Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-07ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of August 7, 2002 August 20, 2002 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 9:00 A.M. - Meeting Room 241 1. Call to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda: · Klm K. Thompson, resident of Stony Point, would like 1,500' of Rt. 600 b/t Rt. 20 and Rt. 29 paved under the Pave-In-Place Program. VDOT told him the road may not meet the Program's guidelines. VDOT is conducting a traffic count today. Mr. Thompson said he would like at least the 500' section beginning at the top of the hill paved due to increased traffic. · Lois Rochester, League of Women Voters, said they support the staff recommendation to implement a groundwater program to begin 7/1/2003. As a first step, staff should proceed w/next phase of the study to gather baseline data to characterize groundwater capability settings and sensitivities and prepare appropriate Ordinance amendments. Also suggested that one additional staff person be hired to oversee this work. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. · Ms. Thomas presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Sandy Wilcox who is retiring from the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. · She also presented a U. S. Fi~'e Administration Certificate to Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire & Rescue upon completion of the FEMA Executive Fire Officer Program. 6.1. Approval of Minutes: February 6, March 20(A), March 25(A), April 3, April 10, May 15 and June 19. 2002. APPROVED minutes of 4/3, 5/15 (second hal0 4/10, and 6/19as written. 6.2. Ordinance authorizing Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority. ADOPTED ORDINANCE AND APPROVED AGREEMENT. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. Proclamation recognizing August 27, 2002 through 9/1/02 as Albemarle County Fair Week. ADOPTED. South Fork Soccer Park Contribution and Appropriation, $20,000 (Form #2003002). APPROVED. Adopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds in an Amount not to Exceed ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m., by the Chairman, Sally Thomas. BOS members present: Bowerman, Dorrier (arrived at 9:13 a.m.), Martin, Perkins, and Thomas. Absent: Rooker. Officers/staff: Tucker, Davis, Cilimberg, Bentley. D_eputy Clerk: Draft letters to be signed by Chairman acknowledging speakers' comments. Clerk: Have Chairman sign minutes, then place on website and file original. Clerk: Forward signed Ordinance to Legal Services Assistant, keeping copy for records. Legal Services Assistant: Send copies of signed Ordinance (Attachment A) and Agreement (Attachment B) to Chief Miller and a copy of the signed Agreement to the Cie rk's office. Deputy Clerk: Forward signed proclamation (Attachment C) to Barbara Shiffiett, Albemarle County Fair. Deputy Clerk: Forward signed appropriation (Attachment D) to Finance and Office of Budget & Management. Deputy Clerk: Forward signed resolution (Attachment E) to David Richardson, 6.6, 6,7, 6.8. 6.9, 6.10. 6.11. 6.12. .8, 7.b, ,0, $50.000.000 for Martha Jefferson Health Services. McGuireWoods. ADOPTED. Adopt Resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board to consider restricting through truck traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) between Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road). ADOPTED. FY 2002 Appropriations, $38,296 (Forms ¢2001081,2001082, 2001083). APPROVED. Final Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Staff Recommendations - Water Supply Strategies. APPROVED. Adopt Resolution to abandon portions of State Route 606 and request that other portions be added to the Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Planning Commission request for consultant services - cell tower review. APPROVED. Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) Funding Request. APPROVED. Resolution for Federal Disaster Designation for Albemarle County due to Drought Conditions. ADOPTED, Update on Through Truck Restriction on Route 22 and Route 231 and Request from Gordonsville Town Council to use Route 860 and Route 231 in Albemarle as alternate route for through trucks in Gordonsville (Provided.) CONSENSUS to have Town of Gordonsville head up a tri-county forum to discuss the impact of the proposed truck restrictions, Polo Grounds Road/Railroad Bridge Update. (Provided.) Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda: Bryan, VDOT · Advised the Board that Rt. 708 is not a good candidate for the Pave-in-Place program because one right-of-way has not been donated. He suggested using unconventional surface treatment instead. Mr. Dorrier noted that the Town of Scottsville is considering moving its post office, which is located on that road. At this time there was general discussion regarding paving unpaved County roads. Mr. Martin said he would like to see that some portions of Rt. 600 are paved-in-place ~n some areas, since the section needing attention is only .2 of a mile long. Mr. Benish said staff is examining roads that may qualify for the Program. If they are removed off the Six-Year Plan other roads could be added to the Plan. Mr. Perkins · Asked that VDOT look at Rt. 674 (Clark Road), as residents complain about the road conditions and safety issues. · Asked for a traffic study on Rt. 680 (Brown's Gap Turnpike), as residents are concerned about large trucks in the area. He also: suggested that signage be installed for drivers heading south. · Asked that VDOT remove hanging brush along Rt. 680. Mr. Martin · Said a resident complained about having problems turning Deputy Clerk: Forward signed resolution (Attachment F) to Transportation Planner to forward to VDOT. Deputy Clerk: Forward signed appropriations (Attachments G H, and I) to Finance and the Office of Management & Budget. Deputy Clerk: Attach recommendations (Attachment J). Deputy Clerk: Forward original of signed resolution (Attachment K) and State Highway Form to Transportation Planner to be forwarded to VDOT. Planning Staff: Set up meeting between staff and members of the Board and Commission to discuss the matter. Director of the Office of Management and Budget: Advise MACAA. Deputy Clerk: Forward copy of signed resolution (Attachment L) to the Governor w/copy to Thomas Eddins, USDA. Planninq Staff: Work with the forum and bring back recommendation to the Board. left from Rt. 20 at the Free E~ridge/Rt. 20 intersection. Mr. Bryan said VDOT is a~ready looking into the situation and may be adding another lane. · Asked if the dance studio on Proffit Road will be affected by the widening of Proffit Road. Mr. Bryan said the traffic survey has been done, and he will provide results to the Board soon. Mr. Dorder · Said road improvements bet~veen Keen and Carter's Bridge look good. Mr. Bryan said that advance work has begun on the Carter's Bridge project. · Expressed appreciation for the new bridge at Monticello. Mr. Bryan said VDOT couldn't take credit for it, as grant monies paid for the project. Mr. Bowe rman · Asked that the rubber delineators be replaced at the Hillsdale and Greenbrier intersection. · Noted that the City has installed a crosswalk on JPA w/a caution indicator. He asked whether VDOT has a policy on the use of such tools. Mr. Bryan will look into this. Ms. Thomas · Thanked VDOT for the work done in the Morgantown Road area, adding that residents still would like a blinking signal to be installed. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Thomas agreed to leave the light as it appears now so that the speed limit signage is not confusing. · Encouraged VDOT to work with the Route 250 West Corridor Committee in examining traffic safety issues in the Ivy area. Discussion: Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to Tax Map 32, Parcel 24H (Joyce and Duane Smith), located on Pritchett Lane off Proffit Road. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 914102. Discussion: Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to Tax Map 78. Parcel 43A, (Phil Hawkins), located at the Route 250E/t-64 interchange. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 914102, 10. DiscuSsion: Groundwater Work Program. CONSENSUS to have staff proceed w/accelerating the implementation of a groundwater program to become effective 7/1/03. 11 Board to Board Presentation, School E~oard Chairman. (Provided.) 12. Public hearing on a request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to TM136, PSOA (Charisse Andrews), located at 9130 Totier Creek Road, Scottsville Dist. (Applicant requests withdrawal.) WITHDRAWAL APPROVED. 13. Proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment. ADOPTED. 14. Request to set public hearing to amend Leash Law to include area along Route 720 (Harris Creek Road) off of Route 20 South. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 914102. (NOTE: At the Deputy Clerk: Advertise public hearing. Deputy Clerk: Advertise public hearing. Engineering staff: Proceed as directed. Deputy Clerk: Forward signed appropriations (Attachments M and N) to Finance and Office of Budget & Management. Planning Staff: Provide acreage information in the Board packet for the 10/4/02 meeting. Deputy Clerk: Advertise public hearing. 15. request of the applicant, the public hearing has been rescheduled for 1019/02.) Request for dance hall permit by Mountain View Grill. DEFERRED TO 914102. County Executive's Office: Provide further nformation to the Board. Notify applicant of defe rra I. 16. Closed Session: Personnel Matters. HELD. 17. Certify Closed Session. CERTIFIED. Deputy Clerk: Prepare appointment and thank you 18. Appointments: APPOINTED: · John P. Chamales to the Jail Authority, with term to run 8/07/02-8/6/05. · Russell M. Cummings, Jr. to the Commission on Children and Families, with term to run 8/7/02-7/1/05. REAPPOINT ED: · Juandiego Wade and Clifford R. Buys to the JAUNT Board, with term to run from 10/1/02-9/30-05. · Tracy.C. Hopper as the Planning Commission representative on th'e Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with term to run from 7/9/02-7/8/04. · William P. Jackameit to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with term to run from 7/9/02-7/8/04. · Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area E~oard on Aging, with term to run from 10/21/02-10/20/04. · Marcia Joseph and Charles T. Lebo to the Architectural Review Board, with terms to run from 11/15/02-11/14/06. · Burton M. Webb to the Board of Buildihg Code Appeals, with term to run from 11/22/02-11/21/07. · Tom Trevillian and Burton M. Webb to the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with terms to run from 11/22/02-11/21/07. Advised the Deputy Clerk to ADVERTISE the vacancy on the Library Board. 19. SP-2002-024. Wal-Mart Outdoor Storage & Display - Amendment (Signs #48,49&50). APPROVED wi8 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 20. Discussion: Update on Development Issues. APPROVED waiving requirements for deadlines for third round (2002-03) applications as listed in Sec. A1-110 to reflect the anticipated schedule (on file in the Clerk's office). 21D Discussion: Monticello Fire/Rescue Station Staffing. APPROVED Option 2 (hire 4 additional career personnel and combine the career staff w/esti mated 10 volunteers). 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda: Mr. Perkins · Provided other BOS members a copy of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau 2002 proposed resolutions. · Provided other BOS members a copy of a memorandum from the TJPDC regarding its 7/17/02 retreat. Ms. Thomas · Asked if Committee and Board reports should be added as agenda items. Board members agreed this was not necessary. · Reminded the Board that the first group of ACE program recipients will be honored tomorrow at 10:30 a.m., at Red Hill School. · Advised the Board that she will attend a meeting of the High Growth Coalition with the secretaries of Commerce, letters for Chairman's signature. Update Boards and Commissions records. Advertise the vacancy on the Library Board. Clerk: List conditions (Attachment O). Planning staff: Proceed as directed. Fire/Rescue staff: Proceed as directed. Transportation, and Natural Resources, to encourage them to ensure that state transportation planning is in accord with localities' requests. · Said she, along with other persons, had given Rob Schilling (newly appointed City Council member) an orientation to the County, at Mr. Schilling's request. · Announced that the Governor appointed her to the Inter- governmental Relations Committee,.whose charge is to promote positive inter-governmental relations throughout the state. · Expressed her disappointment that the County did not receive the Tea-21 funding for Crozet. She asked staff to find out why the County was not given the funds. · Said that recently a resident complained about the "raping of the land" aue to the effects of a new apartment complex being constructed near Monticello High School · Reminded the Board that the VACO annual meeting will be held in November. Mr. Tucker said the Clerk has already submitted requests for reservations, but has not yet received confirmation. · Commented that the Planning Commission, at last night's meeting, did not approve the CPA for the "Sperry" property. Mr. Dorrier · Advised the Board that he recently read an article on retirement funding in the recent NACO newsletter, and noted that some localities have matching fund programs. Mr. Tucker said that VACO, through NACO, supports such a program, but the County has not implemented one due to fiscal constraints. Mr. Martin added that the Compensation Committee is looking into this. · Asked whether there is any interest in a "sister county" program' with a city in France. Consensus was that there was not. Mr. Martin · Advised the Board that the Court Study recommendations are still on schedule to be presented this spring. 23. Adjourn at 3:35 p.m. Planning Staff: Respond to Ms. Thomas' question. Attachment A (NOTE' This Ordinance has not yet been finalized. It will be approved once the signed agreement has been received.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-A(2) AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of th e County of Albemarle, Virginia, that, pursuant to the authority set forth in Va. Code § 15.2-1300 the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority dated-August 7, 2002 pertaining to the provision of support and assistance by the Albemarle County Po[ice Department to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is hereby approved. This ordinance shall be effective immediately. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 7th day of August 2002, by and between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("County") and THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT. AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"). WHEREAS, federal law governing airport security requires the Authority to provide or arrange for on-sito law enforcement officers at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and this requirement has historically been fulfilled by the appoinlrnent of certain Authority employees to serve as Special Police Officers for the County of Albemarle (hereinafter, "SPOs") pursuant to provisions of the Code of Virginia, Title 15.2, Chapter 17, Article 4; and WHEREAS, the County Police Department has an interest in monitoring the performance of law enforcement activities conducted by the SPOs, and benefits from their presence at the Airport; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement intend to establish policies and procedures by which the County Police Department will provide support and assistance to the SPOs, to facilitate the performance of law enforcement duties by the SPOs; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-1300 authorizes the parties to enter into this Agreement as a joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions, requires that the parties shall approve the Agreement before the Agreement may enter into force, and requires the County to approve the A~eement by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: SECTION ONE: EMPLOYMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF SPOs 1.1. The Authority will be responsible for the employment functions of hiring, firing, discipline, employee benefits, maintenance of regular personnel files and other employment-related duties for the SPOs, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Agreement. The County's Chief of Police shall have the right to require the dismissal, de-certification or discipline of any SPO, if such SPO at any time fails or refuses to meet law-enforcement training or other requirements established by the Department of Criminal Justice Services of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2. The Authority shall be responsible for verifying that the SPOs meet the minimum qualifications specified within Virginia Code section i5.2-1705 for law enforcement officers, i.e., each SPO shall be required (i) to be a citizen of the United States; (ii) to undergo a background investigation, including fingerprint-based criminal history records inquiries to both the Central Criminal Records Exchange and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (iii) t0 have a high school education or have passed the General Educational Development exam; (iv) to possess a valid driver's license if required. by his Airport duties to operate a motor vehicle; (v) to undergo a physical examination subsequent to a conditional offer of employment, conducted under the supervision of a licensed physician; (vi) to be at least eighteen years of age; (vii) not to have been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony or. any offense that would be a felony if committed in Virginia; and (viii) to undergo a pre- employment drug screening, and not produce a positive result on such screening, unless a positive result can be explained to the satisfaction of the Authority and the County's Chief of Police. 1.3. The Authority shall ensure that, to be eligible for appointment or employment, each SPO obtains certification through successful completion of training at an approved Virginia criminal justice training academy. 1.4. The Authority shall be responsible for preparing the documents and court applications necessary to obtain court-appointment of the SPOs, and shall present such documents and applications to the County's Chief of Police for his review and endorsement. 1.5. At the request of the County Police Department, the Authority will offer training to County Police officers as .to the special security and operational requirements pertaining to Airport premises. SECTION TWO: COUNTY SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED 2.1. The County Police Department shall provide support for the law enforcement activities conducted by SPOs at the Airport, by providing services, supervision and training described within this section. 2.2. As has been the historical practice, the County's Chief of Police will join with Authority in making application to the Albemarle County Circuit Court for the SPO appointment of an Authority employee who meets the minimum qualification and certification requirements described in this section. The County Police Department will initiate and complete the background investigation required by Va. Code sections 15;2-1705 and 15.2-1737(B), including fingerprint-based criminal history records inquiries to both the Central Criminal Records Exchange and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The County Police will inquire, and will verify to the Authority, whether or not the proposed SPO has ever been convicted of, or pleaded guilty or no contest to, a felony, domestic assault, or any offense that would be a felony if committed in Virginia, and whether or not the proposed SPO holds g valid Virginia driver's license. At least one complete copy of the final written report of the County Police Department's investigation and inquiries shall be provided to the Authority's Director of Finance and Administration, for use in the Albemarle County Circuit Court appointment proceedings. 2.3. The County Police Department shall assist and cooperate with the Authority to complete the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) forms and paperwork required in connection with an SPO appointment, including, without limitation: DCJS Form 21 (Initial Appointment) and DCJS Form B-13 (Field Training for Law Enforcement). If necessary, the County Police Department will supply DCJS forms to the Authority. The Authority will provide all information necessary to complete the forms, and then the County Police Department will execute the forms (signing as the "Agency Administrator," or as the submitting agency, as a particular form may require) and shall file such forms with DCJS. 2.4. As required by the Library of Virginia, General Schedule 17, the County Police Department shall keep and maintain records documenting applications pertaining to the appointment of the SPOs, for a. period of at least two (2) years after an SPO's appointment becomes inactive. Records to be maintained include, without limitation, background investigation materials, interviews, copies of birth certificates, diplomas, military discharge papers, reference letters, and a copy of the report submitted to the Authority summarizing the results of the Police Department's investigation. 2.5. The SPOs shall participate in the County Police Department's In-Service Training Program. The County Police Department and the Authority shall cooperate in developing a specific plan and schedule for each SPO to be incorporated into the Training Program. 2.6. The County Police Department shall maintain a file for each SPO, in which file shall be kept the following records: 2.6.1. For a period of five (5) years, any documents, records or information provided by a criminal justice training academy pertaining to the SPO's attendance and completion of entry-level training, and documentation of the successful completion by each SPO of all compulsory training required by the Criminal Justice Services Board or DCJS. A copy of all such documentation verifying successful completion of training shall be provided to the Authority. 2.6.2. For a period of five (5) years, documentation of the completion of in-service training provided to and received by the SPO, including attendance records, curriculum/schedule, documentation of specialized training on particular topics (e.g., canine, crime scene, basic investigations, etc.) and the results of any evaluations or testing of the SPO. 2.6.3. Correspondence and other documentation received or created by the County Police pertaining to the appointment, re-appointment or expiration of the term of appointment of each SPO. 2.7. The County Police Department shall promptly respond to a request received from an SPO for assistance in handling any law enforcement matter(s), such response to be provided within a time that is reasonable under the circumstances of the request. In the event an SPO makes an arrest on Airport property, the SPO shall immediately notify the County Police Department and the Police Department shall dispatch a County Police Officer to transport the arrestee to the Magistrate"s office. All offense/incident reports initiated by SPOs will be on appropriate IBR forms. The County Police shall keep the SPOs informed as to current individual or departmental contact numbers (telephone, facsimile, pagers, etc.) to be used to arrange for such transportation. 2.8. When an on-duty County Police Officer is present on Airport property, in the event that an offense for which an arrest may be made or for which a summons may be issued is committed in the presence of such Police Officer, the County Police Officer will make the arrest or issue the summons with respect to that offense. The County Police will be the primary agency when involved with a law enforcement incident/event on Airport property. 2.9. The SPOs must be cross-trained for the provision of aircraft rescue and fire-fighting (ARFF) services. During aircraft rescue and fire-fighting emergencies and calls, at the request of the Authority the County Police Department will assign reghlar County police officers to assist in handling security, traffic, crowd control and other support duties which may be necessary to. supplement the Authority's law enforcement and security forces. 2.10. On request, the County's Police Department shall keep the SPOs supplied with Virginia Uniform Summons forms, for which the County's Chief of Police shall account pursuant to applicable state law and regulation. The County Police Department shall also keep the SPOs supplied with County parking tickets, in numbers sufficient to facilitate Airport parking enforcement activities. The County Police Department shall provide the Authority's SPOs with sufficient mining to enable the effective and lawful use of all such forms by the SPOs. SECTION THREE: MISCELLANEOUS 3.1. Revenue resulting from the fines collected as a result of parking tickets issued on Airport property shall be 100% retained by the County to cover the costs of administering the provisions of. this Agreement. 3.2. Nothing contained within this Agreement is intended by either party, nor shall any provision herein be deemed or construed as a waiver of any sovereign or governmental immunity to which the County of Albemarle or the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, or their respective officers, officials and employees may be entitled under the law. 3.3. This Agreement shall be and remain effective, as of the date first set forth above, until terminated in writing by one of the' parties hereto. To terminate this Agreement, a party shall'.give thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the other. COUNT~.~ ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Rlobert W. Tucker, JrT--~ C~unty Executive ~ Approved As To Form: Office of the Albemarle County Attorney CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY Approved as to Form: Office of the Charlottesville City Attomey Of Counsel to the Authority 4 Attachment C WHE~5, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK for the past 21 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of thousands of guests during its annual production; and the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of community spirited people ~vho wanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has al~vays emphasized the County's agricultural and forestaI heritage; and the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their worth~vhile programs; and the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry, with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy; L Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of AUGUST 27, 2002 THROUGH SEPTEMBER I, 2002 as ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled, activities and programs sponsored and supported by the more than 250 volunteers, public and area businesses. lO Attachment D 11 Attachment E RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 ("Bonds") to be issued in one or more series from time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing its plan of financing ("Plan of Financing") for the following (collectively, "Project"): (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a three-story healthcare and medical office facility consisting of approximately 93.834 square feet, including without limitation a diagnostic imaging center, an urgent care center, an outpatient surgery center, a women's health center and a prenatal diagnostic center, to be located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park on the Peter Jefferson Parkway near the intersection of Interstate 64 and 250 East in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) the acquisition of approximately 84 acres of land located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park on the Peter Jefferson Parkway near the intersection of Interstate 64 and 250 East in Albemarle County, Virginia, for future healthcare use, (3) the acquisition, renovation, construction or equipping of capital expenditures on the campus of Martha Jefferson Hospital's acute care healthcare facility located at 459 Locust Avenue ~n the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and at 3263 Proflit Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, including without limitation the costs of routine capital expenditures, a MRI scanner, accounting systems, angiography equipment and renovation, and a linear accelerator, and (4) any related working capital, capitalized interest, costs of issuance, and other financeabte costs that Martha Jefferson Health Services may deem desirable. The Authority held a public hearing on July 9, 2002, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). Section 147(f) of the Code also provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds. The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia ("County"); a portion of the Project is to be located in the County; and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County The Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds. A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves (ii the Plan of Financing and (ii) the issuance of the Bonds pursuant thereto by the Authority for the benefit of Martha Jefferson Health Services, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services with its Plan of Financing. 2. The approval of the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds do not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Plan of Financing or Martha Jefferson Health Services. 3. This resoiution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 12 Attachment F Resolution Request for The Commonwealth Transportation Board to Consider Restricting Through Truck Traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) Between Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road) WHEREAS, Proffit Road was not designed to handle truck traffic and has blind curves, poor banking, narrow traffic lanes, and shallow building setbacks; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on June 19, 2002 to obtain public comments on restricting through truck traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road); and WHEREAS. local residents have requested that through trucks be restricted from using Proffit Road: and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has evaluated the five criteria that the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider in reviewing a through truck restriction and has determined that three of these criteria are met on Proffit Road: 1) reasonable alternate routes exist for trucks to use in the event of a restriction, 2) the functional classification of Proffit Road is a rural collector, which meets VDOT criteria, and 3) the engineering of Proffit Road and accident history of the route proposed for restriction indicate that it is not suitable for truck traffic; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees to use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law enforcement agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board consider restricting through truck traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) between Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on August 7, 2002, 13 Attachment G 14 Attachment H 15 AttaChment I 16 Attachment J RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION A MULTI-STEP, INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY URBAN WATER SERVICE AREA July 22, 2002 INTRODUCTION At the direction of the Board of Directors, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) began a most important journey some six years ago. The journey was focused on determining the best possible strategy to supply the future drinking water needs of our community. From the onset, the RWSA Board. of Directors insisted that the public have extensive opportunity for input and that their views be carefully considered in forming the final recommendation. The RWSA took this charge very seriously and, over the course of the study, offered numerous opportunities for public input and the RWSA carefully considered many options suggested by the public. The public participation process is perhaps a model for others to follow when considering ~mportant subjects that will help shape our community in the fUture. The objective of this report is to provide the RWSA Board of Directors with the results of this six-year journey in the form of a final staff recommendation for Board consideration at the July 22, 2002 Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - PLANNING HORIZON The water supply study effort focused upon a fifty year planning horizon for the future urban water supply. However, during the study it became apparent that there is uncertainty in making long-range water supply projections. Members of the public articulated to the RWSA that many variables could affect 2050 water supply demand projections including uncertainty about area population growth, uncertainty as to the level of community support for water conservation along with other factors including future governmental policies or decisions. The RWSA staff is therefore recommending to the Board that our future water supply strategy be a two- step strategy with our initial efforts focused on meeting the projected water supply need through 2030. The second step in our recommended strategy will be to reassess the projected 2050 water supply needs and take timely action to obtain necessary permits and construct needed facilities to address any projected shortfall. RWSA staff believes that more accurate and complete data will be'available to predict the 2050 water demand in the future. For example, better data on area growth will be available, the results on water conservation will be clear and the Board will have the knowledge gained from implementing the 2030 water su pp~y strategy. In the 2020 time frame, it is recommended that the Board of Directors direct RWSA staff to re-evaluate the then better defined gap between 2050 water needs and projected 2050 water availability. Again, this process should involve the public and it should be started in time to ensure adequate time for the possible lengthy permitting process if the Buck Mountain Creek reservoir is selected as a 2050 water supply option. The projected water supply demands, developed by the RWSA staff from the six-year study, for 2030. and for 2050, adjusted for three percent water demand reduction due to water conservation, are: 17 2030 16 MGD 2050 19.5 MGD These figures assume that unaccounted for "water loss" is maintained at 13 percent or less by RWSA, the City and the ACSA. A 13 percent "water loss" is acceptable for a complex and older water supply system like ours. Some of this water is not truly a "loss" in that it is used for fire protection, in-plant uses and other legitimate purposes. The public has commented that the three percent water conservation assum priori made by RWSA staff is Iow particularly when the City and ACSA have established 10 percent water conservation goals. The RWSA staff believes our community can do better than three percent; however, for the purposes of this recommendation we have elected to remain conservative and use the three percent goal. If the community can sustain a greater than three percent reduction in water use, it will stretch the need for further investments and improvements in the water supply. We are hopeful that the community will prove our assumption to be wrong and both achieve and sustain the ten percent water conservation goal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - SAFE YI ELD The urban water supply serving the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County is currently served by four reservoirs. The future water supply study highlighted a serious sedimentation problem in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR). The study experts predicted that the SFRR will continue to lose capacity each year due to sediment load from the watershed, and, its safe yield will fal to zero sometime around 2050. The March 2002 bathymetric study conducted by RWSA indicated there was a small gain in SFRR capacity in 2002 (questionable given the accuracy of the measurement method). This was certainly positive news but we believe it was mainly attributable to the lack of major storms in the watershed in the last year, which will not be the case in future years. RWSA staff believes that the characteristics of the wa[ershed and the historical trend data illustrates that the sedimentation problem in the SFRR is real and must be addressed as part of the future water supply strategy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION- MINIMUM IN-STREAM FLOWS Members of the public have clearly articulated a desire for RWSA to provide releases from its reservoirs to the Rivanna River and the Moormans River to supplement in-stream flows. The RWSA staff believes that we have a responsibility to protect and enhance the environmen[ as an integral part of our water supply mission. In the currem severe drought, RWSA has changed its operating procedures to minimize draw down from the Sugar Hollow reservoir. We have also continued our release to the Moormans River and continued our historical in-stream flow release to the Rivanna River. We have artfully transferred production to the Rivanna water treatment plant to reduce water withdrawals from the Sugar Hollow system, and to help maintain water in the Sugar Hollow system for water supply and more naturalized in- stream flow. While our highest priority in a water supply crisis must be our customers and the community we serve, our recent actions demonstrate that the times when RWSA will not be capable of making in- stream releases should be a very small percentage of the time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - BASIC COMPONENTS OF STRATEGY On February 25, 2002, the RWSA staff made a draft recommendation to the Board concerning our future water supply strategy. The staff recom men dation was a synthesis of the findings by the technical experts, comments from the public, along with RWSA staff judgment. The February 25, 2002 staff recommendation was built upon the following strategic building blocks: · WATER CONSERVATION 18 · WATERSHED APPROACH · MAINTENANCE DREDGING · SELECTED INFRASTRUCTURE ADDITION · ENVIRONMENT TOO This harmonized strategy is a modern strategy and not one dominated by "building new stuff". It is perhaps a more challenging strategy since some of its elements, like watershed protection and maintenance dredging, are new ideas not completely locked down with engineering precision. We believe the innovative strategy we are recommending to the Board is a model for others to follow and we are excited to have the opportunity to work through the challenges and paradigm shifts, which we will face ~n bringing the approved strategy to fruition. This strategy is a multi-step, integrated solution which RWSA staff believes is the optimal route to meet our area's future needs and which is clearly responsive to the views of our community. CURRENT DROUGHT CONDITIONS Our area is in the midst of a major drought that has its genesis as far back as four years ago. Annual precipitation over this time period has consistently been below historical levels. Area streams are at all time daily Iow flows and groundwater levels are severely depressed. Th e Iow groundwater levels adversely affect the base flow ~n area streams that, in turn, reduces recharge into our reservoirs. Our community clearly needs a long, extended time period of above normal precipitation to replenish our groundwater, provide base flow to streams and replenish our reservoirs. The current conditions will not be corrected by a week, a month or a season of higher rainfall. It is essential that our water supply strategy recognize that droughts are a reality which must be addressed. In October 2001, our total reservoir capacity reached approximately 68 percent and RWSA, the City and the ACSA called for voluntary water conservation. The City and ACSA have provided water conservation leadership in our community for years. Most recently, they have launched a major water conservation campaign, fully funded by the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority, which is striving to convince area residents that water conservation is both easy and important. This is a long-term journey and we must stay the course to change individual water use patterns. The current drought has brought urgency'to the timetable to move forward on our future water supply. The message appears clear.., it is time to move forward to implement a Board approved water supply strategy for our urban service area. PRINCIPLES uNDERP INNING THE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY The principles underlying the strategy being recommended by RWSA staff were generally outlined in the February 25, 2002 report to the Board. Nearly all of these principles were strongly supported in the public comments at the May 1, 2002 public hearing. The key strategic principles underpinning the RWSA staff recommendation are as follows: · The community wants the SFRR preserved which requires that we address the sediment problem. · RWSA needs to be more active in watershed protection and both water supply and environmental benefits will occur. · Controlling sediment loads, at the source, in the watershed is desirable. · Water conservation must continue to be a key strategic element for the long-term. · The Buck Mountain Creek reservoir must be retained as a future water supply option · Environmental protection is an integral part of RWSA's basic mission 19 PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETINGS WITH ELECTED/APPOINTED OFFICIALS On May 1, 2002, the RWSA held a public hearing on the proposed water supply strategy. A copy of the hearing summary is attached. The February 25. 2002 future water supply recommendation was also presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the City of Charlottesville City Council and the Board of Directors of the Albemarle Cou n ty Service Authority. IMMEDIATE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY (ADDRESS NEEDS TO 2030) The RWSA staff recommen ds the following water supply strategy be implemented to meet our area's projected water supply needs through 2030. 1. TAKE A WATERSHED APPROACH Become More Active Watershed Stewards RWSA will increase its role in the active stewardship of the watersheds serving our water supply system. We will work as partners with responsible individuals and organizations to protect and preserve the watersheds feeding our water supply. We will talk and act in a manner that illustrates that we have no higher priority than the protection of our watersheds. Address Sediment Load From The SFRR Watershed RWSA, working with others, will identify the significant sources of sediment currently entering the SFRR reservoir. It is thought to be mainly sourced from stream bank and erosion during high flows but we need to understand our watershed better and identify the actual sources of sediment entering the SFRR RWSA then needs to develop partnerships with landowners and proactively seek creative ways to secure watershed improvements. We need to help organize a more active watershed community to bring greater focus and resources to bear on known and future challenges. We need to offer funding support where we identify severe watershed problems that are adversely affecting our future water supply. We will seek other partners and possible grant funds and become more visible watershed leaders. We believe that source control of sediments will be a wise investment in that it will maintain or extend reservoir life and minimize the amount of sediment that must be removed through more expensive dredging. 