2002-03-06March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 6,
2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no one present who wished to speak at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas said if it were not for people who open their buildings to an influx of citizens on Election
Day, there would be no elections. The County has a debt of gratitude to organizations and entities who do
that. The Board has never presented anything to these people to express its gratitude, so today she wishes
to do so, as well as welcome some new entities who have opened their buildings for this purpose.
Ms. Jackie Harris, Registrar, said she would like to add her deep gratitude for these people.
Without them, the process would not be possible. She thanked them on behalf of herself and the
Albemarle County Electoral Board.
Ms. Thomas called out the following names and presented certificates of appreciation to: Berean
Baptist Church; Bethel Baptist Church; Elks Lodge No. 389; Free Union Baptist Church; Kappa Sigma;
Northside Community Fellowship Church; The Senior Center; Union Grove Baptist Church; and UVA
Facilities Coordinator-University Hall.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Martin said he would like to pull Items 6.3 and 6.4 and
have a short discussion of these items during discussion of Transportation Matters. Ms. Thomas said Item
6.5 is also a transportation related item, concerning the Revenue Sharing Program.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 6.1, 6.2 and 6.5 through 6.8, to move Items 6.3
and 6.4 to Agenda Item No. 9b, and to accept Items 6.9 through 6.11 for information. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins (Mr. Perkins voted nay for Item 6.5 because he does not think local tax
dollars should be used to build roads), Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Proclamation recognizing the Virginia Festival of the Book.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following proclamation
proclaiming March 20 through March 24, 2002, as the eighth annual Virginia Festival of the Book:
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over
1,000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA
FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE
BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the
country;
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
Wednesday, March 20, 2002, through Sunday, March 24, 2002, as the
eighth annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide
range of available events and activities.
__________
Item 6.2. Ordinance Approving the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association Joint
Powers Association Agreement; and Providing for the Effective Date of This Ordinance. (Public notice of
this matter was published in the Daily Progress on February 18, 2002.)
It was noted in the staffs report that the County has been participating in a pilot program involving
=
the competitive procurement of electrical energy developed by a steering committee composed of
representatives from the Virginia Municipal League, Virginia Association of Counties and Virginia Power.
The steering committee has proposed significant changes in the structure of its operations in response to
energy deregulation in Virginia. One of those changes is that the Virginia Energy Purchasing
A
Governmental Association (VEPGA) is forming effective March 1, 2002, and will be assuming the
@A@
functions historically provided by the Steering Committee, including negotiations with Virginia Power for
distribution rates and terms and conditions of service and other functions.
The new Agreement would effectuate the joint purchase of electrical power generation services
through a joint powers association consisting of local governmental entities. The goal of the program is to
obtain the greatest savings for the participating localities. VML/VACo recommends participation for two
principal reasons: (1) should deregulation result in the opportunity for savings, large volume consumers
are likely to realize the greatest cost savings; and, (2) as deregulation evolves, local governments will be
required to competitively procure electric generation, and participation in a joint procurement may be much
more economical.
Virginia Code 15.2-1300 requires that the County approve a joint powers agreement by
'
ordinance. VML/VACo developed both the agreement and the ordinance, and staff recommends approval
of both and authorization for the County Executive to execute and deliver the agreement to VML/VACo.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Ordinance approving
the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association Joint Powers Association Agreement and
providing for the effective date of the ordinance; and, also authorized the County Executive to
execute the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association Joint Powers Association
Agreement dated as of March 1, 2002, and then to deliver same to the Virginia Municipal
League/Virginia Association of Counties:
ORDINANCE NO. 02-A(1)
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE VIRGINIA ENERGY PURCHASING
GOVERNMENTAL ASSOCIATION JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT; and
PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the VML/VACo Virginia Power Steering Committee (the
"Committee"), composed of representatives of the County of Albemarle and other
political subdivisions and municipalities of the Commonwealth, has for over several
decades negotiated on behalf of such governmental units a standard form contract for
their purchase of electricity supply and delivery service from Virginia Power as a sole
source provider; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1300, et seq. of the Virginia Code (the "Joint Powers
Act") authorizes political subdivisions to exercise jointly powers they otherwise are
authorized to exercise independently, under the terms and conditions set forth in the Joint
Powers Act; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act (the "Restructuring Act")
further authorizes counties and other political subdivisions in the Commonwealth to
aggregate their electricity supply requirements for the purpose of their joint purchase of
such requirements from licensed suppliers, and the Restructuring Act provides that such
aggregation shall not require licensure; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "Procurement Act")
exempts from its competitive sealed bidding and competitive negotiation requirements
(the "Requirements") the joint procurement by public bodies, utilizing competitive
principles, of electric utility services purchased through member associations under the
conditions set forth in the Procurement Act; and
WHEREAS, the Committee recommends that the aggregation and procurement
of electric supply, electric delivery and other energy-related services (Energy Services)
A@
be effectuated as provided in the Joint Powers Association Agreement, a copy of which is
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
attached to and made part of this Ordinance (the Joint Powers Agreement), in
A@
accordance with applicable provisions of the Procurement Act, such as utilization of
competitive principles pursuant to an exemption from the Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Committee further recommends that the other services provided
by the Committee to its members be effectuated as provided in the Joint Powers
Agreement, with such services consisting of (i) assistance in implementing standard form
contracts for the purchase of services from incumbent electricity utilities; (ii) education of
members regarding electricity procurement issues; (iii) monitoring of legal and regulatory
developments affecting the provision of electricity service to local governments; and (iv)
hiring of consultants and legal counsel to assist in its provision of the foregoing services
("Steering Committee Services"); and
WHEREAS, it appearing to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle
(the "County") that the joint procurement of the Energy Services and provision of Steering
Committee Services pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement is in the best interests of
the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED that:
(1) Competitive sealed bidding and competitive negotiation for the
procurement of Energy Services are not fiscally advantageous to the public because the
procurement process for Energy Services must be flexible enough to respond to quickly
changing market conditions in which energy prices can fluctuate considerably on a daily
or even hourly basis.
(2) The aggregation and joint procurement of the Energy Services and the
provision of Steering Committee Services pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement are
hereby authorized and approved.
(3) The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver the Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the County of Albemarle in substantially
the form presented to this meeting.
(4) The payment obligations of the County of Albemarle pursuant to the
provisions hereof and the Joint Powers Agreement shall be subject to annual
appropriation of requisite funds by the Board of Supervisors.
(5) This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
___
VIRGINIA ENERGY PURCHASING GOVERNMENTAL ASSOCIATION
JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT
Dated as of March 1, 2002
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), is made and entered into by and among the
local governments and other political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia which
are signatories hereto (each a "Member" and, collectively, the "Members"), effective as of
March 1, 2002, for certain signatories or such later effective date for other signatories as
set forth on such signatories' execution page.
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, each Member is authorized by law to acquire electricity supply,
electricity delivery, and other energy-related services ("Energy Services") as necessary or
appropriate for the operation of its respective public facilities; and
WHEREAS, political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia are
authorized under the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Code") to exercise jointly
powers that they otherwise are authorized to exercise independently, and such
authorization is currently set forth in sections 15.2-1300, et seq. of the Code, which
provide that any power, privilege or authority exercised or capable of being exercised by a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia may be exercised and enjoyed
jointly with any other political subdivision of the Commonwealth having a similar power,
privilege or authority except where express statutory procedure is otherwise provided for
the joint enterprise; and
WHEREAS, Code sections 15.2-1300, et seq. authorize two or more political
subdivisions to enter into agreements with one another for such joint action and to
appropriate funds and sell, lease, give or otherwise supply such property, personnel or
services therefor as may be within their legal power to furnish; and
WHEREAS, the Members, pursuant to the authority granted in Code sections
15.2-1300, et seq. or such similar authority as may from time to time be authorized under
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
the Code, desire to create a joint powers association and associate as members
hereunder with the assistance of the Consultant and Counsel (identified below) for the
purposes, among other things, of promoting the interest and welfare of the Members, and
developing a closer relation among them, all as hereinafter more particularly set forth;
and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "Procurement Act")
exempts from its competitive sealed bidding and competitive negotiation requirements
(the "Requirements") the joint procurement by public bodies, utilizing competitive
principles, of electric utility services purchased through member associations under the
conditions set forth in the Procurement Act;
WHEREAS, the Virginia Power Steering Committee of the Virginia Municipal
League and the Virginia Association of Counties (the "Committee"), which is composed of
representatives of local governments and other political subdivisions of the
Commonwealth purchasing energy from Virginia Electric and Power Company, d/b/a
Dominion Virginia Power ("Virginia Power"), has (i) for several decades assisted such
governmental bodies in connection with the negotiation of standard form contracts with
Virginia Power for the purchase of electric utility services, including electric supply,
distribution and transmission, and ancillary services, (ii) provided assistance in
implementing such contracts, (iii) helped educate its members regarding electricity
procurement issues, (iv) monitored legal and regulatory developments affecting the
provision of electricity service to local governments, and (v) has hired consultants and
legal counsel to assist in its provisions of the foregoing services ("Steering Committee
Services").
WHEREAS, the Committee recommends that the aggregation and procurement
of Energy Services be effectuated in compliance with applicable provisions of the
Procurement Act, such as the utilization of competitive principles pursuant to an
exemption from the Requirements, and the Committee also recommends that the
Steering Committee Services be undertaken by the same entity that arranges for the
procurement of the Energy Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the undertakings
hereinafter stated, the Members agree as follows:
1. Name. The undertaking of the Members hereunder shall be named and
designated as the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association (hereinafter
"VEPGA").
2. Term of the Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective for the
period commencing on the date set forth above (with each Member to adopt the
Agreement on or after such commencement date) and shall terminate upon the earlier of
(a) a unanimous vote of all the remaining Members or (b) when the membership has
decreased to one Member. Upon such termination, any property owned by VEPGA (or
the proceeds from the sale of such property) shall be distributed to each remaining
Member in accordance with VEPGA's bylaws, as such bylaws may be amended from
time to time by the board governing VEPGA (the "Bylaws").
3. Purpose of the Agreement. The Members enter into this Agreement
for the purpose of acting jointly to promote their interests and welfare and to promote the
interest and welfare of, and develop close relationships with, similar public bodies. This
promotion and development shall consist of the purchase of one or more components of
the Energy Services on an aggregated basis and also the provision of Steering
Committee Services. VEPGA shall be the Members' agent regarding the purchase of
Energy Services, which shall be done in the manner specified in the Bylaws. Each
Member agrees, subject, however, to annual appropriation, (a) to purchase its respective
share of the Energy Services for any of its accounts that have been selected by one or
more supplier(s) chosen by VEPGA to service such accounts and to pay the rate for such
accounts negotiated in the procurement process for the one or more components of the
Energy Services, and (b) to pay its pro rata share of the budget or the membership fees
as hereinafter set forth.
4. Governance.
(a) The Board. VEPGA shall be governed by a Board (the "Board")
that shall initially consist of the individuals listed on Schedule A of this Agreement and
thereafter members of the Board shall be elected by the Members in accordance with the
Bylaws. The size of the Board may be increased or decreased in accordance with the
Bylaws. The Board shall have power to decide all matters relating to VEPGA's activities
and operations.
(b) Meetings of the Board. The Board shall meet at such times and
places as shall be designated in the Bylaws.
(c) Officers of the Board. Paul Proto is hereby designated as the
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
initial Chair of the Board, Steve Sinclair is hereby designated as its initial Vice-Chair and
Steve Craig is hereby designated as its initial Secretary/Treasurer. These officers and
any other officers elected in accordance with the Bylaws shall serve until the earlier of the
submission of such officer's resignation or such officer's removal and the election of a
successor by the Board. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Board, except that
in the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair or another Member of the Board shall preside.
Vacancies in such offices may be filled by the Board at any meeting.
(d) Quorum for the Board. A majority of board members shall
constitute a quorum for any Board meeting. The size of a quorum may be increased or
decreased in accordance with the Bylaws.
(e) Actions by the Board. All matters for action by the Board may
be adopted upon the affirmative vote of Board members voting at a meeting where a
quorum is present, or otherwise as may be specified in this Agreement or in the Bylaws.
(f) Quorum for Members. The lesser of (i) a simple majority of the
Members or (ii) eight Members shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the
Members. The size of a quorum may be increased or decreased in accordance with the
Bylaws.
(g) Bylaws. The initial Bylaws are set forth in Schedule B to this
Agreement. The Bylaws may be amended upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all
the Board members or upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the Members.
5. Budget of the Association.
(a) The Board shall establish a budget for VEPGA with funding by
the Members based upon a pro rata share of the budget or, if applicable and approved
by the Board, a minimum membership fee. Such pro rata shares and minimum fees
shall be assessed on an annual basis except that, under extraordinary and unantici-pated
circumstances, the Board may assess a pro rata share and minimum fee more than once
a year. The pro rata share will be based upon each Member's energy consumption or
upon such other equitable method of funding as may be determined from time to time by
the Board.
(b) VEPGA shall not create or incur any liability for the Members,
jointly or severally, other than and subject to annual appropriation, (i) the costs incurred
by any Member in paying its portion of the Energy Services in accordance with contracts
signed by the Chair or Vice-Chair on behalf of VEPGA as the Member's agent or (ii) the
pro rata share of the budget or the membership fees imposed for a Member's
participation in VEPGA. No Member shall be liable or responsible for any payments
owed under any contracts for any portion of the Energy Services purchased by any other
Member.
6. Withdrawal of Members. A Member may withdraw from VEPGA
effective July 1 of any calendar year if written notice has been given to VEPGA by March
1 of that calendar year; provided, however, that any accounts of a withdrawing Member
that are participating in any contract awarded by VEPGA shall continue to participate in
such contract until such contract has expired or has been terminated in accordance with
the terms of such contract. Any other methods of withdrawing from VEPGA shall be set
forth in the Bylaws.
