary reporting is that budgetary comparison schedules will be
required showing the original and final budget and actual amounts on the budgetary basis. They feel it
enhances the reader to know what changes occurred during the course of the year.
Mr. Farmer said he would like to discuss Management Discussion and Analysis for a few minutes.
A@
If one does not get into the financial statements, this will give a good overview of the entire operation of the
County. It is required to be presented as supplemental information and it is listed before the basic financial
statements. It looks at the net assets, but is not intended to be a duplication of what is in the letter of
transmittal, but they do want some financial comparisons.
Mr. Farmer said in the past accounting has been on the Modified Accrual Basis of accounting. It
means that the audit deals with expenditures mainly focusing on what is available to liquidate current
liabilities. Now, accounting will be on a full accrual basis and the term expenditure is not used, but the term
is now expense. It is far more comprehensive, and in the future the statements will show commercial
A@
accounting, fixed assets and depreciation.
Mr. Farmer said in looking at the implementation dates, Albemarle County is one of the first
localities by virtue of its revenue stream to implement this model. Infrastructure is not supposed to come on
line until the subsequent three-year period. He has always felt there is a need for only one basis of
accounting, and if something is going to be done, it should be done at the same time. He is an optimist, and
believes that on June 30 at midnight, the omnibus statement will be suspended, and it will all be done at
one time in 2005. While the auditors know what their responsibilities are, all of the rules are not in place.
He thinks that in order to comply, they need to know their requirements, and how to write their opinions. He
said the way the County conducts its day-to-day operations will not change. The County will continue to
conduct its business as it has and will continue to make supplemental appropriations and revenue
modifications based on grant awards. There are many issues which should be looked at and which cannot
be changed from a full accrual basis of accounting. There is a belief that this will enhance everybodys
=
understanding in looking at how wealthy a locality is, or how deficient it is. Everybody knows assets are
funded on an as-needed basis. Reserves are made and restrictions are put on cash flow. This new
statement will have depreciation incorporated into it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the public will look at depreciation and think that money is being spent. Mr.
Farmer said he does not know how the public will perceive it. He knows a financial advisor would have a
different interpretation from a taxpayer. A taxpayer will focus on expenses. Ms. Thomas said they might
think that assets (things like roads) are something that can be sold.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board will decide at some point if accounting goes to the modified form.
Mr. Farmer said no. It is already in place under the standards today. Ms. Thomas said she thought there
A@
were alternatives and the Board would make the selection. Mr. Farmer said there are two reporting models
in the financial statements. There will still be the current modified basis as a set of financials in the
comprehensive statements. Then, in addition, there will be the new statements. The Board will have two
sets of financial statements within one financial report. That has been his issue, and he argued with them
for ten years, but he lost.
Mr. Bowerman asked how this will affect borrowing. Mr. Farmer said it is called economic
A
resource measurement. It will become a liability. If the County is expending debt for operations, and not
@
developing fixed assets or projects, anything long-term which would affect the asset side will affect the net
asset. Debt as seen today will roll over as a long-term liability in determining that net asset. When this
years financial statements are finished, they want to have a trial run using 2001 information and see how
=A@
the 2002 financial statements will look.
Mr. Dorrier said a clear distinction is being made between the operating budget and the capital
budget. Mr. Farmer said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said she thought the Board needed to be concerned about the modified approach
because it is stated that government may be able to avoid the requirement by using the modified
A
approach. Mr. Farmer said the modified approach deals with infrastructure assets. That is all that it deals
@
with. Ms. Thomas said it is also stated that preservation costs are used in lieu of depreciation. She
A@
thought that sounded like a good proposal. She did not know if that is a choice. Mr. Farmer said it is if
there are infrastructure assets. If the County has infrastructure assets, it can either depreciate the
infrastructure, or take the modified approach which is based on a maintenance concept. Ms. Thomas
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
asked if the Board will be able to decide which to do. Mr. Farmer said yes.
A@
Mr. Bowerman asked if infrastructure is carried on the books at cost minus depreciation. Mr.
Farmer said at the current time it is, with the exception of investments which are now being carried at fair
market value. Mr. Bowerman said that under this system, there will be buildings with no value. Ms.
Thomas said that is why she felt it made more sense to talk about their preservation costs rather than
depreciation. Depreciation of public assets is not the same thing as it is for business. Mr. Farmer said that
is referring to infrastructure. Maybe they truly are liabilities and not assets, but it was felt that they do have
value. The threshold for fixed assets is important in deciding at what point an item is considered a fixed
asset.
Mr. Farmer showed a sample Statement of Net Assets and explained how to read the statement.