2. GENERATE BETTER DATA FOR DECISIONS Good decisions require good data. Good data on stream flows and water quality is currently lacking and we must address this fault. RWSA will continue to assist, as needed, in the financial support of the Mechums River gauging station. This station was recently restored to operation through the joint efforts of DEQ and the RWSA. RWSA will partner with the DEQ and the USGS in establishing a flow gauging station downstream of [he SFRR~ RWSA will also investigate the development of a water supply model to enhance our ability to achieve the optimal balance in the operation of our facilities. Sampling of the SFR R and its major tributaries was unfortunately discontinued several years ago. RWSA has already re-initiated this sampling program and the first set of water quality samples have been collected. RWSA is also investigating a data management system to better organize all of our monitoring data, which is now only available in hard copy. We believe such a system will enhance our ability to track trends and make databased decisions. 2O 3. WATER CONSERVATION BY ACSA AND THE CITY RWSA will continue to support the City of Charlottesville and the ACSA in their efforts to institutionalize water conservation. We offer hardy congratulations to both our customers for developing and funding the current 10 percent water conservation campaign. We believe in our local citizens and believe that they will embrace water conservation with the same enthusiasm they have recycling. 4. ADD FOUR FOOT CREST CONTROLS ON THE SFRR RWSA will immediately proceed with the surveying, engineering, and construction of four-foot crest controls on the SFRR. Our first steps will be to commission a survey in the falrl [O define the new reservoir level and commumcate with the watershed community. This action will increase useable system Storage by 600 million gallons and provide an increase in safe yield of at least 7 MGD in 2050. Our technical experts estimate the cos[ of this improvement to be $5 to 7 million. RWSA staff believes this is an essential part of our immediate water supply strategy. 5. MAINTAIN DOWNSTREAM STREAMFLOW RELEASES AND MATCH DURING CRITICAL DROUGHTS RWSA understands its responsibility for both water supply and sound environmental management. We do not see a conflict between these two important responsibilities. It is RWSA intent to honor the historical commitment to make an 8 MGD in-stream flow release from the SFRR except during severe drought conditions during which such action would threaten our ability to provide drinking water to the community. We believe these occasions will be rare but we recognize that they may occur. Our technical experts have estimated that RWSA will be able to make the 8 MGD release approximately 99 percent of the time. Our environ mental stewardship during the current drought illustrates our commitment to making the environment part of our daily operating philosophy. During critical drought events, RWSA will match the SFRR release to the estimated flow into the SFRR during the critical drought event. The RWSA also intends to honor our commitment to release 400,000 gallons per day to the Moormans River at all times unless the total available reservoir water storage falls below 80 percent. Again, we have continued to make this release during the current drought. In time, we understand the need to look closer at the adequacy of this release to determine if it is protective of the Moormans River and its biota. 6. IMPROVED WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT PREDICTION RWSA has already taken action during the current drought to improve the environmental management of our water supply system. We have demonstrated the ability to make "systems decisions" in which we maximize water storage in one or more reservoirs and vary production at our treatment facilities to maximize operating flexibility while still meeting customer demands and environmental goals. We believe the water supply model we are investigating will help us further optimize our daily o peration to meet overall objectives. We will., of course, continue to work constructively with the City, the ACSA and other organizations, along with citizens, to research ways to improve drought prediction and better ways to communicate drought warnings to the public. 7. PERFORM MAINTENANCE DREDGING ON THE SFRR A great deal of the public comment and debate has occurred concerning dredging the SFRR In the recent public hearing, there was strong community support for preserving the SFRR as a community 21 asset and determining ways to perform dredging. One public commenter has stated that other communities have found ways to economically dredge their reservoirs. RWSA has not conducted any new studies on the feasibility and costs of maintenance dredging of the SFRR since we have been in a public comment and evaluation period. We recognize that some of the costs previously advanced by RWSA contractors were extremely large and RWSA experts also identified a myriad of potential logistical challenges. Any dredging project will generate a large volume of material, requiring, significant transportation costs and a need to locate a large land area for the dredged solids. RWSA staff believes that periodic maintenance dredging of the SFRR should be part of our future water supply strategy. We believe that periodic maintenance dredging wil preserve water supply capacity along with the beauty and enwronmental benefits of the reservoir. Having said that, we also recognize that questions about dredging and its costs must be further researched. As part of its watershed approach, the RWSA also believes that source con[roi in the watershed is clearly linked to the protection of the SFRR from future sedimentation RWSA staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to study the methods, costs and logistics of periodic maintenance dredging with the understanding that RWSA staff will provide the Board with the study results and a recommendation prior to proceeding with any actual dredging project. RWSA staff also recognizes that the approximate 5 MGD historical loss of SFRR safe yield could be recovered through restorative dredging if proven economical. 8. EXPAND WATER SOURCES TO INCLUDE THE MECHUMS RIVER A pump station formerly existed on the Mechums River, which was part of the urban water supply system. The pump station formerly captured Mechums River flow and pumped it to the RM reservoir or the Observatory water treatment plant. Since February 25, 2002 RWSA staff, county staff and a local citizen have been working to determine the potential costs and benefits of re-constructing this pump station. Meetings have been held with regulators as a part of this analys~s. The normalization of flow in the Moormans River was a major component of public comments made throughout the water supply study process. Many citizens expressed the view that a Moormans River solution should be included as a part of the future water supply strategy and they pointed to the environmental value and beauty of the Moormans River as an asset to our community. RWSA staff does not currently possess the technical information ~o determine the desirability of reactivation of the Mechums River pump station as a supplemental water source, that would also add to our available water supply while decreasing reliance u pon water drawn from the Sugar Hollow system, or to determine the environmental benefits and/or impacts of such action. Additionally, the Mechums River is currently setting all time daily Iow flows during this sustained drought which must also factor into our analyses. Also, as part of the Ragged Mountain dam rehabilitation study, we will be looking at the costs and benefits of increasing water supply storage in RM. As such, a Mechums River pump station may provide a water supply source that will allow us to take advantage of a storage and safe yield increase at the RM reservoir. An additional benefit of a Mechums River pump station is that it would provide a "non-reservoir" source of water to our system, although it could not meet 100 percent of our demand. RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain this option as a part of our water supply strategy while RWSA staff continues to work towards a complete technical evaluation of the water supply and environmental benefits (including potential RM storage benefits), the costs and enwronmental im pact of this proposal. RWSA staff will then make a formal recommendation to the Board before proceeding with a project. 22 LONGER TERM WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECTED 2050 WATER DEMAND The urban water supply needs through 2050 will not be met simply by implementing the 2030 water supply strategy. We fully expect that RWSA will eventually need to add additional sources of water to meet the 2050 water demand. The two-step strategy we are recommending to the Board will, however, allow us to make immediate needed progress and earn the time to better define our future water needs and the available water supply options. As part of its two-step strategy, the RWSA believes that the following strategies constitute viable 2050 water supply options that the Board should consider more fully after we have gained additional experience. RWSA is not recommending that immediate action be undertaken to implement the following wa[er supply alternatives but RWSA staff currently regards them as part of the potential strategy to meet 2050 wa[er needs. 1. CONSTRUCT DAM AND RESERVOIR ON BUCK MOUNTAIN CREEK The RWSA staff believes that the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir property must be retained by the Board as a potential 2050 water supply alternative for our community. 2. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM THE JAMES RIVER The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option to take water from the James River to supply our 2050 area needs. 3. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM CHRIS GREENE LAKE The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option of taking raw water from Chris Greene Lake to supply our 2050 area needs. 4. ADD EIGHT-FOOT CREST CONTROLS ON SFRR The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option of adding four additional feet of crest controls on the SFRR to supply our 2050 area needs. 5. UPSTREAM BASE FLOW AUGMENTATION WITH HIGHLY TREATED WASTEWATER The RWSA staff believes that a potential future water supply option is using highly treated wastewater from the Moores Creek Treatment Plant to supplement flow upstream of our reservoirs. We believe that public acceptance will need to evolve, however, before this could be considered to be a viable alternative. WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY- SAFE YIELD AND COST PROJECTION The following summarizes the available safe yield and very preliminary costs for implementing the immediate water supply strategy to satisfy water needs through 2030: ELEMENT SAFE YIELD COST WATERSHED APPROACH · STUDY SEDIMENT · BUFFERS/STABILIZATION 23 $100,000 $250,000/year BETTER DATA/DECISION S · MODEL AND NEW GAUGE WATER CON SERVATION 4 FOOT SFRR CREST CONTROLS IN-STREAM FLOW RELEASES IMPROVED DROUGHT MGT. SFRR MAINTENANCE DREDGING · RESTORATIVE DREDGING MECHUMS RIVER WATER SOURCE SEED MONEY FOR WATERSHED GROUP $ 10,000/year $ 25,000/year $ 75,0OO Addressed by City and ACSA 7 to 11 MGD $5 to 7 million 1.6 MGD $400,00(} 2.4 MGD $250,000 7.2 MGD $100,000 for study 5 MGD Subject to further study $ 10,000 for study Subject to further study The total projected cost ~s approximately $11,000,000 which is very preliminary and which does not include the costs for dredging and the Mechums River pump station. The RWSA needs to better define these costs over time, and the Board will have to consider a major bond issue to address these needs. SCHEDULE FOR ACTION With Board approval, the RWSA staff intends to move forward within the approved budget. However, significant progress is tied to obtaining funding from a new bond issue and FY 2004 operating funds. As previously described, we are already actively implementing several elements of the strategy. With the concurrence of the Board, we would suggest that we focus upon the initial tasks for the addition of the four-foot crest controls, which is the long-lead item in our strategy. Our present estimate is that if we start now, the crest control improvements would be operational in late 2006. RECOMMENDATION TO THE RWSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS The RWSA staff recommends that the Board approve the future water supply strategy, as outlined in this presentation. A'specific financial plan will be presented at a future Board meeting. The financial plan must also include the results of the CIP, the RM dam rehabilitation project, and the infrastructure and deferred maintenance study to provide a corn plete picture of the future costs. 24 Attachment K RESOLUTION ABANDONING PORTIONS OF STATE ROUTE 606 AND REQUESTING THAT OTHER PORTIONS BE ADDED TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided this Board with a plat dated November 5 2001 (hereinafter, the "plat") depicting the additions and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of a project to abandon State Route 606 and dedicate the new roadway, which plat is recorded in Deed Book 2229, Page 729 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the right-of-way and drainage easements to be dedicated for relocated State Route 606 across lands of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, pursuant to Section 33.1-229. Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the existing right-of-way and sight easements to be abandoned on State Route 606, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on August 7, 2002. Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier x Mr. Rooker Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkins x Ms. Thomas x Aye Nay X Clerk, Board of County Supervisors (Absent) 25 Attachment L RESOLUTION Declaring Albemarle County an Agricultural Disaster Due to Drought Conditions WHEREAS, WHEREAS, less Albemarle County has received a four year rainfall deficit totaling -42.27 inches; and during the growing season of this year, the County of Albemarle has received considerably rain than normal while experiencing unseasonably high temperatures WHEREAS, WHEREAS, CO the drought conditions in the County of Albemarle have severely affected farmers; and the conditions in the county are becoming critical, so that the spring planted crops of grass; and soybeans are severely stressed; and WHEREAS, the first cutting of hay was below average, with little prospect of a second cutting; and WHEREAS, many farmers are already feeding their livestock and are facing the lack of available water for livestock due to the drought conditions; and WHEREAs, if Albemarle County is declared a drought disaster area, then its farmers are eligible for Iow interest Emergency Loans and other disaster programs that may become available if the drought conditions continue; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle, Virginia be designated as a drought disaster area, and the County Executive is hereby instructed to file notification of this action with the Governor of Virginia. Adopted this 7th day of August, 2002. 26 Attachment M 27 Attachment N 28 Attach ment O CONDITIONS SP-2002-024. Wal-Mart Outdoor Storage & Display - Amendment (Signs #48,49&50). A site plan shall be submitted for approval to clearly show all existing onsite improvements, all of the conditions for this proposal, including required landscaping, all previously approved special use permits. All conditions shall be shown in a manner acceptable to the Zoning Administrator; Sidewalk display of lawn and garden merchandise shall be limited to the sidewalk areas between the five (5)-feet by five (5)-feet tree wells, merchandise shall be limited to four (4)-feet in height, and shall be on the sidewalk from February 15 through September 15 only. No new signage associated with this use shall be permitted. Pricing information shall not be displayed higher than three (3) feet; 3. Regarding the expansion of the lawn/garden area in the parking lot, landscaping shall be added along the EC frontage to minimize visibility as follows: · Plant Pin Oaks, at three-and-one-half (3~)-inch caliper minimum spaced thirty-five (35)-feet on center, to complete the row of trees along the Entrance Corridor. · Plant Chanticleer Pears. at two-and-one-half (2%)-inch caliper minimum, spaced forty (40)-feet on center, on the east side of the eastern travelway, that runs parallel to the Route 29 Entrance Corridor, to provide a continuous row along this travelway. · Add ornamental trees or large ornamental shrubs, such as Shadblow Serviceberry, in the open area between the Pin Oaks and Pears identified above; The expansion of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be limited to twenty-six (26) additional - spaces, for a total of sixty-three (63) spaces used for the outdoor lawn and garden center display. The period for the outdoor lawn and garden center shall remain the same as previously approved February 15 through September 15 only; For the south side of the building, nine (9) additional temporary storage containers shal be located within the existing enclosed storage area, for a total of twenty-nine (29) temporary storage containers. For the north side of the building, nine (9) additional temporary storage containers shall be located at the northwest corner of the loading area, one (1) additional temporary storage container immediately alongside the three (3) permanent containers perpendicular to the building. All containers shall not .exceed-nine(9)-feet six (6)'inches in height, and shall not be stacked. For all of the storage containers, "temporary" shall be defined as August 15 through January 15. All containers shall be located as shown on the concept plan; 6. There shall be no new fenced area to the north side of the building. The existing fenced area may be used when the temporary containers are not in place; The weekend community events on the sidewalk to the north of the main exit to the building shall be limited as follows: Only one (1) organization shall be allowed at any one time during the weekend, one (1) table may be used, that table shall be located in the area shown on the concept plan, and there shall be a maximum of three (3) persons runmng the event at one time: and, Th e area to the east of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be designated as a permanent location for parking lot events. The events shall not use more that sixteen (16) parking space, as shown on the concept plan. No one event shall be longer than three (3) days. Each event proposed shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from the Department of Building Code & Zoning Services. 29 Subject: Reading lJst for August 7, 2002 Il-ate: July 26, 2002 February 6, 2002 March 20 (A), 2002 March 25 (A), 2002 April 3, 2002 Aprfl I0, 2002 May 15, 2002 june 19, 2002 Pages I~ 27 (end with Item #12) - Ms. Thomas Mr. Rook. er Ms. Thomas Pages I- t 4 (end with Item # 14) ~ Mr. MartJn Pages 14 (be~nning with Item # t 4) - end - Mr. Dorrier Mr. PerkJns Pages 15 (be~n #1 I) - end - Mr. Martin Mr. Bowerman NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MtNUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM. /ewc PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA FROM THE PUBLIC NAME (Please print clearly) 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS Federal Emergency Management Agency United States Fire Administration National Fire Academy Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727-8998 June 26, 2002 Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive Albermarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Foley: Please accept my sincere thanks for your support of Director of Fire & Rescue John D. Eggleston during his participation in the U.S. Fire Administration's National Fire Academy's (NFA)"Executive Fire Officer Program" (EFOP). Mr. Eggleston has now successfully completed the EFOP and the required applied research. On behalf of the NFA, the enclosed EFOP certificate has been forwarded to you for formal presentation to this dedicated member of your department'. You may want to present the certificate at a formal ceremony and invite your community's elected officials and members of the local media to attend. The Academy appreciates your commitment to this 4-year program and continued support of the NFA. Sincerely, Dr. Denis Onieal Superintendent Enclosure ORDINANCE NO. 02-A(2) AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY. BE IT ORD~D By the Board ofSupervisors ofthe County of Albemarle, Virginia, that, pursuant to the authority set forth in Va. Code § 15.2-1300, the 1oint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority dated August 7, 2002 pe~t~ ah~g to the provision of support and assistance by the Albemarle County Police Department to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is hereby approved. This ordinance shall be effective immediately. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on August 8, 2002. Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman X Mr. Rooker Mr. Dorder . X Mr. Martin X Mr. Perkins __~X__ Ms. Thomas X (Absent) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Ordinance Authorizing a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority. SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Approve an Ordinance authorizing a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority. Under the Agreement, the Albemarle County Police Department will provide training, support and related assistance to the Airport in order to enhance security and law enforcement services at the Airport. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Trank, Miller DISCUSSION: AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance and Agreement REVIEWED BY: ~~ The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority has requested that the County enter into an agreement authorizing the County Police Department to provide support and assistance to Airport Special Police Officers (SPOs), who are appointed by the Circuit Court to perform law enforcement services on Airport property, in order to facilitate the performance of law enforcement duties by the SPOs. Under the Agreement, the County Police Department would provide support for the law enforcement activities conducted by SPOs at the Airport, by providing services, supervision and training. The County Police will continue to be the primary agency when involved with a law enforcement incident/event on Airport property. The Agreement also provides that revenue resulting from the fines collected from parking tickets issued on Airport property shall be retained by the County to cover the costs of administering the provisions of the Agreement. Virginia Code § 15.2-1300, which authorizes the County to enter into this Agreement as a joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions, requires that the parties approve the Agreement before the Agreement may enter into force, and requires the County to approve the Agreement by ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance and Agreement. 0'1_~3_~ £A¥0:0B R C ~,'D 02.107 Advertisement for adoption of ordinance authorizing joint exercise of powers between the County and Airport Authority The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will consider for adoption a proposed ordinance authorizing a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority on Wednesday, August 7, 2002 in Room 241 of the County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the __ day of 2002 by and between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("County") and THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"). WHEREAS, federal law governing aJ~ort security requires the Authority to provide or arrange for on-site law enforcement officers at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and this requirement has historically been fulfilled by the appointment of certain Authority employees to serve as Special Police Officers for the County of Albemarle (hereinafter, "SPOs") pursuant to provisions of the Code of Virginia, Title 15.2, Chapter 17, Article 4; and WHEREAS, the County Police Department has an interest in monitoring the performance of law enforcement activities conducted by the SPOs, and benefits from their presence at the Airport; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement intend to establish policies and procedures by which the County Police Department will provide support and assistance to the SPOs, to facilitate the performance of law enforcement duties by the SPOs; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-1300 authorizes the parties to enter into this Agreement as a joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions, requires that the parties shall approve the Agreement before the Agreement may enter into force, and requires the County to approve the Agreement by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: SECTION ONE: EMPLOYMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF SPOs 1.1. The Authority will be responsible for the employment functions of hiring, firing, discipline, employee benefits, maintenance of regular personnel files and other employment-related duties for the SPOs, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Agreement. The County's Chief of Police shall have the right to require the dismissal, de-cegifieation or discipline of any SPO, if such SPO at any time fails or refuses to meet law-enforcement training or other requirements established by the Department of Crimiual Justice Services of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2. The Authority shall be responsible for verifying that the SPOs meet the minimum qualifications specified within Virginia Code section 15.2-1705 for law enforcement officers, i.e., each SPO shall be required (i) to be a citizen of the United States; (ii) to undergo a background investigation, including fmgerprint-based criminal history records inquiries to both the Central Criminal Records Exchange and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (iii) to have a high school education or have passed the General Educational Development exam; (iv) to possess a valid driver's license if required by his Airport duties to operate a motor vehicle; (v) to undergo a physical examination subsequent to a conditional offer of employment, conducted under the supervision of a licensed physician; (vi) to be at least eighteen years of age; (vii) not to have been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony or any offense that would be a felony if committed in Virginia; and (vih') to uratergo a pre- employment drug screening, and not produce a positive result on such screening, unless a positive result can be explained to the satisfaction of the Authority and the County's Chief of Police. 1.3. The Authority shall ensure that, to be eligible for appointment or employment, each SPO obtains certification through successful completion of training at an approved Virginia criminal justice training academy. 1.4. The Authority shall be responsible for preparing the documents and court applications necessary to obtain court-appoimment of the SPOs, and shall present such documents and applications to the County's Chief of Police for his review and endorsement. 1.5. At the request of the County Police Department, the Authority will offer training to County Police officers as to the special security and operational requirements pertaining to Airport premises. SECTION TWO: COUNTY SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED 2.t. The County Police Department shall provide support for the taw enforcement activities conducted by SPOs at the Airport, by providing services, supervision and training described within this section. 2.2. As has been the historical practice, the County's Chief of Police will join with Authority in making application to the Albemarle County Circuit Court for the SPO appointment of an Authority employee who meets the minimum qualification and certification requirements described in this section. The County Police Department will initiate and complete the background investigation required by Va. Code sections 15.2-1705 and 15.2-1737(B), including fingerprint-based criminal history records inquiries to both the Central Criminal Records Exchange and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The County Police will inquire, and will verify to the Authority, whether or not the proposed SPO has ever been convicted ot~ or pleaded guilty or no contest to, a felony, domestic assault, or any offense that would be a felony if committed in Virginia, and whether or not the proposed SPO holds a valid Virginia driver's license. At least one complete copy of the final written report of the County Police Department's investigation and inquiries shall be provided to the Authority's Director of Finance and Administration, for use in the Albemarle County Circuit Court appointment proceedings. 2.3. The County Police Department shall assist and cooperate with the Authority to complete the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) forms and paperwork required in connection with an SPO appointment, including, without limitation: DCJS Form 21 (Initial Appointment) and DCJS Form B-13 (Field Training for Law Enforcement). If necessary, the County Police Department will supply DCJS forms to the Authority. The Authority will provide all information necessary to complete the forms, and then the County Police Department will execute the forms (s'tgning as the "Agency Administrator," or as the submitting agency, as a particular form may require) and shall file such forms with DCJS. 2.4. As required by the Library of Virginia, General Schedule 17, the County Police Department shall keep and maintain records documenting applications pertaining to the appointment of the SPOs, for a period of at least two (2) years after an SPO's appointment becomes inactive. Records to be maintained include, without limitation, background investigation materials, interviews, copies of birth certificates, diplomas, military discharge papers, reference letters, and a copy of the report submitted to the Authority summarizing the results of the Police Department's investigation. 2.5. The SPOs shall participate in the County Police Department's h-Service Training Program. The County Police Department and the Authority shall cooperate in developing a specific plan and schedule for each SPO to be incorporated into the Training Program. 2.6. The County Police Department shall maintain a file for each SPO, in which file shall be kept the following records: 2.6.1. For a period of five (5) years, any documents, records or informmion provided by a criminal justice training academy pertaining to the SPO's attendance and completion of entry-level mining, and documentation of the successful completion by each SPO of all compulsory training required by the Criminal Justice Services Board or DCJS. A copy of all such documentation vefif34ng successful completion of training shall be provided to the Authority. 2.6.2. For a period of five (5) years, documentation of the completion of in-service training provided to and received by the SPO, including attendance records, curriculum/schedule, documentation of specialized training on particular topics (e.g., canine, crime scene, basic investigations, etc.) and the remits of any evahations or testing of the SPO. 2.63. Correspondence and other documentation received or created by the County Police pertaining to the appointment, re-appointment or expiration of the term of appointment of each SPO. 2.7. The County Police Department shall promptly respond to a request received from an SPO for assistance in handling any law enforcement matter(s), such response to be provided within a time that is reasonable under the circumstances of the request. In the event an SPO makes an arrest on Airport property, the SPO shall immediately notify the County Police Department and the Police Department shall dispatch a County Police Officer to transport the arrestee to the Magistmte's office. All offense/incident reports initiated by SPOs will be on appropriate IBR forms. The County Police shah keep the SPOs informed as to current individual or departmental contact numbers (telephone, facsimile, pagers, etc.) to be used to arrange for such transportation. 2.8. When an on-duty County Police Officer is present on Airport property, in the event that an offense for wMch an arrest may be made or for which a summons may be issued is committed in the presence of such Police Officer, the County Police Officer will make the arrest or issue the summons with respect to that offense. The County Police will be the primary agency when involved with a law enforcement incident/event on Airport property. 2.9. The SPOs must be cross-trained for the provision of aircraft rescue and fire-fighting (ARFF) services. During aircraft rescue and fire-fighting emergencies and calls, at the request of the Amhority the County Police Department will assign regular County police officers to assist in handling security, traffic, crowd control and other support duties which may be necessary to supplement the Authority's law enforcement and security forces. 2.10. On request, the County's Police Department shall keep the SPOs supplied with Virginia Uniform Summons forms, for which the County's Chief of Police shall aocoum pursuant to applicable state law and regulation. The County Police Department shall also keep the SPOs supplied with County parking tickets, in numbers sufficient to facilitate Airport parking enforcement activities. The County Police Department shall provide the Authority's SPOs with sufficient training to enable the effective and lawful use of all such forms by the SPOs. SECTION THREE: MISCELLANEOUS 3.I. Revenue resulting from the fmcs collected as a result of parking tickets issued on Airport property shall be 100% retained by the County to cover the costs of administering the provisions of this Agreement. 3.2. Nothing contained within this Agreement is intended by either party, nor shall any provision herein be deemed or construed as a waiver of any sovereign or governmental immunity to which the County of Albemarle or the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, or their respective officers, officials and empIoyees may be entitled under the law. 3.3. This Agreement shall he and remain effective, as of the date first set forth above, tmtil terminated in writing by one of the parties hereto. To terminate this Agreement, a party shall give thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the other. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Coumy Executive Approved As To Form: Office of the Albemarle County Attorney By:. CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY By: , Its: Approved as to Form: Office of the Charlottesville City Attorney Of Counsel to the Authority By: Laurie Bentley From: Sent: To: Subject: Ella Carey Monday, August 12, 2002 12:04 PM Laurie Bentley FW: Joint Powers Airport Agrmnt Ordinance Below is the number for this ordinance. Ella W~hin~n-Car~, CMC Clerk, Board of Supervisors Phone: (804) 296-584.°, Fax: (804) 244-7003 ----Original Message- .... FrOm.' IVlamha Davis · ent: Fdday, August 09, 2002 4:10 PM To: Ella Carey Subject: Joint Powers Airport Agrmnt Ordinance The ordinance number for the above should be 02-A(2). Thanks Ella! Marsha A. Davis Legal Services Assistant Albemarle County Attorney's Office (434) 972.4067 marshadavis@albemarle, org David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr. Scottsvi e Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett SaUl, H. Thomas Samuel MiLler August 12, 2002 Ms. Barbara Shifflett Albemarle County Fair, Inc. P.O. Box 121 North Garden, VA 22959 Dear Ms. Shifflett: At its August 8, 2002 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a proclamation proclaiming the week of August 27, 2002 through September 1, 2002 as Albemarle County Fair Week. I have enclosed the signed proclamation. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk Attachment ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK for the past 21years, the Albemarle Coun~ Fair has entertained tens of thousands of guests during its annual production; and the Albemarle Count~ Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of communi~ spirted people who wanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has always emphasized the Count's agricultural and forestal heritage; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation opcra~ed by dedicated volunteers, of J~ccrs and directors; and WHE~, the Albemarle County Fair ~ an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportuni~ for them to raise monies for their worthwhile programs; and the Albemarle Coun!~ Fair supports agricultural and rural lifes!~les, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock small livestock and poultry, rdth competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy; NO ~4r, THEREFORE, L Sally II. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of Coun~ Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of AUGUST 27, 2002 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored and supported by the more than 250 volunteers, public and area businesses. ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR, INC. Albemarle County Fair, Inc. P.O. Box 121 North Garden, VA 22959 July 16, 2002 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ATTENTION: Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk Dear Board of Supervisors: On behalf of the Albemarle County Fair Board of Directors, we do hereby petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to issue a proclamation designating the week of Tuesday, August ~27t~ through Sunday, September 1~t as "~Albemarle County Fair Week." A proclamation would recognize the tireless efforts of over 250 local volunteers and Fair Directors in presenting this annual event which brings a unique focus to the vibrant and varied agricultural life in Albemarle County. As you know, the Albemarle County Fair encourages participation by all citizens in its many events, exhibitions and competitions in a family friendly environment. This year we wilt celebrate our 21st year of operation. We hope to see you at the Fair! Your consideration of this petition is appreciated. Sincerely, Barbara Shiffiett .. ~ .~, - . - President 07-~8-02A08:]7 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: South Fork Soccer Park Contribution and Appropriation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval for the expenditure of $20,000 from the FY 2003 capital budget as a contribution to SOCA to help complete the South Fork Soccer Park, and approval of Appropriation #2003002 for that purpose. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Mullaney, Mr. Hildebeidel AGENDA DATE: August7,2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: SOCA is in the process of completing development of its South Fork Soccer Park, which will provide 5 new fields for SOCA programs. Since SOCA is the largest user of public playing fields, this is a significant step in the ongoing effort to provide sufficient field space for all the local community athletic program providers. The total cost of the South Fork project is estimated to be $828,000. SOCA has already committed over $549,000 to the project and has secured a construction loan for $250,000 to finish the project. At present SOCA has a funding shortfall of $28,000. Attached is a request from the Executive Director of SOCA to the County Director of Parks and Recreation for funding assistance for this project. DISCUSSION: The Parks and Recreation Department has an ongoing program of building new athletic fields and improving existing fields as a part of the County's Capital Improvements Budget. This program has been developed in consultation with the various community athletic organizations. The program is updated and project priorities are revised based on an annual survey of needs of the various organizations. U pon receiving this request from SOCA, County Parks and Recreation Department staff invited SOCA to meet and review current funding available for other soccer projects and to prioritize this request with those other planned improvements. It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Department to seek opportunities to work in partnership with SOCA and other public and private recreation providers to meet the expanding recreation needs of County residents, and therefore recommends that a contribution of $20,000 be made to SOCA for the construction of the South Fork Soccer Park, with that amount being offset from the Parks and Recreation Athletic Field Study/Development project Capital Improvements Fund line-item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the County contribute $20,000 to SOCA for the construction of the South Fork Soccer Park, with that amount being offset from the current appropriation to the Parks and Recreation Athletic Field Study/Development project line- item in the Capital Improvements Fund. Staff recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2003002 to contribute $20,000 to SOCA for construction of the South Fork Soccer Park. This appropriation is a transfer of funds between projects within the Capital Improvements Budget and does not increase the total amount of the appropriated Capital Improvements Fund Budget for FY 2003. 02.106 Attachment A June 14, 2002 Pat Mullaney Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Request for Contribution to South Fork Soccer Park. Dear Pat, As you know, SOCA is in the process of completing our South Fork Soccer Park. We are very excited about this project. The new facility will make important improvements in our program, and in the life of the community. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $828,000. SOCA has already committed over $549,000 to the project. Additionally, we have secured a construction loan of $250,000 to enable us to finish the project. At present we have a shortfall of about $28,000. I am writing to request that your department provide a donation to SOCA to help complete the park. As we continue to work closely with your department in a partnership, it appears this is an opportunity for SOCA and the County. Any contribution that can be made will enable us to reduce our debt and therefore redirect funds to enhanced programming, increase financial assistance, or meet needs in other critical areas. A contribution by the county government is essentially an investment directly back to the community. SOCA has worked hard over its twenty years of existence to provide quality programming to a wide range of participants at a reasonable cost. We take very seriously our role of community servant. We hope that you will agree and will be able to support our request. Thank you for your consideration. Please call me with any questions, and do let me know if there is any additional information or assistance I can provide. Respectfully yours, William Mueller Executive Director cc: Larry Sappington FFMS2 l' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE -- -- APP # 1 2003 002 REVISED 6184 APPROPRIATION DATE/ 8112/02 BATCH NUMBER EXPLANATION: CONTRIBUTION TO SOCA FoR FIELD CONSTRUCTION. SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER YPE FUND DEPT OBJECl ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODI AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 90~0 71000 950130 SOUTH FORK SOCCER PK. J I 20,000.00 " i1 90t0 71000 950044 FIELD DEVELOPMENT J 1 (20,000.00) J J b r J J J J J , J , j ~ J . J j ' : j I 0.00 0.00 0.00 PREPARED BY: ,BREEDEN ,,--% DATE: 08112102 MELVIN .BD. OF SUPV: APPROVAL:_~ Ii [lJ../ ./(~ ~ DATE: 08112/02 ACCT. APPROVAL:[ ....... DATE: ENTERED_ BY: _ _L__ DATE_ . : I~cGuireWoods LLP One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, VA 23219-4030 Phone: 804.775.1000 Fax: 804.775.1061 www. mc§uirewoods.com David L. Richardson, II, Esquire Direct: 804.775.1030 McGU[REW( DS drichardson@mcguirewoods.corn Direct Fax: 804.698.2148 July 10, 2002 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Board of Supervisors Industrial Development Authority of the County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Martha Jefferson Hospital Dear Ella: Enclosed are the documents relating to the Martha Jefferson Hospital bond issue for the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 7. Included is a letter from the Industrial Development Authority to the Board containing a certificate regarding the public hearing, the Fiscal Impact Statement and the form of Board of Supervisors resolution. If you have any questions about any of these documents or if there is any change in the Board of Supervisors schedule, please let me know. Very truly yours, David L. Richardson, II /das Enclosures cc: Mr. J. Michael Burris David P. Bowerrnan Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr. Scottsville ' Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (4341 296-5800 Waiter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouatt Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 13, 2002 David L. Richardson, II McGuireWoods One James Center 901 East Cary St. Richmond, VA 23219-4030 Dear Mr. Richardson: At its August 7, 2002 meeting, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution approving the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds pursuant thereto by the Authority for the benefit of Martha Jefferson Health Services, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2- 4906 of the Virginia Code to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services with its Plan of Financing. I have attached a copy of the resolution for your files. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, C.M.C. Sr. Deputy Clerk A~achment At a ,r~gular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the 7 day of August, 2002, the following members were recorded as present: PRESENT: David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas ABSENT: Dennis S. Rooker On motion by Charles Martin, seconded by David Bowerman, the attached Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia by a roll call vote, the votes being recorded as follows: MEMBER VOTE Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman X Mr. Rooker Mr. Dorrier X Mr. Perkins X. Ms. Thomas X __ (Absent) July 9, 2002 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia Proposed Plan of Financing for Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), have requested that the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") issue up to $50,000,000 of its revenue bonds ("Bonds") in one or more series from time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing the following (collectively, "Plan of Financing"): (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a healthcare and medical office facility to be located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) the acquisition of approximately 84 acres of land located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park in Albemarle County, Virginia, for future healthcare use, (3) the acquisition, renovation, construction or equipping of capital expenditures on the campus of Martha Jefferson Hospital's acute care healthcare facility in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and in Albemarle County, Virginia, including without limitation the costs of routine capital expenditures, a MRI scanner, accounting systems, angiography equipment and renovation, and a linear accelerator, and (4) any related working capital, capitalized interest, costs of issuance, and other financeable costs that Martha Jefferson Health Services may deem desirable. As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed Plan of Financing and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Authority of CERTIFICATE The undersigned Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies as follows: 1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on July 9, 2002, at 4:00 o'clock p.m. in the Fourth Floor Conference Room, at 401 McIntire Road, in Charlottesville, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority before such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be heard. 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the County of Albemarle and the City-of Charlottesville, Virginia ("Notice"), with the second publication appearing not less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days prior to the heating date. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is attached as Exhibit A. 3. A summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution ("Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on this date. \XF1N\95932.3 WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 9th day of July, 2002. [sEmi S cretary, Industrial D_/e~.el.op_ment futhority of Albemarle County, Uqirginia Exhibits: A - Copy of Certified Notice from Newspaper B - Summary of Statements C - Public Heating Resolution -2- Jul 09 O2 08: 40a EXHIBIT A The Daily Progress P.O. BOX 9030 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 TELEPHONE: (434)978-7210 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY PROGRESS , A NEWSPAPER IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGIN[A, AND APPEARED IN THE ISSUE(S) DATED JULY ~...; JUNE PUBLiSHiNG FEE: GIVENUNDERMYHANDTHIS ~.~DAYOF KATHLEEN HICKS, CREDIT MANAGER ~' 2007, ! 2002 Page I 2002. NOT1CE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVENUe: BOND FINANCING BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTE, VIRGINIA No~ise is hereby given that ~e :'ndustrial De,~logrnent Au. Iborty of AJberrarle Courtly, Virginia ['Aulhc~ty'), will. held a public hearing or~ Ihe appli~a'~on of Mar~ha JeffersOn Hospital and MJH Faundati~.' both nonprofit Virginia non-s~cC..k porations (c~llectively, ~Manhe Jab'arson Health Services"), whose addresses ate 459 Locust Avenue, Ch~[lo~esvil[e Virginia 22902, requesting the Authority ~, issue up to ~50.0~0,000 at its revenue bonds, in one or mom series from time lo ~me 1o asmst Marthe Je~rsen Health Services in li. nar,~ or el nancing (1) the acc~sition censtruction and equppmg al a Ihree-stor¥ healthcare and medics[ o}lice facil- ity consi~n<:J ol approximately g3.834 square k[,at, inc[udin(: without llmitat[on a diagnoslin imaging cartier, an urgent care cen~er an aulpalien surgery canter, a women's health center and a ~rsnatal d a, gnosac center, to be 0cared at Pe er Jet- I~soa Piece business sflice park on me Peter Je~erson Park?cay near the ~r, tersection of Interstate 64 and 25D East in AJbema,rle County, Virginia. (2} the acquisition of approxi- mately 84 acres el ]and located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park on the Paler JeiferSOr, Parkway near the inte:sectic, n o~'lnterstate ~ and ~50 East in Albemarle Coun- ty, Virginia, I~ luture healthcmre use, (3) the e:qu~sition, ovsticn, construction or equipping of capilst expend[tums on the camps§ at Martha Jefferson Hospilal'a acute care haste, care fa~:~ity lo.ted st 459 Locusl Avenue In the City of Cllarlotlasville, Virginia sad a.t 3263 Pre~it R,::ad in Albemarle ~.ounty, V rginia, iscbding without lirnilation the cas'~s of mu- ire capital expenditures, a MRI scanner, acccen[ing sys- ems, angiography equipment and rensval~on, and a linear accel~stor, and (4} any rotated worldng *capital, capitallzed ir, temst, ~s[s of issuance, and other financeable cosls t~,t Marlho JeDemon Hoe,[th Services may' deem desirable. ' T.he ssum~cs e~ revenue bo~s as requested by Martha Jef; i'erso~ HeaJth Services will not c~nst[~ute a debt er pledge or the taEh and credit of th., C~mmorm.'e~th of Vi~inia er the ;aunty d Al~emark', Vir§inie, ~d neither Ihs 'b!th'.a. nd credit ]er the taxing power al~ the Con'.m(mwealth of V~gam or any )a[i6~al subdk, lsqon Iherebf will be pledged to the payment ~uch bonds. The public hearing whic~ may he cenlinued or'adjoined, wi~ be held. at 4:C.3 o'clock p,m. on July 9, 2002; before Aulhor fy, in the Fourth Floor C~nfemnce Room, at 40~ Mcm- tire Roe.d, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Any person i~terested in Ihs issuance at Ihs bends or ~he location or rm~:e Of the prOpOsed project may appear at the hearing an5 presenl his or her v~ews. Information regarding Martha Jefferson ~eallh $c=e,,ices' application is or~ lib and is operr fo~nsl~e...ct,:)~, et 1he Authority's office at 401 Maitre Read, Virginia dung business hours, · .. . lndus~riaJ Development AOthor~ .~. ~ c~ Albemarle C~,.n~ Virginia -'J .... EXHIBIT B Summary of Statements Representatives of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation appeared before the Authority to explain the proposed plan of financing. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed bond issue. EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $50,000,000 REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL AND MJH FOUNDATION The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), is empowered by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds to protect and promote the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Virginia by assisting in the acquisition, construction, equipping, expansion, enlargement and improvement of medical facilities in order to provide modem and efficient medical services to the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Authority has received a request from Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds in one or more series at one time or from time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing its plan of financing for the following (collectively, "Project"): (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a three-story healthcare and medical office facility consisting of approximately 93,834 square feet, including without limitation a diagnostic imaging center, an urgent care center, an outpatient surgery center, a women's health center and a prenatal diagnostic center, to be located at Peter Jefferson Place business offiCe park on the Peter Jefferson Parkway near the intersection of Interstate 64 and 250 East in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) the acquisition of approximately 84 acres of land located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park on the Peter Jefferson Parkway near the intersection of Interstate 64 and 250 East in Albemarle County, Virginia, for future healthcare use, (3) the acquisition, renovation, construction or equipping of capital expenditures on the campus of Martha Jefferson Hospital's acute care healthcare facility located at 459 Locust Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and at 3263 Proffit Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, including without limitation the costs of routine capital expenditures, a MRI scanner, accounting systems, angiography equipment and renovation, and a linear accelerator, and (4) any related working capital, capitalized interest, costs of issuance, and other financeable costs that Martha Jefferson Health Services may deem desirable. Such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of Albemarle County, Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the Authority, and a public heating has been held as required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Act. Martha Jefferson Health Services has represented that the Project will require an issue of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000. No member of the Board of Directors of the Authority is an officer or employee of Albemarle County, Virginia; each member has, before entering upon his duties during his or her present term of office, taken and subscribed to the oath prescribed by Section 49-1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended; and at the time of their appointments and at all times thereafter, including the date hereof, all of the members of the Board of Directors of the Authority have satisfied the residency requirements of the Act. No member of the Board of Directors of the Authority has any personal interest or business interest in Martha Jefferson Health Services, the bonds, or any of the transactions contemplated therein or has otherwise engaged in conduct prohibited under the Conflict of Interests Act, Chapter 40.1, Title 2.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended in connection with this resolution or any other official action of the Authority in connection therewith. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the issuance of the bonds will be in the public interest and will promote the health and welfare of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Albemarle, and their citizens. 2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in the Project by undertaking the issuance of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and Martha Jefferson Health Services. The bonds will be issued pursuant to documents satisfactory to the Authority. The bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from time to time. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the Project, the Authority agrees that Martha Jefferson Health Services may proceed with its plans, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment pursuant to the Project, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection with the Project; provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be deemed to authorize Martha Jefferson Health Services to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that Martha Jefferson Health Services may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable federal laws. 4. At the request of Martha Jefferson Health Services, the Authority approves McGuireWoods LLP as Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the bonds. 5. All costs and expenses in connection with the .Project, including the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority counsel, shall be paid by Martha Jefferson Health Services or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by Martha Jefferson Health Services and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 6. Martha Jefferson Health Services shall pay to the Authority its administrative fee based upon the Authority's policies and procedures, subject to the approval of Bond Counsel. 7. By presenting this resolution to the Authority, Martha Jefferson Health Services agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Authority, its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against all liabilities, obligations, claims, damages, penalties, losses, costs and expenses in any way connected with the Project or the issuance of the bonds, so long as such liabilities, obligations, claims, damages, penalties, losses, costs and expenses do not result from the Authority's gross negligence or its willful, wrongful acts. 8. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds and to evidence its "official intent" to reimburse from the proceeds of the bonds any expenditures paid by Martha Jefferson Health Services to finance the planning, construction and renovation of the Project before the issuance of the bonds, all within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150 and related sections of the Code. 9. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, approve the issuance of the bonds. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time as the issuance of the bonds has been approved by such Board of Supervisors. 10. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a meeting duly called and held on July 9, 2002, in accordance with law, and that such resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date. WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Authority, this 9th day of July, 2002. SA~;reetn~araI~,e I~cdUusnttriy~~ Authority of FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING Date: July 9, 2002 To the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia Applicant: Facility: Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation Healthcare and medical office facilities, land acquired for healthcare use and capital expenditures at facilities in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville 1. Maximum amount of financing sought. 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the locality.* 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates. 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates. 5. Est/mated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates. 6. (a) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality.* (b) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality. * (c) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality. (d) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality. * 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis. 8. Average annual salary per employee. $50,000,000 Albemarle Charlottesville Project ** prol ect TBD TBDz~ TBD** TBD** TBD** TBD** TBD** TBD** $1,620,000 $1,080,000 $420,900 $280,000 $3,325,000 $6,175,000 $105,000 $195,000 177 996*** $40,573 $43,505 Cl~air~nan, ~u~145evelopment Authority of Albemarle Coffnty, Virginia * With respect to each facility, "in/within the locality" refers to the locality in which the facility is located. ** To be determined; currently in process of evaluating whether intended use of property will generate local taxes. *** Total number of employees at Martha Jefferson Hospital currently. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Proffit Road Through Truck Restriction SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board to consider restricting through truck traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) between Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road) STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.,Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: At their June 19, 2002 meeting, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the restriction of through trucks on Proffit Road between Rt. 29 and Rt. 20. The request for the through truck restriction came from the residents of Jefferson Village Homeowners Association, Landford Hills Homeowners Association, Meadowfields Homeowners Association, Pritchett Lane Homeowners Associations, and residents of Chesterfield, Forest Ridge, and Terrybrook subdivisions. The residents had requested the restriction because they believe the road is not designed to handle the current traffic and is very unsafe. DISCUSSION: The Board of Supervisors supported this restriction and requested staff to initiate the through truck restriction process with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT requires a resolution from the County that supports the restriction. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the attached resolution, which is reflective of the Board's intent and action on June 19~h, 2002. 02.108 07-23-02P02:21 RCVD Resolution Request for The Commonwealth Transportation Board to Consider Restricting Through Truck Traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) Between Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road) WHEREAS, Proffit Road was not designed to handle truck traffic and has blind curves, poor banking, narrow traffic lanes, and shallow building setbacks; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia the Albemarle Cotmty Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on June t9, 2002 to obtain public commems on restricting through track traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road); and WHEREAS, local residents have requested that through trucks be restricted from using Proffit Road; and Wltlr~REAS, Albemarle County has evaluated the five criteria that the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider in reviewing a through truck restriction and has determined that three of these criteria are met on Proffit Road: 1) reasonable alternate routes exist for tracks to use in the event of a restriction, 2) the functional classification of Proffit Road is a rural collector, which meets VDOT criteria, and 3) the engineering of Proffit Road and accident history of the route proposed for restriction indicate that it is not suitable for truck traffic; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees to use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law enforcement agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board consider restricting through track traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) between Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a -Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on August 7, 2002. ~rk; ~~sors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman x___ ~ Mr. Dottier x Mr. Rooker Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkin.q x Ms. Thomas x (Absent) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Requested FY 2002 Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval for Appropriations #2001081, 2001082, and 2001083 for various school and local government projects for FY 2002. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Hildebeidel; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes ~ BACKGROUND: Several additional FY 2002 appropriations are required to provide carry-over funds, grant programs, and donations for various school and local government projects DISCUSSION: This request involves three separate FY 2002 appropriations to be approve appropriations is provided on Attachment A. The total of these requested additional appropriations is $38,296 which is co level for a budget amendment, however, if additional appropriations are ne~ threshold to be reached, a budget amendment may be required at a future dal be incorporated into it. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriations #2001081, 2001082, and 20~ Attachment A. detailed description of these ~siderably less than the threshold ~ded for FY 2002 that cause that and these appropriations would 1083 for the purposes stated on 0~_~4_0£ ~,~ 0:35 RCVD 02.109 APPROPRIATION #2001081 Attachment A $1,904.00 Traditionally police de partments have attempted to improve child safety seat usage by enforcement. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles using federal' pass through monies approved a grant to the County to fund checkpoints at strategic locations throughout the County to assist citizens with proper installation of child safety seats. The checkpoints utilized police officers that have been properly trained. This grant was originally approved for the 2001 fiscal year. It was extended for the 2002 fiscal year. There is no local match. APPROPRIATION #2001082 $17,434.31 Monticello High School received a donation of $201.00 from Daniel and Debra Alleman. This donation will be used to fund the gifted program at the school. The textbook fund collected $35.46 from the schools for textbooks, which were lost, damaged or sold. This money will be used to purchase replacement textbooks. The State Department of Education reimbursed Albemarle County Schools in the amount of $697:85 for satellite related expenses incurred at Monticello High School. Woodbrook Elementary School received a total of $16,500 in grants and donations for the Action in Reading- Woodbrook (AIR-Woodbrook) program. This is a summer reading intervention program targeting the ever increasing "at dsk" student population at Woodbrook Elementary School. A grant award in the amount of $5,000.00 was received from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Foundation. The school also received a matching grant in the amount of $5,000.00 from a foundation that wishes to remain anonymous. The donations received are $5,000.00 from the Bama Works Fund and $1,500.00 from Foreproperty, Inc. APPROPRIATION #2001083 $18,957.63 The Preschool Special Education Grant was not fully expended in the school budget for FY 2001. The grant carryover amount of $18,957.63 was retained by the State and may be appropriated for use in FY 2002. These funds cover additional Preschool summer school expenses incurred. FMS2 [ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE .... APP # '~ 200t 083 REVISED 6184 ' APPROPRIATION DATE'1 ' 8112/02 ' " BATCH NUMBER ' r ~ r r l EXPLANATION: Preschool Grant ...... ·SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER ~YPE FUND DEPT oBJEC'I ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT "'1 i 3205 61102 132105 PT Wages/Teachers J 1 17,507.37 t 3205 61102 210000FICA ".. ' j. i '1,450.26 ' J = 2 3205 33000 330111 PreSchool Grant ' J 2 18,957.63 3205' 0501 Est. Revenue J 18,957.63 3205 0701 Appropriation J 18,957.63 J J J J J J J J J J. I J J TOTAL 37,915.26 18,957.63 18,957.63 iPREPARED BY: MEL¥1N BREEDEN ~/~/' DATE: 08112/02 BO. OF SUPV. APPROVAL:~ ~/'~ ..-..,, / __..~..., DATE: ' 08/12/02' ACCT. APPROVAL:I '"~'~'~" ......'- --~,} DATE: ' ~ B~Y.'~ ................... DATE_ .___ FMS2 ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # ~ 200t 082i REVISED 6184 APPROPRIATION DATE BATCH NUMBER ..... EXPLANATION: SCHOOL DoNATIoNS AND GRANT AWARDS. , , SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER rYPIE FUND DEPT 0BJECl ACCOUNTDE'SCRIPTION CODEAMOuNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation I J 2 20t.00 2' 2000' 19000 1'90214 Recovered'C0st-Textbooks J ,2 35'.46 2 2000 18000 189900 MJscRevenue J. 2 697.85' ' ' 2.. 3104 18000 181240;~JR-Woodbr°okGrant J 2 10,000.00 2 3104 18000 189900 AIR-Woodbrook Donations J 2 6,500.00 1 2304 61104 601300 InstJRecSupPlies . J 1 ' 201.00 ' I 2114 6.1101 602000 Textbookst J '1 35.46 ' ' ' I 2114 61320 800100 Machinery/Equipment J '1 697.85 I 3101 60212 ' '132100 PT Wages/Teachers ~ J 1 . 15,090.00 .... Ir 3104 60212 210000 FICA I J I 1,t54.00 . I 3104 60212 601300 EdlRecSupplies'' J I 256.00 . 2000 0501 EStimated Revenue J 934.31 2000 0701 AppropriationI . J 934.31 3'104 0501 Estimated Revenue J . .16,590.00 . 3104 070i Appropriation J 16,500,00 J ;~j i, , J ,, ' ~ , J I.... J I ~" ' J , j BO. OF SUPV. APPROVALS. ~,'//~,--~ .-~ DATE: 08/12/02 ACCT. APPROVAL:I '---i-~ ~~ DATE: ENTERE_ D BY.'.L___L~ _ _ . DATE_ ~: .... APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 01/02 NUMBER 2001081 TYPE Of APPROPRIatION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF DMV CHILD SAFETY SEAT GRANT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNt 1 1532 31013 600100 POLtCESUPPLIES $1,904.00 CODE 2 1532 330O0 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 330011 FEDERAL GRANT TRANSFERS ********************--****** TOTAL 1 ;904.00 AMOUNT $1,,904.00 TOTAL 1,904.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: SIGNATURE APPROVALS: POLICE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR,~ DATE 07/18~02 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM 07-24-02A10:35 RCVD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execut' ve/~] / August 7, 2002 fi' Final RWSA Staff Recommendations - Water Supply Strategies On January 25, 2002 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, City Council, Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) conducted a joint public heating at Monticello High School regarding the future water supply altematives for our community. On May 1, 2002, the RWSA conducted a second public heating to solicit further public comments regarding water supply strategies. From those comments, the staff of the Rivauna Water and Sewer Authority has recommended to the RWSA Board of Directors the attached strategy for a multi-step, integrated water supply proposal for the future drinking water needs of our community. As indicated above, there has been much public input and support for these recommendations and, prior to the RWSA Board of Directors' approval (August 26, 2002), I wanted to give you one fmal opportunity to make any further comment should you choose to do so. You will recall that following the May 1, 2002 hearing on May 15, 2002 you authorized me, by consensus, to support the proposed water supply alternatives put forward by RWSA staff. This is submitted to you under our Consent Agenda for approval assuming you do not recommend or propose any changes to the strategy proposed. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions concerning this matter. RWT,Jr/dbm 02.026 Attachment RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION A MULTI-STEP, INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY URBAN WATER SERVICE AREA July 22, 2002 INTRODUCTION At the direction of the Board of Directors, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) began a most important journey some six 'years ago. The journey was focused on determining the best possible strategy to supply the future drinking water needs of our community. From the onset, the RWSA Board of Directors insisted that the public have extensive opportunity for input and that their views be carefully considered in forming the final recommendation. The RWSA took this charge very seriously and, over the course of the study, offered numerous opportunities for public input and the RWSA carefully considered many options suggested by the public. The public participation process is perhaps a model for others to follow when considering important subjects that will help shape our community in the future. The objective of this report is to provide the RWSA Board of Directors with the results of this six-year journey in the form of a final staff recommendation for Board consideration at the July 22, 2002 Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - PLANNING HORIZON The water supply study effort focused upon a fifty year planning horizon for the future urban water supply. However, during the study it became apparent that there is uncertainty in making long-range water supply projections. Members of the public articulated to the RWSA that many variables could affect 2050 water supply demand projections including uncertainty about area population growth, uncertainty .as to the level of community support for water conservation along with other factors including future governmental policies or decisions. The RWSA staff is therefore recommending to the Board that our.future water supply strategy be a two-step strategy with our initial efforts focused on meeting the projected water supply need through 2030. The second step in our recommended strategy will be to reassess the projected 2050 water supply needs and take timely action to obtain necessary permits and construct needed facilities to address any projected shortfall. RWSA staffbelieves that more accurate and complete data ~vill be available to predict the 2050 water demand in the future. For example, better data on area growth will be 1 5d SgBoard~RWA\Board Mceting.~ 2002',Board Meeting RWA Jub~,~ a~e't~ul:~h. 8.~/uly2t.302 ~ available, the results on water conservation will be clear and the Board will have the knowledge gained from implementing the 2030 water supply strategy. In the 2020 time frame, it is recommended that the Board of Directors direct RWSA staff to re-evaluate the then better defined gap between 2050 water needs and projected 2050 water availability. Again, this process should involve the public and it should be started in time to ensure adequate time for the possible lengthy permitting process if the Buck Mountain Creek reservoir is selected as a 2050 water supply option. The projected water supply demands, developed by the RWSA staff from the six-year study, for 2030, and for 2050, adjusted for three percent water demand reduction due to water conservation, are: 203O 16 MGD .2050 19.5 MGD These figures assume that unaccounted for "water loss" is maintained at 13 percent.or less by RWSA, the City and the ACSA. A 13 percent "water loss" is acceptable for a complex and older water supply system like ours. Some of this water is not truly a "loss" in that it is used for fire protection, in-plant uses and other legitimate purposes. The public has commented that the three percent water conservation assumption made by RWSA staff is Iow particularly when the City and ACSA have established 10 percent water conservation goals. The RWSA staff believes our community can do better than three percent; however, for the purposes of this recommendation we have elected to remain conservative and use the three percent goal. If the community can sustain a greater than three percent reduction in water use, it will stretch the need for further investments and improvements' in the water supply. We are hopeful that the community will prove our assumption to be wrong and both achieve and sustain the ten percent water conservation goal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - SAFE YIELD The urban water supply serving the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County is currently served by four reservoirs. The future water supply study highlighted a serious sedimentation problem in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR). The study experts predicted that the SFRR will continue to lose capacity each year due to sediment load from the watershed, and, its safe yield will fall to zero sometime around 2050. The March 2002 bathymetric study conducted by RWSA indicated there was a small gain in SFRR capacity in 2002 (questionable given the accuracy of the measurement method). This was certainly positive news but we believe it was mainly attributable to the lack of major storms in the watershed in the last year, which ~vill not be the case in future years. RWSA staffbelieves that the characteristics of the watershed and the historical trend 2 S.'~L~t~a~s & Memos[Lan~a~.sut~tMJuly2~..~2 ~ data, illustrates that the sedimentation problem in the SFRR is real and must be addressed as part of the future water supply strategy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - MINIMUM IN-STREAM FLOWS Members of the public have clearly articulated a desire for RWSA to provide releases from its reservoirs to the Rivanna River and the Moormans River to supplement in- stream flows. The RWSA staffbelieves that we have a responsibility to protect and enhance the environment as an integral part of our water supply mission. In the current severe drought, RWSA has changed its operating procedures to minimize draw down from the Sugar Hollow reservoir. We have also continued our release to the Moormans River and continued our historical in-stream flow release to the Rivanna River. We have artfully transferred production to the Rivanna water treatment plant to reduce Water withdrawals from the Sugar Hollow system, and to help maintain water in the Sugar Hollow system for water supply and more naturalized in-stream flow. While our highest priority in a water supply crisis must be our customers and the community we serve, our recent actions demonstrate that the times when RWSA will not be capable of making in- stream releases should be a very small pementage of the time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - BASIC COMPONENTS OF STRATEGY On February 25, 2002, the RWSA staff made a draft recommendation to the Board concerning our future water supply strategy. The staff recommendation was a synthesis of the findings by the technical experts, comments from the public, along with RWSA staff judgment. The February 25, 2002 staff recommendation was built upon the following strategic building blocks: · WATER CONSERVATION · WATERSHED APPROACH o MAINTENANCE DREDGING · SELECTED INFRASTRUCTURE ADDITION · ENVIRONMENT TOO This harmonized strategy is a modem strategy and not one dominated by "building new stuff". It is perhaps a more challenging strategy since some of its elements, like watershed protection and maintenance dredging, are new ideas not completely locked down with engineering precision. We believe the innovative strategy we are recommending to the Board is a model for others to follow and we are excited to have the opportunity to work through the challenges and paradigm shifts, which we will face in bringing the approved strategy to fruition. This strategy is a multi-step, integrated solution which RWSA staff believes is the optimal route to meet our area's future needs and which is clearly responsive to the views of our community. doc CURENT DROUGHT CONDITIONS Our area is in the midst of a major drought that has its genesis as far back as four years ago. Annual precipitation over this time period has consistently been below historical levels. Area streams are at all time daily low flows and groundwater levels are severely depressed. The low groundwater levels adversely affect the base flow in area streams that, in turn, reduces recharge into our reservoirs. Our community clearly needs a long, extended time period of above normal precipitation to replenish our groundwater, provide base flow to streams and replenish our reservoirs. The current conditions will not be corrected by a week, a month or a season of higher rainfall.. It is essential that our water supply strategy recognize that droughts are a reality which must be addressed. In October 2001, our total reservoir capacity reached approximately 68 percent and RWSA, the City and the ACSA called for voluntary water conservation. The City and ACSA have provided water conservation leadership in our community for years. Most recently, they have launched a major water conservation campaign, fully funded by the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority, which is striving to convince area residents that water conservation is both easy and important. This is a long- term journey and we must stay the course to change individual water use patterns. The current drought has brought urgency to the timetable to move forward on our future water supply. The message appears clear ...it is time to move forward to implement a Board approved water supply strategy for our urban service area. PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING THE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY The principles underlying the strategy being recommended by RWSA staffwere generally outlined in the February 25, 2002 report to the Board. Nearly all of these principles were strongly supported in the public comments at the May 1, 2002 public heating. The key strategic principles underpinning the RWSA staffrecommendation are as follows: · The community wants the SFRR preserved which requires that we address the sediment problem. · RWSA needs to be more active in watershed protection and both water supply and environmental benefits will occur. · Controlling sediment loads, at the.source, in the watershed is desirable. · Water conservation must continue to be a key strategic element for the long- term. · The Buck Mountain Creek reservoir must be retained as a future water supply option. · Environmental protection is an integral part of RWSA's basic mission S:xl..ctt~'~ & Mera~XLarry\wmup~ly.BdJuly2c~_ ~ PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETINGS '~VITH ELECTED/APPOINTED OFFICIALS On May 1, 2002, the RWSA held a public hearing on the proposed water supply strategy. A copy of the hearing summary is attached. The February 25, 2002 future water supply recommendation was also presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the City of Charlottesville City Council and the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority. IMMEDIATE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY (ADDRESS NEEDS TO 2030) The RWSA staffrecommends the following water supply strategy be implemented to meet our area's projected water supply needs through 2030. 1. TAKE A WATERSHED APPROACH Become More Active Watershed Stewards RWSA will increase its role in the active stewardship of the watersheds serving our water supply system. We will work as partners with responsible individuals and organizations to protect and preserve the watersheds feeding our water supply. We will talk and act in a manner that illustrates that we have no higher priority than the protection of our watersheds. Address Sediment Load From The SFRR Watershed RWSA, working with others, will identify the significant sources of sediment currently entering the SFRR reservoir. It is thought to be mainly sourced from stream bank and erosion during high flows but we need to understand our watershed better and identify the actual sources of sediment entering the SFRR. RWSA then needs to develop partnerships with landowners and proactively seek creative ways to secure watershed improvements. We need to help organize a more active watershed community to bring greater focus and resources to bear on known and future challenges. We need to offer funding support where we identify severe watershed problems that are adversely affecting our future water supply. We will seek other partners and possible grant funds and become more visible watershed leaders. We believe that source control of sediments will be a wise investment in that it will maintain or extend reservoir life and minimize the amount of sediment that must be removed through more expensive dredging. S.\Let:c-r~ & Memos\Lar~ w ater~gpp~..~-.dJ~ ?uly20~2 .q~c~ 2. GENERATE BETTER DATA FOR DECISIONS Good decisions require good data. Good data on stream flows and water quality is currently lacking and we must address this fault. RWSA will continue to assist, as needed, in the financial support of the Mechums River gauging station. This station was recently restored to operation through the joint efforts of DEQ and the RWSA. RWSA will partner with the DEQ and the USGS in establishing a flow gauging station downstream of the SFRR. RWSA will also investigate the development of a water supply model to enhance our ability to achieve the optimal balance in the operation of our facilities. Sampling of the SFRR and its major tributaries was unfortunately discontinued several years ago. RWSA has akeady re-initiated this sampling program and the first set of water quality samples have been collected. RWSA is also investigating a data management system to better organize all of our monitoring data, which is now only available in hard copy. We believe such a system will enhance our ability to track trends and make databased decisions. 3. WATER CONSERVATION BY ACSA AND THE CITY RWSA will continue to support the City of Charlottesville and the ACSA in the/r efforts to institutionalize water conservation. We offer hardy congratulations to both our customers for developing and funding the current 10 percent water conservation campaign. We believe in our local citizens and believe that they will embrace water conservation with the same enthusiasm they have recycling. 4. ADD FOUR FOOT CREST CONTROLS ON THE SFRR RWSA will immediately proceed with the surveying, engineering, and construction, of four-foot crest controls on the SFRR. Our first steps will be to commission a survey in the fall to define the new reservoir level and communicate with the watershed community. This action will increase useable system storage by 600 million gallons and provide an increase in safe yield of at least 7 MGD in 2050. Our technical experts estimate the cost of this improvement to be $5 to 7 million. RWSA staff believes this is an essential part of our immediate water supply strategy. 