7. Execution of Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed by
the Members in multiple original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument.
WITNESS the following signatures, effective as of the date set forth underneath
each signature.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Title: County Executive
Effective Date: March 6, 2002
__________
Item 6.3. Update on Routes 22 and 231 Through Truck Restriction and Origin and Destination
Study Request.
It was noted in the staffs report that on April 4, 2001, the Board formally requested VDOT to
=
conduct a thorough Origin-Destination study of truck traffic along Routes 22/231. VDOT responded to the
County's request for an Origin-Destination study by sending a copy of a statewide Origin-Destination study
conducted in 1999. Staff does not find this report acceptable because it does not include a 24-hour truck
observation and does not contain sufficient data to determine whether trucks are using these two routes.
Staff believes a thorough Origin-Destination Study by VDOT is needed to consider restricting through trucks
on Routes 22/231.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Staff has been informed by the local Resident Engineer that on December 10, 2001, the
Gordonsville Town Council adopted a resolution to remove through truck traffic from Main Street (Routes
15/33) and to make High Street the through truck route. The Town Council also requested that VDOT
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of removing all through trucks from Main Street and High Street
and make Route 231 South to Klockner Road (Route 860) and back to Routes 15/33 south of Gordonsville
the through truck route.
Staff continues to recommend that VDOT conduct a thorough Origin- Destination study that will
focus on the Routes 22/231 corridor. In the interim, staff has identified several immediate steps that could
improve the safety for all vehicles traveling these routes. The steps identified are as follows, and staff
recommends implementation of same: periodic selective speed enforcement by the Albemarle County
Police Department, letters to trucking companies signed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
requesting that they voluntary restrict their use of Routes 22/231, and, VDOT reduction of the speed limit.
These are similar measures the County has taken in other areas with truck traffic concerns, particularly in
the Earlysville area (Route 743).
This item was pulled to be discussed under Agenda Item No. 9b, Other Transportation
Matters.
__________
Item 6.4. Proffit Road Through Truck Restriction between Route 20 and Route 29.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Jefferson Village Homeowners Association, Lanford Hills
=
Homeowners Association, Meadowfields Homeowners Association, Pritchett Lane Homeowners
Association, Proffit Community Association, and residents of Chesterfield, Forest Ridge and Terrybrook
Subdivisions have requested that the Board restrict through trucks on Proffit Road (Route 649) between
Route 20 and Route 29 North.
The residents submitted a petition with 348 signatures signing in support of a through truck
restriction. This represents a majority of the persons currently residing along the proposed route. They
requested the restriction because they believe the road was not designed to handle its current level of traffic
and is unsafe. In their submission, they indicated that Proffit Road has blind curves, poor banking, narrow
traffic lanes and shallow building setbacks. They propose Route 649 between Route 20 and Route 29
North as terminus points. Staff recommends that the Board direct it to conduct the VDOT required analysis
of this request using VDOT criteria. The results of the analysis will be presented at a future Board meeting,
at which time the Board can determine if a public hearing should be held.
This item was pulled to be discussed under Agenda Item No. 9b, Other Transportation
Matters.
__________
Item 6.5. County participation in VDOTs FY 2002-03 Revenue Sharing Program.
=
It was noted in the staffs report that VDOTs Revenue Sharing Program provides an opportunity for
==
the County to receive up to an additional $500,000 for road improvements. The Program requires a dollar-
for-dollar match by the County. The result is a total commitment of up to $1.0 million toward improvements
to the local road system. The Countys match is allocated in its Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The
=
County has participated in this program since 1988.
Staff recommends that the County participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2002-03 by
requesting a total of $500,000 (to be matched with available County CIP funds) for James River Road (from
Route 795 to Route 1302) which was identified for spot safety improvements by VDOT. The Chairman
should also be authorized to sign a letter notifying VDOT of the Countys intent to participate in the
=
Program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign a letter
notifying VDOT of the Countys intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2002-
==
03, funds to be used for James River Road (from Route 795 to Route 1302), a spot safety
improvement project.
__________
Item 6.6. Resolution to accept Castleberry Court Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
==
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street in Castleberry Court Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March 6, 2002, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the street 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 the road in
Castleberry Court as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March
6, 2002, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant 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:
1) Castleberry Court (State Route 1032) from the intersection of Route
689 to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 4/24/91 in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1151,
page 103 and Deed Book 1519, page 220, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.09 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.09 mile.
__________
Item 6.7. Appropriation: Education, $134,435.27 (Form #2001-055).
It was noted in the staffs report that Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may
='
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must
be accomplished by publishing a notice of a meeting and a public hearing before amending the budget.
The following appropriation provides additional funds to the FY 2001-02 budget, and, therefore, will need to
be included in a future budget amendment, when the statutory threshold is reached.
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from John Carew and a
donation in the amount of $75.00 from Sarah and Charles DuBose. These donations will assist in
the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff.
Monticello High School received donations in the amount of $3860.27. Blaine and Jean Norum
donated $690.00 to be used to fund the gifted program at the school. The Monticello High School
Athletic Boosters Club donated $3170.27 to be used to purchase supplies for the wrestling and
football activities at the school.
The Virginia Department of Education awarded the Charter School Startup Program Sub Grant in
the amount of $130,000.00 to Murray High School. This two-year program will help to facilitate
intensive, experiential learning opportunities in order to provide academic and personal success for
students who are at-risk to leave school or graduate below potential.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation approving Appropriation #2001-055 in the amount of $134,435.27:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-055
FUND: SCHOOL/PROGRAMS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: USE OF DONATIONS AND CHARTER SCHOOL
STARTUP PROGRAM SUBGRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment $ 575.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 690.00
1 2304 61105 580000 Misc Expenses 561.00
1 2304 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,609.27
1 3149 61311 132100 PT Wages-Teacher 14,000.00
160300 Stipend-Staff Cur Dev 22,000.00
210000 FICA 2,755.00
312700 Prof Svc Consultants 6,000.00
580000 Misc Expenses 3,000.00
580500 Staff Dev 5,000.00
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 34,745.00
800100 Mach/Equip 37,500.00
800200 Furniture/Fixtures 5,000.00
TOTAL $134,435.27
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $4,435.27
2 3149 33000 330117 Charter Sch Pgm 130,000.00
TOTAL $134,435.27
__________
Item 6.8. Set public hearing for March 20, 2002, on Community Development Block Grant
applications.
It was noted in the staffs report that prior to development of proposals for Community Improve-
=
ment Grants available through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development's
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), a locality must hold two public hearings. The first
hearing was held on February 20, 2002, and provided information on the availability and amount of program
funds available, the locality's housing and community development needs, and performance of CDBG
funding during the previous five years. The second hearing will provide an overview of proposed
applications for Community Improvement Grants and must be advertised at least seven days prior to the
public hearing in a non-legal newspaper advertisement. There must also be one other form of advertise-
ment including advertising on local radio or television, or distributing information in the proposed service
areas.
County staff is reviewing the feasibility of two potential applications - one to support the acquisition
and rehabilitation of affordable rental property (Whitewood Village Apartments) and the second for water
needs in a private subdivision (Corville Farms in Greenwood). Any proposals will be reviewed by the
Housing Committee on March 13, 2002. Staff recommends setting a public hearing for March 20, 2002, to
receive input from the public on the proposal(s).
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set March 20, 2002, for a public hearing on
CDBG funds.
__________
Item 6.9. Letter dated February 21, 2001, from Robert H. Connock, Jr., VDOT District Construction
Engineer, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that the Commonwealth Transportation Board on
January 17, 2002, approved the Route 250 bridge replacement projects as proposed and presented at the
Design Hearing. The objective of this project is to replace the existing bridge and approaches over
Limestone Creek (Proj: 0250-002-114, PE101, RW201, C501, from 0.038 miles west of Limestone Creek
to 0.028 miles east of Limestone Creek) and over Carroll Creek (Proj: 0250-002-115, PE101, RW201,
C501, from 0.066 miles west of Carroll Creek to 0.014 miles east of Carroll Creek) due to their poor
condition and substandard designs. The approved design will provide two twelve-foot lanes with eight-foot
shoulders and six-foot drainage ditches. The proposed improvements will be constructed on the existing
alignment. Letter was received as information.
__________
Item 6.10. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, March, 2002, was received for
information.
__________
Item 6.11. Copy of notice dated March 1, 2002, from Robert H. Connock, Jr., District Construction
Engineer, to Ella Carey, Clerk, notifying the Board of the upcoming hearing on the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Route 29 Bypass (Proj: 6029-002-F22,PE101,RW201,C501 from
0.7 mile [1.1 km] north of the Route 29/250 Interchange to 0.5 mile [0.8 km] north of the South Fork of the
Rivanna River) was received for information. The hearing is to be held on March 14, 2002, and the date
to submit written comments has been extended to April 16, 2002.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2001-040. Crossroads Waldorf School, conditions of approval (deferred
from February 20, 2002).
Mr. Cilimberg said that on February 20, 2002, the Board deferred action on this special use permit
to allow revision of Condition Nos. 3, 8 and 9 to reflect the Board's intent. Revised conditions have been
developed by staff to reflect the Board's intent. The applicant has taken issue with revised Condition No. 3
as regards the rotation allowance for up to 15 degrees of flexibility in the orientation of the northern wing
building to accommodate solar orientation. The applicant believes the allowance intended by the Board
was 30 degrees, significantly more than staff has offered. Staff believes the condition as provided by staff is
what the Board intended. As always, it is the Board's discretion as to whether this condition should be
changed in response to the applicant's concern. Assuming the revised conditions reflect the Board's intent,
staff recommends approval of SP-2001-040 subject to the revised conditions.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has received thorough information about this change. She did some
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
further research on her suggestion. She talked with Gary Okerlund (local person involved with the Jones &
Jones study) and Charlie Scott (main person at Jones & Jones). They both cemented her feeling that the
orientation of this building is critical to the future of development in that area. It establishes a framework for
the development. It needs to be an anchor piece. It needs to set the standards in the sense that the
County is interested in the orientation of those buildings, and it needs to set the stage in the sense of being
the anchor building for a DISC-like development in that area. The buildings can be developed in a neutrally
supportive efficient use of the land. It is very important that the orientation of that facade be a frame and an
anchor (terms used by Mr. Okerlund and Mr. Scott).
Mr. Bowerman said based on those remarks, he would move for approval of SP-2001-040,
Crossroads Waldorf School, subject to the revised conditions presented with the staffs report for this
=
meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Perkins asked why the applicant is not happy with Condition No. 3. Ms. Thomas said they
disagree with the degrees of flexibility. They would like to be able to move the building 15 degrees on either
side as opposed to a total of 15 degrees.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that when there is a site plan showing exactly what can and cannot be
done on the site, they might have some evidence to present showing that what the Board is demanding is
unrealistic. At this speculative stage, he thinks the Board would be wise to stick to the 15 degrees total.
Mr. Davis reminded the Board that any change in this condition would require an amendment to the
special use permit. Mr. Martin said he realizes it would be difficult to do, but if at that time, what the Board is
asking is obviously unreasonable, then everybody will be able to see it, and it would be worth going through
the process.