He said the traditional financial statements have shown the various funds, but everything on these new
statements will be rolled into one governmental activity. The County now has 140 funds, and all of those
will be compressed into one column. That is why the existing financial system is so important. The Board
needs that system to make its decisions, and to understand day-to-day operations. From a reporting model
standpoint, that will all be gone. All liabilities are also set out. In the past there was a total called a fund
balance. Now, it will be called net assets which are classified in three pieces: capital projects, debt service,
and unrestricted. The whole terminology will change.
Mr. Perkins asked if there will no longer be a balance sheet. Mr. Farmer said there will not be one
in this statement. In the traditional modified statement there will be a balance sheet. He said it will take all
the funds and meld them into one type.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there will be a prohibition against transferring funds from one fund to the other.
Mr. Farmer said there can be activity between funds as there always has been. What is being looked at is
a reporting model. It is not an operational model. The Board needs to understand from a reporting
standpoint what has been traditional. This will not change the internal reporting financial systems, or the
way that business is done day-to-day. This is a change in how and what is reported to the government.
Mr. Martin said he believes this is a way to report to the auditors. It sounds as though there will still
be a report to the public and to the Board, the old fashioned way. This is just a new way for the
accountants/auditors to report to each other. Mr. Farmer said there was a long study of many people
consisting of investment bankers, financial analysts, rating agencies, who said this was what they were
looking for in determining the underlying values and abilities of an entity. They are saying that nowhere can
they glean what may be the net worth of a locality.
Mr. Bowerman asked where citizens equity is shown. Mr. Farmer said that term is synonymous with
net assets. That would be the net value which is synonymous with business retained earnings.
Mr. Farmer said there will be one other column on the statement of net assets called component
A
units which will primarily be the schools. A lot of the information which was in the financial statements
@
about the schools will be consolidated in this type of financial statement. He thinks that in the future, the
schools will want more reporting out of the internal financial system, or a set of their own financial
statements.
Mr. Farmer said there is a Statement of Activities which is a very different statement. Traditionally,
A@
for business this statement would be an income statement. This statement emphasizes revenues for
providing services so an entirely different approach is taken as to the cost of services. Mr. Farmer said he is
not sure how long it will take to do a set of financial statements, although he has some theories. You have
to look at something and ask whether it materially affects thinking, and ask if there will be a cost-benefit to
generating this number that nobody will look at. He does not know what the true benefits of this change will
be; to this point it has only been examined by finance people, auditors, accountants, etc. It has been
mandated to them that this is what is needed. Their peers have listened and are starting to deal with the
change. He does not know of any boards, councils or commissions who have questioned the cost to
generate the information. He thinks it will take several years to generate this information and to analyze it.
Going back to the publics net worth, he does not see that the public will glean any useful information from
=
this change.
Mr. Farmer said there are some hand-outs which were written by GFOA for elected officials. Board
members need to read this information in order to become knowledgeable about what is taking place.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the statement will show cash in the bank and the worth of assets. Mr. Farmer
said no. It deals purely with net assets.
A@
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could write a letter expressing concern about this change. Mr.
Farmer said he thinks it would be good for them to hear how the governing body is reacting to the benefits
to be derived from this change. He made a proposal to Mr. Breeden but it is only what he thinks will be
associated with the change. He does not think the Board will use the statement.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Breeden if this change will help the rating for bonds. Mr. Melvin Breeden,
Director of Finance, said the financial rating institutions think this will bring them the information they want.
They think that if the statements are in more of a business format, they will be able to make comparisons
easier. Mr. Martin said it sounds as if that is the only purpose for the change.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bowerman said it doesnt make any sense to him. He said if the benefits to be derived from this
=
change are not obvious to the Board members, and they are not for the publics benefit, who will reap the
=
benefits? Mr. Breeden said it is difficult to evaluate its benefits at this point. It definitely creates more work
for the Finance Department, and for the auditing firm. He thinks it will be a couple of years before deciding
if it is more beneficial than the present system to the public. He said that even with this change, the public
will still get the same reports as in the past. These are just additional reports. There is a reconciliation of
the reports, but it is a very confusing document. Unless someone is an accountant, he probably will not
understand the information.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Breeden could write a letter for the Board expressing their concerns.
Mr. Breeden said he will attempt to do so. Mr. Farmer suggested waiting to see what the benefits are first.
Mr. Robert Walters, Chief of Administration and Taxation, distributed a publication addressed to
elected officials which might help Board members understand this change.
Mr. Farmer said he wanted to give the Board an overview of what is taking place in the profession.
He said there are many unanswered questions at this time. The major question is the true benefit, and
what does this give to the public that has not been seen before. If someone wants to know the depreciation
on an asset, there is a fixed asset accounting system today but no depreciation system in place. That is
something that needs to be done.
Ms. Thomas asked the value of depreciation to the non-accountant citizen who simply wants to
know if government is taking care of the schools and offices necessary to provide the service the public
wants. Mr. Farmer said that is all based on cash flow. Ms. Thomas said depreciation is useful to the
business person who wants to depreciate his assets away, but that is the opposite of what government is
supposed to do. Mr. Farmer said when looking at governmental assets, people look at the cornerstones,
and look at how long they have been in place. The issue has been with the preservation of those assets.