5. MAINTAIN DOWNSTREAM STREAMFLOW RELEASES AND MATCH DURING CRITICAL DROUGHTS RWSA understands its responsibility for both water supply and sound environmental management. We do not see a conflict bet~veen these two important responsibilities. 6 $ kL~ter~ & Memos,Latry\watersupplyB~,.0y2002 dog It is RWSA intent to honor the historical commitment to make an 8 MGD in-stream flow release fi.om the SFRR except during severe drought conditions during which such action would threaten our ability to provide drinking water to the community. We believe these occasions will be rare but we recognize that they may occur. Our technical experts have estimated that RWSA will be able to make the 8 MGD release approximately 99 percent of the time. Our environmental stewardship during the current drought illustrates our commitment to making the environment part of our daily operating philosophy. During critical drought events, RWSA will match the SFRR release to the estimated flow into the SFRR during the critical drought event. The RWSA also intends to honor our commitment to release 400,000 gallons per day to the Moormans River at all times unless the total available reservoir water storage falls below 80 percent. Again, we have continued to make this release during the current drought. In time, we understand the need to look closer at the adequacy of this release to determine if it is protective of the Moormans River and its biota. 6. IMPROVED WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT PREDICTION RWSA has already taken action during the current drought to improve the environmental management of our water supply system. We have demonstrated the ability to make "systems decisions" in which we maximize water storage in one or more reservoirs and vary production at our treatment facilities to maximize operating flexibility while still meeting customer demands and environmental goals. We believe the water supply model we are investigating will help us further optimize our daily operation to meet overall objectives. We will, of course, continue to work constructively with the City, the ACSA and other organizations, along with citizens, to research ways to improve drought prediction and better ways to communicate drought warnings to the public. 7. PERFORM MAINTENANCE DREDGING ON THE SFRR A great deal of the public comment and debate has occurred concerning dredging the SFRR. In the recent public hearing, there was strong community support for preserving the SFRR as a community asset and determining ways to perform dredging. One public commenter has stated that other communities have found.ways to economically dredge their reservoirs. RWSA has not conducted any new studies on the feasibility and costs of maintenance dredging of the SFRR since we have been in a public comment and evaluation period. We recognize that some of the costs previously advanced by RWSA contractors were extremely large and RWSA experts also identified a myriad of potential logistical challenges. Any dredging project will generate a large volume of material, requiring, $.\Lcttcrs & Mcmos'~Lany\water,moplyl~lJu..h,2002.doc significant transportation costs and a need to locate a large land area for the dredged solids. RWSA staffbelieves that periodic maintenance dredging of the SFRR should be part of our future water supply strategy. We believe that periodic maintenance dredging will preserve water supply capacity along with the beauty and environmental benefits of the reservoir. Having said that, we also recognize that questions about dredging and its costs must be further researched. As part of its watershed approach, the RWSA also believes that source control in the watershed is clearly linked to the protection of the SFRR from future sedimentation. RWSA staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to study the methods, costs and logistics of periodic maintenance dredging with the understanding that RWSA staffwill provide the Board with the study results and a recommendation prior to proceeding with any actual dredging project. RWSA staffalso recognizes that the approximate 5 MGD historical loss of SFRR safe yield could be recovered through restorative dredging if proven economical. 8. EXPAND ;VATER SOURCES TO INCLUDE THE MECHUMS RIVER A pump station formerly existed on the Mechums River, which was part of the urban water supply system. The pump station formerly captured Mechums River flow and pumped it to the RM reservoir or the Observatory water treatment plant. Since February 25, 2002, RWSA staff, county staff and a local citizen have been working to determine the potential costs and benefits of re-constructing this pump station. Meetings have been held with regulators as a part of this analysis. The norm alization of flow in the Moormans River was a major component of public comments made throughout the water supply study process. Many citizens expressed the view that a Moormans River solution should be included as a part of the future water supply strategy and they pointed to the environmental value and beauty of the Moormans River as an asset to our community. RWSA staff does not currently possess the technical information to determine the desirability of reactivation of the Mechums River pump station as a supplemental water source, that would also add to our available water supply while decreasing reliance upon water drawn from the Sugar Hollow system, or to determine the environmental benefits and/or impacts of such action. Additionally, the Mechums River is currently setting all time daily low flows during this sustained drought which must also factor into our analyses. Also, as part of the Ragged Mountain dam rehabilitation study, we will be looking at the costs and benefits of increasing water supply storage in RM. As such, a Mechums River S x&ezr~rs & Memos~&,~rry~wa~ersupplyBdJ..d,/2002 doc pump station may provide a water supply source that will allow us to take advantage of a storage and safe yield increase at the RM reservoir. An additional benefit of a Mechums River pump station is that it would provide a "non-reservoir" source of water to our system, although it could not meet 100 percent of our demand. RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain this option as a part of our water supply strategy while RWSA staff continues to work towards a complete technical evaluation of the water supply and environmental benefits (including potential RM storage benefits), the' costs and environmental impact of this proposal. RWSA staff will then make a formal recommendation to the Board before proceeding with a project. LONGER TERM ~VATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECTED 2050 WATER DEMAND The urban water supply needs through 2050 will not be met simply by implementing the 2030 water supply strategy. We fully expect that RWSA will eventually need to add additional sources of water to meet the 2050 water demand. The two-step strategy we are recommending to the Board will, however, allow us to make immediate needed progress and earn the time to better define our future water needs and the available water supply Options. As part of its two-step strategy, the RWS A believes that the following strategies constitute viable 2050 water supply options that the Board should consider more fully after we have gained additional experience. RWSA is not recommending that immediate action be undertaken to implement the following water supply alternatives but RWSA staff currently regards them as part of the potential strategy to meet 2050 water needs. 1. CONSTRUCT DAM AND RESERVOIR ON BUCK MOUNTAIN CREEK The RWSA staffbelieves that the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir property must be retained by the Board as a potential 2050 water supply alternative for our community. 2. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM THE JAMES RIVER The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option to take water from the James River to supply our 2050 area needs. 3. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM CHRIS GREENE LAKE The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option of taking raw xvater from Chris Greene Lake to supply our 2050 area needs. 9 S:LLetters & Mcmos[LanT\wat~rsupplyP.~uly2002 ~ 4. ADD EIGHT-FOOT CREST CONTROLS ON SFRR The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option of adding four additional feet of crest controls on the SFRR to supply our 2050 area needs. 5. UPSTREAM BASE FLOW AUGMENTATION WITH HIGHLY TREATED WASTEWATER The RWSA staffbelieves that a potential future water supply option is using highly treated wastewater from the Moores Creek Treatment Plant to supplement flow upstream of our reservoirs. We believe that public acceptance will need to evolve, however, before this could be considered to be a viable alternative. ~VATER SUPPLY STRATEGY - SAFE YIELD AND COST PROJECTION The following summarizes the available safe yield and very preliminary costs for implementing the immediate water supply strategy to satisfy water needs through 2030: .ELEMENT SAFE YIELD COST WATERSHED APPROACH · STUDY SEDIMENT · BUFFERS/STABILIZATION · SEED MONEY FOR WATERSHED'GROUP BETTER DATA/DECISIONS · MODEL AND NEW GAUGE WATER CONSERVATION 4 FOOT SFRR CREST CONTROLS IN-STREAM FLOW RELEASES IMPROVED DROUGHT MGT. SFRR MAINTENANCE DREDGING · RESTORATIVE DREDGING MECHUMS RIVER WATER SOURCE $100,000 $250,000/year $' 10,000/year $ 25,000/year $ 75,000 Addressed by City and ACSA 7 to 11 MGD $5 to 7 million 1.6 MGD $400,000 2.4 MGD $250,000 7.2 MGD $100,000 for study 5 MGD Subject to further study $ 10,000 for study Subject to further study The total projected cost is approximately $11,000,000 which is very preliminary and which does not include the costs for dredging and the Mechums River pump station. The 10 S:\Lctter~ & Memo~\Lamy'~wateamul~.lyS.adu/y2002 doc RWSA needs to better define these costs over time, and the Board will have to consider a major bond issue to address these needs. SCHEDULE FOR ACTION With Board approval, the RWSA staff intends to move forward within the approved budget. However, significant progress is tied to obtaining funding from a new bond issue and FY 2004 operating funds. As previously described, we are already actively implementing several elements of the strategy. With the concurrence of the Board, we would suggest that we focus upon the initial tasks for the addition of the four-foot crest controls, which is the long-lead item in our strategy. Our present estimate is that if we start now, the crest control improvements would be operational in late 2006. RECOMMENDATION TO THE RWSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS The RWSA staff recommends that the Board approve the future water supply strategy as outlined in this presentation. A specific financial plan will be presented at a future Board meeting. The financial plan must also include the results of the CtP, the RM dam rehabilitation project, and the infrastructure and deferred maintenance study to provide a complete picture of the future costs. f 11 $:\L~tcr~ & M~'r~s\Latty\wale~supplyBdJul,y2002 ¢1oc RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF MAY 1, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING ON FUTURE WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATION May 13, 2002 On May 1, 2002 the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority held a public hearing to solicit public comments on the future water supply recommendation, which had been presented to the Rivanna Board of Directors at their January 25, 2002 meeting. Notice of the hearing had been placed in the newspaper on two occasions and the hearing had been advertised on the Authority website. Additionally, several individuals and organizations voluntarily participated in publicizing the hearing. Chairman Rich Collins presided over the public hearing. Executive Director Larry Tropea opened the public hearing with a short summary of the alternatives and the rationale behind their selection. He advised attendees-that we had studied alternatives for some six years and it was noW time to take action. He pointed to the long running drought as support for moving forward as quickly as possible with the recommended strategy. The following summarizes the key points presented in testimony at the public hearing or in written comments submitted prior to the close of-the hearing record on May 15, 2002. HISTORY OF THE WATER SUPPLY One commenter read a historical excerpt from 1904 and stated that today's hearing was a chapter in the long history of the water supply that was exciting and encouraging. He stated that the proposed recommendations are encouraging and that the idea of reactivating the Mechums River pump station was a "70 year old new idea." He noted that the water supplY recommendations appear sensible but cautioned that the "proof will be in the pudding." BALANCED, INTEGRATED STRATEGY Several commenters complimented the Authority for developing a balanced, integrated strategy for our future water supply. One commenter indicated enthusiastic support for the strategy and stated it was logical and a major step forward. The commenter noted that the strategy considers all aspects of the complex water supply issue as a whole and not as isolated items. The commenter supported action now on the short-term recommendations 1 S.\BoardXRWA\Board Meetings 2002\lSoatd Mt~"ing RWA .M~/publi,:?~aring I ~t,~. ~ and indicated we would earn time to act later, with better data, on the long-term water supply needs. WATERSHED APPROACH AND DREDGING Several commenters welcomed and supported the need for the Authority to become a more active watershed steward. One commenter supported moving forward to obtain data on the watershed for both water quality and water quantity. This commenter advocated that we start now with dredging studies and that we keep in mind that the SFRR is an important community asset. The commenter added that it would be fiscally and environmentally wrong to let the SFRR fill with sediment. 'One commenter reported that a draft proposal to better define the origins of sediment entering the SFRR was available given the work done last year by two area organizations. MINIMUM IN-STREAM FLOW Several commenters stated that the Authority needs to consider in-stream flo~v as a part of the overall water supply strategy. One stated that we had a "golden opportunity" to incorporate the environment into our strategy to protect the Moorman's River. A graph was used by one commenter to illustrate the small drainage area of the Sugar Hollow reservoir and the view that the Authority was unfairly taking a large quantity of water from the Sugar Hollow reservoir to serve our community. This commenter stated that the Sugar Hollow watershed constituted only seven percent of the total watershed for the water supply but was providing about forty percent of the water to our community. One commenter also complimented the Authority for making positive statements supporting ecological concerns as an integral part of the water supply recommendations. The commenter stated that RSWA must consider in-stream flow needs for the Rivanna River in both drought and normal flow times. The commenter made further comments in support of the need for a stronger in-stream flow commitment for the Rivanna River below the SFRR dam. WATER CONSERVATION Nearly every commenter supported expanded efforts to conserve water. One commenter stated that our community could do much better than the proposed three percent demand reduction included in the current strategy. One commenter stated that 25 percent of the water we use is essential to human life but that the other 75 percent was discretionary water use. He stated that current water demand in our community was too high and we need to change the way citizens think 2 S:\BoardXRWA',Board Meetings 2002~,Board Meeting RWA May' publ~glMay doc about water. He advocated setting prices to promote water use efficiency especially during droughts. BUSINEESS COMMUNITY One commenter representing the business community stated that they agree fundamentally with the proposed recommendations and believe the analyses conducted have been thorough. The commenter stated that water was an essential element and an adequate water supply was needed to build a sound future in the Charlottesville area. He noted that it was now time to act and offered help in leading water conservation in our community. SUGAR HOLLOW RAW WATER QUALITY One commenter was supportive of the proposed strategy but commented that raw water quality in our reservoirs needs to be given greater consideration. The commenter then stated that the highest quality drinking water available to the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority came from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. NOTICE AND OUTREACH TO SFRR LANDOWNERS One commenter stated that .the Authority needs to immediately conduct outreach and education of residents located around the SFRR. FORMATION OF WATERSHED GROUP One commenter renewed a recommendation previously made to the Board of Supervisors that a watershed organization be formed and that Rivanna take the lead and integrate citizens into the watershed effort. The commenter also recommended that the watershed group include consideration of the priorities established to protect the Chesapeake Bay. BENEFICIAL USE OF STORMW'ATER One commenter indicated that stormwater capture and re-use for non-potable water uses can be an effective water conservation technique. 3 S ~om'd~RWA\l~oarcl M¢¢t~n~ "O02\Bo~,rel M~rin§ RWA Mafpubli~armglM.l.~ ~: RESOLUTION ABANDONING PORTIONS OF STATE ROUTE 606 AND REQUESTING THAT OTHER PORTIONS BE ADDED TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS WltEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided this Board with a plat dated November 5, 2001 (hereinafter, the "plat") depicting the additions and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of a project to abandon State Route 606 and dedicate the new roadway, which plat is recorded in Deed Book 2229, Page 729 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the right-of-way and drainage easements to be dedicated for relocated State Route 606 across lands of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, pursuant to Section 33.I-229, Code of Virgin~; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the existing right-of-way and sight easements to be abandoned on State Route 606, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTheR RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportatiora I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy ora Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on August 7, 2002. Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman x Mr. Doffer x Mr. Rooker Mr. Martin X Mr. Perkins x Ms. Thomas x Cle~, Board of Cou~'~upe~rs (Absent) In the Coun_~ of Albemarle By resolution of the governing body adopted August 07~ 2002 The following Form SR-$A is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official):~~ Report of Changes in the Secondary System of St(~Highways Form SR-SA Secondary Roads Division 5/1 f99 Project/Subdivision Relocate Rt. 606 Type of Change: Abandonment The following facilities of the Secondary System of State Highways are hereby ordered abandoned, pursuant to the statutory authority cited: Reason for Change: Deduc~tion, Abandonment, §33.1-155 (Project related) Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-155 Route Number and/or Street Name Airport Road, State Route Number 649 Description: From: .80 Mile West Rt.29 To: Intersection Rt.606 A distance of: 0.05 miles. Right of Way Record: #Error Dickerson Road, State Route Number 606 Description: From: .7 Miles North East Rt.743 To: Intersection Rt.649 A distance of: 0.19 miles. Right of Way Record: #Error Description: From: Intersection Rt.649 To: .45 Miles North East Rt. 649 A distance of: 0.45 miles. Right of Way Record: #Error Page 1 of 2 Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Form SR-fA SeconQa~ Roads Division 5ilt99 Type of Change: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested, the dght of way for which, inOuding additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed: Reason for Change: Addition, Developer Project Adjustment Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33,1-229 Route Number and/or Street Name Dickerson Road, State Route Number 606 · ~)escription: From: .69 Miles Northeast Rt. 743 To: Intersection Rt.649 A distance of: 0.21 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Land Records Office on 7/15/2002, Deed Book 2229 Pg.729, with a width of 90' · Description: From: Intersection Rt.649 To: .45 Miles Northeast Rt.649 A distance of:. 0.45 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Land Records Office on 7/15/2002, Deed Book 2229 Pg.729, with a width of 90' County of Albemarle, Date of Resolution: August 7, 2002 Page 2 of 2 The roads described on Additions Form SR*5(A) are: Abandonment 1) Airport Road (State Route 649) from .80 miles west of Route 29 to the intersection of Route 606, for a length of 0.05 mile. 2) Dickerson, Road (State Route 606) from .7 miles northeast of Route 743 to the intersection of Route 649, for a length of 0.19 mile; and from the intersection of Route 649 to .45 miles northeast of Route 649, for a length of 0.45 miles. Addition 3) Dickerson Road (State Route 606) from .69 miles northeast of Route 743 to the intersection of Route 649, as shown on plat recorded 7/15/2002 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2229, page 729, with a 90-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.21 miles; and from the intersection of Route 649 to .45 miles northeast of Route 649, as shown on plat recorded 7/15/2002 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 2229, page 729, with a 90-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.45 miles. CHenddx@gocho.com Subject: Expand Employee Lot Dear Mike, Bob & Gary, Today we held a pre-construction conference with Parham for start of work on the expansion to the employee parking area. Parham has submitted required shop drawings for approval by Delta and is tentatively scheduled to begin construction on August 5th with a 45 calendar day schedule. One issue to be resolved is the abandonment of the old 606 right~of-way and the fact that a piece of this property bi-sects the proposed expansion area. In March, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (BOS) passed a resolution authorizing abandonment of the right-of-way and submitted this to VDOT for required approval by Commonwealth Transportation Board. At the same time, a plat was prepared recognizing abandonment of this right-of-way and dedication of new dght~of-way to VDOT. Lisa Kelly is recording that plat next week; however, it is my understanding that VDOT is now telling the County that their 3/02 resolution didn't meet their legal requirements and a new resolution must be adopted to conform to their guidelines. If this sounds very bureaucratic; it is...the bottom line is that we don't hold clear title to all of the land for construction of the parking expansion. There is some risk associated with proceeding with construction until all of this is cleared up; therefore, we are working to effect the following: a. Consideration of new resolution by BOS at their Aug. 7th meeting. Juan Wade of Co. Planning advises that if he has plat book/page # by end of next week the Clerk's office should be able to clear for this agenda. With Lisa filing plat early next week, this should be doable. b. Consideration of BOS action by CTB at their August 15 meeting. We have less control of this item; however, I will be contacting Richmond VDOT and Butch Davies, CTB representative, next week to see if this can be included on their agenda. It seems to me that worst case scenario is that County of Albemarle not grant site plan approval until property issue is resolved. If so, we ,may have to pay Parham more $ to hold his bid. Best case would be that a/b above happens and/or County approves site plan on condition that no construction happens on R-O-W until property issue is resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions conceming this issue and our strategy to resolve this. Thank you, Bryan Bryan O. Elliott Executive Director Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority 100 Bowen Loop, Suite 200 Ella Carey From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Larry Davis Monday, July 15, 2002 9:12 AM Bob Tucker; Mark Trank Juandiego Wade; Ella Carey; Laurie Bentley RE: Expand Employee Lot Bob: I am asking Greg to get with Juan to see what VDOT's issue is. We have not heard about any problem, Greg is also going to follow up with Planning to see if the site plan approval can be done to accommodate the Airport's construction schedule. Larry W. Davis Albemarle County Attomey Notice: This email may contain attomey-client privileged information, privileged work product, or other confidential information, it is intended only for the designated recipient, if you receive this message and are not a designated recipient you are requested to delete this message immediately and notify me that you have received this in error. Thank you. ---Original Message .... From: Bob Tucker Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 8:19 AM To: Larry Davis; Mark Trank Cc: Juandiego Wade; Ella Carey; Laurie Bentley Subject: FW: Expand Employee Lot Larry and Mark: Didn't know if you were aware that our resolution in Mamh did not meet VDoT's legal guidelines (see Bryan's comments below). Please work with Juan to be sure we correct this at our Aug. 7th meeting which can hopefully be added to their consent agenda. THANKS, BOB ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401 MClNTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-4579 VOICE: 434.296.5841 FAX: 434.296.5800 EMAIL: BTUCKER~ALBEMARLE.ORG ----Original Message .... From: boe@gocho, com [mailto:boe@gocho.com] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 2:15 PM To: Bob Tucker; oconneil@ci,charlottesville.va.us; mikem@matthewsdevelop.com Cc: barbarah@gocho,com; kelley@ci.charlottesville.va.us; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Planning Commission Request for Consulting Services - Cell Tower Review SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Requested meeting between staff and two members of the Board and two members of the Planning Commission to discuss objectives.for hiring a consultant STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, McCulley, Graham, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The attached letter from the Planning Department indicates that the Planning Commission has requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize hiring a consultant to assess the metal pole diameters necessary to support the type of wireless infrastructure requested by applicants. The letter further states that some Commissioners have questioned if the poles are being unnecessarily oversized. DISCUSSION: In considering this issue, staff believes that a meeting between staff an d two members of the Board and Commission would be useful in more clearly defining the objectives of hiring a consultant. Staff believes this meeting will provide clearer guidance regarding expectations in the review of applications. If the Board is in agreement, staff will coordinate with the Chairs of the Board an d Commission in arranging a meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a meeting between staff and members of the Board and Commission to further discuss this matter. 07-29-02P0£ :07 RCVD 02.119 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development , 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W: TUcker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development July 10, 2002 Planning Commission Request The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 2, 2002, unanimously passed a motion requesting that the Board of Supervisors engage an engineering consultant to assess the metal pole diameters necessary to support the type of wireless infrastructure requested by the applicants. Some Commissioners have questioned if the poles are being unnecessarily oversized. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. vvvc/jcf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07-30-02P12:08 RCVD AGEN DA TITLE: Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board Approval to Forgive MACAA's Prior Year End-of-Year Surpluses STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED B~'~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: In November, 2001 following the arrival of a new Executive Director, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) began an internal assessment of the agency's administrative and program management. As part of the review, staff and the Board investigated the nature of"temporarily restricted net deferred assets" that had been noted in MACAA's financial audits for several years. These funds represent annual dollars appropriated to MACAA that were not expended on those programs in any fiscal year. However, these "year-end surpluses" were not reported to the County according to our policy. DISCUSSION: Surplus funds from the County, City and the United Way have accumulated over the past seven years (FY95 - FY01) and total $92,886, the County's share being $9,542.28. The primary factors appear to be temporary staffing vacancies and over- budgeting exacerbated by poor accounting where program expenses were not adequately associated with specific program revenue. The surplus funds appear as accumulated totals on MACAA's audits, but they are not identified by individual program or by jurisdiction in the audit. It appears that these funds were expended as part of the agency's normal cash flow requirements over the seven-year period and that programs did deliver services to clients. Administrative staff covered staff shortages in the programs when needed and budget deficits were covered by administrative dollars. The City and United Way also have surplus funds in the amount of $57,860 and $25,484, respectively. The City has agreed to forgive the debt and United Way is currently deciding whether to ask MACAA to repay the funds over an extended period of time. Albemarle's share of the net deferred assets is $9,542.28 and is allocated among the following youth oriented programs: Camp Horizon Beating the Odds Young Guys of Distinction Project Discovery $3,661.36 $3,784.34 ($2,654.88) $2,096.58 For a thorough explanation of the history and findings of this investigation, as well as proposed corrective actions, please see the attached letter from Noah Schwartz, Executive Director MACAA Board members and the Executive Director met with representatives from the County, City and United Way in February to apprise us of this issue and to inform us that the MACAA staff and their auditors, Hantzmon, Wiebel and Company were doing an in-depth review. The same group also met in May with Hantzmon,'Wiebel representatives where_ the FY 01 audit and final numbers were presented for discussion. There is no evidence of fiscal impropriety on MACAA's part. All revenues and expenditures were tested as part of the annual audit, all net deferred assets were reported in the audit, and there was no indication from the auditors of any irregularities. MACAA is requesting resolution of this situation from each of the funders owed net deferred assets. The options are to: 1 ) require MACAA to repay the funds to us; 2) require MACAA to put the funds into the res pective programs; or 3) "forgive" the cited amounts and allow the agency to take them off their books. Staff does not believe that the first two options are valid, as they would create a financial hardship for MACAA at this time. The agency does not have adequate liquid assets to repay AGENDA TITLE: Monticeilo Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) August 7, 2002 Page 2 the money to the County or to put "repay" the funding directly into their programs. MACAA might be able to borrow against their assets to raise funds, but would be limited to borrowing only what it could afford to repay RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the County forgive the $9,542.28 in prior year surplus funds and allow MACAA to remove the temporarily restricted net deferred assets from their books. These surplus funds are insignificant over a seven-year period of time and were in all probability spent on various community services. Moreover, repayment of the funds would cause an additional financial hardship at a time when MACAA is trying to improve their financial practices and organizational strength. The County on a quarterly basis will monitor current year spending and will link program results to expenditures through an ongoing reporting mechanism Attachments: Letter from Noah Schwartz, MACAA Executive Director 02.121 <c bNYI LI £s June 13, 2002 MONTICELLO 1025 PARK STREET TELEPHONE 434.295.3171 WEBSITE: MONTICELLO.AVENUE.ORG / MACAA Ms. Roxanne White Assistant County Administrator Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 AREA COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 Fax: 434.296.0093 RECEIVED JUN 14 2002 County of Alisernarle Coun~ Executive's Office Dear Ms. White: As part of the agency's own internal assessment of program and administrative management over the last year, agency management sought to address temporarily restricted net deferred assets noted in the agency's financial audits. These temporarily restricted net deferred assets are defined in agency audits as "Net assets subject to donor-imposed stipulations that may or will be met either by actions of the Organization and/or the passage of time." Relative to funds provided to MACAA by the City of Charlottesville, COunty Of Atbemarl~e andthe United Way,~!b, ese ass.ets are dollars given.to:the, agency to.providb sPedific.programs that' h.ave nqt yeLbeen expende'd~:on:thoseprogram~:' Accumulated ~0~e~-~ th.e~ last'7 y~S~, th~-t6tal _amount. ~ _~... afthese,..~. . assets-attribulea_ . to. these three..fUndei~s,~ is '$92~ g85 .'6;t :6'f:Jtihe '30;:200 t; see-( attached chart).. During our assessment, the first question we wanted to answer was how did these funds accumulate as they had? Deriving from 4 programs - Beating the Odds, Camp Horizon, Project Discovery and Parents in Education - it appears that temporary staffing vacancies and over budgeting exacerbated by poor accounting (that may not have adequately associated appropriate program expenses to program revenue) were the primary causal factors. Moreover, internal budgets may not have cap,~,.ed enough detail to show program staff individual program surpluses and/or deficits, malting it extraordinarily difficult to manage program budgets. In the end, the number of staff fully cognizant of this situation appears to have been quite small. Our second question was how had the agency accounted for these funds over this time? These dollars do appear on MACAA's financial audits as net deferred assets (as accumulated totals):, pr..Qgrams, however, were not individually identified in these audits. As allowed by standard auditing pragtic,es; programs:have been.grouped, by categor~y sO. th~t;'fo~"examp~e';~alt y, outh oriented programs-(e;g::Beating the Odds, Young Guys of Disiinction, Camp Horizon, Project Discovery) were:~'netted'' against each other and. represented ih 0n~--"Youth Pr0~mm" column. The result is that it's virtually impossible to determine whether 0r no{ ~he funds HEAD START NELSON COUNTY CHILD CARE CENTER PARENTS IN EDUCATION JOHNSoN/MILLER SANKOFA CENTER PROJECT DISCOVERY BEATING THE ODDS YOUNG GuYs OF DISTINCTION CAMP HORIZON FAMILY SUPPORT & DEVELOPMENT RURAL OUTREACH CHILD HEALTH PARTNERSHIP HENRY B. MITCHELL HOPE HOUSE WHEELS TO WORK provided by one particular funder were fully expended by a particular program. And while the intent of this grouping wasn't to hide information, it did have that effect. On top of this, it doesn't appear that MACAA clearly reported any of these surpluses to the affected funders. Lastly, we needed to determine what happened to these funds. It appears that over the years these funds were expended as part of the agency's normal cash flow requirement. With the decision makers during this time no longer with the agency, we can only speculate as to whm led to this situation. I do think it is important to note that MACAA has not always closed it's books and conducted it's year end audits as timely as it should have and there were undoubtedly lags between the end of the fiscal year and the availability of year end financial data. As for the obvious question as to the possibility of fiscal impropriety, with all revenue and expenses tested as part of our ammal financial audit, all net deferred assets appearing in that same document and no indication from our auditors of any irregularities, I don't see any evidence that would lead me to believe that has happened. Since this issue was first addressed internally in November, 2001, the agency has done a number of things ro better manage all its fiscal responsibilities. Regarding these net deferred assets themselves, after an initial phone discussion during the last quarter of 2001, the Executive Director and Board President and Treasurer met with representatives from Charlottesville, Albemarle and the United Way in February 2002 to update them on this situation. After further internal review by agency staff and our auditor, another face-to-face meeting was held in May where final numbers were presented for discussion. On a broader scope, MACAA has taken an aggressive approach in re-vamping its finance department. The agency audit was done much earlier than it had been previously with the FY 01/02 audit on schedule to begin at the end of the summer. A new auditor is being sought to provide a fresh assessment of internal practices. Internal budget reconciliations and budget updates are being addressed and MACAA has contracted with a local CPA firm to provide assistance in developing new financial standard operating procedures, better task assignments and monitoring mechanisms. The agency still has much work to do but is clearly on the right track in ensuring this type of problem doesn't happen again. The remaining issue is what to do about these dollars. Despite the complexity of the problem, the options are pretty simple; MACAA can repay these funds to the funders, put these funds into each respective program or for the funders to, essentially, view the use of these funds as "fee for service" and allow the agency to take them off their books. Complicating these options is that fact that MACAA does not have adequate liquid assets to pay these dollars back or put them directly into the programs at this time. The agency may be able to borrow against their assets to raise the funds but will be limited to borrowing only what it can afford to repay. In light of the agency's current financial situation (despite a host of cost cutting moves to lower expenses), significant repayment of these dollars would be a difficult task for the agency to undertake at this time. Finally, while this point isn't offered as any sort of excuse for what has happened, these programs did deliver services to agency clients. Staff shortages were covered by administrative staff when necessary and budget deficits (during various years for many of these programs) were covered by administrative dollars when needed. The fact that the agency's own internal administration was lacking shouldn't take away from what was~ accomplished with these funds. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information in considering our options for resolving this situation. As we are now putting together our FY 02/03 budget for Board approval by the end of June, we are hoping to finalize a plan for dealing with this by the end of the month. Additionally, as requested, I will forward a copy of our financial consultant's recommendations for the finance department shortly. I appreciate all the assistance you have provided to the agency over the last year and look forward to working closely with you in the future. Sincerely, Noah Schwartz Executive Director Monticello Area Community Action Agency Cc.' Linda Peacock, City of Charlottesville Cathy Smith-Train, President, United Way - Thomas Jefferson Area Llezelle Dugger, Board President Howard Evergreen, Board Treasurer Hosea Mitchell, Board President-Elect Frank Vaughn, Board Treasurer-Elect David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr. Scottsvi e Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White H~ Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August13,2002 The Honorable Mark Warner Governor of Virginia State Capitol,' Third Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Governor Warner: At its August 7, 2002 meeting, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution declaring Albemarle County an agricultural disaster due to drought conditions. I have attached it for your notification. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, C.M.C.~J Sr. Deputy Clerk Attachment Cc: Thomas M. Eddins County Executive Director Albemarle/Greene/Nelson FSA County Office RESOLUTION Declaring Albemarle County an Agricultural Disaster Due to Drought Conditions WHEREAS, Albemarle County has received a four year rainfall deficit totaling -42.27 inches; and WHEREAS, during the growing season of this year, the County of Albemarle has received considerably less rain than normal while experiencing unseasonably high temperatures WHEREAS, the drought conditions in the County of Albemarle have severely affected farmers; and WHEREAS, the conditions in the county are becoming critical, so that the spring planted crops of grass; eom and soybeans are severely stressed; and WHEREAS, the first cutting of hay was below average, with little prospect of a second cutting; and WHEREAS, many farmers are already feeding their livestock and are facing the lack of available water for livestock due to the drought conditions; and WHEREAS, if Albemarle County is declared a drought disaster area, then its farmers are eligible for-low interest Emergency Loans and other disaster programs that may become available if the drought conditions continue; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle, Virginia be designated as a drought disaster area, and the County EXecutive is hereby instructed to file notification of this action with thc Governor of Virginia. Adopted this 7th day of August, 2002. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGEN DA TITLE: Resolution for Federal Disaster Designation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Resolution for Federal Disaster Designation for Albemarle County STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley AGENDA DATE: August 7~ 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The attached letter from Thomas M. Eddins, Executive Director for Albemarle/Greene/Nelson Farm Service Agency County Office, provides some vital information on the impact of the recent drought conditions on agriculture in Albemarle County. DISCUSSION: To obtain state and federal disaster relief to address this critical situation among Albemarle County farmers, the attached resolution asks the Governor to seek disaster designation and federal relief for our jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution requesting federal disaster designation from the Governor for Albemarle County. 