With no further discussion, Ms. Thomas asked for a roll call. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Maximum enrollment shall be three hundred fifty (350) students, with a maximum
of sixty-five (65) staff. Any increase to enrollment or staffing shall require
amendment of this special permit;
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
weekdays, with occasional uses in the evenings and weekend;
3. The approved final site plan shall be in substantial accord with the Conceptual
Master Plan (submitted November 12, 2001, and revised December 14, 2001),
with the northern wing building orientation also in substantial accord with
Diagram A (dated February 5, 2002, and prepared by Bruce Wardell
A@
Architects), provided, however, the orientation of the northern wing building may
be rotated up to 7.5 degrees in either direction to provide up to fifteen (15)
degrees of flexibility in the final siting of the northern wing building, and shall
reflect all required pedestrian and road connections to adjacent properties and a
sidewalk along at least one side of the entrance road, as described below;
4. A building setback and tree buffer shall be maintained adjacent to the Village
Square residential development along the south property line for a distance of
1006.39 linear feet, as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan;
5. The school shall be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit Application
and Justification submitted August 27, 2001, and the Site Development Strategy
Narrative submitted via facsimile December 18, 2001;
6. The permittee shall reserve for dedication for public use a public vehicular
connection to the parcel or parcels located to the north of the school property;
this public vehicular connection shall consist of a forty (40) foot wide strip
centered on the entrance road and a forty (40) foot wide strip extending along the
rear of Parcel 174 from its intersection with the entrance road to the shared
boundary with Parcel 172A. The public road connection along the rear of Parcel
174 between the entrance road and the adjacent property to the north shall be
constructed by others. If it is determined to be necessary by the County to
provide for interparcel access, the owner shall make the reserved vehicular
connection available for such use;
7. If it is determined by the County to be necessary to provide for interparcel
vehicular connections between the property and Parcels 173A and 174, the final
site plan shall show possible future connections between the property and
Parcels 173 and 174. These connections shall be along the rear boundary of
each parcel, and shall be coordinated with access to the school. The specific
locations and design of the connections shall be subject to approval by
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Engineering. This condition does not require the owner to construct any
interparcel vehicular connection;
8. An easement shall be created to allow public use of a pedestrian connection to
the parcel or parcels located to the south of the school property; this connection
shall be made in a location between Rio Road East and the school buildings, in
such a fashion that it shall connect to the sidewalk to be constructed along the
school entrance road and, if and when constructed, to the connecting road along
the rear portion of Parcel 174, the exact location of this connection to be
determined at the time of final site plan approval;
9. If an asphalt path is to be used, it shall be five (5) feet wide and consist of four (4)
inches of 21B stone base material and two (2) inches of SMA-2 asphalt. If a
concrete sidewalk is to be used, it shall meet standards established by the
County Engineer. The path shall be shown on the final site plan for the school
and shall be constructed upon request of the County at such time as the County
determines that the path is appropriate to coordinate access to pedestrian
facilities ready for construction or constructed on the contiguous properties;
10. Portions of the property shall be dedicated, reserved, or restricted as follows:
a. A fifty (50) foot greenway along Meadow Creek at the western boundary
of Parcel 170 shall be dedicated to Albemarle County at the time of final
site plan approval;
b A thirty (30) foot greenway easement along the northwestern side of the
centerline of the intermittent stream shown on the Conceptual Master
Plan shall be granted to Albemarle County at the time of final site plan
approval. The greenway easement shall authorize Albemarle County to
install and maintain a Class B trail and associated improvements within
the easement, allow public access to the trail, and prohibit improvements
by the owner. The greenway easement shall be subject to review and
approval by the County Attorney; and
c. The area of Parcel 170 between the dedicated greenway and the
greenway easement, containing approximately 1.56 acres, shall be
reserved for use as part of the County's and the City of Charlottesville's
park and trail system. The owner shall preserve the reserved area in its
natural condition and shall make no improvements on this reserved area
without the written authorization of the County. The reserved area shall
be shown on the final site plan. At such time as a linear park is
established on the contiguous properties to the north and south of the
reserved area, the owner shall dedicate to the County a public access
easement over the reserved area to provide for the use of the property
as a natural area for park, open space and greenway purposes. At the
option of the owner, the easement may restrict or prohibit the placement
of any building or structure in this area and provide for the continued use
of the property by the owner so long as the use does not conflict with the
stated purposes of the easement. The deed of dedication shall be
subject to review and approval by the County Attorney;
11. No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the western portion of the site or
other undisturbed areas identified on the Conceptual Master Plan shall occur as
a result of site development other than development of a pedestrian access to
the greenway. Prior to final site plan approval, a tree preservation plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator, addressing in
detail the limits of all disturbed areas, diameter and location of trees to be
preserved, clearing and limbing policy for trees to be preserved, and
supplemental trees and shrubs (if any), and related issues.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-2001-016. Bargamin Park Proffers (deferred from February 20, 2002).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board heard this request on February 20, 2002. At that hearing, the
applicant offered an additional proffer of cash toward public improvements related to the Crozet
community. The Board asked the applicant to draft the proffer for its review and approval. The original
proffer form has been amended to include the additional proffer (Attachment A - on file). It states that the
applicant shall participate in public improvements related to the Crozet community by paying to the County
a sum calculated at the rate of $400.00 per townhouse lot and $500.00 per single-family residential building
lot. Payments shall be made at the time a building permit is issued for any dwelling unit on a lot, and shall
be a condition for issuing a building permit. If the cash proffer or any portion thereof is not used for the
stated purpose within 20 years, the contributions may be used by the County for any other community
improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the
proposed development on the property. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2001-06, Bargamin Park
Subdivision, with proffers.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Martin moved approval of ZMA-2001-016 subject to the proffers signed February 27, 2002.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers, as signed, are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: February 20, 2002
ZMA #ZMA-01-06
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 55-67
9.59 Acres to be rezoned from R-2 to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
(1) Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan, entitled
"Preliminary Subdivision Plans for Bargamin Park Subdivision," dated February 7,
2002, including building elevations, entitled "Conceptual Drawings for Bargamin
Park Subdivision," dated January, 2002, (with notes to site plan contained
therein, initialed and dated January 29, 2002, by Kathleen M. Galvin, Architect)
as reasonably determined by the Agent.
(2) All street sections shall include: curb and gutter; a 5-foot planting strip for street
trees and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides of Bargamin House
Road, Powells Creek Lane, and the private road between Lots 34 and 35, as
shown on the Application Plan, entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Plans for
Bargamin Park Subdivision," dated February 7, 2002. Prior to Final Plat
approval, the Planning Director shall determine, if necessary, where
underground utilities necessitate relocating or eliminating street trees in order to
accommodate utilities.
(3) Upon demand of the County, the Applicant shall dedicate to the County, that
portion of the subject property which is 34 (thirty-four) feet from the centerline of
Jarman's Gap Road along it's frontage, except where there shall be a right-turn
lane into the site, which shall require the dedication of up to forty feet (40') from
the centerline of Jarman's Gap Road along the subject property's frontage.
(4) The existing house, known as the Bain House, shall be renovated in accordance
with plans approved by the Albemarle County Design Planner. Changes to the
exterior of the house shall be limited to those that do not compromise its
architectural integrity, as determined by the Albemarle County Design Planner,
prior to the issuance of any building permits for exterior alterations.
(5) The land identified on the Application Plan, entitled "Preliminary Subdivision
Plans for Bargamin Park Subdivision," dated February 7, 2002, as "Future public
r/w to be dedicated upon demand of the County" shall be reserved for future
dedication as public right-of-way. In the event that the connections to adjacent
properties are not made, this land shall revert to single-family detached dwelling
units or open space. The Final Plat shall include the dedication of construction
easements for the benefit of the respective adjacent property owners.
(6) The Applicant shall participate in public improvements related to the Crozet
community by paying to the County a sum calculated at the rate of $400.00 per
townhouse lot and $500.00 per single-family residential building lot platted within
the Property. Payments shall be made at the time that a building permit is issued
for any dwelling unit on a lot, and payment of the $400.00 or $500.00 fee, as
applicable, shall be a condition for issuing such building permit. If the cash
proffer or any portion thereof, is not used for the stated purpose within 20 years
of the date hereof, then the contributions may be used by the County for any
other community improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board
as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the property.
(Signed) Roger R. Katcham Roger R. Katcham 2-27-02
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
Thornbirck Development, LLC
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
A Virginia Limited Liability Company
3618 Free Union Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
By (Signed) Roger R. Katcham February 20, 2002
Roger R. Katcham, Manager Date
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said this Residency is divided into two areas which support
Greene and Albemarle counties. He would like to recognize his Area Superintendents: Yancey Mills - Lee
Huff (six years); Free Union - Harold Gentry (eight years); Boyd Tavern - Ken Staton (ten years); Keene -
Gene Rush (three years); Standardsville - Cecil Gibson (six years); Bridge Crew - Jimmy Howe (22 years);
and the Residency Maintenance Manager - John Shifflett (eight years).
Ms. Thomas said these are the people who actually do the work the Board members receive calls
about occasionally. She appreciates their appearance here this morning.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked if VDOT saved money on chemicals because of lack of snow this year. Mr.
Bryan replied that they should in the long run, and the maintenance budget is staying intact for the next
fiscal year. By May, he should know what the Secondary Road allocations will be for the next Six-Year
Plan. But, based on the new allocations, there may be some delays. VDOT will work closely with the
County on that.
__________
Mr. Martin mentioned Consent Agenda Item 6.3, Update on Routes 22 and 231 Through-Truck
Restriction. He believes all Board members received an E-mail communication from Mr. John Moore
regarding the Origin-Destination (O&D) Study which was requested last year for Routes 231/22. He said
Mr. Moore believes that study is acting only to delay a decision by the State. He (Mr. Martin) said residents
on Proffit Road are also asking for the O&D Study of their road for the restriction of truck traffic. He asked
Mr. Bryan to give his opinion as to these requests.
Mr. Bryan said last year the Board asked for the O&D Study, and he had said it could be done, but
since that time he has found that O&D studies are very expensive and very labor intensive, and he thinks
they are also unsafe. It requires that trucks be stopped on the road and the drivers asked their destination.
This is disruptive to traffic. VDOT found an old study from 1999 which showed some results, but in his
honest opinion, it is a political decision. Route 22 is a primary road, and it is a regional issue, not just a local
issue.
Mr. Cilimberg said the effort on Proffit Road will not be an O&D study. Mr. Bryan said Proffit Road
is a local issue since it is a secondary road.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board approves staffs recommendation for Proffit Road and is persistent, if
=
it will mean something. Mr. Bryan said yes. Also, that road is No. 9 on the priority list in the Six-Year Plan.
A@
It will be upgraded in the future.
Mr. Martin said that road project is moving ahead as fast as possible due to the Baker-Butler
Elementary School. He asked if the Board would get caught in a Catch 22" situation by having the western
A
section updated, but still trying to ban through truck traffic, as well as trying to keep the Proffit Road bridge
from being enlarged. Mr. Bryan said with a school on that road, the intersection is going to grow because of
development, how would it be possible to distinguish local truck traffic from thorough traffic? The bridge
performs that function now.
Mr. Martin asked if this would put pressure on the department to expand the bridge. Mr. Bryan said
if the County does not want the bridge to be expanded, it will not be expanded. Mr. Martin said that is good
to hear. He said that in the past, the Board has talked about replacing the bridge at the same spot and in
the same width. Mr. Bryan said that would be hard to do.
Mr. Thomas said the Board members received an E-mail from a citizen complaining about Polo
Grounds Road (Route 643) saying the underpass of the railroad has no safety features. The Board had
talked about having a signal light there. In the Six-Year plan, it shows as a huge expense. Maybe there is a
lesser solution to that problem than what is shown in the Six-Year plan.
Mr. Martin asked that Mr. Fred Gerke be given a minute to speak for the people who live on Proffit
Road.
Mr. Gercke said he is speaking for the Coalition for a Safe Proffit Road. He said the reasons for the
requested ban are set out in a letter attached to their petition which was presented to the Board at another
meeting. He said this ban would not radically change the existing traffic schemes. The ban gives a
mechanism to enforce the weight limit on the Proffit Road railroad bridge. There would be no negative
impact to the larger community. It would also assure a future without large trucks. They request that the
public hearing on this matter be scheduled for an evening meeting to facilitate the attendance of neighbors.
He said the problem with the underpass on Polo Grounds Road is the approach to the underpass. There
has been talk about straightening out the approach from one side of the underpass. There is some room
for a compromise, but the fear of the community is that if it is opened up and widened, it will cause
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
increased traffic. Most people would like to have something done to improve the safety issue of the existing
underpass.
Mr. Rooker asked if there have been any accidents there recently. Mr. Gercke said he does not
know of any serious accidents. Those using the road know it is a dangerous spot.
Mr. Perkins suggested installing a mirror on the one side of the underpass. Mr. Gercke said there
are serious problems in the underpass of graffiti, and the neighbors paint it every year. They feel mirrors
would just be damaged.
Mr. Bryan said he is aware of the problems on the Polo Grounds Road. He will have VDOTs traffic
=
engineering department look to see what can be done to improve the safety. To improve it too much will
just lead to increased traffic. He said the local residents are used to the road, so it is not a safety issue for
them. It is a problem for people who are not familiar with the road.
Ms. Thomas said the Board now needs to take some action on Consent Agenda Items 6.4 and 6.3.
Mr. Martin said for Item 6.4 he would move that staff be directed to conduct the VDOT required
analysis of Proffit Road using VDOT criteria. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Martin said he had a person who called him, and he in turn called Police Chief John Miller.
This gentleman was driving on Route 231, and the person in front of him had one of those huge bales of
hay on the back of his truck, when the wind from a passing tractor-trailer actually picked up that bale and
threw it over on the side of the road. Mr. Bryan said he read about that situation also.
Mr. Martin said for Consent Agenda Item 6.3, the recommendation was implementation of: periodic
selective speed enforcement by the Albemarle County Police Department; letters to trucking companies
signed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors requesting that they voluntary restrict their use of
Routes 22/231; VDOT reduction of the speed limit; and, that VDOT conduct a thorough Origin-Destination
study that will focus on the Routes 22/231 corridor.
Ms. Thomas said the neighbors are concerned that the O&D Study is just a delaying tactic. She
said there is a 1999 study. She asked Mr. Bryan if a new study would be different. Mr. Bryan said he does
not think there is any delaying tactic involved, it is just that the Department is overwhelmed by the enormity
of the study.
Mr. Thomas asked if there is enough information in the 1999 study so everyone involved can be
comfortable. Mr. Bryan said there is enough information in the 1999 study that it obviates the need for a
new study.
Ms. Thomas said that part of the staffs recommendation should be dropped. Mr. Martin said he
=
thinks that would be fine. Ms. Thomas said the Board is asking the Police to do more speed enforcement.
She thinks the road is too dangerous to pull trucks off the road to do an O&D study. Mr. Cilimberg said the
purpose of an O&D study, whether it be the 1999 study or a new study, is to provide justification for trying to
get the political decision made to restrict trucks on Routes 22/231. That request has been made before,
and it has not been granted. The 1999 study can be used as a basis, but the other part is that the County
still needs the State to agree to allow that restriction. That is what the residents want.
Ms. Thomas asked if it can be argued that there is an alternative route. Mr. Cilimberg said distance
wise the alternatives are longer. Routes 22/231 is a short-cut, so the question is, politically, can the County
sell the idea of restricting a short-cut?
Mr. Martin asked if a new O&D study would be a selling point. Mr. Cilimberg said whatever study
was to be used, staff wanted to get that as a basis for making the argument with the decision-makers at the
state level. He understands what Mr. Bryan is saying about doing a new O&D study.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the State all ready had the 1999 study when this request was denied. Mr.
Juan Wade said VDOT made the decision to not support the truck restriction before 1999.
Mr. Bryan said there is a new restriction going into effect on Route 17 in Warrenton, and the Board
might want to see what was done to get that restriction approved. Mr. Cilimberg said a number of years
ago, in Fauquier County, there was a decision to restrict trucks on Route 50. Ms. Thomas said Nelson
County got a restriction on the very large trucks, and that pushed some of those trucks into using routes in
Albemarle County in places such as Batesville.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has a staff recommendation before it, but conducting a new O&D study
should be dropped from that recommendation. If staff looks at the 1999 study and decides it will not be
adequate, the Board can discuss this question again. Mr. Martin moved, and Mr. Bowerman seconded,
accepting the staffs recommendation without the O&D Study. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
=
the recorded vote which follows:
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Perkins said for the master planning in Crozet, how involved should VDOT be in that process?