Once the government meets that commitment, and has provided the cash flows to service the debt or
whatever it may be, the governments responsibility is maintenance.
=
Mr. Farmer asked that the Board members read the elected officials guide. He offered to work with
County staff in developing a response for the Boards review. He said it is important that the Board know
=
why everything in the statement is being required. There is a large amount of the public who are not being
heard. He has not been in agreement with many of the issues brought up during this process. He has
pleaded that the benefits be measured against the cost.
Mr. Dorrier asked the timetable on this change. Mr. Farmer said for Albemarle County June, 2002,
is its first financial statement.
Ms. Thomas asked how much additional manpower will be required. Mr. Breeden said the
department is very understaffed at this time, so he has no answer to that question. However, he does not
think that for day-to-day operations it will require a lot more staffing, but it will impact the financial report at
the end of the year and will require paying some additional outside fees.
Mr. Bowerman said if a benefit could be pinned down, it would be easier to explain. Mr. Breeden
said he thinks that will be difficult to do.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the budget should be understandable to the public. She just does not
see how this will help the public at all. Mr. Breeden said there are some good parts. The Statement of
Activities shows the total cost of a department such as Inspections or Planning versus the revenues being
produced, so the number of tax dollars supporting that activity are known. Combining the financial report
and rolling everything together will be questionable.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Farmer for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Preddy Creek, Update on.
Mr. Tucker said at the Boards last meeting, Mr. Martin asked for an update on what has been
=
happening with a proposed sewage treatment plant on either Preddy Creek (very close to Albemarle
Countys Preddy Creek property in the Rivanna watershed), or on White Run which is in the Rapidan
=
watershed. Since that time, staff has found that Greene County is focusing more on the White Run area.
That would drain away from Preddy Creek. It is more costly for them to build a plant there, but it provides
them with more area for growth. He said Mr. David Hirschman has determined that there would be a
negative impact on the Countys Preddy Creek property because the plant would be very close to that
=
property. He has talked with the Greene County Administrator who has indicated that they are focusing
more on White Run. Greene is expected to take some action on this question about August 14. He
suggested that a letter be drafted for the Chairmans signature explaining the Countys concerns about the
==
Preddy Creek site.
Mr. Martin said since Greene has moved to consider a different site, he believes that writing a letter
is all the Board can do.
Mr. Hirschman said Albemarle County owns 500+ acres on Preddy Creek. Some of the property is
also in both Greene and Orange counties. Originally the property was purchased for a water supply, and
was discussed as a replacement for Chris Greene Lake if at some point in the future it needed to be used
for a water supply. This proposed wastewater treatment plant would eliminate both of those uses, primary
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
contact recreation and water supply because neither of those things can be done directly downstream from
wastewater discharge. However, those uses are probably becoming less feasible each year because
Greene Countys whole growth zone drains through that basin. The wastewater was the major concern, but
=
the land use trends which are happening in Greene County will cause Albemarle to think about what this
property is being held in trust to accomplish. This is just the way geography works, and Albemarle will
inherit the effects of that urbanization down Preddy Creek. Neither a water supply or a swimming lake will
be good future uses for that property.
Ms. Thomas said she thought that in the Comprehensive Plan it is recommended for passive
nature study use which fits what Mr. Hirschman is suggesting. She said it has been found that the source of
E-coli in Moores Creek is coming from geese. Mr. Tucker said staff can attest to that fact at some of the
Countys lakes.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: March 21 (A), April 18, April 25, May 2, May 9, May 16
and June 6, 2001.
Mr. Perkins had read May 9, 2001, Pages 1 through 27, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read May 16, 2001, and June 6, 2001, Pages 18 through 36, and found them to be
in order.
Ms. Humphris had read May 2, 2001, Pages 1 through 30, and June 6, 2001, Pages 37 through 54.
She had found numerous typographical errors and handed to the clerk a list of such errors. There were no
minute book corrections noted.
Motion to approve those minutes which had been read was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded
by Mr. Bowerman, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Humphris said she went to Petersburg on June 23, 2001, to be part of a focus group on the
Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement. Localities are facing other unfunded mandates, and there were people
present representing many of the localities which will be affected. Now, counties west of I-95 will be
affected. Everybody at the meeting asked for money and technical help. A report will be forthcoming soon.