02.120 07-31-02A10:1~ RCVD United States Department of Agriculture Fal'm ~ency Albemarle/Greene/Nelson FSA County Office 695 Berkmar Com~ - Suite 1 Charlottesvffie, xfA 229014406 (434) 9750047 - ExL 2 FAX: (434) 975-0299 July 22, 2002 Mrs. Sally H. Thomas, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 07-29-02AOS:54 Dear Ms. Thomas, I am writing this letter on behalf of the farmers in Albemarle County to ask the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors seek federal disaster declaration. The conditions in the county are becoming critical; spring planted crops of grass; corn and soybeans are severely stressed. The first cutting of hay was below average, with little prospect of a second cutting. Many farmers are already feeding their livestock due to the drought conditions. The biggest problem our producers are facing is the lack of available water for livestock We have had over 35 calls within the last month from producers whose water troughs, streams, wells or ponds have completely dried up.. Producers have been forced to use alternative water sources, if available, haul water or in some cases liquidate some or all of their livestock. The following is the rainfall history for the counties of Albemarle, July 1998 through June 2002 Albemarle County Month 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001" 2001-2002 30 Year Average* July 1.18 1.98 3r,43 4.40 4.75 August' 4233 4.37 3.67 ' 4.54 4,70 September 1,40 13.84 5.53 4.00 4.11 October 2,23 2.04 0.01 1.81 4~68 November 1.20 2.72 I. 83 0, 54 3.58 December 2.82 2.64 2.63 2.23 3.32 January 5.46 2.41 2.21. 1.39 3.15 February 2.29 1.67 1.13 0.07 3~38 . March 4.46 2.58 4.79 3.92 3.79 May 3.43 3.79 3.63 2.39 4.88 June 0.79 10,89 4.95 3. I6 3.74 30,01 52.54 34.05 30.49 47,39 * 30 year average for the Charlottesville Weather Reporting Station Farm Service Agency is an Equal Opportunity Lender. Complaints of dlserimination should be sent to: Secretary ofAgriculW~, Washiixgton, D.C. 20250 The. monthly and annual rainfall totals do not tell the true story Of the ground water levels in our three county area. Our winters have been especially mild with little or no snowfall. Data for the months with significant rainfall is also misleading since severe thunderstorms were often the source of the rainfall which resulted in substantial runoff and did little to replenish the ground water in Albemarle The water crisis in Albemarle County is even more significant when the rainfall for the past four years is reviewed: July-June July-June July-June July-June 30 Year Four Year 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001~2002 Average Deficit 30.0I (-17,38) 52,54(+5.15) 34.05 (-13.34) 30.49(-16.90) 47.39 -42.47 As noted in the above chart, Albemarle County has received a deficit rainfall totaling -42.27 inches over the past four year If Albemarle County is declared a major disaster area by President Bush, then its farmers are eligible to apply for low interest Emergency Loans. The declaration would also be needed for other disaster programs that may become available if the drought conditions continue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 434-975-0047, extension 2. Sincerely, Thomas M. Eddins County Executive Director Albemarle/Greene/Nelson FSA County Office United States Department of Agriculture Service Agency Albemarle/Greene/~Nelson FSA County Office 69~ Berkmar Court ~ Suife 1 Charlottesvme, VA 22901-1406 (4~) 975-0047 - EXt. 2 VAX: (434) ~7s-o2~ July 22; 2.002 Ella Carey Board of Supervisors Office 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 0'7 -2_9-02 A07923 - AR NV Dear Ms. Carey, I just wanted to thank you for your help with our concerns about the drought conditions in Albemarle County. I have enclosed a letter to Mrs. Thomas, Chairman requesting that the Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors formally seek federal disaster designation due to the drought. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 434-975-0047, extension 2. Sincerely, Thomas M. Eddins County EXecutive Director Albemarle/Greene/Nelson FSA County Office Farm Service Agency is an Equal Opportunity Lender. complaints ofdiserirai~ation should be sent to: Seeretary of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 2002 Citizen Survey S U BJ ECTIP.RO POSAL/REQU EST: Center for Survey Research (CSR) provides report STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Mss. White, AIIshouse updated AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: × BACKGROUND: In April 2002, the BOS received copies of the County's 2002 Citizen Survey prepared by University of Virginia's Center for Survey Research (CSR). DISCUSSION: Recently, CSB updated the report to make corrections to a narrative description that accompanied Table 3.2 (page 18), which compares information obtained during the 2002 Citizen Survey with the resu ts obtained in the County's 1994 Citizen Survey on selected items. While the information included in the table is correct, CSR corrected errors that were found within a few paragraphs (included on pages 18 and 19) that described the results of Table 3.2. For example, while the chart indicated that preserving natural resources and open space, preserving farmland and forested land, reducing traffic congestion, and preserving historic places and areas decreased in level of importance since 1994, the narrative stated that the level of importance increased. Similarly, the chart shows that the importance of affordable housing decreased since the 1994 report (from a mean of 2.53 to 2.4 on a 1 to 3 scale), while the narrative in the first report stated the importance of affordable housing to the public increased over the same time period. These corrections only affected the narrative that describes Table 3.2 and does not change the information CSR provided to the Board of Supervisors during their presentation on April 3'~ and did not change the results of the 2002 Citizen survey as outlined in the Executive Summary section and the remainder of the original report. CSR has provided corrected copies of this report to the County. We have posted the corrected report on the County's we bsite. RECOMMENDATION: Please replace your current copy of CSR's Citizen Survey Report with the attached updated version. 02.117 0,~_~5-02A10:01 RCVD Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey April 2002 This item has ~en scanned under Toudsm Reports COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUM MARY AGENDA TITLE: Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achieve ment for Excellence in Financial Reporting SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: August7,2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: £ DISCUSSION: The County of Albemarle has been awarded the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada's (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 2000/2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. This is the seventh consecutive year the County has received this award. The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. 07-03-02 PO4:51 RCVD 02.105 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Strategic Planning Time Line SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Time Line and work plan for County's Strategic Plan development STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Foley, Hildebeidel, AIIshouse AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: .ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: At the July 5 Board Meeting, the Board requested a copy of the County's strategic planning time line. DISCUSSION: Attached is the strategic planning time line, which outlines the County's strategic planning activities. This time line outlines those activities that have occurred up to this point, and identifies the County's planned implementation efforts through October 2004. As you can see, the time line includes a Board work session in September, at which time the Board will review staff input into the process. The Board will be asked to approve the Goals and Strategic Objectives at your October 2, 2002 board meeting. An additional work session is proposed for December, prior to the Board approving the County's strategic planning implementation priorities in January. Citizen input through the County-wide Citizen Survey was obtained early in the process. Staff will give further consideration to the public participation process and discuss this further with the Board in September. 07-31-02P12:42 RCVD 02.126 WBS Task Name 1~1 !Conduct Org-wide StrengthsANeaknesses/Oppor/Threats 1.2 Citizen Survey 2 Setting Strategic Direction Phase 21 2.2 2.3 2.4 2~5 2.6 2.7 2,8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4 4.1 4,2 4.3 4.4 5 5.1 BOS Strategic Planning Retreat BOS Approves Mission, Vision, and Goals Strategic Objectives Developed BOS Worksession on Goals & Strategic Objectives Goals & Strategic Objectives to BOS for Approval Prepare Long-Term Strategies for Highest Priority Objectives BOS Worksession on Long-Term Strategies & Priorities Strategies and Implementation Priorities - BOS Approval Prepare Long-Term Strategies for Remaining Objectives Strategic Budgeting Phase Prepare Business Cases for FY04 Long-Term Strategies Submit/Review FY04 New/Expanded Budget Requests BOS Review & Decisions on FY04 Budget FY 04 Budget Adopted Prepare Action Plans for FY 04 Imptemenation Documenting the Strategic Plan Phase Staff prepares draft SP document BOS Worksession on Final Strategies & Draft SP Document BOS approves all Strategies & Strategic Plan document Strategic Plan document completed & printed FY 04 Action Plan Implementation Phase FY 04 Action Plans Implemented FY 04 Quarterly Progress Reporting Start Thu 11/01/01 Tue 04/3010 Thu 11/01/01 Tue 04/30/02 F. o4/28/o2 Th. 0 /01/03 Fri 04/26/02 Wed 07/03/02 [ Mon 04/29/02 [ Tue 09/17/02 [ Wed 10/02/02 I Mon 09/09/02 I Tue 12/17/02 i Wed 01/08/03 Thu 01/02/03 Mon 12102/02 Mon 12/02/02 Mort 12/02/02 Wed 03/05/03 Wed 04/I 6/03 Mon 04/14/03 Mon 03/3t/03 Mon 03/31/03 Tue 05/20/03 Wed 06/04/03 Thu 06/05/03 Tue 07101103 Tue 07/01/03 Fri 11/14/03 ALBEMARLE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN TIME LINE 2002 ~99~ ~99~ Finish ~i( ~ ~ Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr4 Sat 04/27/02 Wed 07/03/02 Tue 10/01/02 Wed 09/18/02 Wed 10/02/02 Mon I2/02/02 Wed 12/18/02 Wed 01/08/03 Thu 05/01/03 Mon 06/30/03 Fri 01/31/03 Mon 02/03/03 Wed 04/09/03 Wed 04/16/03 Mon 06/30/03 Mon 06130/03 Wed 06/04/03 Wed 05/21/03 Wed 06/04/03 Mon 06/30/03 Fri 08/13/04 Wed 06/30/04 Fri 08/13/04 5,2 6 Strategic Plan Feedback & Re.evaluation Phase Mon 08116/04 Wed 10106104 Evaluation & Adjustment of Strategic Direction Thu 09/02/04 Wed 10/06/04 Task Rolled Up Task External Tasks Progress I Rolled Up Milestone Project Summary Milestone ~1~ Rolled Up Progress ~ Group By Summary Summary ~ Split Page 1 of 1 Wed 07/31/02 Albemarle County Service 07-08-02Ali :53 RCVD July 2, 2002 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 'Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Thomas: I am enclosing for your information a copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's operating budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the budget. Very truly yours,/,~ ,1~. Brent Executive Director JWB/slrb Enclosure cc: Robert W. Tucker, County Executive Ella Carey, Clerk 168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charlottesville, VA 22902 · Tel (434) 9774511 · Fax (434) 979-0698 www. acsanet.com Albemarle SCrV1CC COLll'lty' Authority FY 2003 Budget Adopted June 20, 2002 Albemarle County Service Authority Revenue and Expense Summary FY 2003 OPERA~INGREVEN~IE Total Volume Charges Total Service Charges Subtotal: N~N_~i~EI{4TING REVENUE System Connection Charges Farmington Capital Recovery Rental Income Interest Income Buck Mountain Surcharge Misc. Utility Charges Inspection Fees Plan Review Fees Transfer of Capital Funds Subtotal: Total Revenue OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES Purchase of Water/VVastewater Administration Department Finance Department Engineering Department Maintenance Department Transfer to Equipment Replacement Transfer to Building Maintenance Subtotal: IlitP. t~OVEII/1ENT AND OESCl;SERVICE 800 Code Equipment Expenses Annual Maintenance & Replacement Buck Mountain Surcharge Existing Debt Service Payments Subtotal: DEPREGIA T/ON BALANCE (DEFICIENCY) To~lExpenses Transfer of Reserve W & S Funds to Offset Deficit BALANCE Page 1 $ $ $ $ Approved BudRet 8,126,986 778,507 8,9O5,493 1,397,038 500,000 123,942 350,000 75,000 225,000 50,000 9,375 295,716 3,026,071 11,931,564 5,680,253 594,206 822,652 819,983 1,209,110 150,000 30,000 9,306,204 7,400 500,000 75,000 526,500 1,108,900 1,525,000 11,940,104 8,540 EVVSA Expenses FY 2003 RWSAEXPENSES Buck Mountain Surcharge Purchase of Bulk Water Sewer Treatment Expense Total Approved BudRet 75,000 3,225,375 2,454,878 $ 5,755,253 RWSA=EXPENSES~B Y SERVICE AREA WATER Urban Crozet Scottsville Buck Mountain Surcharge Total WASTEWATER Urban Scottsville Stone-Robinson School Glenmore Total $ 2,564,139 411,048 250,188 75,000 $ 3,300,375 $ 2,053,636 226,728 16,906 157,608 $ 2,454,878 Page 2 Departmental Staffing ADMINIS,TRA TION Executive Director Human Resources Administrator Administrative Office Associate Manager of information Services FINANCE Finance Director Accounting Supervisor Meter Operations Supervisor Accounting Technician Customer Service Representative Meter Technician ENGINEERIN(~ Engineering Director Senior Civil Engineer Civil Engineer Senior Engineering Technician ,Water Quality Inspector Construction Inspector Utilities Location Technician Engineering Technician Administrative Office Associate MAINTENANCE Operations Manager Operations Supervisor Electrician/Pump Technician Crew Leader Equipment Operator Maintenance Worker Laborer Approved Number of Positions 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2.6 1 Page 3 Administration Department Code 503-510-205 503-510-210 503-510-220 503-510-230 503-510-240 503-51 0-250 503-510-260 503-510-270 503-510-290 503-51 0-295 503-51 O-300 503-510-305 503-510-310 503-510-370 503-510-425 503-510-500 503-510-510 503-510-520 503-510-550 503-510-560 503-510-561 503-510-575 503-510-585 503-510-590 Description PERSONAL SERVIGE$ Compensation of Board Members Salaries & Wages Overtime Pay SOcial Security Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Workers' Compensation Safety Incentive Prog ram Employee Incentives Subtotal: Approved Budget OPERATING.SUPPUES Office Supplies Copier Supplies Janitorial Supplies Heating Fuel Subtotal: $ 9,000 216,890 150 16,135 14,570 14,840 0 426 675 2,000 $ 274,686 REPAIR & li~AINTENANCE $UPPLIE$ Building/Grounds Supplies Subtotal: PROFE$$1{)NAL ~& : C, ON~T~.~ i4L- 8ERVI 'C,E$ Legal Audit Fiscal Agent Consultants' Fees Service Contracts Building/Grounds Service Contracts Telephone Printing and Duplicating Other Contractual Services $ $ Subtotal: $ 9,950 3O0 1,500 5,700 17,450 3,900 3,900 19,500 21,000 3,500 0 12,350 35,436 18,150 2,346 1,695 113,977 Page 4 Administration Department Code 503-510-600 503-510-620 503-510-705 503-510-710 503-510-720 503-510-730 503-510-740 503-510-745 503-510-750 503-510-777 503-510-780 503-510-800 503-510-810 503-510-830 Description ~ REPAIRS ANO Equipment Repair and Maintenance $ Building/Ground Repair & Maintenance Subtotal: $ 0 THER SERVICES AND'~CHARGE$ Software Insurance Dues and Memberships Books and Periodicals Education and Training Travel Advertising Electricity - Shop/Office Permits Subtotal: $ CAPITAL OUTI..A Y$ Office Equipment Furniture and Fixtures Machinery and Equipment Subtotal: $ Approved Budget 870 11,400 12,270 4,000 45,471 3,582 I 445 4 625 5,850 61,300 19 400 26 250 171,923 0 0 0 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $ 594,206 Page 5 Finance Department Code 503-520-210 503-520-220 503-520-230 503-520-240 503-520-250 503-520-260 503-520-270 503-520-300 503-520-305 503-520-320 503~520-330 503-520-360 503-520-380 503-520-400 503-520-410 503-520-535 503-520-550 503-520-560 503-520-575 503-520-580 503-520-585 503-520-590 Description PERSONAL-SERVICES Salaries & Wages Overtime Pay Social Security Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Workers' Compensation Subtotal: OPERATING $UPPLIE$ Office Supplies Copier Supplies Shop Supplies Personal Protective Equipment Fuel, Oil & Grease Small Tools & Equipment Subtotal: REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIE$ Vehicle Supplies Materials-Water Subtotal: PROFES.81ONAL &= ~T,;UAL~.SERVICES Uniform Rental Consultants' Fees Service Contracts Telephone Postage Printing and Duplicating Other Contractual Services Subtotal: Approved Budget 418,182 2,000 31,606 26,725 40,810 0 4,800 524,123 11,457 2OO 125 2OO 5,500 3O0 17,782 2,200 130,661 132,861 2,666 2,500 15,375 540 85,250 20,748 3,328 130,407 Page 6 Finance Department Code 503-520-600 503-520-650 503-520-700 503-520-705 503-520-720 503-520-730 503-520-740 5O3-52O-745 503-520-750 503-520-800 503-520-810 503-520-830 Description 'REpA!RS A Equipment Repair and Maintenance $ Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Subtotal: $ OTHER SERVICES AND~CHARGE$ Rental of Equipment Software Dues and Memberships Books and Periodicals Education and Training Travel Advertising CAPITAL OUTLAYS Office Equipment Furniture and Fixtures Machinery and Equipment Subtotal: $ Subtotal: $ Approved Budget 1,570 1,200 2,770 1,700 1,750 430 1,339 6,250 2,740 500 14,709 0 0 0 TOTAL FINANCE $ 822,652 Page 7 Engineering Department Code 503-540-210 503-540-220 503-540-230 503-540-240 503-540-250 503-540-260 503-540-270 503-540-300 503-540-305 503-540-330 503-540-360 503-54O-380 503-540-400 503-540-540 503-540-560 503-540-575 503-540-585 503-540-590 Description · PE~ONAL ~IC'E$ Salaries & Wages Overtime Pay Social Security Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Workers' Corn pensation Subtotal: OPERA TING· SUPPLIES Office Supplies Copier Supplies Personal Protective Equipment Fuel, Oil & Grease Small Tools & Equipment Subtotal: REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Vehicle Supplies Subtotal: PROFE$$1@~L &; U"O~G~AL ~qERVIGE$ Engineering Services Service Contracts Telephone Printing and Duplicating Other Contractual Services Subtotal: $ $ Approved Budget 580,717 10,250 43,922 36,117 51,940 0 17,092 740,038 4,193 310 250 6,365 3,734 14,852 2,350 2,350 2,000 14,793 3,456 2,160 9,825 32,234 Page 8 Engineering Department Code 503-540-600 503-540-650 503-540-705 503-54O-720 503-540-730 503-540-740 503-540-745 503-540-750 503-540-780 503-540-800 503-540-810 503-540-830 Description REPAIR,,~'AN~) Equipment Repair and Maintenance Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Subtotal: OTHER SER.I/ICE$ AN~ ~ARGE$ Software Dues and Memberships Books and Periodicals Education and Training Travel Advertising Permits CAPITAL OUTLA,~,, Y$ Office Equipment Furniture and Fixtures Machinery and Equipment Subtotal: $ Subtotal: $ Approved Budget 5,635 2,000 7,635 1,950 87O 1,459 10,745 5,190 26O 2,400 22,874 2,200 0 0 2,200 822,183 TOTAL ENGINEERING $ Page 9 Maintenance Department Code 503-550-210 503-550-220 503-55O-225 503-550-230 503-550-240 503-550-250 503-550-260 503-550-270 503-550-300 503-550-305 503-550-320 503-550-330 503-550-360 503-550-380 503-550-400 503-550-410 503-550-420 503-550-430 503-550-460 503-550-480 Description , PER $ ONA I. S/ER VICES Salaries & Wages Overtime Pay Standby Pay Social Security Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Workers' Compensation OPERA: ~ING ~PP.~'IE$ Office Supplies Copier Supplies Shop Supplies Personal Protective Equipment Fuel, Oil & Grease Small Tools & Equipment Subtotal: Subtotal: REPAIR & I~tlA1NTENANCE Vehicle Supplies Materials - Water Materials - Sewer Equipment Supplies Water Pump Station Supplies Sewer Pump Station Supplies Subtotal: Approved Budget 679,204 33,750 2,000 50,463 40,553 83,061 0 22,230 911,261 425 120 9OO 5,584 15,700 24,000 46,729 13,410 58,500 6,000 8,600 16,000 19,000 121,510 Page 10 Maintenance Department Code Description Approved Budget 503-550-530 503-550-535 503-550-560 503-550-575 503-550-585 503-550-590 PROFE$$1ONAL &,~CONTRAC~4L Labor- Outside Contract Uniform Rental Service Contracts Telephone Printing and Duplicating Other Contractual Services 6,400 9,227 3,050 10,352 200 26,016 Subtotal: $ 55,245 503-550-600 503-550-650 REPAIRS AND ~It~AINTEN~INCE Equipment Repair and Maintenance Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 13,120 15,000 Subtotal: $ 28,120 5O3-550-700 503-550-720 503-550-73O 503-550-740 503-550-745 503-550-750 5O3-550-76O 503-550-761 503-550-780 OTHER SERVICES AND-CHARGES Rental of Equipment Dues and Memberships Books and Periodicals Education and Training Travel Advertising Electricity - Water Pump Station Electricity - Sewer Pump Station Permits 1,200 375 27O 4,725 3,050 1,000 28,000 7,5OO 125 Subtotal: $ 46,245 503-550-810 503-550-830 CAPITAL.OUTLAYS Furniture and Fixtures Machinery and Equipment 0 5,200 Subtotal: $ 5,200 TOTAL MAINTENANCE $ 1,214,310 Page 11 2002 SECOND QUARTER BUILDING REPORT Count~, of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Comm unity Development Office of Geographic Data Services 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) I1. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C, D, & E) II1. Comparison of Ail Building Permits (Chart F) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes mod ular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment Og-1g-O2P04:49 RCVD -2- ,During the second quarter of 2002, 217 building permits were issued for 378 dwelling units. In addition, 4 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value'of $2,500, for a total of $10,000. ,~"~omparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 JAN 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 52 55 FEB 53 43 44 44 39 84 43 39 348 MAR 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 54 74 APR 69 46 71 ' 75 62 102 63 62 63 MAY 60 41 63 118 65 55 72 196 198 JUN 70 62 41 89 85 75 50 181 117 JUL 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 46 AUG 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 55 SEP 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 32 OCT 51 42 186 216 61 48 48 86 NOV 60 66 43 49 48 42 49 36 DEC 32 48 44 62 48 57 49 36 TOTAL 939 596 835 905 874 770 650 875 855 ~. B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by MonthI JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH tel2000 E~2001 120021 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services Quarter 2, 2002 -3- II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 12 2 24 0 0 0 0 38 10% JACK JOUETT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0% RIVANNA 39 6 21 0 0 1 2 69 18% SAMUEL MILLER 22 2 0 0 0 0 2 26 7% SCOTTSVILLE 23 0 0 0 174 0 0 197 52% WHITE HALL 45 0 0 0 0 0 2 47 12% TOTAL 141 10 45 0 174 1 7 378 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 19 5% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 11 2 5 0 0 0 0 18 5% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 8 2 0 0 174 0 0 184 49% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% CROZET COMMUNITY 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 14 6 15 0 0 0 1 36 10% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 2% RIVANNA VILLAGE 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2% DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 61 10 45 0 174 0 2 292 77% RURAL AREA 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 5% RURAL AREA 2 20 0 0 0 0 1 1 22 6% RURAL AREA 3 26 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 7% RURAL AREA 4 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 5% RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 80 0 0 0 0 1 5 i 86 23% TOTAL 141 10 45 0 174 1 7 378 100% Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services -4- Quarter 2, 2002 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) /~""X, hart E. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/'rH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS Agnor-Hurt 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 12 3% Broadus Wood 13 0 0 0 0 0 I 14 4% Brownsville 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3% Crozet 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 5% Greet 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 19 5% Hollymead 7 0 · 21 0 0 0 1 29 8% Medwether Lewis 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1% Murray 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 2% Red Hill 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2% Cale 9 2 0 0 174 0 0 185 49% Scottsville 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2% Stone Robinson 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 4% Stony Point 21 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 6% Woodbrook 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 19 5% Yancey 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1% TOTAL 141 10 45 0 174 1 7 378 100% III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart F. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGIS'~ ~-NIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. TOTAL No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ RIO 38 $ 3,948,112 22 $ 489,700 4 $ 1,039,250 14 $ 1,105,200 78 $ 6,582,262 JOUETT I $ 40,000 15 $ 1,316,500 0 $ 1 $ 35,000 17 $ 1,391,500 RIVANNA 69 $ 9,276,739 39 $ 1,326,993 3 $ 1,400,000 11 $ 289~145 122 $ 12,292,877 S. MILLER 26 $ 5,104,050 37 $ 1,347,300 3 $ 269,707 5 $ 186,500 71 $ 6,907,557 SCOTTSVILLE 36 $ 14,146,152 43 $ 876,800 8 $ 638,350 4 $ 198,000 91 $ 15,859,302 WHITE HALL 47 $ 10,325,800 59 $ 1,760,711 I $ 10,000 4 $ 51,546 111 $ 12,148,057 TOTAL 217 $ 42,840,853 215 $ 7,118,004 19 $ 3,357,307 39 $ 1,865,391 490 $ 55,181,555 * Additional value of mobile homes olaced in existinn n~rE~ iQ {n~l,,riaH ;. D~.;.~..~:--, A, .......... I Alteration Category. Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 July 11, 2002 Marilyn Gale Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 40B, Parcel 71 (Section 10.3) Dear Ms. Gale: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Parcel 71 consists of two (2) parcels with a total of twelve theoretical development rights. The parcel containing 15.56 acres, a residue of former Parcel 65 on Tax Map 56, located on the southwest side of Thurston Drive contains five (5) theoretical development rights. The tract containing 99;976 acres, located on the northeast side of Thurston Drive contains seven (7) theoretical development rights. Two of these development rights are derived from former Lots 27 and 28 of Thurston Subdivision. A map showing the location of these parcels is enclosed. The basis for this determination is summarized below beginning with the conveyance described in Deed Book 540, page 629. Our records indicate that Tax Map 40B, Parcel 71 contains 115.536 acres and no dwellings. This parcel is comprised of portions of tracts that were formerly designated as Tax Map 40, Parcel 19 and Tax Map 56, Parcel 65. The property is not in an Agribultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 934, page 568. The most recent deed for this parcel prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 705, page 459. Deed Book 540, page 629, dated November 15, 1973 conveyed 170.5 acres composed of two tracts from Charles F. Thurston and Edith G. Thurston to Thurston Properties Limited Partnership. The two tracts are described as follows: l:\DEPT~Building & Zoning~Determin of Parcel\40B-71Braeburn Revised Det. doc 07-12-02P12:1! RCVD Braeburn Limited Partnership July 11, 2002 Page 2 First: 139.1 acres, Tax Map 40-19 being the unsold part of 145.25 acres, transferred on the land book as 144.13.acres, to Charles F. Thurston and Ruth B. Thurston on November 29, 1944, recorded in Deed Book 261, page 365. Three Tracts were previously conveyed from this parcel: D. B. 295, p. 331, April 16, 1951,0.23 acres to Austin D. B. 333, p. 369, October 30, 1956, 3.48 acres to Haden D. B. 457, p. 236, April 2, 1969, 1.32 acres to VEPCO Second: 31.4 acres adjoining the above tract, Tax Map 40-20, and conveyed to Ruth B. Thurston by George H. Belew and others by deed dated January 16, 1953, recorded in D.B. 304, p. 351 and devised by Ruth Thurston by her will to her husband Charles Thurston an April 24, 1964. Deed Book 543, page 438, dated January 2, 1974, conveyed 248.86 acres from William W. Stevenson & Carol W. Stevenson to Thurston Properties Limited Partnership. The property is described as being shown on a plat in Deed Book 470, page 225 and being the same property conveyed to William Stevenson by Henry and Margaret Haden on February 1, 1964 and recorded n Deed Book 395, page 367. It is identified as Tax Map 56-65 and 65A. Deed Book 637, page 456 contains a deed of trust, dated December 2, 1977 that conveyed a portion of the property conveyed by the deeds recorded in Deed Book 540, page 629 and Deed Book 543, page 438 from Thurston Properties Limited Partnership to John Dezio and Fred Landess, Trustees. The property is described as follows: FIRST: All those 38 certain lots or parcels of land .... More particularly described as Lots 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 25 - 37 and 39 - 58 on a subdivision plat of Section One, Thurston, made by W. S. Roudabush, Jr. dated December 1, 1977 attached hereto and made a part hereof; and SECOND: All that certain tract of land containing 95.676 acres, shown on said plat as "Future Development, Section Two." It is determined that the subdivision plat recorded with this Deed of Trust that created the lots in Section One of Thurston also created the 15.56 acre area southwest of Lots 43 through 48 as a separate parcel. This is a residue of former parcel TMP 56-65 and is shown on an unrecorded plat by William Roudabush, dated April 11, 1977. The 95.676 acre area designated as Section Two combines the residue of former parcel TMP40-19 and former parcel TMP 56-65. I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\40B-71Braebum Revised Der. doc Braeburn Limited Partnership July 11,2002 Page 3 Deed Book 705, page 459, dated November 25, 1980, conveyed five tracts of land from Thurston Properties Limited Partnership to Caleb N. Stowe. The tracts are described as follows: 1. Section One of Thurston Subdivision containing 32 lots recorded in D.B. 637, p. 458; 2. Two lots fronting on State Route 810; Parcel B containing 2.58 acres and Parcel A containing 3.19 acres recorded in D.B. 637,' 197; A strip of land between Lots 7 and 25 in Section One of Thurston Subdivision recorded in D. B. 637, 458; (This provides access to Thurston Drive and is part of the subject 99.976 tract. It is not shown on the plat as a separate parcel.) A tract on the north side of Thurston Drive containing 167.486 acres less and except Lots 29 through 37 recorded in D. B. 637, p. 458; (The subject 99.976 tract is part of this tract. While the plat references original parcels in the notes, the deed description references Deed Book 637, page 458 and describes the property as a single tract. The plat shows the property as a single tract with no graphic depiction of former parcels 56165 or 40/19. It is determined that this tract, shown on the December 1, 1977 plat as "FUTURE[ DE[VE!LOPME[NT- SE[CTION TWO- 95.676 ac." is a separate lot of record per section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance.) A tract on the south side of Thurston Drive containing 96.19 acres less and except Lots 39 through 49 recorded in D. B. 637, p. 458. (The 15.56 acre parcel is a portion of this tract. On the basis of this deed, it is determined that this tract, shown adjacent to Lots 43 through 48 on the plat dated December 1, 1977 is a separate lot of record per section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance) These tracts are shown on a plat by Morris Foster, recorded in Deed Book 708, page 440 and described below. Deed Book 708, page 440 contains a declaration, recorded on January 13, 1981, that Caleb N. Stowe is the owner of three tracts of land shown on the attached plat made by William Morris Foster, dated November 5, 1979, shown as the parcels containing 167.486 acres, 68.32 acres and 96.19 acres, and does hereby record the attached plat. I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\40B-71Braeburn Revised Det. doc Braebum Limited Partnership July 11,2002 Page 4 This plat is titled "Composite Plat Of Braeburn Farm Containing In Aggregate 501.752 acres." The plat shows Thurston Drive, but does not show the Thurston lots. It does not show the location of the parcels shown on the 1976 tax map. It is determined that this plat does not serve to combine or vacate any parcels. This plat shows tracts that existed prior to the creation of Thurston as well as tracts that do not correspond to parcels as depicted on tax map. It is that the purpose of this plat is to show the exterior boundary of the property owned by Caleb Stowe. This transaction did not change the boundaries or effect the development rights of the subject property. Deed Book 771, page 263 contains a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated July 25, 1983. The plat combines Parcels 32, 33 and 34 on Tax Map 40B. This transaction did not change the boundaries or effect the development rights of the subject property. Deed Book 817, page 108, dated September 26, 1984 conveyed an undivided thirty nine forty-fifths interest in all those certain tracts or parcels of land containing in the aggregate approximately 365 (364.886) acres from Caleb N. Stowe and Lynn Stowe to Braeburn Limited Partnership. The property is described by referenCe to a plat by Morris Foster, dated November 5, 1979, recorded in Deed Book 708, page 440, as all of the 501.752 acres shown within the boundary lines thereof, less and except the following: The tracts of 68.32 (TMP 56/68G N/A) and 36.79 (Thurston Lot 37) acres shown on .the plat by Morris Foster dated November 5, 1979 and recorded in Deed Book 695, page 68; , w The tract of 29.346 acres shown the plat of November 5, 1979 on the north side of State Route 240 enclosed by the lines connecting points E, F, G & H; (TMP 56167, 67A & 67B N/A) 3. The 3.01 acres composing the 50 foot road shown on the plat of November 5, 1979 as "Thurston Drive"; 4. The separate tract of .92 acre fronting on State Route 240 as shown on the November 5, 1979 plat. (N/A) This is a portion of the property conveyed to the grantor by the following deeds: I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\40B-71Braebum Revised Det.doc Braeburn Limited Partnership July 11, 2002 Page 5 Deed of Park View Corporation, dated August 27, 1980 of record in Deed Book 700, page 7. Deed of Thurston Properties Limited Partnership, dated November 25, 1980 of record in Deed Book 705, page 459. Deed of Frank and Beverly Hereford, of record in Deed Book 731, page 692. This transaction did not change the boundaries or effect the development rights of the subject property. Deed Book 817, page 111, dated October 9, 1984, conveyed an undivided three forty- fifths interest in all those certain tracts or parcels of land containing in the aggregate approximately 365 (364.886) acres from Felix J. Nuesch and Annamarie T. Nuesch to Braeburn Limited Partnership. The property is described by reference to a plat by Morris Foster, dated November 5, 1979, recorded in Deed Book 708, page 440, as ali of the 501.752 acres shown within the boundary lines thereof, less and except the four tracts described Deed Book 817, page 108. This transaction did not change the boundaries or effect the development rights of the subject property. Deed Book 817, page 113, dated September 18, 1984, conveyed an undivided three forty-fifths interest in all those certain tracts or parcels of land containing in the aggregate approximately 365 (364.886) acres from Raymond V. Long to Braeburn Limited Partnership. The property is described by reference to a plat by Morris Foster, dated November 5, 1979, recorded in Deed Book 708, page 440, as all of the 501.752 acres shown within the boundary lines thereof, less and except the four tracts described Deed Book 817, page 108. This transaction did not change the boundaries or effect the development rights of the subject property. Deed Book 82O, page 79 contains a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated October 9, 1984. The plat combines Parcels 29, 30, 31, 35, and 36 with parcel 32 on Tax Map 40B. This transaction did not change the boundaries or effect the development rights of the subject property. Deed Book 913, page 370, dated December 19, 1986, contains a Deed of Trust between Braeburn Limited Partnership and Joseph D. Miller, Jr. & Jerry H. Mathews. This secured 440 acres identified in the attached Schedule A and more particularly described by reference to a composite plat by Morris Foster, dated November 5, 1979 and revised December 15, 1986. Schedule A includes a 3.18 acre Parcel A, to be I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\40B-71Braebum Revised Det. doc Braeburn Limited Partnership July 11, 2002 Page 6 conveyed from Caleb N. Stowe to Braeburn L. P. by a deed dated December 12, 1986 and recorded hereafter. Based on a review of Deed Book 913 and Tax Map 40B, it is apparent that the transfer of 3.18 acres did not occur. It is determined that this composite plat did not consolidate any parcels. Its purpose was to identify the property owned by Braeburn Farm L. P. Therefore, this transaction did not change the boundaries or effect the development rights of the subject property. Deed Book 921, page 485, dated January 20, 1987, contains a deed of exchange between Braeburn Limited Partnership and Caleb N. Stowe. Braeburn Limited Partnership conveyed 1.15 acres to Caleb N. Stowe. The property is described by reference to a plat by Roudabush, Greene and Gale, Inc., dated January 12, 1987. The 1.15 acresis added to the existing Lot 7 and together shall constitute one Lot 7A containing 3.91 acres. Caleb N. Stowe conveyed 5.45 acres to Braeburn Limited Partnership. That parcel is comprised of Thurston Subdivision Lots 27 and 28. As a result of this transaction, (+5.54 - 1.15) the acreage of the parcel located northeast of Thurston Drive increased from 95.676 acres to 99.976 acres. Two development rights were conveyed with the land that was comprised of Lots 27 and 28. Deed Book 934, page 568, dated March 8, 1987, contains a Deed of Correction. It conveyed a strip of land between Lots 7 and 25 in Section One of Thurston from Caleb N. Stowe, Felix J. Nuech & Annamarie T. Nuesch and Richard V. Long to Braeburn Limited Partnership. This corrects the deed recorded in Deed Book 817, pages 108, 111 and 113. The strip is shown on a plat by Roudabush, Greene and Gale recorded in Deed Book 921, page 488. There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Each of the parcels described above are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the bounds of the original parcels with which they are associated. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning~etermin of Parcel\40B-71Braeburn Revised Det. doc Braeburn Limited Partnership July 11, 2002 Page 7 If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Enclosure: Copies: Braeburn Limited Partnership 1500 Thurston Drive Crozet, VA 22932 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files I:\DEP'~Buiiding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\40B-71Braeburn Revised Det. doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY ./, \\ AC y/ WHITEHALL DISTRICT SECTION 40B FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 40I Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 July 19, 2002 Linda Lloyd 8624 Schuyler Road Schuyler, VA 22969 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS-Tax Map 126, Parcel 31L (Property of Mitchell O. Carr) Section 10.3.1 Dear Ms. Lloyd: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 126, Parcel 31L is comprised of two separate parcels; one containing 17.5 acres and the other containing 19 acres and 1.2 acres. These are shown on a worksheet by Saunders Surveys attached to this determination. Both of these parcels contain five (5) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 126, Parcel 31L contains 38.0 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. On June 17, 1999 the Deputy Zoning Administrator determined that the portion of what was then Parcel 3, located between the track bed of the Nelson and Albemarle Railway Company and State Route 800, containing approximately 38 acres, excepting Parcels 33F, 34B and 34 C, was one parcel with five theoretical development rights. This was identified as Parcel 3 in that determination. You have submitted new survey and deed information for our consideration of the number of development rights and parcels for Parcel 31L. The tax map depicts Parcel 31L as a contiguous parcel. However, the worksheet by Saunders Surveys shows that Parcels 34C and 33F actually share a common boundary. Consequently, these parcels physically separate the 17.5 acre portion of Parcel 31L from the 19.5 acre portion of Parcel 31L into two tracts; one containing 17.5 acres and the other, a 19 acre tract and a 1.2 acre tract that was separated as the result of the realignment of State Route 800. This worksheet is consistent with a subdivision plat recorded in Deed Book 183, page 480. This deed, dated July 5, 1923 conveyed 22.1 acres from J. S. Harris to Virginia I:\DEPT~Buiiding & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\126-31L Lloyd.doc 07-23-02A70:14 RCVD Linda Lloyd July 19, 2002 Page 2 Alberene Corporation. The property is described as being part of a larger tract and is shown on a plat by M. M. VanDoran, Deputy Surveyor of Albemarle County. This 22.1 acres contains the 19 acre tract, the 1.2 acre tract and the portion of State Route 800 shown on Saunders Surveys worksheet. The determination dated June 17, 1999 established that Parcel 31L was a lot of record based on the deed recorded in Deed Book 602, page 225. That was the most recent deed for this property recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance. That deed, dated August 9, 1976 conveyed 1599 acres from The Georgia Marble Company to Mitchell Carr and S. Vance Wilkins, LESS AND EXCEPT several parcels, including what was identified as Parcel 17. Parcel 17 is an off-conveyance that was a portion of land conveyed by deed recorded in Deed Book 162, page 175, described as all land lying between old Route 6 on the southwest to the new Route 6 to the northeast and Route 800 on the southeast, and LESS AND EXCEPT 11.790 acres conveyed to Thomas Beasley by deed recorded contemporaneously with this deed. This 11.790 acres is shown on a plat recorded in Deed Book 485, page 408 and was subsequently divided into Parcels 34, 34A, 34B and 34C. It is now understood that Parcel 17 in this deed covers only the 17.5 acres shown on the Saunders Surveys Worksheet. Parcel 16 in this deed covers the 19 acre tract and the 1.2 acres tract acqUired by Virginia Alberene Corporation by a separate deed recorded in Deed Book 183, page 480. Therefore, on the basis of this deed, Parcel 16 and Parcel 17 are determined to be two separate lots of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Both of these parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the bounds of the original parcels with which they are associated. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. 