He thinks VDOT should be a player because one of the major components in the master planning is the
transportation system. He invited VDOT to be involved. Mr. Bryan said they would be happy to be involved.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said a citizen called him to say they are worried about Route 250 East, and asked when
the road will be widened. Mr. Bryant said there is nothing in the immediate plans for that road. VDOTs
=
Central office did a study of Route 250 East and briefed this Board on that study about six months ago.
There is nothing on the books to the year 2015 for any kind of improvement.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned Georgetown Road, and asked for a list of what improvements have been
made and what remains to be done. In the Six-Year plan, the project cost accelerated dramatically. Mr.
Bryan said the major part of the future cost is in utility relocations.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he recently mentioned the problem with the traffic light at the intersection of Rio
Road and Route 29 North. He went through that intersection three times last Sunday. What happens is
that after two cars go through the light, it turns yellow regardless of the number of cars waiting to cross, and
it seems to occur only on Sunday.
__________
Mr. Rooker said there were some workers out doing survey work for the Route 29 Western Bypass
in the Lambs Road area. One of the residents asked why the bridge over Lambs Road is planned to be
==
300 feet in length, and they were told it was because they are acquiring enough right-of-way for the bypass
to be six lanes wide. He asked if that is true. Mr. Bryan said he knows nothing about this question, but he
will find an answer.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she received a telephone call from a lady who had been at home sick for a week,
and she was actually in tears about the amount of traffic on Morgantown Road. Her property is on the east
end of the road, and Ms. Thomas told this lady that the speed limit is to be reduced to 25 mph. Mr. Bryan
said the approval is verbal so far. He needs it in writing before the department can get the signs in the exact
locations which have been approved. He is frustrated that it has taken so long, but it will happen soon. He
has talked with Juan Wade, and on the west side, they want to reposition the STOP sign in the one-way
area. He believes that will make an impact on traffic.
__________
Mr. Thomas asked about all of the trees which are being cut on Route 250 West. She has not
received any calls, but she drives this road and has seen the work. Mr. Bryan said the department is cutting
down a lot of trees, and it is not an easy thing to do. It has to be done because some are close enough to
trucks, school buses and cars that they are brushing the vehicles. The ones that do not brush are still a
safety hazard.
Ms. Thomas asked what will be used to replace them. Mr. Bryan said the area will be seeded and
then mowed. In the winter, it will help eliminate the cold spots on the roadway where trees now lean into
the right-of-way. He said he was driving down Route 20 two days ago, and noticed that Route 20 has been
kept a lot cleaner over time, so the embankments are bare and grassed.
Mr. Perkins said a lot of these trees are shallow rooted specifies, and they are getting to a size and
age where they would start coming into the highway. It is time that a lot of these trees should come down
because they have probably been there since Route 250 was widened back in the 1930s.
__________
Ms. Thomas she understands that Highway Maintenance Funds are not being cut, in fact there
might be a small increase. Mr. Bryan said he has been told there may be a four percent increase per year.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that the project list for Primary Roads will not be available until
July. Mr. Bryan said that is correct.
Mr. Perkins asked when the list for Secondary Road improvements will be available. Mr. Bryan
said he thinks it will be received by May.
Mr. Cilimberg asked the date for the Preallocation Hearing. Mr. Bryan said it will be held in April.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: Public hearing on Route 606 (Dickerson Road)
abandonment. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 18 and
February 25, 2002.)
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has rebuilt Route 606 on the east side of
the Airport. The road is complete and in use. The Airport Authority has requested the abandonment of Old
Route 606 and dedication of the new Rout 606. Old Route 606 is 60 feet in width, and would be
abandoned beginning 1000 feet south of the original intersection of Route 606 and Route 649 and
continuing 2300 feet north of the intersection. The new Route 606 right-of-way is approximately 80 feet in
width, from 1100 feet southwest of the new intersection of Route 606 and Route 649 to the new
intersection, and approximately 90 feet in width from the new intersection to 2400 feet northeast of the new
intersection. The applicant wishes to provide safer and more convenient access to the Airport, as well as to
consolidate lands owned by the Airport Authority on one side of Route 606. The relocation of Route 606 is
identified as an improvement in the Airport's Master Plan. The Master Plan has been identified in the
County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance as the guiding plan for improvements for the airport.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 19, 2002, found the proposed abandonment in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff finds that this section of secondary road is no longer necessary for use in
the Secondary System since an alternate route has been established, therefore, recommends that the
Board support the abandonment of Route 606 as noted in the staffs report and adopt a resolution to that
=
effect.
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. Perkins to adopt the following resolution as recommended in the staffs
=
report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a public hearing was posted as prescribed under 33.1-151, Code of
'
Virginia, announcing a public hearing to receive comments concerning abandoning the
road described below from the Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation was
provided the prescribed notice of this Board's intent to abandon the subject road; and
WHEREAS, after considering all evidence available, this Board is satisfied that no
public necessity exists for the continuance of Secondary Route 606, Dickinson Road,
beginning 1000 feet south of the original intersection of Route 606 and Route 649, and
continuing 2300 feet north of the intersection, and hereby deems that road is no longer
necessary as part of the Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, the replacement to the abandoned Route 606 would be 1100 feet
southwest of the new intersection of Route 606 and Route 649 to the new intersection, and
approximately 2400 feet northeast of the new intersection;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board abandons the above
described road and removes it from the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to
33.1-151, Code of Virginia; and
'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
Mr. Thomas asked if anything has happened with the request for a stop light at the entrance to the
Airport. She said a tremendous number of tourists are expected in this locality for the Lewis & Clarke
celebration in 2003, and a lot of them will arrive by airplane.
Mr. Brian Elliott, Airport Manager, said the position of the Airport Commission and the Authority
Board remains the same. They feel there should be a light installed. They have solicited the Department
of Transportation to install that light now, rather than later. Originally, it was said that the Airport would finish
the Route 606 relocation, which they have done, and subsequent to that, Route 649 would be improved and
at that point a traffic signal installed. The schedule for the improvements of Route 649 has been deferred.
At this time, it is not expected to be bid until December, 2003, which means the project itself would not be
completed until 2006. The project could be pushed even further back. The Airport has been trying to urge
VDOT to move forward with installation of the signal at the current location for a minimum of four years or
longer. He said they are concerned for travelers coming in; local residents are getting used to the new four-
way stop. The Airport Commission has submitted to VDOT a resolution in support of installing that traffic
signal at this time. The response has been no, they are not willing to do that because of its cost. The
A@
Commission feels VDOT should be able to design this traffic signal in such a way that it could be
dismantled in the future and moved to the new intersection.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Tucker said it might be a good idea to get VDOTs opinion, unfortunately Mr. Bryan has left the
=
meeting this morning. If the Board thinks this is important, it might be good for the Board to adopt a
resolution also.
Mr. Bowerman said Earlysville residents have spoken to him about the danger of that intersection
without a light. These are people who use the road every day and they think it is a problem.
Mr. Thomas suggested that this matter be put on the agenda for the April day meeting for further
discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation by Nick Evans, Chairman, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Mr. Evans said the Board has received a summary of the Districts budget request for the coming
=
year, and he would like to highlight a few programs where the District can partner with the county in areas
of water resources protection. Over the past 20 years, the County has undergone a dramatic shift in land
use. Moving from agriculture and forestry to urban and suburban landscapes creates impacts on the water
resources charge. The District works with the agricultural community by providing cost-share assistance
and technical guidance for installing Best Management Practices that protect water quality. But, the
cumulative impact on water quality of poor land stewardship on the part of two-acre and 20-acre
landowners may be far greater than any negative impacts on water quality of hundred of acres of well-
managed farm land. The focus of the District is shifting accordingly.
Mr. Evans said that over the past year, the number of inquiries having to do with setting up
permanent easements on riparian lands has ballooned. In order to ensure that the land is an active partner
in the easement program, and to ensure that monitoring and enforcement responsibilities of deeded
easements are carried out over the long-term, the District is setting up a supporting tax-exempt foundation
to administer the program. Albemarle will appoint two representatives to the foundations board of
=
directors. The County Attorney and the County Executive are currently reviewing this proposal which will
come to the Board in a few weeks.
Mr. Evans said all have heard about the sediment problem in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
This problem has implications not only on the local water supply, but for the health of the Chesapeake Bay
as well. The Water Resources Advisory Committee, which the District co-sponsors along with Planning
District Ten, spent several months last year examining the sedimentation issue. It developed a proposal for
researching the sources of sediment and test-bedding alternative mitigation schemes. The District stands
ready to partner with the County and the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) in seeking funding for
this much needed program.
Mr. Evans said the District has been developing GIS capabilities in recent years in order to manage,
on a computer, spatial data having to do with water resources. In addition to mapping stream buffers,
easements and conservation BMPs, it can serve as a clearinghouse for technical data such as water flow,
=
groundwater levels and water quality, as such data becomes available. They anticipate playing an
increasing role in technical data management as the District works with the County, Planning District Ten
and the RWSA in implementing a holistic approach to managing the communitys water resources.
=
Mr. Evans said this year the District published a manual on rooftop runoff collection systems. It is
an exciting, innovative approach to managing stormwater runoff and has generated a lot of interest among
County residents. Rooftop runoff is a largely untapped alternative source for water that could be used for a
variety of purposes around the home and on the farm. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked if the rooftop runoff manual has been distributed to the construction industry. Mr.
Evans said the District has let them know it is available; they have not been proactive in distributing the
manual.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the District could be more proactive in that area. He asked if there have
been homes built which have incorporated this technology. Mr. Evans said there are some systems being
test-bedded in Forest Lakes. He is not aware of it being used in new construction.
Mr. Tucker said the County sends flyers with tax bills twice a year and this might be something that
could be included with the flyer.
Mr. Dorrier said he is interested in the foundation for conservation easements, if that is the proper
term. Mr. Evans said he has discussed this with Mr. Davis, and there is ambiguity in the law. There are
conservation easements and open space easements. There is some confusion in the law as to which
variety of easement the District is enabled to hold. The District is in the business of taking on small irregular
pieces of property that are directly adjacent to rivers and streams, and either allowing those to go naturally
back to woods, or replanting those pieces.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a gentleman named John Birdsall who is very active in setting up
conservation type easements in the County. He asked if the District had contacted him. Mr. Evans said he
has talked with people at the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Albemarle is first, and if the program can be
made to work here, he wants to go to other counties with the same proposal.
Mr. Dorrier said the Historic Preservation Committee is looking at ways to find funding so owners
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
can repair and maintain their homes. He asked if this foundation will be limited to just conservation-type
easements. Mr. Evans said that is correct. Mr. Dorrier asked if this is the first time this has been attempted.
Mr. Evans said this is a flagship venture in Virginia. Mr. Dorrier asked if the District believes there will be a
A@
big demand for the program. Mr. Evans said the indication is that there is all ready the demand, the
question is how to cope with the demand. It has not been coped with before since the District is very
understaffed, and because of state funding. If they enter into a long-term commitment to monitor an
easement, there needs to be some mechanism set up to carry out those responsibilities forever.
Ms. Thomas asked if the landowner of riparian easements would get the same tax benefit as that
granted to a landowner who gave up his development rights. Mr. Evans said he does not know the answer
to that question. If it is a matter of setting a value on the taking of land out of production in terms of
acreage, there would not be much value involved. He said many people want to do the right thing,
particularly people in this community who are buying many of the 20-acre or less parcels. These are well-
educated, well-intentioned people who have never dealt with issues of rural land stewardship. These
people flock to their workshops.
Ms. Thomas said soon there will be a meeting with the City to discuss what RWSA staff is
recommending among the various alternatives, but the emphasis will be on the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir if their recommendations are followed. The types of assistance that can be given to landowners
in that particular watershed will be crucial. At some point, the silt will have to be dredged out, or some
method found to keep it out of the reservoir. Mr. Evans said he does not think all possibilities for dealing
with the sediment problem have been exhausted. There are other technologies available.
Mr. Martin said the Board has talked about the Neighborhood Model, and people say this is just a
return to what was done a long time ago. This rooftop recapture is what his grandfather and grandmother
practiced since they did not have running water. They used that captured water for all types of things. Mr.
Evans said one of the Districts directors had some analytical data done on the water coming off of the roof.
=
After the first ten minutes or so of a hard rain, and after the oxidized stuff is washed off, the water is
drinkable. There is a perception that the water cannot be used, but that is not true.
Mr. Perkins said most homes in the Shenandoah Valley which are over 50 years old have a cistern
with a filter. Mr. Evans said the EPA has a tank that is initially filled up by the immediate runoff, and only
after it is filled does the water go into the main storage.
Mr. Bowerman said in order not to clean out gutters many times a year, the gutters can be taken
off, strips installed at the edge of the roof with holes in them and that dissipates the runoff. This only works
if the edge of the roof is away from the edge of the house, but it will water whatever vegetation is around the
house, plus the yard.
Mr. Rooker asked about putting some of this information on the Districts web site. Mr. Evans said
=
they are working on that. Mr. Tucker said if the County is linked to the TJ District Office, some of that
information can be put on the Countys web site. Mr. Evans said if the District gets further into the business
=
of managing technical data about where the water is, he would want this information on the web and it
would have to be updated in real time. He said there cant be informed decisions on how much water is to
=
be let out of a given reservoir, or what the groundwater level actually is, unless there is data which has been
collected over a period of time.
Mr. Rooker said that some years ago, the County was involved in updating the Design Standards
Manual, and he does not think that work has ever been completed. Mr. Tucker said that manual is still be
worked on, and it is to be completed soon. Mr. Rooker asked if that manual has been scrutinized for water
conservation measures. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure, but David Hirschman has been involved in the
update. Mr. Rooker said the building community uses that manual regularly, and that is a good way to
make sure the information is in the community.