__________
Ms. Humphris said the initial meeting of the new Commission on Growth and Economic
Development (which is very important to the High Growth Coalition) is meeting today in Richmond. She
said the HGC has an advisory committee to that Coalition, and Ms. Thomas is a reserve member. They
have been discussing what role the HGCs subcommittee will be allowed to play in giving advice to this
=
major commission. Most of the work that will be done between the building community and HGC will likely
take place in the work of this commission and not in the upcoming General Assembly Session. Therefore,
the Coalition needs to be highly active in the work of this Commission. She has heard that the building
community is not willing to work with the HGC at this time. There was a discussion of having a lobbyist to
work with the Commission on the behalf of the HGC, cost and who would pay for it. As far as she knows,
nothing has been decided about that question.
__________
Mr. Martin said he has met with Mr. David Toscano and staff on two occasions to discuss the Courts
Study. They are making fast progress and hopefully it will end up saving the localities a lot of money.
__________
Ms. Thomas said continuing with her international report, the Citys Sister City is Poggio a Caiano,
=>
Italy. That is where the high school students went, but Prato is the name of the County surrounding that city
and is also the name of a big city. Prato was paired with Albemarle back in 1976 because their populations
were about equal. But, that city never had much interest in this exchange program. Officials from Poggio a
>
Caiano are coming to visit in March. March 29 is when the McGuffey Art Center is going to have an opening
of art from both of those localities. Their visit is being timed for that opening because it is their Easter break.
She said the Board needs to form a working group to decide how to meet with this group which has an
interest in a student exchange, and also in stimulating tourism and appreciation of their products which
includes some advanced textile technology, their wines and figs and olives. There could be as many as 40
people involved. She had to respond so she wrote a letter saying the County has enjoyed visits in the past,
and to keep her informed as their plans develop. She hand-delivered the letter to the Charlottesville Mayor.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Radio Station WINA wants to broadcast the Boards meetings live. Mr. Tucker
=
said he was surprised when the offer was made because he cannot imagine how they will use it. Mr. Martin
said he sees nothing wrong with the request.
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Humphris said it was her thought that WINA will not have a person present at the meetings, but
will only feed it into the station and use it at another time. She said that would do away with having a person
present to interview people on specific subjects. Sad to say, WINA is the only accurate news outlet for local
news, but it is going downhill in regard to local news. She listens to that station when she is in the car in the
morning, and the news is not what it used to be. Mr. Martin agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said without video, it would be hard for anyone to know who is talking. Ms.
Humphris said that is why she does not believe they need to put it on the radio. Ms. Thomas suggested
finding out more about the request. She said all the Board members have been in favor of letting the public
know more about what it does.
Mr. Tucker said there would be no cost to the County for this proposal. He thinks they should be
requested to come and make a formal request for the Board to consider.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she was away on vacation, and almost immediately when she got home, a
reporter from the Washington Post called to ask her to talk about Monticello's viewshed. Then he asked
about Martha Jefferson Hospital moving to Pantops. She had not heard that announcement, but soon read
it in the newspaper. She thinks the County needs to gets organized if there is going to be something that
major on Pantops. She has a copy of Jim Bryans report and VDOT is talking with County staff and the
=
applicant about the Martha Jefferson move.
Mr. Dorrier said that move is not supposed to occur for five years. Ms. Thomas said it takes the
County at least five years to get itself organized. She asked when it is to be decided as to which areas will
get the master planning done for DISC.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to decide which areas should be done first. Ms. Thomas said the
people in Crozet want their area to be first. There is the lack of parallel roads on Route 29 North. That
means that there is a need to work on the Hollymead area. Now, this proposal is coming faster.
Mr. Martin said even with Martha Jefferson Hospital moving into Peter Jefferson Place it should not
necessarily put the Pantops area ahead of Hollymead and Crozet. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it will get to
the point where one area cannot be chosen over the other; all areas will have to be done. A cost for this
work has to be determined because it will require consultant help.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:50 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman 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; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation and
other specific legal matters relating to the Ivy landfill; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to a breach of contract. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. At 3:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
=
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Mr. Martin offered motion to:
Appoint Mr. Jameson Gibson, Jr. to the Historic Preservation Committee with said term to run from
August 1, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
August 1, 2001, with no term expiration date.
Appoint Ms. Ashley G. Young to serve as youth appointee to the Commission on Children and
Families, with said term to run from August 1, 2001, to June 30, 2003; she replaces Ms. Happy Darcus.
Reappoint Mr. J. Walter Levering to the Workforce Investment Board with said term to run from
June 4, 2001, to June 3, 2004.
Mr. Perkins offered motion to:
Appoint Mr. Joe Jones to serve as the County citizen representative on the Shenandoah National
Park Advisory Committee effective immediately with no term expiration date.
The motions were seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker asked the Board to appoint Ms. Roxanne White to serve as Deputy
County Executive in his absence.
Motion to this effect was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, and passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to August 8, 2001, 5:30 p.m.
With no further business to come before the Board, at 3:40 p.m., motion was offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adjourn until August 8, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room .
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/17/2001
Initials: LAB