'An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning~)eterrnin of Parcel\126-31 L Uoyd.doc Linda Lloyd July 19, 2002 Page 3 Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Enclosure: Saunders Surveys Work Sheet Copies: Mitchell O. Carr P.O. Box 1528 Waynesboro, VA 22980 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning~Determin of Parcel\126-31L Lloyd.doc 03/2081 13:44 SURVEYS P~GE FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 July 19, 2002 Gaither Pratt, Limehouse Architects 946 Grady Avenue #27 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 79, Parcels 5, 5A and 5B (Property of Ray A. Graham, III) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Pratt: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 79, Parcel 5 is comprised of two (2) separate parcels, each of which contains five (5) development rights. Tax Map 79, Parcel 5A contains five (5) development rights. Tax Map 79, Parcel 5B contains five (5) development rights The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 79, Parcel 5 contains 81.89 acres and no dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 431, page 562. Tax Map 79, Parcel 5A contains 485.90 acres and four dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 431, page 599. Tax Map 79, Parcel 5B contains 66.21 acres and one dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 599, page 331. Deed Book 326, page 173, dated August 1,1956 conveyed 503.73 acres from Charles B. Baker and Carrie S. Baker to Robert F. Pyle. The property is described as Parcel A on a plat of O. R. Randolph, Engineer, dated July 26, 1956. This is a plat of Parcels A, B, C and D, a division of Underhill. Parcel A contains 503.73 acres. This is TM/P 79/5A. Parcel B contains 66.21 acres. This is TM/P 79/5B. Parcel C contains 69.75 acres. The plat references D.B. 253-379. This is the southern portion of TM/P 79/5. Parcel D I:~DEPT~Building & ZoninCDetermin of Parcel\79-5A Edgehill.doc 07-23-02A10:~4 RCVD Edgehill July 22, 2002 Page 2 contains 26.52 acres. The plat references D.B. 253-379. This is the northern portion of TM/P 79/5. Together these two parcels contain 96.27 acres. Deed Book 431, page 562, dated July 7, 1967, conveyed 96.27 acres from Baker Realty Corporation to Ray A. Graham, III. The property is described as two adjoining tracts or parcels of land .... Containing in the aggregate 96.27 acres, being described as Parcel D containing 26.52 acres and Parcel C, contaif~ing 69.75 acres on a plat by O. R. Randolph dated July 26, 1956. On the basis of this deed, Parcel 5 is determined to be comprised of two separate parcels; the northern portion containing 26.52 acres and the southern portion containing 69.75 acres. Further, on the basis of this deed, the 26.52 acre portion of Parcel 5 is determined to be a lot of record as defined in Section 10.3. Deed Book 431, page 599, dated July 12, 1967, conveyed 41.20 acres for the right-of- way for Interstate Route 64 from Ray A: Graham to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The property is described as being a part of the land acquired by the Grantor by deeds recorded in Deed Book 349, page 574 and Deed Book 329, page 12. On the basis of this deed, the residue of the 69.75 acre portion of Parcel 5 and the residue of Parcel 5A are determined to be lOts of record as defined in Section 10.3. Deed book 599, page 331, dated June 9, 1976, conveyed 66.21 acres from Lena C. Ashman to Ray A. Graham, !11. The property is described as "Parcel B" of plat of O. R. Randolph recorded in Deed Book 326, page 179. On the basis of this deed, Parcel 5B is a lot of record as defined in Section 10.3. There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Based on this history, each of these four lots of record are determined to contain five (5) development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel" may create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-231 i of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the groundsfor the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. I:~::)EPT~Building & Zoning~Determin of Parcel\79-5A Edgehill.doc Edgehill July 19, 2002 Page 3 If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Ray A. Graham, III PO Box 5 Keswick, VA 22947 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\79-5A Edgehill.doc FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 40I Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE 1434) 296-5832 (434) 972-4012 July 24, 2002 Forbes R. Reback P.O. Box 20 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 128, Parcel 29A, Tax Map 134, Parcels 2, 3 & 19 and Tax Map 135, Parcel 1 (Property Lone Oak, LLC) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Reback: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that: Tax Map 128, Parcel 29A contains zero (0) development rights. Tax Map 134, Parcel 2, as shown on the 1980 tax map, is a separate parcel containing one or two (1 or 2) development rights, depending if the property contains less than or more than four acres. Tax Map 134, Parcel 3 contains five (5) development rights. Tax Map 134, Parcel 19 contains five (5) development rights. Tax Map 135, Parcel 1 as shown on the 1980 tax map is a separate parcel and contains one (1) development right. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: The most recent deed for this property, recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 679, page 539. This deed, dated August 17, 1979 conveyed five contiguous parcels estimated to contain in the aggregate 1,439 acres from Ralph M. Wilber & Gloria S. Wilber to Nettle Marie Jones & Luther Knight. The five parcels are described, in part, as follows: l:\DEP%Building & Z0ning\Determin of ParceE134- 3 Lone Oak.doc 07-25-02 A'~ 0:39 RCVD Lone Oak, LLC July 24, 2002 Page 2 FIRST: A lot of land on the north side of Howardsville Road near and west of Warren Road. The property has been known as the location of the Old Warren School and contains 2 acres. It is shown on a plat recorded in Deed Book 296, pages 424 -425 with a depth of 230 feet on the west side, a depth of 213 on the east side and a rear width of 427 feet. On the basis of this description, Parcel 1 on Tax Map 135 is determined to be a lot of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. SECOND: That certain lot or parcel of land near Sharon Church Road about one mile from the intersection with Howardsville Road as shown on plat of the Millsaps Farm recorded in Deed Book 161, page 204, upon which the Old Chestnut Grove School was located, estimated to contain 4 acres, more or less. On the basis of this description, Parcel 2 on Tax Map 134 is determined to be a lot of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. THIRD: That certain lot or parcel of land about 25 miles south of Charlottesville and about.2 ~,,~ miles from the Village of Warren, being more particularly described on a plat made by Hugh F. Simms in 1944, and reduced in scale on a plat dated July 1951, and recorded in Deed Book 296, pages 424 - 425. According to said plat this tract contained 1,410 acres, but the area has been recomputed and now is estimated to contain 1,372.21 acres, more or less. On the basis of this description, Parcel 3 on Tax Map 134 is determined to be a lot of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. FOURTH: A tract of land situated within the said 1,375 acre tract, being the old right of way of the C & O Railway Company, now abandoned, containing 9.39 acres, more or less, being the same land conveyed to Ralph M. Wilber by deed recorded in Deed Book 436, page 310 and reconveyed by deed recorded in Deed Book 436, page'317. This is Parcel 29A on Tax Map 128. This tract is in a class with well lots, cemetery lots and other special use lots created for a specific limited purpose. It is determined that this 9.39 acre tract is not a lot of record as provided in Sections 10.3 and 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. As used in those sections, it is reasonably implied that a lot of record must be one that was established as a building lot. Thus, it is determined that this portion of Tax Map 128, Parcel 29A, established as a rail road right of way, has no development rights. FIFTH: All that certain tract of land about 3 ~/2 miles north of Howardsville Road near Fulton, containing 50.6 acres, more or less, as shown on plat of a survey made by T. W. Saunders dated November 18, 1944 and recorded in Deed Book 484, page 570. On the basis of this description, Parcel 19 on Tax Map 134 is determined to be a lot of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning-ordinance. I:\DEP'l-~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\134- 3 Lone Oak.doc Lone Oak, LLC July 24, 2002 Page 3 Deed Book 801, page 73, dated May 4, 1984 conveyed five contiguous parcels estimated to contain in the aggregate 1,439 acres from Nettie Marie Jones & Luther Knight to John W. Kluge. The property is described as being the same as was conveyed by deed recorded in Deed Book 679, page 539. Deed Book 824, page 63, dated December 10, 1984, conveyed several tracts or parcels of land from John W. Kluge and Patricia M. Kluge to JWK Properties, INC. Among those is #13 described in part as follows: Those three (3) adjoining tracts or parcels of land aggregating 1,382.83 acres, designated as parcels 2, 3 and 19 on Tax Map 134 and parcel 1 on Tax Map 135 and more particularly described as all those certain tracts or parcels of land, known as "Lone Oak" and "Millsap", containing in the aggregate 1,382.83, and being more particularly described on sheets 1,2 and 3 on plats of R. O. Snow and R. W. Ray, INC., dated May 21, 1984, hereto attached and made part of this deed and is the same property in all respects as conveyed to John W. Kluge by Nettie Marie Jones by deed dated May 4, 1984, and recorded in Deed Book 801, page 73, in which the property was erroneously estimated to contain 1,439 acres. Deed Book 2029, page 259, dated January 8, 2001, conveyed several tracts or parcels of land from JWK Properties, Inc. to University Real Estate. Foundation. Among those is PARCEL SIX ("Lone Oak") described in part as follows: Those adjoining tracts or parcels of land aggregating 1,382.83 acres, more particularly described as all those certain tracts or parcels of land known as "Lone Oak" and "Millsap" described on sheets 1,2 and 3 on plats of R. O. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., dated May 21, 1984, attached to and recorded with a deed recorded in Deed Book 824, page 63. Deed Book 2175, page 47, dated March 20, 2002, conveyed 1,382.83 acres from University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation to Lone Oak, L.L.C. The property is more particularly described as "Lone Oak" and "Millsap," described on sheets 1,2 and 3 on plats of R. O. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., dated May 21, 1984 and recorded in Deed Book 824, page 63. There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Based on this history, this property is determined to contair rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These, theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum numbe twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition lots, a "parent parcel" may create as many parcels containi acres as it has land to make if all other applicable regulati¢ the noted development Jevelopment rights are r of lots containing less than to the development right ng a minimum of twenty-one ns can be met. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in.accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of l:\DEP'~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\134. 3 Lone Oak.doc Lone Oak, LLC July 24, 2002 Page 4 the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Lone Oak LLC C/C Blue Ridge-Capital 660 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10021 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning~Determin of Parcel\134- 3 Lone Oak.doc Y >,, L \ / / / .7: // / / ./ Dominion Virginia Power ILO. Box_4 ~ ,5.,_" · Richmtmd~ \.'irg~ nia 23201 Dominion* Virginia Power July 17, 2002 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO REVISE ITS MARKET PRICES FOR GENERATION AND RESULTING WIRES CHARGES PURSUANT TO THE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING ACT CASE NO. PUE-2001-00306 To: Local Government Officials Pursuant to the Virginia State Corporation Commission's July 16, 2002 Order Establishing Proceeding, Virginia Electric and Power Company is providing a copy of that Order. Please take notice of its contents. A copy of Dominion Virginia Power's Application filed on July 1, 2002 in Case No. PUE-2001-00306 may be obtained from DominiOn Virginia Power at no cost by written request to Karen L. Bell, Law Department, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Post Office Box 26532, Richmond, Virginia 2.3261. Karen L. Bell Senior Counsel Enclosure 07-22-02P01:28 RCVD COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AT RICHMOND, JULY 16, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA at the relation of the 0207 2 0206 RECEIVED LEGAL SERVICES STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION CASE NO. PUP-2001-00306 Ex Parte: In the matter of considering Requirements relating to wzres charges Pursuant to the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act. ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEEDING On November 19, 2001, the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") entered an Order ("November 19, 2001 Order") in this docket establishing generation market price methodologies for purposes of establishing wires charges for'Dominion Virginia Power ("DVP" or "company"), and Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a/ American Electric Power ("AEP" or "company"). Subsequently, on May 24, 2002, the Commission also entered an order establishing wires charge methodologmes for Virginia's electric distribution cooperatives,1 ("Cooperatives").2 z c~ z ~ A&N Electric Cooperative, BARC Electric Cooperative, Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, Community Electric Cooperative, Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative, Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative, Northern Neck Electric Cooperative, Inc., Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative, Powell Valley Electric Cooperative, Prince George Electric Cooperative, Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative, and Southside Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2 tn this Order, we will refer to DVP, AEP and the Cooperatives, collectively, as "the companies." The term "each company" within the Ordering Paragraphs herein shall also include in its meaninc the Cooperatives. The November 19, 2001 Order, inter alia, directed in Ordering Paragraph (5) 5hereof, that incumbent electric utilities seeking to impose wires charges in calendar year 2003 and beyond make annual filings by July 1 of each year for any proposed revisions in their fuel factor, "and corresponding changes in capped rates, and for market price proposals." Ordering Paragraph six (6) of that Order kept this 'docket open for consideration of other matters concerning market price determinations and wires charges, as they may arise. On July 1, 2002, DVP and AEP both caused to be filed in this docket, their proposals for revisions to market prices for generation and resulting wires cha~ges for calendar year 2003. The Cooperatives also made a filing in this docket on July 1, 2002, addressing market price methodologies for purposes of calculating market prices and resulting wires charges pursuant to § 56-583 of the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act ("Restructuring Act"). NOW THE COMMISSION, is of the opinion that in keeping with the provisions of our November 19, 2001, Order in this matter, and in furtherance of carrying out our responsibilities udder the Restructuring Act, a procedural schedule and hearing date should be established for purposes of determining market prices in conjunction with establishing wires charges for incumbent utilities in calendar year 2003. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The proceeding for determining market prices in conjunction with establishing wires charges for incumbent utilities in calendar year 2003 shall be made part of This docket, and all papers and documents relating thereto shall be filed therein. (2) A public hearing concerning this matter shall be held on September 4, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom, Second Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 Eas~ Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. The Commission will receive comments from members of the public as well as evidence on the companies' applications relative thereto. Any person not participating as a respondent as provided in Ordering Paragraph (3) below, may give oral testimony concerning the application as a public witness at the September 4, 2002, public hearing. 'Public witnesses desiring to make statements at the public hearing concerning this application need only appear in the Commission's second floor courtroom in the Tyler Building at the address set forth above prior to 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing and sign up to speak. (3) On or before July 31, 2002, any person desiring to participate in this proceeding as a respondent shall file with the Clerk of the Commission (First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia), an original and fifteen 3 (15) copies of a notice of participation as a respondent, as required by the Commissmon's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-80 B, Participation as a respondent, and shall serve a copy on (i) counsel to DVP, Pamela J. Walker, Esquire, and Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Dominion Resources Services, 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (ii) counsel ~o AEP, Anthony J. Gambardelta, Esquire, 823 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219, and (iii) counsel to the Cooperatives, John A. Pirko, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, PC, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. The notice of participation shall be filed and served as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20- 140, Filing and service, and 5 VAC 5-20-150, Copies and format. Any organization, corporation, or government entity participating as a respondent mus~ be represented by counsel as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-30, Counsel. (4) Within five (5) business days of receipt of a notice of participation as a respondent, each company shall serve upon each respondent a copy of this Order, a copy of its application, herein and all materials filed with the Commission, unless these materials have already been provided to the respondent. (5) On or before August 7, 2002, each respondent may file with the Clerk of the Commission, at the address given in Ordering Paragraph (3), an original and fifteen (15) copies of any testimony and exhibits by which it expects to establish its case and shall serve copies of the testimony and exhibits on counsel to the companmes and on all other parties. The respondent shall comply with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-140, Filing and service, 5 VAC 5-20- 150, Copies and format, and 5 VAC 5-20-240, Prepared testimony and exhibits. (6) The Commission Staff shall investigate the companies' applications and, on or before August 21, 2002, shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an orzginal and fifteen (15) copies of all prepared'testimony and exhibits the Staff intehds to present at the hearing. The Staff shall contemporaneously serve copies of such testimony and exhibits on the companies and respondents in this matter. (7) On or before August 28, 2002, each company shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of any testimony and exhibits that each such company expects to offer in rebuttal to direct testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff and respondenus. (8) The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-260, Interrogatories to parties or requests for production of documents and things, shall be modified for this proceeding as follows: the Applicant and respondents shall respond to written interrogatories or data requests within five (5) calendar days after the receipt of such requests. Except as so modified herein, discovery and hearing preparation procedures shall be in accordance with Part IV of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (9) On or before July 31~ 2002, each company shall serve a copy of this Order on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of each county (or equivalent officials in counties having alternate forms of government) in which each company offers service, and on the Attorney and Mayor or Manager of every city and town (or equivalent officials of cities and towns having alternate forms of government in which each company offers service). Service shall be made by first-class mail or delivery to the customary place of business or residence of the person served. (t0) On or before August 28, 2002, each company shall file with the Clerk proof of service required by Ordering Paragraph (9). AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to all Competitive Service Providers in Virginia as shown on Appendix A hereto and all persons on the official Service List in this matter. The Service List is available from the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document 6 Control Center, 1300 East Main Street, First Floor, Tyler Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219. ~a~ Co~ ~ark S. Berndt AEP Retail Energy, LLC 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215-2373 Laura Shaw Washington Gas Energy Services, Inc. 13865 Sunrise Valley Herndon, Virginia 2G171-340t Kathleen A. Gaston Virginia Energy Consortium 3504 Northridge Drive Baltimore, MD 21208 Mitch King Old Mill Power Co. 103 Shale Place Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-6402 Carolyn Conrad Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC Regulatory Analyst 4350 Northern Pike Monroeville, PA 15146-2841 Mark S. Kumm Pepco Energy Services, Inc. 2000 K Street NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006 August Watlmeyer Virginia Independent Power Producers 707 East Franklin Street, Suite D Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mary Elizabeth Tighe Amerada Hess Corporation 2800 Eisenhower Ave, 3rd FI Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Marc A. Hanks Select Energy, Inc. 107 Selden Street Berlin, CT 06037-1616 L~PENDIX A Thomas J. Butler Dominion Retail, Inc. 625 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh~ PA 15222 Dr. John H. Mason Energy Window, Inc. 4750 Walnut, Suite 106 Boulder, CO 80301 Charles F. Dalphon NOVEC Energy Solutions, Inc. 10323 Lomond Drive Manassas, Virginia 20108-0875 Benjamin H. Thompson, IV Cook Inlet Power, LP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 2525 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Virginia Citizens Consumer Cou Dr. Irene Leech, President 4220 N Fork Rd Elliston VA Tripp III, Guy T. Hunton & Williams Riverfront Plaza East Tower 951 E Byrd St Richmond Pirko, John A. LeClair Ryan PC 4201 Dominion Blvd Suite 200 VA Glen Allen VA Petrini, Edward L. Christian & Barton 1200 Building Suite 1200 909 E Main St VA Richmond AES New Energy Eric Matheson #2 Penn Center 1500 JFK Boulevard Suite 222, Floor 2 Philadelphia PA Town of Wytheville Howard Dobbins, Esquire Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins P.O. Box 1320 Richmond VA AEP-Virginia Anthony Gambardella Esquire Woods Rogers Hazlegrove PLC 823 E Main St Ste 1200 Richmond VA 24087 23219-4074 23060 23219-3095 ~9102 23218-1320 23219 Dimitri, James C. McGuireWoods, LLP One James Center 901 E Cary St Richmond VA Monacell, Louis R. Christain & Barton 1200 Building Suite 1200 909 E Main St Richmond VA Kinnane, Thomas W. Kinnane & Associates, Ltd. 100 Ridgely Ave Annapolis MD Browder, C. M. Esquire Office of the Attorney General Division of Consumer Counsel 900 E Main St., 2nd Floor Richmond VA AEP Retail Energy LLC Ted Bediner 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus OH VMLNACO AEP Steering Committe R. Lance Terpenny Town Manager 100 East Main Street Christiansburg VA Town Manager of Wytheville C. Wayne Sutherland. Jr. P.O. Box 533 23219 23219-3095 21401 23219 24073 43215-2373 Wytheville VA 24382 Pepco Energy Services Adam S. Chmara Esquire 2000 K Street NW Suite 750 Washington DC VA/MD/DE Association of Electr Robert A. Omberg Assistant VP 4201 Dominion Boulevard Suite 101 Glen Allen VA The New power Company Joelle K. Ogg, Esquire Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins 1666 K Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington DC Community Electric Cooperative Joshua Pretlow Jr. Esquire 200 North Main Street Suffolk VA Southside Electric Cooperative John M. Boswell, Esquire Boswell & Williamson 601 East Virginia Avenue C rewe VA Virginia Independent Power Pro Kenneth G. Hurwitz, Esquire Venable Baetjer Howard & Civile 1201 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 WashingTon DC Bell, Karen Dominion Resources Services 120 Tredegar Street P.O. Box 26532 20006 23060 23219-4074 23434 23930-0007 20005 New Power Company Martha A. Duggan 3102 North 6th Street Arlington VA Potomac Edison Company Philip J. Bray, Esquire 10435 Downsville Pike Hagerstown Francese, Albed J 6597 Rockland Drive MD USA Clifton VA Sussex County Commonwealth Att E. Carter Nettles, Jr., Esquire P.O; Box 1347 Sussex VA American Electric & Power Serv James R. Bacha, Esquire 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus OH New Power Company, The Kathleen Magruder 1 Manhattan Road Purchase NY Walker, Pamela A. Dominion Resources Services P.O. Box 26532 120 Tredegar Street 22201 21740-1766 21024 23884 43215 10577-2100 Richmond VA 23261 Richmond VA 23219 Consumer Advisory Board Bill Lukhard, Chairman 106 Dogwood Drive Manakin VA Energy Consultants, Inc. Jack Greenhalgh 421 S Lynnhaven Rd Suite 101 23103 Virginia Poverty Law Center Steven Myers 201 West Broad Street Suite 302 Richmond VA 23220 Virginia Beach VA 23452 Dominion Virginia Power P.O. Box 26532 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Dominion Virginia Power July 17, 2002 VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE-2002-00377 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO REVISE ITS FUEL FACTOR PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE {} 56-249.6 To: Local Government Officials Pursuant to the Virginia State Corporation Commission's July 16, 2002 Order Establishing 2003 Fuel Factor Proceeding, Virginia Electric and Power Company is providing a copy of that Order. Please take notice of its contents. A copy of Dominion Virginia Power's Application in Case No. PUE-2002-00377 may be obtained from Dominion Virginia Power at no cost by written request to Karen L. Bell, Law Department, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Post Office Box 26532, Richmond, Virginia 23261. Karen L. Bell Senior Counsel Enclosure Og-22-O2POt:g8 RCVD COMMONWEALTH OFV~G~IA , STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AT RICHMOND, JULY 16, 2002 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY To revise its fuel factor Pursuant to Va. Code § 56-249.6 0207 2 0204 ~SE NO. PUE-20'~2'L~ '' ORDER ESTABLISHING 2003 FUEL FACTOR PROCEEDING On July 1, 2002, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or "the Company") filed with the State Corporation Commission (,,Commission") its application, written- testimony, and exhibits requesting a decrease in its fuel factor from 1.613¢ per kWh to 1.576¢ per kWh effective with usage on and after January 1, 2003, which results in a decrease in annual fuel revenues of approximately $21.7 million. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The Company's application be docketed as Case No. PUE- 2002-00377, and all associated papers be filed therein. (2) A public hearing be held on September 25, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom, Second Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, to receive comments from members of the public and to receive evidence on the application. Any person not participating as a respondent as provided in Ordering Paragraph (3) below, may give oral testimony concerning the application as a public witness at the September 25, 2002, public hearing. Public witnesses desiring to make statements at the public hearing concerning this application need only appear in the Commission's second floor courtroom in the Tyler Building at the address set forth above prior to 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing and sign up to spea~. (3) On or before August 9, 2002, any person desiring to participate in this proceeding as a respondent shall file with the Clerk at the address set out in Ordering Paragraph (9) an original and fifteen (15) copies of a notice of participation as a respondent, as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-80 B, Participation as a respondent, and shall serve a copy on counsel to the Company, Pamela J. Walker, Esquire, and Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Dominion Resources Services, 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. The notice of participation shall be filed and served as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20- 140, Filing and service, and 5 VAC 5-20-150, Copies and format. Any organization, corporation, or government entity participating as a respondent must be represented by counsel as required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-30, Counsel. (4) Within five (5) business days of receipt of a notice of participation as a respondent, the Company shall serve upon each respondent a copy of this Order, a copy of the application, 2 and all materials filed with the Commission, unless these materials have already been provided to the respondent. (5) On or before September 4, 2002, each respondent may file with the Clerk an original .and fifteen (15) copies of any testimony and ~xhibits by which it expects to establish its case and shall serve copies of the testimony and exhibits on counsel to the Company and on all other parties. The respondent shall comply with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-140, Filing and service, 5 VAC 5-20-150, Copies and format, and 5 VAC 5-20-240, Prepared testimony and exhibits. (6) The Commission Staff shall investigate the Company's application and, on or before September 12, 2002, shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of the prepared testimony and exhibits the Staff intends to present at the hearing. The Staff shall contemporaneously serve copies of such testimony and exhibits on the applicant and respondents in this matter. (7) On or before September 19, 2002, the Company shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of any testimony and exhibits that it expects to offer in rebuttal to direct testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff and respondent. (8) The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-260, Interrogatories to parties or requests for 3 production of documents and things, shall be modified for this proceeding as follows: the Applicant and respondents shall respond to written interrogatories or data requests within ten (10) calendar days after the receipt of such requests. Except as so modified herein, discovery and hearing preparation procedures shall be in accordance with Part IV of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (9) On or before July 30, 2002, the Company shall publish the following notice as display advertising (not classified) in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation throughout its service territory: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY STATE CORPORATION CASE NO. PUE-2002-00377 On July 1, 2002, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or "the Company") filed with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") its application, written testimony, and exhibits requesting a decrease in its fuel factor from 1.613¢ per kWh to 1.576¢ per kWh effective with usage on and after January 1, 2003, which results in a decrease in annual fuel revenues of approximately $21.7 million. A copy of the application may be obtained, at no charge, by making a request in writing to counsel for the applicant, Pamela J. Walker, Esquire, and Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Dominion Resources Services, 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. The application and other materials may also be inspected in the Commission's Document Control Center, Office of the Clerk of the Commission, First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, during Commission business hours. On or before August 9, 2002, any person who expects to participate as a respondent in this proceeding as provided by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-80 B, shall file with the Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118, an original and fifteen (15) copies of a notice of intent to participate and shall serve a copy on counsel to the Company listed above. Any organization, corporation, or government entity participating, as a respondent must be represented by counsel as required by the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20- 30. The Commission's Order for Notice and Hearing gives the complete procedural schedule and instructions on participation in this case. A public hearing will be held on September 25, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom,~ Second Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, to receive comments from members of the public and evidence on the application. Members of the public who desire to comment on the Company's application will be afforded an opportunity to do so at the September 25, 2002, public hearing in this case. Persons desiring to participate in this manner should arrive at the hearing location indicated above prior to the start of the hearing. Upon arrival they should notify the Bailiff in the Commission's Courtroom of their desire to speak. Individuals with disabilities who require an accommodation to participate in the hearing should contact the Commission at least seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date at 1-800-552-7945 (voice) or 1- 804-371-9206 (TDD). A copy of the Order for Notice and Hearing may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission. The unofficial text of the order may be viewed at the Commission's website: http://www.state.va.us/scc/caseinfo/orders.htm. The Rules of Practice and Procedure and other information may also be viewed on the website. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (10) On or before July 24, 2002, the Company shall serve a copy of this Order on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of each county (or equivalent officials in counties having alternate forms of government) in which the Company offers service, and on the Attorney and Mayor or Manager of every city and town (or equivalent officials of cities and towns having alternate forms of government in which the Company offers services). Service shall be made by first-class mail or delivery to the customary place of business or residence of the person served. (11) On or before the commencement of the hearing, the Company shall file with the Clerk proof of the newspaper publication and proof of service required by Ordering Paragraphs (9) and (10). AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to: Pamela J. Walker, Esquire, and Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Dominion Resources Services, 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; C. Meade Browder, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, 2nd Floor, Richmond, Virginia 232193; and the Commission's Division of Energy Regulation, Economics and Finance, and Public Utility Accounting. Tesle: ~ Clerk of lhe COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 800 MHz Radio Project Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Provided as an update STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Trank AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X Yes BACKGROUND: Attached is the most recent update provided to the ECC Management Board regarding the status of the Regional 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Project. As the memo indicates, ECC staff, regional representatives and the ECC's consultant are continuing to finalize the contract with Motorola for the purchase and installation of the system. DISCUSSION: The following is provided as an additional update to the enclosed memo: Motorola Contract One of the most critical performance issues remaining to be finalized in the Motorola contract is the radio coverage guarantee for the system. Currently, the guarantees for coverage in the City and development areas of the County are acceptable. Negotiation continues on the final coverage guarantees and testing requirements in the rural areas of the County. Additional information regarding coverage guarantees and other coverage issues is included as an attachment to this agenda item. This information was prepared by Jim Morgan of RCC Consultants, Inc., in response to questions originally asked by Supervisors Thom as and Rooker. Virginia Department of Historic Resources (Section 106 Review - Peters Mountain) After a lengthy process of developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the Peters Mountain tower, the VDHR has approved the agreement and it will be forwarded to the FCC for its consideration. The MOA was developed with the participation of the County, Piedmont Environmental Council and other landowners from the Southwest Mountains. The VDHR made final decisions regarding the language in the agreement after receiving input from the parties involved. The FCC will be considering this document over the next 30 to 90 days. Peters Mountain Tower Site On behalf of the region, the County recently closed on the Peters Mountain property needed for the final tower site for the system. The license for this site is currently under consideration by the reviewing agencies, including the FCC. County staff is also in the process of attempting to obtain easements from adjoining property owners to ensure the protection of a 200-foot buffer around the Peters Mountain tower site. While the action taken by the Board during the special use permit process obligated the ECC to maintain a 200-foot buffer, it was not binding on the adjoining property owners. For this reason, additional efforts are being made to obtain easements on these properties to ensure protection of the buffer. When additional information is available, this item will be brought back to the Board for further consideration. 02.124 07-51-02P12:2'7 RCVD UVA VIRGINIA TO: ECC Management Board FROM: Wayne S. Campagna DATE: July 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Regional 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Project A brief status of related issues referenced the above project is as follows: 800 MHz Public Safe ,ty Radio System Contract: A revised contract document was submitted to Motorola on April 29, 2002. Motorola responded on May 29, 2002 indicating their appreciation of some of the changes we had made that reduced the number of issues that need to be agreed to. However, they further stated that until the remaining issues are resolved in a manner previously communicated to us last December Motorola will not execute a contract. Additionally, Motorola informed us the third party subcontractor price increase that we would be subject to if we did not execute a contract by January 16, 2002 is $173,163. In an effort to continue discussions with Motorola and move closer to a mutUally agreeable contract some new contract terms and conditions concepts were proposed by us to Motorola. We believe the new concept(s) allow us to address some of the remaining issues without compromising our position on some of the issues important to us. Motorola appears to be receptive to this approach but still maintains a strong position on several of the issues. Clearly additional dialogue and discussion are required. We have asked Motorola for additional information to assist us in better understanding Motorola's position and thoughts on the new concept(s). We have just received this information and are presently reviewing it. Although discussions have been ongoing we expect to resume more formal discussions with Motorola by late July / early August. The contract committee is not ready at this time to recommend a contract document for review and approval. Charlottesville - UVA - Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center 2306 Ivy Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 (804) 971-1263 Virginia Department of Historic Resources (Section 106 Review - Peters Mountain) / MOA: Finalization of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) continues. Consultation and discussion with thc Federal Communications Commission (FCC), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO/VD~), PEC, and several residents have been ongoing since May 3, 2002. Several drafts of the MOA have been reviewed and discussed with the latest draft being sent to VDHR by Mark Trank on June 20, 2002. We have not received a response from VDHR at this time. Thc FCC has advised us that thc Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has chosen not to participate as a consulting party. We hope to reach agreement on the MOA soon. The Environmental Assessment and thc radio license applications were submitted to APCO, NPSPAC Region 42 Committee and the FCC in May for their review and processing. The MOA will be forwarded to the FCC upon completion. This review and approval process could take as long as 90 to 180 days to complete. 