Mr. Evans said the Groundwater Committee has been developing a set of development practices
which are respectful of groundwater recharge.
Ms. Thomas thanked Ms. Alyson Sappington, District Manager of the TJ Soil & Water Conservation
District Office, who was in the audience.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Department of Social Services Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2001,
Presentation of.
Ms. Thomas introduced Ms. Martha Orton, Chair of the Social Services Advisory Board.
Ms. Orton recognized Ms. Karen Powell, who is also a member of the Board. She said the report is
a little late this year, but they expect to be more timely next year. She said there were significant positive
changes in the Department in 2001, with some reorganization taking place. The overall purpose of the
reorganization was to improve performance and customer service. As part of this process, the Advisory
Board held a retreat in May, 2001 and further clarified its role as liaison to the Supervisors and the
community in social service issues. Most significantly, it increased its commitment to being strong
advocates for community issues. She said the departments increased focus on performance and
=
customer service has resulted in several important accomplishments in fiscal year 2001. Among these
were the completion of quality caseload standards, the completion of a self-assessment by all staff
members, and the completion of a continuous quality improvement plan based on the self-assessment
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
process. As a new service to the public, the department developed a career center available to all citizens.
It provides information involving employment opportunities. The career center is working toward being
certified by the local Workforce Investment Board.
Ms. Orton said the department was relocated in January, 2001 from the County Office Building to
its new location on Millmont Street. This was a major undertaking, but by careful planning and
organization, the move was accomplished with little disruption to service. She said the Annual Report
provides information on the Departments programs including the nature and purpose of each. It also
=
contains grafts indicating service statistics. It spotlights two programs which are continuing successes in
serving children and families; the Bright Stars Program which serves four-year olds, and the Family Support
Program which serves elementary school children. She said the Bright Stars Program added a fifth site in
2001, this being in Scottsville. The Family Support Program had no turnover in staff in 2001, increasing its
ability to provide really effective continuous service. They spent about 33 percent of their time in
collaboration with school staff, 25 percent of their time directly with the children, and 43 percent of their time
directly with the family of the children being served.
Ms. Orton mentioned the pie charts at the end of the report which summarize the departments cost
=
centers which are directly paid for or authorized by the Department of Social Services. They also have a
chart showing the departments funding sources. Notably, local funds make up four percent of the total,
=
and State and Federal funds compose 96 percent. In conclusion, the Advisory Board would like to express
its appreciation to Kathy Ralston, and the staff of the department, for another excellent year of dedicated
service to the citizens of Albemarle.
Mr. Rooker said the report talks about the six service areas the Department of Social Services
provides. He asked if the department has any flexibility in allocating its resources among those programs,
and among the components within those programs. Ms. Ralston said their guidelines are fairly rigid. The
State mandates almost all of the programs which must be provided. About the only flexibility they have in
the benefits programs is in General Relief. That is a local option program. Otherwise, they get money from
the State to administer benefit programs, as well as social work programs. Those dollars can be allocated
as the department sees fit, as long as it still provides all of the benefit programs. Most of the money goes
for staff compensation, in order to process the cases, etc.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Foster Care category. He noted a chart on Page 6 and said he was
surprised the number is so low. Ms. Ralston said that number indicates only new cases, there are 115
children in Foster Care in Albemarle County. She said there has been a decrease in the Foster Care
caseload in the past year.
Mr. Dorrier said the program must run smoothly because he has heard no complaints from citizens.
Ms. Ralston said she understands that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has indicated that
foster care is one of the areas she wants to look at intensely after the General Assembly Session is over.
They are anticipating a total review of the program under this secretary.
Ms. Thomas asked if the reorganization of the department this past year resulted in its ability to do
its work with the same number of staff members. Ms. Ralston said that last year an additional assistant
director position was added. There was no eligibility staff added last year.
Ms. Thomas said when she and Mr. Steve Koleszar held their press conference on the impact of
state cuts, she was prepared for the press to ask what Albemarle County was doing to cut its expenses.
She was going to use some of the reorganization information that went out with the County report to the
citizens in the newspaper. Ms. Ralston said her department is going to a team-based management system,
which has been supported by the County for a few years. The down side is that it creates more meetings.
The upside is that they are getting more done, and getting better decisions. She no longer makes all the
decisions herself.
Mr. Perkins mentioned the Medicaid Costs shown on Page 4 of the report and asked if that is for
everyone who receives Medicaid in Albemarle County, or is it just for the people who need special help.
Ms. Ralston said that is everybody in Albemarle County. She said Medicaid is one category which continues
to increase, and significantly. In August 2001, they eliminated the program from their roles; that was the
health insurance program for children of low-income families that the Federal government authorized
states to undertake. Virginia has been slow in moving toward that program, and now it is being managed by
a private contractor. She said some of the numbers might go down in the next fiscal year report because
they no longer have those children in the caseload. She said the bulk of the Medicaid caseload is for aid to
the blind and disabled, and the medically indigent category. She said that in the UVA Medicaid category,
some of those referrals end up as cases in the Countys Medicaid program.
=
Mr. Rooker said that under the summary of financial information, the majority of the money is
shown as being for Medicaid. He asked if that figure includes benefit payments. Ms. Ralston said yes.
A@
Mr. Rooker asked if the department scrutinizes the benefits being paid. Are the benefits all paid
through the local office? Ms. Ralston said no, they are paid through the Department of Medical
A@
Assistance Services at the state. The provider bills that department, and it actually authorizes the payment.
The local department determines the eligibility of clients.
Ms. Thomas said it was a good report, and she thanked those present from Social Services. Ms.
Ralston said she would like to thank Paul McWhinney and Sonia Jammes. They were responsible for
putting this report together, and have all ready thought of ways to improve the report next year.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman of the School Board, was present. He said the School Board has
been focused on the budget for the last two months. All eagerly await the final figures from the State. In
the current year, the State reduced the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) rate. This will give a savings of
approximately $700,000. This will help make up a reduction in State income this current year of about
$800,000. In order to be prepared for a shortfall from the State, the School Board implemented a 12.5
percent hold-back on all departments and schools. Now that the VRS rate has changed, they will be able
to release some of those funds in the 2001-02 year.
Mr. Koleszar said they are half way through the Middle School Redistricting process. It will be a hot
topic. They developed a process last year where the Long-Range Planning Committee is the core of the
Redistricting Committee. They brought in representatives from the affected schools. Then when the plan
comes to the School Board, they will all ready know the issues, and the feedback from the public before
discussing the issues and making a decision. He said some people are still unhappy with the last
redistricting process, but he thought the process went well, and everyone had a chance to be heard.
In terms of construction, the Baker-Butler project is on time, and within budget. He said when
Monticello was opened, everyone had to work really hard those last two weeks to get the school open on
time, and this time they will not be as pressed for time. He said the renovation of Burley is working out well.
It is a fairly tricky project, but as soon as the new rooms are ready, classes can be moved into those rooms,
and then renovations can take place in the empty rooms. He said both Burley and Jouett will be ready for
the Middle School Redistricting which is in process now but will take place at the beginning of the 2003-04
school year.
Mr. Rooker referred to the 12.5 percent holdback, and said he assumes that does not include
salaries. Mr. Koleszar said that is correct. This is money for supplies and all the other activities in the
schools. Dr. Castner said there is usually a 7.5 percent holdback each year which generates about
$460,000. They also recover a little money on non-essential instructional positions. They do hire for any
critical positions. There is also a process for the principals to use to appeal any decision concerning use of
funds.
Mr. Rooker asked if that money is a line-item in the budget. Dr. Castner said if the schools and
departments have to do the holdback they can choose the categories, it does not mean it would be in each
category. However, it does not look like that will be necessary because of the VRS change, and it has been
a mild winter and there was no need to pay overtime for maintenance crews.
Mr. Rooker asked if the reduction in VRS rates is due to the change in the assumptions of the yield.
Ms. Thomas said it is the result of the General Assembly thinking they can find money; the VRS Board
does not concur with this decision at all, feeling it is bad short-term thinking. She said this will hit the
localities in other years. Mr. Tucker said it is only for teachers, not classified employees, so the County gets
no benefit from that reduced rate.
Mr. Koleszar said he had included a copy of his transmittal letter with the budget. He would like to
highlight a couple of things. The School Board has asked for $500,000 in one-time moneys. He said that
last year, the Supervisors gave them one-time moneys and they used these funds for things which were
technically being paid for from one-time money, but it could be argued that they were recurring expenses,
textbooks and buses. This year, with the opening of Baker-Butler and the outlay for textbooks, desks,
furniture, etc., there is about $500,000 of expenses which are true one-time expenses. The School Board
would like to have that amount in addition to the money which has been allocated to it. With the one-time
money in the budget, they put into reserve approximately $911,000. That money is specifically earmarked
for salaries because they are determined to reach the market for compensation. They kept it at two-
A@
percent as part of the agreement voted on with the Supervisors in November, but the School Board feels
strongly that it needs to get to the market figure. At the joint meeting of the Boards on March 20, this issue
will be revisited to determine the actual market figure.
Ms. Thomas asked if the market figure has been determined at this time. Mr. Koleszar said the
School Board has been told that the World-At-Work study is the right way to determine that figure. As far
A@
as he is concerned, he thinks they will check World-At-Work by doing a survey of the market. As long as it
is in that ballpark, he thinks the figure should stay with the agreement to the employees.
Ms. Thomas asked if the $911,000 will pay for most of that difference in the percentage increase.
Mr. Koleszar said it will pay for most of it. Dr. Castner said it is a moving target. If the amount moves to 3.3
percent, the Board would have to reprioritize some other items in the budget.
Ms. Koleszar said when the School Board directed Dr. Castner to prepare his budget they knew the
financial conditions of the State, and did not put anything extra into the budget by not giving any inflation
increases. This is actually a step back in a reduction effort. They knew this was going to be a tough year,
so they prepared their budget accordingly, but the School Board is adamant about compensation and
keeping salaries at market. There was an unanimous Board vote to send the budget to the Supervisors,
and an unanimous Board vote to keep compensation at market.
Ms. Thomas asked if the School Board members all received the same E-mail the Supervisors
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
received from Ken Boyd. She said the School Board members are not listed as being recipients of this
communication. He has forwarded a minority report which the Supervisors will want to discuss later. Mr.
Koleszar said he has not seen the E-mail.
Dr. Castner said he was invited to represent the Superintendent's Association in Richmond last
Monday to testify about the sale tax, but did not get a chance to do so. He said the one-half cent sales tax
increase proposed would generate $3.5 million in additional revenue for Albemarle County. If he had
testified, he would have pointed out that the decrease from 37 percent of the state budget to 32 percent has
caused Albemarle County to make up $5.0 million. He would have said that Albemarle had a four percent
increase in the property tax and instituted a meals tax. While the General Assembly is reluctant to let the
voters speak about an increase in the state sales tax, the difference in money is being done locally. He can
appreciate how this whole question is getting passed down to the Supervisors.
Mr. Martin said he has received some E-mails about how the market for salaries was chosen. He
A@
thinks it will be important that if the School Board is going to stand firm to keep compensation at 100
percent of market as the Compensation Committee recommended, the School Board must stand firm with
the entire recommendation, i.e., who Albemarle Countys market is, and who Albemarle should be
=
compared to.
Mr. Koleszar said he agrees, but because there are arguments on both sides, it shows it was a
compromise. He thinks the market that was chosen is a conservative market. If there had been an
aggressive market, a case could be made for not keeping up to market. The market is conservative and
includes counties like Buckingham and Nelson. Albemarle cannot compete with Loudoun or Fairfax
counties. Mr. Martin said he believes every member of the Compensation Committee needs to stand up
and whenever either side starts arguing about the market, say they stand firm with the market agreed to.
Then they can also say that they stand firm that compensation should be at 100 percent of that market.
Mr. Koleszar said the agreement reached last year is a long-term solution, and that is why it is
important for the School Board to stick with that decision on the issue of compensation.
Mr. Rooker asked the definition of self-sustaining budget. Mr. Koleszar said there are two main
A@
categories. One is a category which is sustained by fees, and the other are the things which are sustained
by grants. He said Title I is a grant from the Federal government. The two largest self-sustaining funds are
the School Lunch Program and the After-School program.
Mr. Perkins asked about the Air Force Junior ROTC Program. He said it seems like a good idea,
and he would like to see a similar program in all of the schools. Mr. Koleszar said they only allow a few
schools to undertake the program. Dr. Castner said the schools have been on the waiting list for three
years. They believe they can have such a program within existing funding.
(Note: At 10:46 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:59 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Lewis and Clark Exposition Plans, Lee Catlin.
Ms. Lee Catlin summarized the executive summary. She said that in January, 2003, the national
celebration marking the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery Expedition will kick off with
a six-day long exposition in this community, culminating in a commencement event at Monticello on January
18 which will be the first in a series of ten Signature Events designated by the National Council of the
A@
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial that will be held across the country through 2006. The exposition will feature
a variety of activities held at sites around the University of Virginia and the Charlottesville/ Albemarle County
community. Some of these activities, including the Corps of Discovery II, which is a multimedia recreation
of the expedition, will continue on well beyond the end of the actual exposition. Organizers anticipate that
more than 5000 people will attend the exposition itself, with many more being drawn to the community for
the next several years based on the national exposure and attention being focused on the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial.
Ms. Catlin said County staff has been meeting among themselves and with representatives from
Monticello to make sure that the needs of this major, long-term event, are anticipated, and that staff is
prepared to respond appropriately. The County will play a hosting role as the venue for much of this
activity, with responsibilities for public safety, traffic management, signage, permitting, protection of private
property, etc. Staff is anxious to take advantage of the exposure that will be created by this event to
highlight the community in the most positive light possible to visitors and residents alike.
Ms. Catlin distributed to the Board members a list of the events scheduled for January, 2003. She
said the Corps of Discovery II display will be placed in this area and it is anticipated that it will be in the
community for about six weeks and draw a significant crowd to the community. It will also be a good
opportunity for local people to experience the Lewis and Clark exploration in a hands-on way. The National
Parks Service is sponsoring that particular item and their representative will be in the community next week.
Staff is looking at the Meriwether Lewis Historic Marker to see what can be done to showcase the Lewis
and Clark route positively. Also, it is working with the Tourism Council on the tour operation that will be
taking place here. They are putting out an RFP to a tour company. They are also focusing on the kinds of
things which can be done locally because this is a three-year opportunity. Staff has been working with
Parks and Recreation to see what the County can do to support outdoor recreational opportunities tied to
Lewis and Clark kinds of things, i.e.; enhancing the river put-in capabilities or other recreational
opportunities which might appeal to visitors who are in the area for the Lewis & Clark celebration.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Catlin said staff has been working with Kat Imhoff at Monticello who is an active part of this
celebration at the national level. They will be doing presentations in Lewiston and other places over the
next several months, and staff wants to be sure the Countys promotional information is included in that, as
=
well. She said there is also a big tie in with the schools. The Corps of Discovery II media event is
something which will be made open to school children. There will be a lot of school programs over the next
couple of years focusing on local ties to Meriwether Lewis and Thomas Jefferson.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a National Geographic Magazine photographer who lives in the Ivy area
and he published a book along with Stephen Ambrose on Lewis and Clark. It has terrific photographs. Mr.
Dorrier said he was present at a presentation of the photographs at the Vinegar Hill Theater. If possible, he
thought that might be put into one of the revolving video type displays, and it would be a good idea to put it
in the County Office Building. Ms. Catlin said she would talk with Mr. Dorrier because this seems to be a
great idea. Because they know there will be interest in some of the private sites in the County, they want to
do some sort of video or photographic display which would give people the opportunity to see those places
without actually being on the property.
Ms. Catlin said that next Wednesday morning, March 13, there will be the ground breaking
ceremony for the Monticello Fire Station on Mill Creek Drive.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Dorrier both serve on the committee which is working for a Lewis and
Clark Museum or a hands-on exploratory center that will be permanent in the community. The second
weekend in May, 2002 is the next Lewis and Clark festival. It will include a walk in the Ragged Mountains to
duplicate some walk that Jefferson took that inspired him with the idea of westward expansion. That event
has a lot of different aspects. That Friday will be for school students, and then Saturday will be for the
entire community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Windham Assisted Living Facility Agreement, Discussion.
Mr. Tucker said that on January 9, 2002, staff presented a plan in which the Jefferson Board on
Aging (JABA) and Stonehaus Development Corporation would purchase Windham in Crozet, Virginia, in
order to continue its operation as an assisted-living facility serving 30 County and 25 City auxiliary grant
recipients out of approximately 150 licensed beds. Stonehaus Development Corporation and JABA, Inc.
proposed formation of a limited liability corporation, Crozet Partners, LLC, and sought assistance from the
City and the County in the form of grants to subsidize the costs of supporting current and future auxiliary
grant clients residing at Windham.
Mr. Tucker said at that meeting, the Board authorized staff to develop an agreement among the
parties that would provide the requested support and would also provide a mechanism for sharing in any
gains that might accrue if a surplus were generated. An agreement has been drafted which authorizes a
City grant of $148,014 and a County grant of $177,617 to JABA, Inc. He said City Council has approved of
the agreement as recommended to the Board today. He referred the Board to the executive summary for
more particulars concerning the agreement (copy on file in the Clerks Office).
=
Mr. Tucker said at that January meeting, staff proposed that the $177,617 County subsidy will
ultimately be funded with one-time revenues derived from the closure and sale of the former District Home
in Waynesboro, Virginia. Sale of the County's share of assets in the former District Home will make
$66,400 available and $111,217 is anticipated to be reimbursed late this spring from unexpended
contributions made to the Virginia Retirement System. The amount of the VRS refund and payment date
are still being negotiated. Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the
Windham Agreement. An appropriation of $177,617 to JABA, Inc. will be presented to the Board for
approval within the next two weeks.
Ms. Thomas asked if the private parties involved are in agreement with this proposal. Mr. Tucker
said there is no signed agreement with anyone at this time, but it is his understanding they are in
agreement.
Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of JABA, said they have expressed support verbally with the
last rewrite of the agreement. He thanked the Board for working with JABA to make this project go forward
and preserve this type of housing for some of the senior citizens in the City and the County. As was seen in
the business plan that was shared with the Board, at some point in time they hope to pay back the funds
through a gain-sharing arrangement.
Mr. Rooker said there was something missing in the agreement. Mr. Davis said there is a corrected
copy that was distributed to the Board this morning. Two lines had been dropped from the other version
when it was printed. Those lines reflect that if the assisted-living facility is unable to meet the obligation of
the ten years or fifteen years as outlined in the agreement, any part of the Citys and the Countys grants
==
which have not been used to subsidize auxiliary grant residents, would be returned to the City and the
County.
Mr. Rooker referred to Paragraph 4 where it says At least 30 auxiliary grant spaces shall be
A
guaranteed for use by assisted County residents, .... He said there is no duration on that stipulation.
@
Mr. Perkins asked the definition of resident.
A@
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Davis said that was discussed, but the intent of the agreement is that it would be for the duration
of the agreement unless the County and the City agreed otherwise. The population would consist of the 25
and 30 respective residents from the City and the County. They have discussed how that residency would
be determined. Basically the client would need to establish their physical residency in the City or the County
prior to applying to go into this facility. It does not require any length of duration, but there would have to be
a determination made by the facility that they had established residency in the County before they would be
counted.
Mr. Rooker asked if all the people in the facility now are considered County residents. Mr. Davis
said once they establish residency, they are County residents in the generic sense. This agreement would
require that they be a resident before locating there. There are currently 30 assisted residents there, and
when those people are replaced, they would have to be by new assisted residents.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this agreement is basically a transition plan from what is there now to a private
pay arrangement. Mr. Walker said it is more private pay with an auxiliary grant. Because the states
=
reimbursement rate for an auxiliary grant is only about 66 percent of cost, a subsidy is needed. The money
the County and the City will pay is an advance for JABA to get to the point where the private pay would in
effect subsidize the auxiliary grant residents.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this agreement continues for ten years. Mr. Walker said hopefully it will go
beyond that time period.
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve the agreement and authorize the County
Executive to sign the agreement on behalf of the County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be helpful to have something in writing between the City and the
County about how people are presently allocated so that several years from now there is not an argument
about which spot is being filled if someone has left. There needs to be a starting point. These are the
assisted-living people only, and the agreement does not make that point clear. When someone leaves who
is in one of the identified County slots, that creates a County space, and when someone leaves who is in
one of the identified City spaces, as they exist today, that creates a City space. There needs to be a list of
who makes up the Citys 25, and who makes up the Countys 30 so it will be known which entity is entitled to
==
have a person come in.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Rookers point actually will protect the City. At this time, all are County
=
residents, so if someone left it would be considered a County bed. Mr. Rooker said there needs to be a
starting point by identifying which 25 people are City people, and which 30 people are County people.
At this time, Ms. Thomas called for a roll call. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The agreement which the County Executive was authorized to sign on behalf of the County
is set out in full below.)
THE WINDHAM AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of ________, 2002 by and between
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia
(the "County"); the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City"); and the JEFFERSON AREA BOARD FOR AGING,
INC. ("JABA"), and CROZET PARTNERS LLC, a limited liability corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
WHEREAS, The Windham is an assisted-living facility in Crozet, located at 1220
Crozet Avenue, Crozet, Virginia, currently serving 30 auxiliary grant County residents and
25 auxiliary grant City residents;
WHEREAS, The Windham's current owner, Genesis ElderCare National Centers,
Inc., intends to close this facility and has offered the facility for sale;
WHEREAS, Crozet Partners LLC currently has a contract to purchase the
property;
WHEREAS, Crozet Partners LLC wishes to maintain the property as an assisted
living facility, if local assistance can be provided to meet the cash flow necessary to cover
certain initial expenses;
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to provide certain financial assistance to
ensure the long-term viability of The Windham as an assisted-living facility;
THEREFORE, the County does hereby grant $177,617 and the City does hereby
grant $148,014 to JABA, both grants being subject to the following terms and conditions:
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
1. Disbursement of Funds. Disbursement of the grants hereunder shall be
subject to appropriation by the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council,
respectively. Upon final appropriation of the grant(s) by the governing bodies of the City
and County, respectively, said grant(s) shall be deposited into a separate designated JABA
account on or before March 25, 2002.
2. Use of Funds. All funds granted hereunder shall be used solely for the
maintenance and/or operation of The Windham as an assisted-living facility for the elderly.
3. Use Requirement. The Windham facility shall remain an assisted-living
facility for the elderly for a period of at least ten years. However, if Crozet Partners LLC
determines during this initial ten-year period that the facility is no longer economically
viable as an assisted-living facility, the Windham facility shall be converted to affordable
housing for a period of at least 15 years following the purchase of the facility by Crozet
Partners LLC, unless after using due diligence to obtain all necessary approvals such use
is not approved by Albemarle County. In the event of such a conversion, Crozet Partners
LLC shall take all reasonable efforts to establish and maintain eligibility for Federal tax
credits for affordable housing under Internal Revenue Code 42. If, during the first 15
'
years of this agreement, the facility ceases to be operated either as an assisted living
facility for the elderly or as affordable housing, JABA will refund to the City and the County
all remaining funds that originated from the City's and County's grants and that have not
been used to subsidize either City or County auxiliary grant residents.
4. Residency Requirement. At least 30 auxiliary grant spaces shall be
guaranteed for use by assisted County residents, unless the County consents otherwise.
At least 25 auxiliary grant spaces shall be guaranteed for use by assisted City residents,
unless the City consents otherwise. Any consent must be executed in writing. Before
being considered a County resident or a City resident for purposes of this requirement, a
resident shall have established residency in the County or City, respectively, prior to
requesting an auxiliary grant subsidy.
5. Lease Approval. In the event that Crozet Partners LLC wishes to lease the
property for management by a third-party, any proposed lease or managing tenant for the
facility shall be subject to approval by the County and the City. Such approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
6. Gain-Sharing. After an initial reserve equal to one month's operating
expenses is accumulated, Operating Profits (defined as revenue in excess of operating
expenses) shall be returned to the County and the City. Specifically, any Operating Profits
realized from this facility shall be distributed in the following priority order:
(a) Crozet Partners LLC shall be required to keep a reserve equal to
one month's expenses.
(b) Once said reserve is achieved or exceeded, two-thirds (2/3) of
subsequent Operating Profits shall be returned to the County and the City, in amounts
proportionate to their respective grants herein. Said repayment of Operating Profits shall
continue without interest until the respective grants of the City and County herein are repaid
in full.
(c) Crozet Partners LLC may retain any Operating Profits remaining
after the above obligations are met.
7. Quarterly Reporting. At least once every three months until the grants of the
County and City have been repaid in full pursuant to the above gain-sharing provisions,
JABA shall provide a report to the County and the City detailing the financial operations of
the Windham facility during the preceding quarter. Such report shall include JABA's
assessment regarding the continuing economic viability of The Windham as an
assisted-living facility. If JABA believes that The Windham is no longer economically viable
as an assisted-living facility, the quarterly report shall so state. Once the grants of the
County and City have been repaid in full pursuant to the above gain-sharing provisions,
these quarterly reporting obligations may cease. If the facility is being operated as
affordable housing, JABA shall provide to the County or the City, upon demand,
documentation that the facility is in compliance with this Agreement. The County and/or
the City shall be allowed to inspect all relevant records upon request.
8. Default. A violation of any of the terms contained herein shall be considered
a default. In the event of default not cured within forty-five (45) days, the County and the
City reserve the right to recall their respective grant(s) in part or in full.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Groundwater Committee Report, Presentation of.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. David Hirschman, Watershed Official, was present to make a slide presentation of the report
entitled Underground Albemarle: A report from the Groundwater Committee dated October 15, 2001. He
A@
said the Board authorized formation of and representation on a Groundwater Committee on May 3, 2000,
following similar action by the Planning Commission on March 21, 2000. The initial focus of the committee
was to investigate groundwater assessment standards for site development. The committee completed its
initial report in October, 2001. The report is termed a working draft because the committee felt that
A@
feedback and discussion with decision-makers was needed before proceeding with the technical details.
Mr. Hirschman began his presentation by giving some climate data. He said there are two nearby
long-term monitoring wells which are monitored by USGS and DEQ. The first slide shows data from 1997
to 2002 of the groundwater level of a shallow well (98 feet deep) just over the County line near
Gordonsville. At this time, the well is at a low below its historic low. He said it is a shallow well, this is not
bedrock water, but water that is perched in the water table well. The other well in the area is an old well in
Key West which was modified to be a monitoring well. He said this well is 409 feet deep so is more
representative of a well in deep bedrock. That well has been dipping in level, but has not gotten anywhere
near its historic low. The one thing that is known about groundwater is that it is variable and is a complex
system. Shallow wells which rely on the water table are in the danger zone at this time, even before
summer begins. Some deep wells may be dropping,, but not to that critical level.
Mr. Hirschman then showed a graft representing stream water in the Rivanna River at Palmyra
from October, 1999 to February, 2002. He said there is information for a seventy-year period from a water
gauge at that point on the River. The previous record low for February was at about 200.0 million gallons
per day, and readings taken recently were down below 100.0 million gallons per day. He said long-term
water storage which is feeding the river system is at historic low levels. This past weekend there was rain,
and he just got data from that event this morning. The level went up to about 400.0 during the peak of the
rain, but as of this morning it has fallen back to somewhere between 100.0 and 200.0, so it is back below
the record low. He gives this information so the Board has a sense of the groundwater situation in the
County.