800 MHz Radio Finance Committee: The Regional Finance Committee is currently reviewing project-f'mancing options through the County Finance Director's Office but is not prepared to make a recommendation on the financing options at this time. A recommendation will be forwarded to the ECC Management Board at a later date. The appropriateness of an administrative fee will also be investigated for this project. It has been pointed out that as part of the annual operation of the ECC there are administrative fees paid to the County and during the construction of the new ECC facility there were administrative fees paid to the City. Although most of the project management administration will be handled through the ECC there will be other fiscal and legal administration requirements to be met through use of County personnel. This cost has not been included as part of the overall project cost at this time. A recommendation on this matter will be made at a later date as well. .Peters Mountain Tower Site: The land acquisition process required to provide space for the proposed tower site on Peters Mountain is expected to be completed soon. In conclusion, I will be in attendance and available to answer any questions at next week's meeting. Cc: Tom Hanson, Director 800 MHz Regional Public Safety Radio Contract/Project Committee July 31, 2002 Mr. Thomas A. Hanson Director Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communication Center P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Hanson, As a result of some questions raised during a recent 800 MHz Committee meeting about the status of the '%Iextel 800 MHz Interference Issue" as well as 800 MHz system coverage and additional tower sites, I would like to provide the following information and update. We are certainly far from resolution regarding the Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 800 MHz interference issue, also known as the "Nextel" interference issue. As you know, Nextel submitted an 800 MHz re- banding proposal to the FCC, that was then reissued as part of the FCC's formal Notice of Proposed Rule Malting (FCC 02-81 - Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz and/Consolidating the 900 MHz Industrial/Land Transportation and Business Pool Channels). The NPRM was released on March 15, 2002. As part of the NPRM process, the FCC allows 30 days for comment and 30 additional days for reply to the original comments, both of which would have normally expired by now. However, the FCC has extended the reply comment period until August 1, 2002. At that point, the FCC will close the NPRM to further comments and formulate a ruling. The time for which a ruling is to be rendered is unlimited and, therefore, cannot be predicted at this time. However, the fact that this issue impacts public safety will surely pressure the FCC to respond relatively quickly. Keep in mind that the response may not provide a remedy, but could invoke further study or discussion. I would like to note two notices that have been filed with the FCC during the NPRM process. First, on July 8, 2002 the U.S. Congressional House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in a letter to FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell, acknowledged the public safety radio interference in the 800 MHz band and requested "a detailed accounting of the current licensees in the 800 MHz band and the spectrum allotments possessed by the licensees in the band." Second, on July 12, 2002 the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) submitted a "Compromise 800 MHz Band Plan Under Consideration" to the FCC, outlining another re- banding solution for the FCC to consider. While neither of these memorandums creates an immediate solution, they illustrate the attention this issue has received and the pressure the FCC is under to devise a solution. As you know, the ECC has been in contact with Nextel Partners regarding the potential for interference with the proposed 800 MHz system. They are interested in mitigating any interference prior to the ECC's system implementation and will be working with the ECC as the project moves forward. Concerning the subject of adding sites to the proposed countywide 800 MHz radio system, I would like to reiterate that the proposed system is predicted to provide significantly improved radio communications over the Albemarle region relative to the existing public safety communications environment. The County's actual geographic boundary is currently predicted to be 86% covered while using a portable radio in street. However, the operational area1 is predicted to have approximately 91% coverage. The City of Charlottesville and Urban Ring2 are predicted to have greater than 95% coverage. While budget constraints have prevented a design that provides portable-radio coverage ~ The "operational area" is defined as the area of public safety's jurisdictional operation. This excludes areas such as the Shenandoah National Park. 2 The Urban Ring is defined as the growth areas immediately surrounding Charlottesville and along Rt. 29. RCC Consultants, Inc. 2400 Ownby Lane · Richmond, Virginia 23220 · tel (804) 353-0300 · fax (804) 353-8059 Mr. Thomas A. Hanson Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County July 31, 2002 Page 2 of 2 greater than that currently predicted over the entire County (as has been redundantly illustrated during the special use permit process), the system is proposed to provide acceptable levels of public safety radio coverage within the operational area. As you are aware, the ECC is currently negotiating contractual commitments from the system integrator (Motorola) to guarantee performance requirements of the system including, but not limited to, coverage. Due to the sensitivity of contract negotiations, I am unable to elaborate on the details of those requirements. However, in general the ECC's objective is that in the event Motorola's proposed performance is not met, they would be contractually obligated to remedy the problem, in which case a number of items would be considered in addressing the issue. Ifa coverage deficiency is discovered a determination of whether the failure warrants resolution is required. For example, if the failure occurs in an obscure area or under unusually extreme operating conditions, it may be determined that no remedy is required. If a remedy is necessary, it can take many forms. In all cases the most technically/cost efficient solution will likely be pursued. Thus, the first option will be to adjust the operating parameters of the original site locations. This may include increasing transmit power, receiver sensitivity, antenna azimuth or elevation adjustment, etc. If all attempts to adjust existing equipment fail, then additional site location(s) are likely to be pursued. This may include co-location on existing towers or structures, treetop towers or other independent structures. Independent structures obviously present significant obstacles and cost and would, therefore, likely be the last option considered. Bear in mind that once a system is designed, budgeted, and contracted for integration, nobody wants to intentionally add sites. Something that must be considered regarding the addition of sites to a radio system is the evolution of user performance requirements. As stated during the public meeting in which the County Board of Supervisors approved the special use permit for Peters Mountain (January 9, 2002), the performance requirements of radio systems always evolve. The users demand more performance over time. That not only pertains to public safety, but to the public as well. Ten years ago, the level of performance of cell phones was different than what the public demands today. The public wants them to work everywhere. Public safety communications is even more critical in that regard. From that perspective, the performances demanded by public safety providers will likely change and become more stringent over the years. No matter what system is put in, no matter what frequency band is picked, performance criteria will always become more significant and demanding. Ultimately, user demands for a higher level of service are what will drive the need to consider changes to the system. If you have questions, please contact me in our Richmond office at (804) 353-0300 (x115) or via email at jmorgan(~rcc.com. Sincerely, James K. Morgan Vice President and General Manager East Region Cc: 800 MHz Contract Committee MONTHLY REPORT AUGUST 2002 · Mission · Essential Tasks Assessment · Construction & Maintenance · Planning & Traffic Engineering · Issues 0'?-31-02Al1:00 RCVD Mission The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory authority and facilitates traffic engineerin~ issues for Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are: focused on public safety fiscally and environmentally responsible supportive of alternative transportation means supportive of neighborhood and regional development ESSENTIAL TASKS TASK MAINTAIN SECONDARY & PRIMARY ROADS o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim, signs, patrols ASSESSMENT (see legend below) REMARKS Secondary & primary mowing objectives met; apply dust control Installed pipes, guardrails/trim brush; shoulder repair o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch o EMERGENCY OPS o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT Legend: ( a~ees: 90-160% Excellent : 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~e~: ?0-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards - Patched per schedules; machine n.h.s, roads - Tree removal; clean out pipes - Storm damage cleanup - Route 33, Greene Count, widen bridge, 80% complete - PMs completed ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK ASSESSMENT (see legend below) 2. M~ANAGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM o PE Activities revised; o Project Construction REMARKS Revised Secondary 6YP submitted approved by County Surface treatment underway Pavement marking underway Legend: G~¢'~-~: 90-100% Excellent <: 80-90% Good~ room for improvement ~}c:d: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 4 ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) Task Assessment (See legend below) CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES o Issue and review permits o Review site plans and rezoning request o Conduct studies and advise o Inspect and monitor subdivisions Legend: ( ~:e~: 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good, room far improvement ~{c~,~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards Remarks 25 land use permits issued 4 new site plans reviewed & comments provided 5 developments in planning stages - 4 subdivision plan reviews - 3 subdivisions being inspected for acceptance ESSENTIAL TASKS ( ti d) ,,, ,,, ,,, con HUe TASK 4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT (see legend below) REMARKS o Request and advise on signals & signs o Request and advise on studies & data o Assist with design - I0 Traffic issues reviewed - 5 Traffic issues under review Legend: ~ ~:~>~: 90-100% Excellent : 80-90% Good, room for improvement ~e~: 70~80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 6 P~LIMINARY ENGINEERING 7 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING [ ugust2002 Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status Secondary Roads PPM L&D Street Name/ Field Field Route S DesignerProjectNumber Description Scoping Survey Review P.H. ktspect,R/W Adv Airport Road . .e,4.? . 2456 ,I~.a 0649-002-15a,C50t 4-1 ...... /siaew~lk, a~ik~l .... ~~~~ ~~ ,a-0, 0, sc,e~le (OpOate~ Ja~anGapRd ,,,69I 11129 DWS,,,,0691~002-158~C501 2-1an~s w/bike lan~s &s~o~alk 12-02 4-0~ 3-04 6-06 McBtke Rd Ext. New Alignmont 631 2530 BAA 0631-002-128,C502 MeadowCreek Parkway 10~02 2-03 4-03 6-03 6-05 On Schedule (Updated 5-02) Free State Rd Connector -~ 52393 JWH R000-002-259,C 501 Construct 2 lanes ot~ 4-1ane R/W ~ 1 Mos. Inactivity - Gravel Road Mountain Vista Rd. Route 6to I 2Mi E. Rte.6 [ On Schedu~ 737 54425 0737-002~P 68,N501 Widen, pave &replac~ bridge N/A N/A N/A N/A 12-02 Gravel Road Project S ecreta~s Road EIW not availab e on 2 parcels 708 i 1130 - 0708-002-P 77,N50 [Widen and P ave 3-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6-02 a-OS Gravel Road Project West Leigh Dr Rte 250 to 04 Mi N Rte 250 OB 8ch~dHle Trench 2', replace Pipe & overlay N/A N/A N/A N/A 12-02 RHra} a~iuo~ 8 PI LIMINARY ENGINEERING August 2002 Greene County Six Year Plan Project Status Secondary Projects Field Field Route PPMS Designer~ Project Description Scope Smwey Review P.H. lusp. R/W Adv. Comments Bacon HollowRoad 627 51022 RDL 06274)39-t95,C501, Fr. Rte, 615 to Rte 632 5-02 9-02 1-03 6-03 12~05 W'~denandstraighten 2~hnemadvvay Dyke Road ,,, ¥0 2920 DWS ~810-039-146,C501 Fr, t,7kmE. Rte, 624,~p Rte. 624 ~~ ~~ ~ 84)3 W:den and straighten 2-lane roadway - , ._ Gravel Roads Mayo Road 650 57314 06504) 39-P 56,N50 t 0~35 M/~ E. Rte 619 618 , 0618~002-P ,N Om.geCo. L/hen ~ 02-02 11-03 v~rdenandSurfaceTreat~Gravetroad Wats?n ~>ad ..... 640 2515 0640-039-137,N50 t Fr, Rte.633 to Dead End 064)3 ~ ~~ 114)5 Widen and Surface Treat GravelRd. 9 CONSTRUCTION PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS .... '"' CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ' 2002" Pement Street Name Project DescriPtion, Duration Complete Contract .... Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct 0022-002-1010, SR02 .... Bridge Replacement louisa Rd '~omm'ents: Plan to plac~ remainder of Phase I bridge beams first of August and ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 50 52 Various PM-7B-02 JAsphalt Plant Mix secondaries and COmments: Plan to complete widening and overlay on Rte 250 from 'Rte 676 to ~ ~ ~ ~ 40 40 i various ' ' ST'7B-02 'l"Asphalt Surface Treatment] Secondaries Comments: Greene Co. complete. Plan to pave roads in Albemarle Co. as follows ~ ~ ~ 20 20 Various SS-7B-02 I Asphalt Slurry Seal subdivisions Comments: Plan ko begin in Albemarle Co, in early August. 0 0 Various TP-7B-02 I Pavement Marking Secondaries Comments: Contractor has mobilized to ihe area. Currently wa tng on suitible 0 0 ........ weame Various PCP-7-02 i Pipe Culvert Rehabilitation Secondaries and Comments: Plan to complete culverts under Rte. 692 first of August and proceed t~ ~ ~ 25 25 10 MOWING PATCHING GRADEIMACHINE! ADD STONE DITCH/PIPE JULY GUARDRAIL MAINTENANCE YANCEY MILLS HEADQUARTERS AUGUST Start second round Crozet to 708, 637, 787, 738, 679, 7t0,761,691,688,791,636 Whitehall, Rt810 635 from 691 to nelson CL; 635 from 636 from 693 to 691 693 to 692; 69t from 250 to 692 787, 682, 637, 81t, 691, 636, 758, 8t8, 824, 6tl, 689, 688, 633 As needed per rain Rt 689 replace pipe; leaves Rt 810; open drains 164 Mt,; Open pipe Rt 29 Rt 29 left side from 692 to 164 and back Rt 768 pipe maintenance 250 from 240 to Nelson CL; 240 from 250 to 250; 635 from 260 to 689; 684, 690, 69t, 693, 692 EQUIP MAINT EMERGENCYOPS OTHER Per schedule Tree removal, storm, 708, 260, 810, 684 Asscheduled Cut limbs 250 from 689 to 690 1! PATQ'I~ DITCHFPIPE ~L EQUP MNNT OTI-ER MAINTENANCE FREE UNION HEADQUARTERS JLLY 665- 671 -1563 Asneeded Rt. 614-Tree down 12 MAINTENANCE BOYD TAVERN HEADQUARTERS MOWING PATCHING GRADFJMACHINE/ADD STONE DITCH/PIPE GUARDRAIL Mowing EQUIP MAINT EMERGENCY OPS OTHER JULY Secondary Complete First Cuffing complete in June Rte. 610, 1422, 875, 1345, 600 Rt~ 640, 600, 784, 747 Rt. 640, 641 Rt~ 231, 22, 250, F179, 53 Per schedule Tree Removal Rt~ 1506, 616, 641,250 AUGUST Rts. 616, 731,744, 808, 709, 729, 732 Rts. 648, 732, 729 Rts. 640, 600, 769, 762 Rte. 600, 640, 747 Interstate 64 As scheduled Extend Arm Mower Rts. 20, 22, 231 13 MAINTENANCE KEENE HEADQUARTERS MOW lNG PATCHING GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD STONE JULY RT. 704-714-795-708-728 RT. 716-7t 9-726 R T.fi 27-716-792-793-717-670-703-72 q -722-723-767- 754-775-804-718= 805-699-737-812-770-725-753-630 AUGUST 626-726-625-627-723-71 $.735-602-800- 6'17-717-7t9-630 719-756-627-727-708 RT. 712-7t3-795-708-761-774-633-63t- DITCH/PIPE GUARDRAIL CLEAN PIPE RT. 800-602.t154-7tl-7t2-760 BOOM AX RT. 20-6-29-627-727 REPLACE PIPE RT, 708 DITCH RT. 633 SEC. RT. 602-626.618-729-795-7t9-631 EQUIP MAINT PER SCHEDULE A8 SCHEDULED EMERGENCY OPS OTHER PUT CALCIUM ON 633, 7'17, 627, 7'!2. 713,708, 697, 7tl, 760. 813, 778, 703, 722, 723, 72t, 7t8, 805, 767 14 MAINTENANCE STANARDS LLE HEADQUARTERS MOWING JULY Tractor m owing on secondaries - start of second round on Rts 609, 610, 645, 657, 618 AUGUST Tractor mowing on sec Rts 743, 606, 741, 629,617, 633, 623, 622, 624, 633, 646 PATCHING GRADE/MACHINE/ADD STONE DITCH/PiPE GUARDRAIL EQUIP MAINT Plantmix with grader on Rt810,981, 609; surface Patching on secondary rts 663, 609, treatment by contractor on scheduled routes 648, 617 Dust control rts 806, 817, 603, 634, 642, 638, 629; machine rts 637, 642, 667, 634, 635, 628,614 Ditching on routes 29N and 633 Machine rts 627, 632, 676, 614, 630, 646, 675 Ditching on secondary routes 62-2, 633, 6t2, 648 Long arm mowing Rta 604, 622, 7481 weed eating on sec guardrail rts 617, 743 Mowing on 8t0, 630, 626, 631 Per schedule As scheduled EMERGENCY OPS OTHER H Q 0 P Y & e der~ 2 ctor rn ow ers 62 62 2 0 6 2 ~- 2 -f-~ o t o r pn o w · ~ ~ 4 ................... ~4 3 I Crew 0 3 0 62 ................ i~ ............... 2 4 8 3 I I6 PLANNING Prc ., Aibemade Tocx~e Center (Spem/) Site North Pointe Study Study Si~ Plan ~__~,_'ng I:~view F~view Current Status Traff, c Study R~ew for the ~Ne Plan. has been corrpleted. Additonal submissions will be made at the Rezoning stage. Zoning lVlap Arrerdment, Use Pernits,~ ~ ha~e been fo¢¢~ to the Co~y. Awaiting site Can to respond to study recor~mendations. Awaiting site plan to respond to study re~se corrpreha~i~ plan. ¸to Final sLlbmission of Traffic Study under renew. Visitors Center Pantops Ridge ;Scopng process Lr~:lerway, 17 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Outstanding Traffic Engineering Issues Report: Rte N~ Location Issue Type Issue Description Date Received 29 29 & 649 Pavement reconfigure intersection approach movements 3118/2002 29 29 & 641 Signal Warrant warrant analysis requested 5/17/2002 602 626 to 800 Speed Limit inadequate georrietrlcs 4/2/2002 637 635 to 708 Speed Emit speed and signage study requested 5/28/2002 728 620 to 729 Signage speed limit signs requested 4/8/2002 738 738 & 250 Speed Limit speeding, cut thru traffic, signage 4/2/2002 1167 1167 & 1168 Guardrail House below grade 7/2/2002 1177 Dunlora Speed Limit speed limit reduction requested 854 Can'sbrook 4/2/2002 Speed Limit excessive speeds 7/21/2002 Outstanding Traf~c Engineering Issues Report: Rte No. Location Issue Type Issue Description Date Received 29 $1gnage parking restrictions requested 4/1/2002 606 Speed Limit speed study requested 5/23/2002 743 629 to 627 Speed Limit speed limit reduction requested 6/10/2002 Albemarle Issue Status under review under review action pending under review under review under review under review action pending under review Greene Issue ~tatus under review under review under review Reviewer Culpeper TED Culpeper TED Culpeper TED Culpeper TED CulPeper TED Culpeper TED Culpeper TED Culpeper TED Culpeper TED Reviewer Culpeper TED Culpeper TED Culpeper TED 18 ISSUES · Polo Grounds Road Underpass t9 PHILIP A. SHUC£T COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjlNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 July 15, 2002 JAMES L. BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Mr. Juandiego Wade Albemarle County Department Of Planning 401 Mclntire Rd. ChaHottesvjJle, MA 22902 Dear Mr. Wade: Attached please find a revised traffic engineering issue report as discussed at the July 3, 2002 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting. I appreciate you volunteering to distribute the information on my behalf. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, James L. Bryan Resident Engineer JLB/sml Attachment DISTRIBUTED TO JUL 1 ? BO$ on 07-17-02A00:04 RCV'D TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Outstanding Traffic Engineering Issues: Albemarle County Rte No. Location Issue Type Issue Description Date Received: Issue Status Reviewer 29 29 & 649 Pavement mconfigure intersection approaches 3/18/2002 under review Culpeper TED 29 29 & 641 Signal Warrant warrant analysis requested 5/17/2002 under review Culpeper TED 602 626 to 800 Speed Limit inadequate geometrics 4/2/2002 action pending Culpeper TED 637 635 to 708 Speed Limit speed and signage study requested 5/28/2002 under review Culpeper TED 728 620 to 729 Signage speed limit signs requested 4/8/2002 under review Culpeper TED 738 738 & 250 Speed Limit speeding, cut thru traffic, signage 4/2/2002 under review Cu peper TED 800 602 to 6 Speed Limit speed study requested 6/24/2002 under review Culpeper TED 1177 Dunlora Speed Limit speed limit reduction requested 4/2/2002 action pending Culpeper TED Discrepancies in July 2002 Monthly Report The Residency uses a database tracking system to log and manage traffic engineering issues. The following issues that appeared in the Residency's report represent either old entries that were previously resolved, multiple entries related to a single problem or a combination thereof. Rte No County 29 Albemarle 250 Albemarle 250 Albemarle 250 Albemarle 620 Albemarle 643 Albemarle 658 AIbemarle 676 Albemarle 729 Albemarle 743 Albemarle 875 Albemarle 1140 Albemarle 1270 Albemarle Issue Description Int of Rt 29 and 1670 (Ashwood Blvd) Signal Timing Install Left Turn Must Yield Signs at int of 616 & 250 Signage Study Passing Zone/Accident Wants school bus warning sign in the curve near 4390 Rolling Road Blind Curve Sight Distance Speed Study Installing Warning Sign at Int of 601 & 676 near Foxfield & Hunt Country Store Review Route 1120 for sight distance Left turns at light Review Traffic Controls at Int. with Sunset Ave. Ext. Install a NO U-TURN sign at int of Rt 1140 and 1116 Review for guardrail Revised 7/15/2002 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsa!] (3. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296.-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 August 1, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack ..louett Sall!,, H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Hubert Allen Town Administrator Town of Gordonsville PO Box 276 112 S Main Street Gordonsville, VA 22942 Dear Mr. Allen: At the request of the Gordonsville Town Council, the Board of Supervisors has. scheduled a discussion of truck traffic on Route 231 at the August 7, 2002 Board meeting. The meeting begins at 9:00 a.m., in Room 241, located on the Second Floor. There are a couple of routine items on the agenda, which should take about 15 minutes, pdor to discussion of transportation matters. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Board's agenda for that meeting along with the staff report forwarded to the Board on this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. /ewc Sincerely, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Status of Through Truck Restriction on Route 22 and Route 231 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on truck traffic issues on Route 22/231 as discussed by Board of Supervisors March 6, 2002 meeting and Request from the Town of Gordonsville to use Routes 860 and 231 in Albemarle County as an alternate route for through trucks in Gordonsville STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On March 6, 2002, staff updated the Board of Supervisors on the Origin-Destination Study they requested VDOT to con duct (Attachment A). At that meeting, the Board of Supervisors requested staff to review a 1999 Statewide Origin-Destination Study conducted by VDOT and review a truck traffic study completed by VDOT on Route 17 in Fauquier County. The Board of Supervisors also directed staff to send letters to trucking companies that use the 22/231 corridor, conduct selective periodic speed enforCement, and request VDOT to reduce the speed limit. DISCUSSION: Status of the steps taken: Origin-Destination Study: Staff reviewed the 1999 Statewide Origin Destination Study again and evaluated the need for a new, more s pecific O-D Study. After consultation with VDOT local Residency, staff determined that VDOT is unlikely to conduct another study because of th e recently completed 1999 Statewide O-D Study as well as the cost involved in such a study. Staff believes it can use existing data and resources to support its efforts to restrict through trucks on Rt. 22/231. Staff anticipates to complete gathering this information by September 2002. Staff recommends the County not pursue a thorough Origin- Destination Study with VDOT. Route '17 Study: At the March 6, 2002 meeting, VDOT mentioned a study they conducted on Route 17 that could assist the County's efforts. The VDOT local Residency office obtained a copy for staff. From the mid 1990's to 2000 VDOT conducted several operational safety studies for the impact of trucks along Rt. 17. The section of Route 17 that was studied is a two-lane facility with historically high truck traffic. The roadway appears to have developed as a main routing between the Winchester area and points south (Warrenton, Fredericksburg, and the Rt. 95 southerly corridor). VDOT conducted this study, in part, due to the high percentage of trucks that use the road. Rt.17 averages 16,000-19,000 vehicle trips per day (for all vehicles) and of this 25% to 30% aro trucks. This is an extraordinary high percentage of trucks. Most primary roads average 5% to 10%. Route 22/231 ranges from 1% to 3% with a daily vehicle trip rate of 2,000 to 8,000 (for all vehicles). VDOT recommended a series of mprovements to reduce the impact of trucks on Rt. 17 (Attachment B). Staff is working with the local Residency Office to determine if any of these recommendations from th_~e. Route 17 study are applicable to Route 22/231 and expect to report back to the Board at their October day meeting. ~ Letters to Trucking Companies: Letters were mailed in March 2002 to several trucking companies requesting them to voluntarily limit the use of this road for trucking. The letter was signed by the Board Chair and included a map identifying potential alternate routes for their benefits. Staff has not received any responses from the trucking companies contacted. Periodic Selective Speed Enforcement: The County Police Department conducted a selective enforcement on Route 231, on June 19, 2002 in an attempt to monitor traffic conditions and investigate citizen complaints and concerns on this roadway. Their enforcement began at around 9:00 a.m. and concluded at 2:30 p.m. The goal was to enforce the speed limit and stop and measure all tractor-trailers that appeared to be over the restricted length posted by VDOT for this roadway. The County Police used two marked traffic unit vehicles, allowing greater coverage on the roadway, and used radar to monitor vehicle speeds'on this roadway. The results of their selective enforcement assignment on Gordonsville Road were: 07-26-02P02:55 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Status of Through Truck Restriction on Route 22 and Route 231 August 7, 2002 Page 2 · TotaISummons: 11 · Posted Speed Limit: 55 MPH -Highest Speed: 76 MPH · Speeding Summons: 8 · Other Violations: 3 (1 failure to wear seatbelt, 1 expired inspection, 1 failure to obey highway sign) · Over Size Trucks: 1 (also listed above in "other violations") · Area Residents summonsed: 1 · Non- residents summonsed: 10 (out of area residents, using roadway to go other places in the state) The County Police observed 5 oversized trucks using the roadway, but were unable to stop the violators because officers were summonsing other violators. After summonsing the first over sized truck, there were no more tractor-trailers that were over sized seen on Gordonsville Road, possibly because they were warned by other d rivers of the police presence. In addition to this enforcement:effort, the County Police Department conducted a joint checking detail with the Virginia State Police and the Division of Motor Vehicles on Route 22 on June 25, 2002. The results of the joint operation were: · 4 summons for traveling on restricted highway · 2 summons for speeding · 1 suspended operator's license The Police Department believes that speed and truck size enforcement can curtail these violations along this Route and will continue to periodically target the road for enforcement. Speed Reduction: VDOT researched this request and does not believe that a reduction in the posted speed is reasonable or appropriate at this time (Attachment C). Truck Restriction Requests- Orange County and Town of Gordonsville Orange County: The Orange County Planning Commission held a public hearing to restrict trucks on Route 231 between Somerset and the Town of Gordonsville. They unanimously recommended forwarding the request to the Orange County Board of Supervisors for discuss ion. The Orange County Board of Supervisors requested staff to work with VDOT on signage that would warn truckers that Route 231 between Somerset and the Town of Gordonsville is narrow and curvy. At their July meeting, VDOT informed the Orange Board of Supervisors that they could not restrict trucks on Rt. 231 and that it would take an Act of the General Assembly to do so. VDOT further informed the Orange County Board of Supervisors that they would consider signage along the road, but such signage would require a public hearing and a Board resolution before it could be provided. Staff will continue to monitor this situation. Gordonsville: The Clerk for the Board received a request from Mr. Hubert Allen, Town Administrator, Town of Gordonsville requesting Albemarle County support their efforts to restrict through trucks in downtown Gordonsville. The altemate route being proposed by Gordonsville includes Route 231 and 860 in Albemarle County. Mr. Allen requested discussion of the Town of Gordonsville proposal with the Albemarle County Board of Su pervisors at their August meeting. The Town of Gordonsville has been trying to address increasing truck traffic for many years. They successfully restricted through trucks on Main Street. High Street in Gordonsville is currently the alternate route. The Town of Gordonsville has been supportive of a bypass around Gordonsville, but this is not likely to be constructed within the next 10-15 years. The proposed Wal-Mart Center near Zion Crossroads will generate 1000-1200 truck trips a day. Many of these trucks will pass through GordonsVille, which has been revitalized in recent years with new businesses and other activity. The Town of Gordonsville has approached the Counties of Louisa and Albemarle to request support for their efforts to restrict through trucks in downtown Gordonsville. This restriction would impact Albemarle County by requiring that trucks use Route 860, which was upgraded to handle truck traffic for Klockner Pentaplast, and Route 231 north of Route 860. This is a distance of approximately .28 miles on Klockner Road (Rt. 860) and .60 miles on Gordonsville Road (Rt. 231). Gordonsville proposes an alternate route of Rt. 15/33 to Rt. 860 north to Rt. 231 north to the Town of Gordonsville (See Attachment D). AG ENDA TITLE: Status of Through Truck Restriction on Route 22 and Route 231 August 7, 2002 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff will continue to work with the Police Department for periodic selective speed enforcement and work with VDOT to determine if additional signage would be appropriate and continue evaluating recommendations from Route 17 Study with VDOT. In considering the Town of Gordonsville's request, staff would like to bring to the Board's attention that Albemarle has been requesting VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route 22/231 for many years. Althc~ugh only for a short distance, the County's support of this restriction would be counter to previous requests from the Board of Supervisors. Route 860 is capable of handling truck traffic. Route 231 is not capable of handling a high volume of heavy truck traffic. Attachments A. A. March 6, 2002 Executive Summary B. B. Route 17 Study Recommendations C. C. VDOT Speed Reduction Analysis D. D. Gordonsville proposed alternate route 02.112 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Status of Through Truck Restriction on Route 22 and Route 231 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on truck traffic issues on Route 22/231 and Origin and Destination Study Request STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: March 6, 2002 ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 4, 2001, staff presented information to the Board of Supervisors on the Route 22/231 Through Truck Restriction (Attachment A). The County has been working with VDOT for the past several years in an effort to address truck traffic on Route 22/231. The citizens along the Rt. 22/231 originally requested to restrict through trucks and have been actively working with staff for a successful resolution. DISCUSSION: On April 4, 2001, the Board of Supervisors formally requested VDOT to conduct a thorough Origin-Destination study of truck traffic along the route. VDOT responded to the County's request for an Origin-Destination with a statewide Origin-Destination study conducted in 1999. A copy of this report and supporting information is available from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Staff does not find this report acceptable because it did not include a 24-hour truck observation and does not contain sufficient data to determine whether trucks are using Rt. 22 Or Rt. 231~ The study conducted by VDOT and forwarded to the County was general and not specific to the 22/231 Corridor. Staff believes a thorough Origin-Destination Stu~ly by VDOT is needed to consider restricting through trucks on Routes 22/231. Staff was 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 (Rt. 15/33) and 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 KI0ckner Road, (Route 860) and back to Route 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 22/231 Corridor. In the interim, staff has identified several immediate steps that could improve the safety for all vehicles that travel along Route 22/231. These steps include: periodic selective speed enforcement by Albemarle County Police Department, letters to trucking companies signed by the Board of Supervisors Chair requesting them to voluntary restrict the use of Route 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 (Rt. 743). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors send letters to trucking companies, request that VDOT reduce the speed limit, request that VDOT conduct a thorough O-D study, and selective periodic speed enforcement by Albemarle County Police Department. 02.023 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Truck Restriction on Rt.22/231 SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review of VDOT information and truck restriction and staff's recommendation STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker,Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: April 4, 2001 ACTION: X CONS ENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The County has been working with VDOT and the residents along the Route 22/2,31 corridor for many. years to improve the safety for all vehicles. VDOT has compiled a "Briefin.q- Throu,qh Tractor Trailer Traffic Issues..': (Attachment A). In this short bdefing, VDOT offers an historical account of all past actions taken by VDOT, business along the corridor, and action taken by local governments to improve the safety of trucks traveling along the corridor. DISCUSSION: In an effort to address continued community pressure to restrict tractor-trailers on Routes 22/231, VDOT offered three Alternate routes in the Briefinq. Alternate Route A Alternate Route B Alternate Route C Route 250 From: Route 22 (Shadwetl) To: Route 29 (Charlottesville) City of Charlottesville/Albemarle Co. Length 6.73 Route 29 From: RoUte 250 (Charlottesville) To: Route 33 (Ruckersville) Albemarle/Greene County Length: 14.09 Route 33 From: Route 29 (Ruckersville) To: Town of Gordonsville WCL Albemarle/Orange County Length: 12.41 Total Length Alternate A: 33.23 miles Route 250 (or 1-64) From: Route 22 (Shadwell) To: Route 15 Albemarle/Fluvanna/Louisa Co. Length: 10.40 Route 15 From: Route 250 To: Town of Gordonsville SCL Fluvanna/Louisa/Orange County Length: 11.45 Route 20 From: Route 250 To: Route 33 Albemarle/Orange County Length: 15.07 Route 33 From: Route 20 To: Town of Gordonsville WCL Orange County Length: 5.60 Total Len,qth Alternate B: 21.85 miles Total Lenqth Alternate C: 20.67 miles Total Length of Route 221231 Corridor: 14.89 It is staff's position that VDOT's alternate routes do not acknowledge that much of the truck traffic on Routes 22/231 does not seem to originate in the Gordonsville area. Staff believes that many of the trucks originate from the northern Virginia area and out of state. The 22/231 corridor seems to serve as a short cut between several state STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act) routes - see Attachment B. AGENDA TITLE: Truck Restriction on Rt.22/231 April 4, 2001 Page 2 Because there is no comprehensive origin-destination study, it is difficult to map an alternate route more indicative of the through truck traffic movements occurring. A thorough origin-destination study is necessary before the County can offer a recommendation to VDOT on an alternate route. The County has also requested information from VDOT on the possible implications of transferring a primary road to the secondary system (Attachment C) to determine if it would improve the chances of getting an approval for a truck restriction. VDOT has ultimate approval for restrictions on primary and secondary roads. VDOT responded to the County's request for information (Attachment D) by indicating that the County would have to consider that, "the costs for improvements to, and maintenance of, these roads would have to come from the County's Secondary Road allocations, rather than the Culpeper District-wide allocations for Primaries. This could have direct impact on improvement and maintenance needs for other Secondary Routes within the County." Again, the County has not requested a transfer from VDOT, but it is an option. There are several steps that staff can take to improve truck safety on Rt. 22/231 while VDOT is considering conducting an origin-destination study. These include speed enforcement and advisory signs along the corridor. The advisory signs would be similar to those the County is requesting on Earlysville Road. The signs would indicate that Rt. 22/231 is not recommended as a route for large trucks. RECOMMNEDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors request VDOT to conddct an origin-destination study of trucks using the Route 22/231 corridor. Based on this study, staff will offer an altemate truck route for the corridor to VDOT. In the meantime, the Board' may want to consider more speed enforcement and advisory signs on Routes 22/231. 01.063 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation Culpeper District Traffic Engineering/Operations Program ATTACHMENT B Briefin,q - Safety/Operational Issues Throu,qh Truck Traffic Location: Route 17 Corridor From: Interstate Route 1-66 To: Route 50 Fauquier County Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation CuLpeper District Traffic Engineering/Operations Program Re: Safety/Operational Issues Route 17 Corddor From: Interstate Route 1-66 To: Route 50 Faaquier County Backcjround The issues regarding the two lane section of Route 17 through Delaplane focus on the historically high track traffic. This roadway appears to have developed as a mare muting between the Winchester area and points south from Warrenton to Fredericksburg as well as the Route 95 southerly corridor. Although alternate muting is available. truck traffic appears to take Route 17 for various reasons inclusive of, but not exclusively: A. Shortest distance by approximately 8 miles of the next shortest route B. Lack of Permanent Track Enforcement Stations C. Neady Uninterrupted Traffic Flow Over the past several years, the percentage of trucks using this corridor appears to be increasing. Perspectively, the Normal truck percentage on a Primary mute in Virginia has ranged from 5% to !0%. Historically, [his corridor has experienced'track percentages in the 18% - 22% range. Within the past two years, that range has increased to 25% to 30%. The constant encounter of the larger more intimidating vehicles coupled with the noise created by the constant acceleration, up and deceleration down Paris Mountain has generated the concern of the surrounding communities. Vehicular speeds have also been of concern, High vehicular speeds in conjunction with the higher percentage of larger/heavier vehicles, if involved in a collision, will increase the relative severity of the incident. As the various communities attempt to cope with the evolution of the traffic character, increasing safety concerns have prompted demands for a reduction in or elimination of the truck volumes traveling this corridor. Past SafetyIO0erational MitiRation As the Deoartment was addressing the vadous safety/operational issues, past studies have recommended the following mitigative measures with the respective status: 1. Exclusive Turn Lanes at Various Intersections (Proposed 1994): Location Status A. Route 17 @ Route 713 Funded Under 98/99 6YP Primary PIN 0017.030.112.PE101.C501 B. Route 17 @ Route 55 Funded Under98/996YPPrimaryPIN0017.030,112.PE101.CS01 C. Route 17 @ Route 712 Unfunded D. Route 17 @ Route 623(S) Unfunded E. Route 17 @ Route 831 Unfunded F. Route 17 ~ Route 623(N) Unfunded G. Route 17 @ Route 832 Unfunded H. Route 17 @ Route 724 Funded Under 99/00 6YP Safety Incentive PIN 0017.030.113.C501 I. Route 17 @ Route 688 Unfunded J. Route 17 @ Route 710(S) Unfunded K. Route 17 @ Route 710(N) Unfunded Widen/Pave Existing Shoulders (Proposed 1994) Install Raised Snowplowable Pavement Markers (Proposed 1994) Completed -1997 Completed -1997 4. Enhanced Safety Signing Completed -1995 (Proposed 1994) 5. Voluntary Truck Re-routing Proposed/Discussed 1994 The Virginia Trucker's Association was contacted to initiate dialogue with the industry. Such was intended to ensure industry was aware of the local concerns and determine whether other routes could be established to reduce the percentage of trucks down towards a more average 5% - 10% of the total traffic. Although. at the time it appeared that such efforts were successful, any voluntary re-reuting appears to have been temporary given the recent spike in the truck traffic percentages currently traveling on the cordd0r. 6. Permanent Truck Weigh Station Programmed in Six Year Plan Needs Additional Funding The Department in conjunction with State Police have proposed a permanent truck weigh station On the Route 15/17/29 Bypass near Warrenton (PIN 0029.030.113.PE101 .C501 ) Some preliminary design work has been completed. 7. Speed Study (1999/2000) A speed study was conducted throughout the corridor. Given the data compilation and nature of the roadway, A corridor-wide speed zone was not recommended as operating speeds (85~" Percentile) ranged from 53 rnph to 63 mph. The only area which were determined to be appropriate for a reduced speed was through the hamlet of Detaptane where the following speed zone was established: Route 17 From: 0.24 mi. S of Route 712 To: 0.05 mi. N. of Route 831 Delaptane Area Fauquier County Established October 1999 Speed studies since October 1999 have indicated operating speeds ranging between 56 mph and 65 mph. Current/Future Safety/Operational Mitiqation 1. Truck Enforcement Efforts As the Department considers the local concerns, several discussions have been held to determine the mos[ effective manner to address the concerns with the least impact on the roadway network and industry. The Department's Truck Weight Enforcement Program met with District Administration and the Warrenton Residency to discuss the current situation. As a result of such meeting, the District/Residency and Truck Weight Enforcement proposed several measures to increase the capability and ultimate effectiveness of the weigh program: A. Additional Mobile Weight Enforcement Units B. Additional Portable Axle Load Weighing Units C. Construct Two Additional Mobile Weight Sites Scope: Widen/Extend Right Turn Lanes 16 ft. wide/600 If length Full Depth Mainline 1.) Southbound Route 17 @ Route 724 2.) Northbound Route 17 @ Route 710 Since that meeting, it has been determined that the Northbound Route 7'10 site would be redundant with another currently established site on Westbound Route 50/Northbound Route 17 at a ~Ull-off just west of the Shenandoah River in Clarke County. An on-site meeting was scheduled for 04.17.2000 between the Department's upper management and local congressional and general assembly representatives. Such meeting was concurrent with a concentrated weight enforcement effort at strategic locations along the general trucking routes: A. Route 50 West of Shenendoah River Clarke Count~ Route 17 @ Route 723 Delaplane Area Fauquier County Westbound Interstate Route 1-66 Vacant Rest Area Fauquier County The intent of the meeting was to capture the extent of ~he tm(i( traffic traveling the vadous corridors involved and to demonstrate the vadous methods of truck weight enforcement efforts that the state has at it's disposal.