Mr. Hirschman gave to the Board a copy of a letter dated March 4, 2002, from J. W. Brent,
Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, in which Mr. Brent gives a history of failed
community groundwater systems in the County.
Mr. Hirschman said the Groundwater Committee looked at a variety of issues. Issues such as:
what should the County do to require that groundwater be verified when a subdivision plat is presented for
approval? At this time, staff verifies that there is enough water to serve the development, that as the
development puts in wells and starts to draw water, they are not adversely impacting their neighbors. That
is a topic which has been in the Comprehensive Plan for a number of years, but is not an easy topic. The
committee looked at testing and reporting standards for development, and because it was so inter-related,
the committee also talked about central systems.
Mr. Hirschman said the Groundwater Committees work is only one of three on-going efforts
=
concerning groundwater in the County. They are looking at how to build a groundwater data base county-
wide; studies at a basin scale (something like the Mechum River basin, or Buck Mountain Creek basin) of
large watershed areas from 30 to 70 square miles; and, work at the site level (the Committee addressed
the idea of verifying an adequate groundwater supply). At the County level, they assembled a groundwater
data base (it was actually started by the Division of Mineral Resources several years ago). The County
funded the completion of the study through 1999. Every well that has been drilled, and where a record was
created, has been put into this data base and is also in the GIS. That has proved to be a useful tool, but
they also realize the magnitude of work involved in keeping the data base updated by working with the
Health Department. At the basin scale, Phase I of what was designed as a six-year study for the Countys
=
groundwater is near completion for the Ivy Creek and Mechum River watershed area. In this study, they are
looking at the spacial variability of how much groundwater is available, and its relative sensitivity to
becoming contaminated. He said this study can get into a lot of different subjects. One thing that is known
about groundwater in the Piedmont is that it is very site specific. Drilling a well at 100 feet on one site has
little to do with a very close site where a well might have to go to 200 feet. He said it has been a challenge
to wrestle with the variability and try to draw conclusions about resources at the base in scale.
Mr. Hirschman showed a slide of a map put together by the consultant of the Ivy Creek and
Mechum River watershed. It shows contouring of well yields and locations of fracture zones from aerial
photography.
Ms. Thomas asked the use of this information. Mr. Hirschman said it shows fractures, and where
many fractures intersect is an area where a successful well might be drilled. They also have well yield
information, so using everything in combination, if there were a property of 100 acres applying for
subdivision approval, they might be able to pinpoint a location for a well. The idea is to feed information
down to the site level, so more informed decisions can be made about utilizing groundwater.
Mr. Rooker asked how the fracture areas are determined from the aerial photography. Mr.
Hirschman said lineal features are seen. A stream might have a long straight section, or there may be a
break in vegetation, or a long swale. He said the geologists who do this work are trained to pick up these
fracture zones. They also did a lot of verification in the field because it is a two-step process.
Mr. Bowerman asked the depth of the fracture zones. Mr. Nick Evans said bedrock begins at
anywhere from zero to 50 feet beneath the unconsolidated stuff, and the fractures in the bedrock can
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
extend down several hundred feet depending on the physical properties of the rock. Some rock behaves in
sort of a plastic manner so that the deeper it goes, the fractures tend to close up from the confining
pressure.
Mr. Hirschman said he had a slide which will show how the information from the regional studies
might be used. In the Ivy Creek/Mechum River watershed area, there are a series of community/central
wells in the watershed. Then other community resources such as the Beaver Creek Reservoir and the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir are added in. There is an important inter-relation between groundwater and
the water quality in those water bodies, and they can identify areas of major recharge. It gives a sense of
how this natural system will relate to development and the amount of water withdrawal put on the system.
Mr. Hirschman said the site scale is the work of the committee. They looked at the impacts of
proposed development on groundwater quantity and quality. There has always been a notion that it could
be verified that groundwater is adequate, although there is no perfect way to do that. Standards are
needed to protect sensitive resources such as when someone wants to put several drainfields in an area
draining directly to the Beaver Creek Reservoir. With the site scale, they are concerned about the ultimate
practices of the homeowner with regard to how often they pump the septic well, and what kind of chemicals
they might use, and how the septic field is managed, etc.
Mr. Hirschman said there are two types of water supplies being used in the rural areas. The vast
majority of water is from private individual wells. At this time, there are also about 19 central well systems in
operation. He showed an example of how a site level groundwater study would influence a subdivision plat
design. He showed an example of a site in Stony Point with Village Residential zoning. He said it is
basically a traditional subdivision design, where the total acreage is carved up into lots. If a groundwater
assessment approach were taken to the site, the property might be studied to look at the availability of
groundwater. There might be areas of high, medium and low groundwater potential identified. One way to
use that information to determine how the acreage is laid out would be to concentrate all of the wells in the
area identified as promising for groundwater. Subsequently, the development and the drainfields would be
sited away from that area. Drainfields could be separated from the recharge area for the wells. Some
credence could be lent to the cluster idea which may be beneficial for reasons other than groundwater.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Hirschman actively works with developers now in designing sites. Mr.
Hirschman said this program is not in place, so when plats come in for approval they are normally just
approved administratively. There is no process in place where groundwater has to be studied or assessed.
Mr. Dorrier said it seems to be just luck as to whether or not these things are in the best place. Mr.
Hirschman said depending on the lot sizes being created, randomly sited individual wells are being drilled.
The drainfields have to meet standards. The wells have to meet setback standards by the Health
Department. They are minimum standards based on public health, but they do not address the long-term
viability of a well.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis what kind of statutory authority the Board has with respect to a rural
subdivision to require some kind of groundwater analysis, and perhaps require design of the subdivision
based upon those findings. Mr. Davis said the Countys authority is not explicit, but there is an opinion of the
=
Attorney General which says it has some implicit authority to look at water issues in approval of
subdivisions. He thinks that might be contested if the County went very far, and increased expenses
significantly. He said the authority is not clear cut, but there may be implicit authority to do most of what Mr.
Hirschman has said.
Mr. Hirschman said in terms of localities in Virginia which have such a program, there are not quite
ten of those. However, in the Piedmont region there is Loudoun, Fauquier, Orange, Rappahannock and
several others. He said the Groundwater Committee, with help from Planning Department staff, found the
nature of groundwater demand in the rural areas. If that demand is divided into two categories, the first is
for new land divisions and existing platted lots where there is no dwelling unit, and these lots only require
issuance of a building permit to build a house. He said the term development is misleading because the
A@
vast majority of the divisions are by people creating one to three lots. He said these people would be the
ones subject to this testing and they are not professional developers. This would be a shock for them both
in expense and time. For lots with zero dwelling units which have been platted (lots between two and 21
acres), there are more than 4000 of those lots. The smaller lots are of more concern
when it comes to groundwater. There are not many platted lots over 21 acres in size. He said groundwater
demand is likely to come from small-time subdividers creating relatively small lots.
Mr. Hirschman said the Groundwater Committee has six recommendations. The first is to pursue
and fund regional groundwater studies, as has been done with the Ivy and Mechum River watershed.
The second is to promote good development practices for groundwater which landowners or
AA@@
developers could voluntarily implement with property. Yesterday, the Planning Commission recommended
that these practices be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Third is to streamline the Rural
Preservation Development (RPD) or Cluster Provisions for Rural Divisions. He said the Planning
Department has taken the lead on this recommendation. They have a committee in place to look at this.
He will be working with them to be sure groundwater considerations are involved in that deliberation.
Ms. Thomas asked if anyone has taken into account that new State legislation requires that RPDs
=
be by-right, so they will receive only administrative review, which may make them more popular, but it also
makes it more important that staff knows what to look for. Mr. Hirschman said staff is aware of the
legislation, but he is not sure everyone knows the specifics of it yet.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Rooker said that is one of the reasons he asked the question earlier. If there was a situation
where the division is a matter of right, and there is only administrative approval, to what extent can additional
requirements be added? Mr. Davis said if additional requirements are going to be added, then on a case-
by-case basis the requirements will have to be specified in the development ordinances, and the
developments will have to meet identified standards without any review by the Planning Commission or
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Hirschman said recommendation number four is to adopt Groundwater Assessment
Standards and incentives for proposed development. Yesterday, the Planning Commission
recommended that the Committee put this into some format or language that resembled an ordinance so
people would have something to react to. Recommendation number five is to reevaluate the use of
central systems. As can be seen by the letter from the ACSA, this is a big albatross, but neither the
committee or the Planning Commission want to discard this option, but to explore how they might be
improved if they are used. Recommendation number six is to consider groundwater in the Rural Areas
section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hirschman then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Albemarle, as compared to other localities, is rich in groundwater. Mr.
Hirschman said looking at the whole state of Virginia, the Piedmont region, in general, is not rich in
groundwater. The reason there are not community systems in the Piedmont which rely on wells, is that it is
not a reliable source. In the Shenandoah Valley or on the coastal plain, there are large communities that
are served by groundwater.
Mr. Rooker asked what in these strategies is geared toward locating recharge areas either on a
site-scale or an agricultural scale, in the potential implementation procedures for addressing protection of
those areas. Mr. Hirschman said that is an excellent question. That is what they had in mind for regional
basin studies and work at the site level. You cant answer the question about recharge without doing a little
=
bit of both. In looking at the basin-scale, they can identify the big systems of recharge and capture. Also,
with recharge, the water is captured in one place, but is available down slope somewhere else. The basin-
scale studies can begin to identify the big patterns. With properties of more than 50 acres, on-site work
must be done to answer the questions.
Mr. Rooker asked to what extent goals for protection of recharge can be considered in a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Hirschman said the good development practices are listed; those
items which will be sent to the Planning Commission for implementation in the Plan. Those are an
important factor.
Ms. Thomas asked when County staff will be able to answer such questions as water availability,
recharge areas, where to place septic fields, etc. on a large piece of property. Does staff have the
capability to answer those questions today? Mr. Hirschman said it is not staffs intent to answer those
=
questions, but through the site assessment the burden would be on the person doing the subdivision to hire
a competent professional to answer those questions. In terms of the technical information available,
County staff is not very far along. These are very difficult and complicated questions.
Ms. Thomas said her questions could be raised at the lowest tier. While the report is saying there
would be nothing required of the landowner or the County, the County might still get that question. Would
the County not answer those questions for the small development in the non-sensitive areas? Mr.
Hirschman said the Tier Zero does put the burden on County staff as it framed now. The intention is that
staff would look at the data base, and the DEQ records, and available information. A good example was a
case in North Garden several years ago where DEQ was investigating an underground storage tank flume,
and was working its way down gradient from the trading post, and a subdivision plat came in for four lots
where the well would have been in the direct path of that flume. At this time, there is no way to send up a
A
red flag about those situations.
@
Ms. Thomas said she hopes there is not too big of a disconnect between what can be done, and
what some are saying somebody ought to do. Mr. Hirschman said somebody could spend a lot of money
for a little site. There is the question of generating useful information, information which feeds back to the
subdivision design process. He thinks Loudoun County has a track record showing that can work. It is not a
perfect program, but they have done over a hundred of these studies.
Mr. Martin said the example Mr. Hirschman gave earlier of homes in the Stony Point area showed
the houses clustered in the low water area, and then the central well was in the high water area. He said
that unless the County changes its current philosophy about central wells, in effect the cluster would be
where the high water area is located. Mr. Hirschman said that is a possibility. Another thing that came up at
the Planning Commission meeting is that there may not be a central well, but individual wells in the open
space or on the preservation tract through an easement or something of that nature.
Mr. Martin asked if the water would be pumped. Mr. Hirschman said the water is all ready pumped,
but the design might be changed to have the wells in that area, with the drainfields being put out of that
area. He said these are difficult issues, but the main point of the report is that at this time, groundwater
information is not used when designs are put together. They do not have all the information or have the
best answers.
Mr. Bowerman said the information Mr. Hirschman has is important in that potential lot owners have
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
a way to make a rational decision as to whether to purchase the lot. That could have an affect upon the
subdivision itself. If the buyer knew the lot was downstream of a flume, there would be no house there. Mr.
Hirschman said in the report is a recommendation that wells be drilled prior to issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Perkins said that is not much different than requiring a perk test for a septic system.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that in Virginia the regulations on septic fields are intended to
affect the possible surface runoff from those fields, but the regulations do not deal with groundwater. That
means there could be a good perk test, but the owner is never told that the water level is such that he will
be polluting his own drinking water. Mr. Hirschman said a septic drain field test does not have water quality
as part of its objective. It is for waste disposal only. It is a public health problem when something comes to
the surface, and that is considered a failure. If it perks downward and something gets into the water table
or a stream, that is not considered a failure based on the design standards of a septic field.
Mr. Perkins said is the recharge areas could be identified, perhaps that should be incorporated in
the ACE Program so that area could get points because of its recharge value. Mr. Hirschman said that is
built into the ACE Ordinance, but they are just waiting for some data.
Mr. Tucker said this is very involved with data collection, and only individual sections are being done
at a time, so there is a long way to go. Eventually, it will be helpful to those who are anticipating developing
land.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis if the County could require that wells be drilled prior to issuance of a
building permit. Mr. Davis said yes. It has been discussed in the past, and it is really a matter of cost. Mr.
A@
Tucker said it is the logistics. First, there has to be a road in order to get the equipment onto the site.
Mr. Rooker said the question is one of who takes the risk, and right now the risk is on the buyers of
lots. Mr. Davis said that traditionally someone builds a house away from the drainfields, and the last thing
they do is locate a well. If a well is drilled first, everything else has to be configured around the well, and it
limits the flexibility of moving things around on the site.
Mr. Martin said if this is a question the Board wants to pursue, he thinks it should ask staff for a
recommendation. He does not think the Board can come to any conclusion today.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be helpful if the Board had a recommendation soon. He has
had a couple of calls from citizens complaining about this very thing.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it should be an agenda item for a future date.
Mr. Hirschman said the concept is built into the four tiers. To the extent that the Committee
pursues that tier system and the site-level assessment, that will come along with it unless the Board wants
to pull out that one question and put it on a faster track.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Hirschman for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. County Executive's FY 2002-03 Budget, Presentation of.
Mr. Tucker said this has been a very interesting budget process considering what has been taking
place at the State level. He said this proposed budget does maintain the current tax rates for personal
property at $4.28/$100 and at $0.76/$100 of value. He said basic local services have been maintained.
The current fiscal planning policies have been maintained. Education and public service continue to be
priorities in the provision of services.
Mr. Tucker said the total budget is $193.8 million which is a 5.14 percent increase over the current
years budget. State and Federal revenues have increased only slightly compared to past years. It is not
=
anticipated that will change in future years. Even in the current years budget, it is anticipated that the
=
County will receive $500,000 less than expected. He said things are changing daily because of the State
and the General Assembly Session now in progress. When their work is completed, things may level out in
terms of the changes occurring day-to-day. He said the School Division received an increase from the
State of about 1.2 percent over the current year ($400,000). However, the School System has been
provided almost $5.0 million (8% increase) in local dollars. In addition to that, he is recommending that the
School System be allocated an additional $125,000 in non-recurring revenues which they can use as they
have requested for non-recurring expenses associated with the opening of the Baker-Butler Elementary
School.
Mr. Tucker said the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottesville will increase about
$200,000, so the total payment to the City next January will be about $6.7 million. Debt Service for school
construction amounts to about $9.9 million, including new construction, renovations and major maintenance
projects. The total FY 03-07 Capital Improvements Program totals about $109.2 million. As in recent
>
years, community and regional agencies are recommended to get an increase of about 2.5 percent. One
new fund created this year, is the Ivy Landfill Remediation Fund. In addition to the $446,000 used to
establish that fund in the current year, about $475,000 was added for next year. Programs funded in the
past such as recycling and bulky waste amnesty days, will continue to be funded.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Tucker said with the construction of the Monticello Fire Station in the southern urban area,
funds are provided for the staffing and operation of that facility that will have both career and volunteer
firefighters. About $400,000 will be needed to start the hiring process in October. The station should open
in early December, 2002 or in January, 2003. The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center is near
completion located near the Regional Jail. Staff learned a couple of weeks ago that funding reductions at
the State level may keep the facility from being opened until January, 2003. This will not save the County
any money because local juveniles will have to be sent to some other facility. It costs the Sheriffs Office
=
about $1000 per week just for transport of offenders.
Mr. Tucker said that health care benefits for employees are a significant cost this year as staff
informed the Board last fall. They are increasing about 27 percent, and that increase will be funded for
both the Schools and Local Government so employees will not have to bear any additional costs. He said
staff compensation is proposed at two percent as discussed with the School Board last fall. Both the
School Board and his staff recommended that it be funded in this budget at two percent, but the two Boards
will make a final decision on this at the work session scheduled for March 20. He said Human Resources
staff is looking at the comparative localities the Compensation/Benefits Committee recommended. From
what he is hearing, he does not think the World-At-Work number will change. It was checked fairly recently.
But, the other localities are being checked because he believes that number has changed for them.
Mr. Tucker said he is recommending that Development Review Fees, not including building
inspection fees, be increased by 25 percent in order to aid in covering County expenses for this service. He
said these fees have not been increased for ten years. The CPI over that ten years has increased by about
30 percent. In the future, he thinks staff will be more aggressive in trying to recoup costs. He provided
$405,000 for the Boards Reserve Fund that will be recurring revenues so they can be used for other
=
services or programs. In addition, the Board will have a Reserve of $700,000 in non-recurring revenues
which can be used for one-time expenses.
Mr. Tucker then listed some funding priorities:
Administration - Funds to the Board of Elections for anticipated precinct changes; funds
for a part-time position to maintain the County web-site and coordinate the E-government
function;
Judicial - Funds to add PC workstations in the General District Court, and for the Clerk of
the Circuit Court; funds for the Sheriffs Office to replace vehicles, furniture and
=
communication equipment;
Public Safety - Funds to open the new Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center; funds for
one additional police officer and associated equipment, replacement of communication
equipment and other furniture and equipment needs, as well as replacement vehicles and
radar equipment; funds for five new firefighters and three captain positions for the new
Monticello Fire Station on the career side, the remainder of that facility will be manned by
volunteers; funds for some hazmat equipment (with the City paying a part of the costs);
Mr. Tucker said there is going to be a decrease in 599 Funds both this year and next year. Staff is
following the Governors approach on the terrorism initiative. Depending on which bill is finally passed,
=
some money could trickle down to localities. Ms. Thomas asked if the County anticipates getting any
Federal terrorism money. Mr. Tucker said staff does not believe any of those funds will come directly to the
localities. Normally, that type of fund is a pass-through to the states.
Public Works - Funds to continue the groundwater study; a new landfill fund is being
created for future operational and capital needs to cover the Countys solid waste costs
=
and a share of remediation through RSWA;
Human Services - Department of Social Services programs are doing well, state and
Federal funds are still fairly strong in maintaining services for assistance to children,
families and adults. The local match is different for each program;
Parks and Recreation/Culture - Additional therapeutic recreation funding is provided as
well as the Countys share of the Skateboard Park. Funding was provided for all the
=
various festivals, the Film Festival, Festival of the Book, Ash Lawn-Highland Summer
Festival, the Lewis and Clark Festival, Discovery Museum and Piedmont Council of the
Arts;
Community Development - A new Senior Planner position is recommended for funding
for a half-year to implement the next Neighborhood Master Planning area. Additional
communications equipment is provided in Zoning/Inspections. CTS funding is
supplemented to maintain bus service within the urban area;
School Division - The School Boards requested budget for FY 02-03 is short about
=>
$0.537 million. They want that amount in one-time revenues for the opening of the
Baker-Butler Elementary School. The School budget increased by a little over five
percent. Included in the County Executives recommended budget is an additional
=
$0.125 million of non-recurring revenues for Baker-Butler.
Mr. Tucker said by the time the Board has a budget work session with the School Board, staff
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
should have a better idea of actual State revenues. He said the first budget hearing is scheduled for March
13, with work sessions being scheduled for March 18, March 20 and March 25.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much of the budget is funded with Tourism Funds. Mr. Tucker said it is a
fairly small percentage, maybe $0.5 million. He said the Visitors Bureau Management Board manages
those funds. In addition, there is a Tourism Council which reviews how much of this revenue is expended
for tourism. He said the Council meets monthly, and it includes members from some of the surrounding
counties.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:20 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(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 pending
litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill, and pending litigation regarding a request for information, and, under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel regarding specific legal issues relating to the town of
Scottsville.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Session.
At 4:49 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 Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. Ms. Thomas read the following list of appointees.
Appoint Mr. Stephen von Storch to the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) II,
to replace Ms. Kathleen Galvin who had resigned.
Appoint to the Albemarle County Housing Committee, Mr. Fred Hudson and Mr. David Schmidt with
terms to run from January 1, 2002, until December 31, 2004; these appointments replace Mr. Bruce Kirtley
and Ms. Frances Lee-Vandell.
(Mr. Martin returned at 4:51 p.m.)
Appoint Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr., Ms. Dana M. Slater, Ms. Jewel C. Mason and Mr. Dwight T. Colley
to the newly-formed Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee (PDCAC). Terms of these appointees
will run from March 6, 2002, through March 5, 2004. Ms. Thomas said the Board will need to amend the
by-laws to increase the membership from three to four.
Appoint Mr. John A. Scrivani to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee (ACE) to
complete the term of Ms. Bettina K. Ring, term to expire on August 1, 2004.
Appoint Mr. Rodney S. Thomas to replace Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein as the Planning Commission
representative on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Advisory Committee,
with term to expire on April 3, 2003.
Reappoint Mr. Sterling K. Robinson, II, to the Commission on Children and Families, with this new
term to run from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005.
Reappoint Ms. Roxanne White to the Region Ten Community Services Board, with this term to run
from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005.
Reappoint Mr. Karen L. Powell to the Board of Social Services with term to run from July 1, 2002
through December 31, 2003.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Reappoint Mr. W. Ivar Mawyar to the Equalization Board as Samuel Miller District representative,
with term to run from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002.
Motion to make the above noted appointments was offered by Mr. Martin. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Davis said just so it is clear, he pulled a copy of the Police Department Citizens Advisory
Committee By-laws which were adopted on December 5, 2001, and the bylaws created a committee of
three citizen members which would serve terms of two years commencing from their date of appointment
for a maximum of three consecutive terms. He understands the motion amended the by-laws to create four
citizen members, and leave the terms as they were.
BYLAWS
POLICE DEPARTMENT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PDCAC)
PURPOSE: To provide for independent review by a citizen committee of policies,
procedures, budget decisions and staffing allocations of the Albemarle County Police
Department in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of local law enforcement
services and to promote the community policing philosophy of the County in a way which
advances shared responsibility and interdependence between the community and the
Police Department.
I.
Duties of the PDCAC
Upon request by the Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, or the Chief of
Police, or in response to a citizen complaint, the PDCAC shall undertake the
following reviews and provide recommendations to the Chief of Police:
Review of Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) policies, programs,
$
procedures and practices. (i.e., community policing, crime fighting initiatives,
traffic enforcement, monitoring of police vehicle videos, interrogation and
interview procedures, etc.)
Review of ACPD Rules and Regulations and General Orders.
$
Review of ACPD budget and funding priorities.
$
Review of the level of staffing of the ACPD and how staffing is allocated.
$
II.
Responsibilities of the Chief of Police
The Chief of Police will ensure ACPD cooperation with the PDCAC in all
$
appropriate inquires and studies.
The Chief of Police will review the recommendations of the PDCAC and will
$
respond to the PDCAC, verbally or in writing, to address the ACPD's
recommendations.
III.
Composition of the PDCAC
The Board of Supervisors shall appoint four (4) citizen members to the
$
PDCAC. They shall be selected on the basis of their professional experience,
educational background, and history of community service.
A Board of Supervisors member will serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member
$
of the PDCAC and serve as liaison between the PDCAC and the Board of
Supervisors.
Each citizen member will serve a term of two (2) years commencing from their
$
date of appointment, and may serve for a maximum of three (3) consecutive
terms.
IV.
PDCAC Chairperson
A Chairperson will be selected by a vote of the members of the PDCAC to
$
serve a term of one (1) year. A Chairperson may not serve in that capacity for
more than two (2) consecutive years.
If a Chairperson cannot be elected by a vote of the PDCAC members, the
$
County Executive will select the Chairperson from the sitting members.
The Chairperson will be responsible for:
$
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
1. Scheduling committee meetings.
2. Appropriate record keeping of committee activities.
3. Assigning and coordinating PDCAC duties as defined in this document.
V.
Removal of a PDCAC Member During Term
A PDCAC member may be removed from the committee for cause by the
$
Board of Supervisors upon a determination that the member has committed
nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance in performing the duties of the
PDCAC or is otherwise unqualified to continue to exercise the assigned duties
and responsibilities.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: September 27(A), October 3 and December 12, 2001;
January 9, January 16 and February 13, 2002.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said a citizen gave her a copy of a letter from the Department of Historic Resources
regarding the Peters Mountain tower. The Department has found that the tower does impact the historic
district. Mr. Davis said DHR did find that the tower is a significant impact, but that the County had done all
the mitigation possible, but they would recommend that there be a fake tree instead of a tower. That is not
something the Planning Commission or this Board supported.
Mr. Martin said the Board discussed this at one time, but it was when there was a request for a big,
lattice tower. After the Board went to the treetop towers, it never was brought up again. Mr. Rooker said
the Commission looked at simulations of a tree tower, but for this particular tower found that it would cost
an additional $250,000, and the Commission was only looking at visibility issues. Mr. Davis said that is an
issue the County may want to discuss with the DHR.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can discuss this formally, but the advice of the Planning Commission
was that a tree tower would look worse. Mr. Davis said in order to make that a requirement, it would require
an amendment to the special use permit.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Italians are coming. They are a very sociable and interesting group, and
there are two events planned which she hopes the other Board members will attend. The public has raised
$2150 for this visit; the City is contributing a like amount. She asked that the Board contribute a like
amount. She said there will be gifts involved, but they are trying to make them creative rather than
expensive. There are two dinners, as well as hosting them at other major meals. It was the consensus of
the Board to contribute $2000 for the Italian visit, with funds to come from the Board's Reserve.
__________
Ms. Thomas said City Council will be discussing their transportation road plans on March 21st.
Although the Board has not been invited, she thinks it would be a good idea for one member to attend this
meeting. They are still trying to balance the Meadow Creek Parkway and the proposed Route 29 Western
Bypass projects, and make it a political decision. Ms. Thomas said she does not play those games. It is not
a political balancing act, but what works best for the transportation of this area. Those roads do not carry
the same traffic, so there is no way that giving up on one gets the other.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has been to Richmond several times recently, but doubts that it has had any
affect. The legislators think the Boards views are parochial. It has been mentioned that the Juvenile
=
Detention Center may have to wait six months or more before it can open, which is a horrible waste of
everybodys money.
=
Mr. Tucker said the State is trying to save on its funding. Ms. Thomas said it is local money that
pays the Sheriff to transport the kids to a facility. Mr. Tucker said the County also has to pay debt service on
this facility.
Ms. Thomas said the drug court will be de-funded. There may be a move to see if that cost can be
picked up privately.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Map of the Month (posted on the wall) contains a dot for every person in the
A@
County, so it really shows where everybody lives.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:01 p.m.
March 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 06/05/2002
Initials: LAB