- At the same time, the limitations would be emphasized with emphasis on current ancl future needs in the program. These efforts, in addition to moving forward with the permanent truck weigh station proposed for the Route 15/17/29 Bypass around Warrenton (noted previously), are intended to establish more frequent weight enforcement to improve the safety of the truc~s utilizing this corridor. Note: Over the 3-day pedod of concentrated enforcement (04.17 - 04.19), a total of 327 trucks were inspected resulting in 34 weight violation citations and 34 other violation dtations. 2. Miscellaneous Measures Concurrently with the concentrated mobile truck weight enforcement efforts, conducted on 04.17.2000 - 04.19.2000, a meeting between the community representatives and Congressman Wolf/the Commissioner/District Administration/Warrenton Residency was held to discuss options for further mitigation of the truck traffic. Another meeting has been scheduled at which the following will be discussed further: A. Signing to Address Jacobs Retardation System (Jake Brake) Use As the heavy trucks descend Pads Mountain on Eastbound Route 501Southbound Route 17, the frequent use of Jacobs Retardation Systems (Jake Brakes) or other similar systems generates noise levels which have been a cause for concern expressed by the community of Pads. These braking systems operate by pneumatically pumping exhaust gases back into the, engine's cylinders creating a back-pressure which slows the pistons. The general result is a loud vibratory noise which resounds throughout the immediate area. The community requested signs prohibiting the use of the jake brake systems in an effort to mitigate the noise concerns. Past requests for similar signs across Virginia have been deterred due to the reluctance of the Department in erecting any regulatory signs which prohibits the use of legal safety equipment on trucks. Such was based upon the potential scenado of a truck accident involving the ddver's failure to stop in time. The subsequentddver's defense would most likely be based on the Department's prohibition of the use of the totally legal braking system and could open the Department to liability concerns. The recent meeting generated a proposed sign text: IATTENTION TRUCKERS Avoid Unnecessary Use Of Jake Brakes Noting the number of past.requests for joke brake prohibition, it may be beneficial to establish the application of this proposed sign text (or similar) as a test-site to determine its effectiveness as a potential mitigation for other areas of concern across the Commonwealth. At the next meeting with community representation, the Department could propose the test-site concept whereby pre/post implementation noise studies could be conducted by the Department's Environmental Management Division to determine what beneficial/adverse effects the signs may have had on the use of the jake brake systems. - Concurrently, the Virginia Truckers Association should become involved in supporting any voluntary safe reduction in the use of the braking system. Another sign which has also been proposed whose intent is to address the nome concems was: Approaching Historic Paris Please Drive Gently There appears to have been some commitment to allow/erect signs with similar text on the Route 50 approaches and the Route 17 approach to the Pads and Pads Valley area. This signing is similar as the intent of the now defunct Gateway Program which has been superceded by the more recent Re~utatJon for Landscape Recognition and Identification Si,qns & Structures Proqrem developed by the Environmental Management Division (the "Welcome to "signs for localities were allowed by permit under the latter program). At the meeting on 04.17.2000, the Department committed to working with the area citizens to erect signing which would give thetwo corridors (Route 50 and Route 17) an identity, as indicated in the Commissioner's post meeting electronic mail transmittal - Pads Valley/Mosby Hedtage Area,' Sky Meadows Corridor/etc. At the scheduled meeting in eady May, the District/Residency will propose that the area communities first determine what identity they prefer and then apply for a permit to install signs similar as noted above under the new program. B. Safety Improvements The noted meeting on 04.17.200,0 discussed the potential for safety improvements along the Route 17 corridor through Delaplane. As indicated in past safety/operational studies, the Disthct is attempting to secure funding for construction of exclusive turn lanes at the various intersections throughout the corridor. The Commissioner's Office has indicated that the district should prioritize such improvements to demonstrate a work plan to implement this mitigation. Past efforts to prioritize the proposed improvements were based unon the accident rate being expenencad ~t the respective intersections. Of the turn lane proposals already programmed. the District/Residency discussed pdor pdodtizations and c~etermined that the Primary/Primary intersection would take precedent. With its close proximity to the Route 713 intersection, it was decided to combine the two into one joint project. The Route 17 @ Route 724 intersection was prioritized next based upon the accident rate at the time of the discussions. The following is a listing by overall accident rate priority of those unfunded locations based upon the latest 5-year timepenod of accident data: Right/Left-Turn Lane Construction Pdoritv Location Status Daitv Enterinq Volume Accidents/Rate 1 Route 17 @ Route 55 PtN 0017.030.112.PE101.C501 {LTL) 12337DEV 10/0.47Acc/MEV 2 Route 17 @ Route 713 PiN 0017.030.112.PEI01.C501 (LTL) 12950 DEV 11 / 0.44 Acc/MEV 3 Route 17 @ Route 724 PIN 0017.030.113.C501 (LTL) 12454 DEV 06/0.25 Acc/MEV 4 Route 17 @ Route 701 Unfunded 7711 OEV 10/0.67 Acc/MEV 5 Route 17 (~ Route 712 Unfunded 12270 DEV 05/0.22Acc/MEV 6 Route 17 @ Route 710(N) Unfunded 7692 DEV 03 / 0.20ACC.'MEV 7 Route 17 @ Route 623(S) - Unfunded 12395 DEV 03 / 0.13 Acc/MEV 8 Route 17 @ Route 710(S) Unfunded 9997 OEV 0210.10Acc/MEV 9 Route 17 @ Route 688 Unfunded 12100 DEV 0110.05 Acc./MEV 10 Route 17 @ Route 623(N) Unfunded 12363 DEV 01 / 0.04 Acc/MEV 11 Route 17 @ Route 831 Unfunded 12047 DEV 00/0.00Acc/MEV 12 Route 17 @ Route 832 Unfunded 12010 DEV 00/0.00Acc/MEV Note: Please note Priodty 4 (Route 17 @ Route 701) which is the highest accident rate intersection on the corridor. The pdodty of this location should take into consideration the recent efforts which deterred cut-through traffic from NB Route 17 to WB Route 50 and vice-versa. Although the accident rate has been elevated in the past several years, the frequency of conflicts has been reduced by the cut-through mitigation. Post-Implementation accident data should be examined if objective pdodtization is to be accomplished on the corridor. As the cut-through mitigation occurred relatively recently whereby post-implementation data is insufficient, the pdodty assigned, based pdmadly on pre-implementation data will be retained until such time as sufficient post-implementation data is available. C. Speed Limit Reduction The Commissioner's Office has committed to reviewing the corridor for a reduced speed limilL Although some precedents have been established on certain corridors in the state, preliminary indications are such that reducing the speed limit will be difficult to justify under standard parameters. At the meeting, the Department will explain the process of consideration of a speed zone including the legal parameters and national guidelines that.are followed. Alter such time, we will conduct another corridor-wide speed study in conjunction with lhe increased truck weight enforcement and make a final determination on the appropriate speed limit. D. : Alternate Destination Signing The 04.17.2000 meeting discussed the potential for alternate destination signing which would eliminate "Winchester" as a destination for NB Route 17 and re-direct traffic on WB i-66 to NB Route 522. Similar re-directing would occur in the Southbound direction for Warrenton/Fredericksburg bound traffic which would be directed to use SB Route 522 to EB 1-66 to SB Route 17. Any revision of the destination signing will require careful consideration such that the alternate routing will not negatively impact another corridor. This concept will be discussed in more detail at the upcoming meeting. E. Truck Weight Enforcement Schedule The community representation at the meeting will be requesting a tentative schedule of weight enforcement activities. Such will be provided by our Weight Enforcement Division (Ken Jennings) and State Police. F. Highway Designation As indicated in the Backqround, the basis of the concerns being expressed by area residents revolves around the amount of trucks traveling through the Pads/Oelaplane area along the Route 17 corridor. In the past, the Department was of the understanding that this corridor is classified as a Federal-Aid Primary facility which is included in the National Network of Truck Route Designations established as a result of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982. Historically, in 1982. the Surface Transportation Assistance Act was legislated which allowed STAA defined vehicles on all Interstate System Facilities and Federal Aid Primary (FAP) roads. At the time. the Virginia Code had conflicting statutes which prohibited the STAA defined vehicles from traveling within the Commonwealth. In order to conform to the federal regulations, some amendments to the Code were necessary (Refer to Appendix - Briefing - ST/LA Procedures ant Processes). Such amendments allowed the STM defined vehicles on the Virginia Access System upon approval from the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Recent indications from the FHWA seem to rule that this section of roadway (along with numerous other corridor-miles) was never designated into the National Network for Truck Routing and the Commonwealth Transportation Board has authoritative powers over the designation/deletion of this route from the STAA network within the Commonwealth of Virginia. In recent discussions, the FHWA recommended that their agency meet with VDOT to. review the overall Virginia Access System with those roadways within the FHWA National Network to determine those corridors within the Virginia Access System which were intended to be on the National Network and attempt to make the two agencies' records coincide. The Central Office Traffic Engineering Division was requested to initiate the dialogue between the two agencies. Once this exercise has been completed, a final determination on the classification of this section of Route 17 can be properly defined. In the event that the FHWA and VDOT determine that Route 17 between Interstate Route 1-86 and Route 50 should remain off of the National Network. VDOT will need to work with the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the trucking industry to determine whether this corridor should be retain its designation on the Virginia STAA network. Atthougn the community representatives have stated often that they are seeking a through truck restriction on this section of roadway, there have been indications on several occasions that their main intent is not to restrict all trucks but to reduce the truck percentage to a more reasonable level. One option in achieving this would be to remove the roadway from the Virginia STM Networl( which will allow standard trucks to use the corridor. Only those trucks defined within the STAA of 1982 would be required to re-route elsewhere - double trailer combinations with trailer lengths no longer than 28 ¼ ft., 48 foot trailer lengths with no total length restriction, and trailers 102" in width. It appears that removal of a carddor from the STAA designation can only occur where there is a documented safety considerations. Prior to the Commonwealth Transportation Board's consideration of any de-designation action, a determination of such safety considerations as they relate to this section of Route 17 will need to be made. Enclosed in the Appendix of ihis bdefing is an Accident Data Summary which includes information on the frequency of collisions involving trucks as well as those where it appears that the truck driver was at fault, n the various policies and legislation regarding truck route de-designation, the main consideration was the determination of documented safety concerns created by the trucks. At some point in this process, a definition of "documented safety concerns" needs to be established in order to. base any future decisions on an objective foundation. Past considerations of this concept informally defined safety concern as an accident rate (truck driver at fault) in excess of the percentage of trucks to the total vehicular traffic volume; a concept which may not be acceptable to all entities involved. Other Options Other options/measures which are currently under consideration include: A. Dialogue with Trucking Industry Past efforts in addressing trucking concerns across the Commonwealth have involved the Virginia Truckers Association. mainly with their representative Mr. Dale Bennett. It is the Department's intention to once agatn open dialogue with Mr. Bennett to readdress the recurring concerns on this particular corridor. Those concerns which could be addressed by the truck drivers themselves: 1.) 2.) 3.) Vehicular Speeds / Aggressive Behavior Noise Generated By The Use Of Jacobs Retardation Systems Potential for Voluntary Re-Routing B. Creative Signing 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) "Headlights On For Safety" "Passing Zone" / "No Passing Zone" Vertical Post Oeiineation @ 0.10 mile increments w/ Milepost NYSDOT Speed Limit Posting Standard for 55 mDn Emphasis C. Scenic Byway Designation for Pads Valley D. Histodc Pads Valley Signing E. John Mosl3y Hedtage Area Signing F. Creative Pavement Markings 3.) Wider Centedines/Edgelines Hatching Shoulders @ Higher Accident Rate Intersections (Reference Proposed Route 29 @ Route 888; Culpeper County Concept) Inclusion into the in-Pavement Signing Pilot Program (Reference Research Council Proposal - Steve Brich) A. Speed Limit Pavement Message B. Railroad Crossing Enhanced Warning C. Enhanced Intersection Markings Other mitigation may be generated as the Department monitors the effectiveness of some of the aforementioned measures. Monitoring Pro.qresslAddressin,q Future Concerns As the Department proceeds with the efforts outlined for the pdor noted scheduled meeting with the community representatives, it appears that the Commissioner's Office prefers that an Agency/Citizen's Advisory Group effort be undertaken in order to keep an open line of communication. The commencement of this effort includes Distdct Administration as the lead, At some point, it may be beneficial to asstgn this task to the Fauquier County Transportation Committee which has been activety addressing similar issues in Fauquier County since 1988. The committee is comprised of representatives from: Fauquier County Board of Supervisors (Committee Chair) Virginia Department of Transportation Appointed Representatives From Each Magisterial Disthct: Cedar Run Magisterial District Center Magisterial District Lee Magisterial District Marshall Magisterial District VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CULPEPER DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEER/NG SECTION ATTACHMENT C TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ms. Teresa H. Butler Steve Black District Traffic Engineer Speed Limit Reduction Route 22/231 Albemarle County This is in response to your e-mail of March 14, 2002 regarding a request from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for a speed limit reduction on Route 22/23 I. Route 22 from Route 250 to Route 231 intersection is now posted for 50 mph. Route 231 is posted for 55 mph from the Route 22 intersection to the Louisa County line. The existing 50 mph reduced speed was established approximately 20 years ago and is 5.39 miles long. The 55 mph limit is 8.11 miles in length. WSB In looking back at previous activity on. this corridor, we have done several major bmffic safety and accident reviews over the last 7 years mostly related to through truck traffic. I have attached speed data analysis results from studies done at various locations alon.gmRoute 22 and Route 231 in 1996 and in 1998. The results indicate that the operating speed (8~ percentile speed) °fthe majority of motorists is 55 mph or higher, both in the section posted for 50 mph and in the section posted for 55 mph. This corridor is very well signed with curve warning signs and other devices to highlight specific areas where reduced speed is needed for safe travel. Nationwide studi6s conducted over several decades indicate that a reduction in the posted speed would have little impact on the speed that the majority of vehicles are traveling. Most drivers tend to regulate their speed according to their perception of traffic, road and weather conditions. In addition, the studies indicate that speed limits should be set according to the speed driven bY the majority of drivers, which has been shown to be the speed where accident risk is lowest. In January of 2000, the former Traffic Engineer in Culpeper District updated the accident history, traffic and truck volumes on these routes. He found the data did not indicate that the accident rate or amount of traffic/truck traffic was significantly higher than one would normal~ e_x. pect. I have trheaV~;~V;udc~t.hese ~o.u, tes rec~en, tly o._~. sev~r~..p~..c_~ig~s~:~day. _and,~ght.c,.onditi~ns. 17~1~ not believ~ nons m me postea speed are reasonable 'of'~qgriat~'ai thiS"~'}-~ ,.~:~.,...~.:.~,..~ .~-.z If [ can provide any further information or clarification on this matter, please let me know. District Traffic Engineer Attachments ALBEMARLE COUNTY ROUTRS 22/231 SPEED DATA ANALYSIS 6/30/98 .... 7/1/98 St~. "8 {Westbound) 85THZlJe - 54.c~4 mph 50'HZ,lc - 4q.05 r~ph ~~ Sra. "7 (E~stbound) 85THZ~Ie - 57.43 mph 5~THZ~Ie - 52.17 mph ~ver~ge Speed - 51.56 mph Ste. ~6 {Westbound) 85THZiIe - 56.q8 mph 50THZ, ie - 52.3q mph Averege Speed - 50.35 mph \ Sra. '2 (Southbound) 85THZ%Ie - 54.11 mph 50THZlle - 4q.30 mph Average Speed- 4q.35 mp £ Sta. "5 (Eastbound) 85THZ~le - 62.15 mph 5D[HZ~Ie - 56.42 raph Avera9e Speed - 55.83 mph Sra. #1 {Northbound) 85IHZ~le - 63.2q mph 50[HZ~le - 57,.~O mph Average Speed - 57.07 mph Sta. "4 (Westbound) 85THZ~le - 54.1l mph / 50THZ,le - 4q.7{ mph / Average Speed - 4q, 7l mph / / / \, Sta."3 (Eastbound) 85THZIIe - 5q.31 mph 50]-HZtle - 53.G4 mph Average Speed - 53.86 mph Locations of Sp_eed Hon,torl_n_q Stations · Stations "l & "2 2.55 Hi. North o£ Rte. 615 ~/~Stot~ons #3 & 3435 Ft. East, or Rte. 740 '~1~Statlons "5 & 2715 Ft. East oF Rte. 616 ~Stet%ons "7 & 325~ Ft. west oF Rte. 744 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ROUTES 22/231 SPEED DATA ANALYSIS 3/4/96...3/5/96 STA '12 {Westbound) 85THZtiIe Speed - 62.23 mph 50THZt~le Speed - 56.43 mph Average Speed - 55.92 mph ~ STA #4 (Southbound) 85THZtlle Speed - 57.48 mph ~ 50THZtiIe Speed - 52.21 mph ~ Average Speed - 50.28 mph '~'~ /~// Clsmonl sT~ a2 (Northbound) 85THZtlle Speed - 80.41 mph 50/HZttle Speed - 67.30 mph Average Speed - 68.67 mph /STA #8 (Westbound) 85THZtlle Speed - 66.94 mph 50THZttle Speed - 59.66 mph Average Speed - 59.82 mph STA #6 {Eostbound) 85THZtlIe Speed - 58.55 mph 50THZtIIe Speed - 53.27 mph Average Speed - 53,03 mph STA ' 18 {Westbound) 85THZtile Speed - 53.67 mph 50THZt~Ie Speed - 48.6q mph Rverege Speed - 48.68 mph \ \ \ STA #14 (Eestboundl 85THZtde Speed - 68.07 mph 50TH%tde Speed - 61.q6 .mph Average Speed - 61.67 mph STA "10 (Eastbound) 85THZtJle Speed - 63.69 mph 50THZtiIa Speed - 57.68 mph Average Speed - 57.47 mph Locations of Sp. eed Homtort9q Stations · Stations '2 & #4: 2,24 H~, North r Rte. 615 ~ Stations "6 & 3485 Ft. East of Rte. ~ Stations ~ 13~ FI, East or Rte, 616 ~Stattons "14 & 325~ FI, Wast oF Rte, 744 6 6 2O 20 20 20 2O 20 2O 20 22 29 29 29 FROM 725 INT E INT ;RTE 600 .__W I NT 1422S MI S RTE 6OO - W INT 1150 N RTE 726 INT -SINT OUISA COUNTY LINE R BRDG TO RTE 29 53 20 INT 1-64 231 --' 22 INT 240 250 - E INT 24O I10 INT 240 310 INT 24O E 810 INT' 24O 240 - W INT 250 :ITE 731 25O 250 250 250 25O 250 25O 25O 729 INT INT INT INT 'INT INT TO RTE E INT 6OO - W INT 1422 S 250- N INT N RTE 726 INT RTE 231 INT 250 INT }VILLE COUNTY LINE 810 INT E RTE 810 INT {10 INT 10 INT 691 - W INT 616 INT INT E INT B37 INT 240- 24.25 31 7.43 R R S R S S R S R R S S R S R S S S R R R R R R R R S R S R R- S R S 5/10/76 6/3/91 2/27101 3,*29/OO 9/25/92 7118/89 5/24/71 3/6/97 3/6/97 7/6/81 7/6/81 9/22/99 6/2/76 3/8/01 ~V31/00 7/1/88 3/26/97 7/211~· 7/21~1 3/8/76 5/16/89 Butler, Teresa H. From: Sent: To: Subject:: Bryan, James Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:25 AM Butler, Teresa H. FW: March Board items Please see me about these items. ..... Original Message ..... From: JUandie9o Wade [mailto:JWADE@albemarle.or9~ Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 3:09 PM To: 'Jim Bryan, Cc: Juandiego Wade Subject: March Board items Hello Jim: This email is a follow up to our conversation this morning. Per Our discussion: 22/231 Truck Restriction: You wil~ review a speed reduction on Routes 22/231 with assistance for the Culpeper District office. You will obtain a copy or information on the Rt 17-Truck Study mentioned at ' the last BOS meeting. I will review the 1999 O-D study to determine what information it is lacking for our purpose to request a through truck restriction. Rt. 649/606 Intersection Traffic Signal: The Rt. 649 improvements will not be delayed due to State budget issues. Improvements will be destroyed in 1 ~ years when Rt 649 is reconstructed. ' Intersection does not meet all of the warrants for a signal. VDOT will continue to monitor and reconsider if conditions change. Please contact me if you have questions concerning this email Thank you very much. Juan ' ATTACHMENT D Gordonsville .0' ! TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CLOSE MAIN STREET IN TIlE TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE TO THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC Whereas, United States Rotue 15 and Virginia Route 33 comprise Main Street as they pass through the downtown district of the Town of Gordonsville; and, Whereas, the downtown district is an historic area of local shops, offices, businesses, churches, banks, government offices and residences with high pedestrian use and local traffic, that has been undergoing revitalization; and, Whereas, the presence of through truck traffic on Routes 15 and 33 poses a danger to persons crossing the street, getting in and out of parked cars, and turning into existing driveways, and the noise and fumes emitted by the trucks interfere with the ability of citizens to carry out their business and personal activities; and, Whereas, the presence of through truck traffic is incompatible with the Main Street area, interferes with the revitalization effort, and detracts from the historic character of Main Street; and, Whereas, efforts to discourage truck traffic by the designation of an optional alternate track route and by the posting and enforcement of lower speed limits have been ineffective, so that the severity of the problem has increased; and, Whereas, the Town and the Virginia Department of Transportation have conducted various studies concluding that truck traffic on Main Street poses a threat to the safety and well-being of the citizens of Gordonsville; and, Whereas, aRer proper notice, the Town Council and the Virginia Department of Transportation held a public hearing on December 113, 2001 and received comments from the public; and, Whereas, after consideration of the studies as well as comments from the public, the Town Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the Town of Gordonsville that Main Street should be closed to through truck traffic; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Gordonsville, Virginia, sitting in special session on 10 December 2001, that the Town Council hereby request that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation, take immediate action to close Main street in the Town of Gordonsville to the through passage in either direction of tracks and vehicles of 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or larger, except for local, emergency, and military vehicles, from the Gordonsvitle traffic circle on the north to the intersection of Marfinsburg Avenue and High Street on the south side of the historic district, so that through track traffic can be re-routed to High Street, the route selected by the Virginia Department of Transportation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council expects this to be a short term solution; with a plaimed relocation from High Street to Klockner Road within twelve months from date of this resolution and continues to support the planning and development of a bypass for Routes 15 and 33 around the Town of Gordonsville to meet the needs of both the citizens of the Town and the users of these routes, and requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation take all actions in their power to expedite this process. This resolution is effective as of 10 December 2001, and is adopted by recorded vote as follows: Peter Zahn aye Marilyn Steinke _aye Rebecca Lynch aye Robert Coiner __aye Carolyn Carpenter __aye Emily Winkey aye Ernest Duncan aye RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING c /7/o ? Date: _ .Agenda Item #: Clerk's Initials: CERTIFICATE I certify and attest that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Gordonsville, Virginia as set forth above on 10 December 2001 . Ethel Hutchinson Clerk/Treasurer ALBEMARLE ROUTE COUNTY ~VED AT BO$ MEETING ,#: '7-6 . NOTE: ALL SIGNS SHOWN ARE IN PLACE UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. eP.g DC, fA I I.. "A" N NOr Yo 6C, Ab~ ANAbY§I§ · CAVeD IN 2000 · 1999 ¢ 2002 §APCfY GfUOY · AOf~I99~ bOO J999 1200 2001 I000 'AO61P~Nf PARA: PKO~ 1997 fO 2002 - AOOIO~N~ 160' W~GY O~ UN~PAG§-~U~ fO §blOK ~OAO (W~Y/KAIN) · bOOAb U§~ (YRAPPl6 PAMIFIARIYY) · 61&NO ANO MA~KIN&6 APgOUAfb OPYION6 · PUbDI6 AWARCN¢SG ONbY · NSYAFb fKA¢¢IG §I~NAF · KCAbI~N EOAPWAY I~OUf¢ 705 - 5¢GI~¢I'^I~YG ~OAO .R0., ROLIfH 795' RECEIVED AT BC S MEETING I.¢N&fH= 3.0§ UIDH~ · - (,URRHNf Ap-r, 206 Agenda Item #: '~-~ ~ \,, I ." J / ~ AOOlfll~b 6ur K~,A FAV~. IN 9bAGH RURAb RUroflG ROAO (3R 5fANOAR05 ) AOf R~,OU I RHMHNf= < 750 AOf r, HOUIRHMHNf-' < ' PAVf,.MHNI' WIOfH~ 16.0' APl' Rf, OUII~MHNI'= <750 PAVCNIHNf WlOfH~ VAI~. ~HOUi,,Of, g WIOfH= 2.0' FAVHI,~C'N¥ WlOfH: 16.0' t-~440UbOHR WtOfM: VAR. OlI'6H WTOfH.' 4'.0' ~HOUL-OHR WlOfH: 2,0' OIfGH WlOfPi= VAR. OlTGH WIOI'H= 3.0' RIGHT OP WAY: MIN. 30' RI&Hr O~ WAY= MIN. 30' · A¢5~HCflGIHI~fORI~AL ~I&NIPIC, ANG¢ · NO-PI~AN UNFAVHO ~OAO Pl~OdCOf ·NON- O~.V¢LOFMHNI'/bOW PeN5 · OH-~ I &N C,R I 'Ct~.R I A NO1' · U^¥ ~:f, OUIE¢ bH55 R/W ·bOHAb ROAP/L, OGAL. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Duane and Joyce Smith -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: To consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide water service to Tax Map 32, Parcel 24H. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Biel AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENT AGEN DA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The applicant is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a 3.00 acre parcel located at 3503 Pritchett Lane (Route 785), approximately 1,200 feet north of Proffit Road (Attachment A - applicant's request, Attachment B - tax map). The property is located within the designated Rural Areas, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The applicant recently had a well driller perform an inspection of the existing well and is awaiting the results in a written assessment. The site is located east of Pritchett Lane, which forms a boundary for the Hollymead Development Area and the Jurisdictional Area, for water only, to the west (Attachment C). Approximately twelve years ago a water line was installed on the east side of Pritchett Lane. Apparently the line was to be installed on the west side of Pritchett Lane, however for unknown reasons, the line was instead located on the east side. In addition, the meter bOxes are also located on the east side of Pritchett Lane. The water line is located on the applicant's property without an easement being granted. The existing well is currently stressed. The applicant has informed staff that water flow is extremely Iow and can only use Water for approximately ten minutes before flow is completely lost. It will then take approximately three hours to regain minimal flow. DISCUSSION: The subject property is located in the Rural Area. Th e Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Rural Areas: "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)." "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: 1 ) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p.'125)." The applicant has recently had a well drill er inspect the existing well. To date, staff has not received a written report from the well driller. The applicant has informed staff that a copy of the forthcoming report would be forwarded to staff. It should be noted that an attempt to locate a new well site has not been made. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the applicant provide further information to be reviewed by staff regarding on-site options for providing adequate service to the site. In order to allow for a timely review of this request, given the applicant's current situation and th e unique circumstances concerning the placement of the water line, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for September 4~ to consider providing public water service to the site. 0~-26-0£A10:28 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Duane and Joyce Smith -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area August 7, 2002 Page 2 Attachments: A - Application B - Tax Map C - Jurisdictional Area D - Survey Plat 02.115 APPLICATION TO AMEND THE sERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ATTACHMENT A County of Alb~narl~ -- Department of Planning and CommRzlity Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 804 296-5823 Signature: ~ a - (}g~.~.~~/t Phone:, Address: S ~'('~ ~<~~ ~ CO-APPLICANT Name (or agent, if any): Signature: Address: Phone: JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: Water and Sewer tl~Water Only [] Water Only to Existing Structure(s) [] Limited Service (Describe in Justification below) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) ~ S 13.3 ~~z:l~ ~ ~--~~~~-/'U 6. Tax Map(s)/ParcelNumber(s): B~.- -r~ q ~t'tt ~J2~[):i~ 0P~jt. 6 660 00'O ~ q~ 19 .zm~/[ CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): [] Water and Sewer ~Water Only [] Water Only io Existing Stmctures [] Limited Service For Staff Use Only DATE SUBMITTED:~/?/~,_~¢ ~_ ~/';~_ DATE $130 FEE PAIDd .~~..~,~..../-- [OCAS ~ Inside or ~ Outside a Gro~h Area? ~ Adjacent to S~A? ~ Inside or ~ Outside a Wmer-Supply Watershed? ~ Adjacent to a Gro~h Area? Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide semite REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes [] No Date of Action ATTACHMENT B /; ,:, \ .,, ',, VISED: 8/10/83 , 8/11/98 ALBEMARLE COUNTY 4J ATTACHMENT C WHITE HALL RrVANNA DISTR~CTS SECTION Q ATTACHMENT D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY o ?-25-02 PO 4:20 RCvD AG EN DA TITLE: Phillip Hawkins -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide water service to Tax Map 78, Parcel 43A. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Biel AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a .53 acre parcel located at 2091 North Hill, approximately 600 feet east of Route 250 East and approximately 250 feet south of the Ramada Inn (Attachment A- applicant's request, Attachment B - location and tax map). The property is located within the designated Rural Areas, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The applicant has provided a well report prepared by C. R. Moore Well Drilling Company (Attachment D). The site is located to the south and adjacent to the Jurisdictional Area, for water only, that serves a small commercial area at the southeast portion of the 1-64/Rt. 250 East interchange, including the Ramada Inn (Attachment C). In December of 1985, the existing 75' well was drilled to a depth of 305' with no additional water being found. A pump was installed in this well to use water that was stored overnight. With the continuing dry weather, the well cannot support normal water usage. In January of 1986, a second well was drilled to a depth of 305' with no measurable flow. This second well has minimal overnight seepage and does not have enough flow to sustain a family or support a storage tank. DISCUSSION: The subject property is located in the Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Rural Areas: "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)." "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)." "Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p.125)?' The applicant has provided a well driller's report that supports the applicant's request for inclusion into the Jurisdictional Area for water only. This property, and surrounding residential properties, has a history of water problems. Four (4) properties to the north of this site are currently in the Jurisdictional Area (water only designation). Service to the site could be provided by a 16" water line that is installed on the east side of Route 250 East and runs to Glenmore. Also, the site could potentially be served by the fire protection line located in the back of the Ramada Inn. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the history of the site (and the immediate surrounding area) having water problems, the small acreage of the parcel, and the inability to locate water on the site, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing to consider providing public water service to the site. AGENDA TITLE: Phillip Hawkins -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area August 7, 2002 Page 2 Attachments: A - Application B - Location and Tax Map C - Jurisdictional Area D - Well Driller's Report 02.114 ATTACHMENT A APPLICATION TO AMEND THE SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS County of Albemarle - Department of Planning and Community Development 401 M¢Intir¢ Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 804 296-5823 CO-APPLICANT Name (or agent, if any): Signature: Address: Phone: JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: [] Water and Sewer [] Water Only to Existing Structure(s) [] PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) Tax Map(s)/Parcel Number(s): Water Only Limited Service (Describe in Justification below) CURaR~NT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): [] Water and Sewer [] Water Only [] -Water Only to Existing Structures [] Limited Service JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: /r ..... ///,'_ For Staff Use Only DATE SUBMITTED: PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate): [] Inside or [-]Outside a GrowthArea? [] [] Inside or [] Outside a Water-Supply Watershed? [] Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide service DATE $130 FEE PAID: Adjacent to SAJA? Adjacent to a Growth Area? REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes [] No Date of Action 2091 North Hill Charlottesville, Va. 22911 July 11, 2002 ALBEMARI.F. COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OFFICE BUII.DING CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA RE: Application for water service to Tax Map-78~ Parcel. 43A. Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to address the board. My property has.a history of water shortage, as.does the surrounding properties. The house was built in the 1940's on .53 acres, there are two (2) wells. The first well, after continuous, shortages, went- dry~ This-well- was drilled deeper without any water flow (g.p.m.). The extra depth was used as-a reservoir. A second well was drilled and was dry. Now the aquifer does not allow, enough, water, overnight, to fill-the well. I have had to replace the pump after pumping the well dry and burning up the pump. We are in an emergency situation. There.arethree adults-and one child in..residence. Temporarily there is enough water to flush the toilet and take very very short and interval showers in a.24 hour period, We are hesitant, to-draw, a tub full. of water tobath the child in. Also the water has taken on a reddish color and we are not drinking the water or using it for cooking. And used for laundry, the-water will rain the clothes. Drilling another well or tapping into a neighbor's well is not a solution. The aquifer can. not supply.the amount or quality of water neede& My. neighbor, Tax Map 78 Parcel 35, has two wells and both are dry and therefore is a A.C.S.A. customer. My property is across the driveway of the lurisdictional Area~ The A.C.S,~ water line-is atthe-end of my driveway. Therefore. I respectfully request that consideration be given for.my inclusion into the Jurisdictional Area for the purpose of water use only. Phillip E Hawkins. I\ ATTACHMENT B tiii ii ,%), ,,," ,,! :tEVlSED:8/11198, 3/14/01, 3127/01 ATTACHMENT C ALBEMARLE COUNTY 77 / ,.... ,..~,~ S COTTSVI LLE A N D .............. RIVANNA DISTRICTS 78 SECTION 223 8 RICHMOND ROAD ~HARLOTTESVILLE, VA C. R. Moore ATTACItMENTD Well Drilling Company, Inc. PHONE: 434-977-3818 22911-7999 FAX: 434-977-36i gontractor License g0034400 July 16, 2002 E-mail: wellh2o~cstone, net To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to address the water situation at 2091 North Hill, Charlottesville, Virginia. The property is located in Tax Map parcel 78-43A. There are two (2) wells on a half-acre lot and neither well has any measurable flow of water. The first well was drilled deeper from seventy-five (75) feet to a depth of three hundred five (305) feet on December 20, 1985. No water was found at that time. A pump was installed in the first well, using only the mount of water storage that had come in overnight. As a result of the dry weather, the amount of storage has decreased considerably. This well will no longer support a family with normal water usage, nor is there enough flow to support a storage tank. On January 3, 1986, a second well was drilled to a depth of three hundred five (305) feet, with no measurable flow. The second well has very little overnight seepage and does not have enough flow to sustain a household or to support a storage tank. The wells in the surrounding area are marginal and cannot support more than one household. Therefore, tying into a neighbor's water supply is not an option. There is no other place on the property to drill a well due to the size of the lot, the placement of the septic field and the location of the reserve septic field. Under those circumstances, I would suggest that if available, hooking up to County water would be the best option. Attached please fred the two (2) logs for the wells drilled on the property. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Lanny L. Moore President When you think of water, think C. R. Moore! Owner Address D/'~ROTHY CRENSHAW #1 Commonwealth of Virginia Uniform Water Well Completion Report Phone Location 1/4 MILE EAST OF RT. 250 AND 1/4 MiLE NORTH OF RT. 64 (SHERATON INN) DRILLED THIS WELL FROM 75' TO 305' General Information Ddlling Method A.R. Depth to Bedrock Static Water Level Well Disinfected (Y or N) Casing From + 1 To Size Matedal Weight Schedule Gravel Pack From N/A To N/A Grout From To Bore Hole Size Type Method Water Zones or Screened Intervals From To Mesh Size N/A Diam N/A From Well Data Date Completed 12/20/1985 Yield 0 Stabilized Water Level Disinfectant Used From To Size Materials Weight Schedule GPM From Bore Hole Size Type Method From Mesh Size To From To To Diam *Use Data* From Bore Hole Size Type Method Private Well: Domestic X Public Well: Community Agricultural Non Community Industrial Tax Map ID VDH Permit VWCB Permit VVVCB ID County Total Depth of Well 305 Length of Test Natural Flow Amount Used 78-43A From To Size Materials Weight Schedule To To From To Mesh Size Diam Monitoring ALBEMARLE *Abandonment Information* Bored or Dug Wells Casing Removed, Y or N If Y, Depth to which casing was removed: Depth and Type of Fill: Source of Fill: Bentonite Plugs: From To Method of permanently marking location: From To Wells other than Bored Wells Casing removed Y or N? If Y, Depth to which casing was removed If applicable, depth (s), and type of gravel/sand fill: Source of gravel or sand: Grouting: From To Depth Description of Formation or Sediment 75 - 305 GREENSTONE Remarks Name C.R. Moore Well Drilling Co., Inc. Address 2238 Richmond Road Charlottesville, Va. 22911 Phone co (804) 977-3818 I certify that the information contained here is true and that this well was installed and constructed in accordance with the permit and fudher that the well complies with all applicable state and lOcal regulations, ordinances and laws. Drillers Signature MIKE SANDY Date Representing C. R. Moore Well Drilling Co. Inc. Virginia Contractors License Number 003400 Commonwealth of Virginia Uniform Water Well Completion Report Owner DOROTHY CRENSHAW#2 Address Phone Location 300 FEET NORTH OF 250 AND 350 FEET WEST OF QUALITY INN RT. 250 Tax Map ID 78-43A VDH Permit VWCB Permit VWCB ID General Information Drilling Method A.R. Depth to Bedrock 66 Static Water Level Well Disinfected (Y or N) Casing From + 1 To 67 Size 6 1/4 Material PVC Weight Schedule Gravel Pack From N/A To N/A Grout From To Bore Hole Size Type Method Water Zones or Screened Intervals From To Mesh Size N/A Diam N/A From Private Well: Domestic X Public Well: Community Well Data Date Corn pleted 1/3/1986 Yield 0 Stabilized Water Level Disinfectant Used GPM From To Size Materials Weight Schedule To From Bore Hole Size Type Method From Mesh Size To Diam *Use Data* From Bore Hole Size Type Method Agricultural Non Community Industrial County ALBEMARLE Total Depth of Well 305 Length of Test Natural Flow Amount Used From To Size Materials Weight Schedule To To From To Mesh Size Diam Monitoring *Abandonment Information* Bored or Dug Wells Casing Removed, Y or N If Y, Depth to which casing was removed: Depth and Type of Fill: Source of Fill: Bentonite Plugs: From To Method of permanently marking location: From To Wells other than Bored Wells Casing removed Y or N? If Y, Depth to which casing was removed If applicable, depth (s), and type of gravel/sand fill: Source of gravel or sand: Grouting: From To *Drillers Lo.q* Depth 0 - 18 RED DIRT 18 - 66 BROWN DIRT 66 - 305 GREENSTONE Description of Formation or Sediment Remarks Name C.R. Moore Well Drilling Co., Inc. Address 2238 Richmond Road Charlottesville, Va. 22911 Phone co (804) 977-3818 certify that the information contained here is true and that this well was installed and constructed in accordance with the permit and further that the well complies with all applicable state and local regulations, ordinances and laws. Drillers Signature RONNIE ELLIOTT Date Representing C. R. Moore Well Drilling Co. Inc. Virginia Contractors License Number 003400 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGEN DA TITLE: Groundwater Work Program SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Staff recommendation for proceeding with groundwater program development STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Hirschman AGENDA DATE: August7,2002 ACTION: X CONS ENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Summary of Planning Commission work sessions, Schedules BACKGROU ND: The Groundwater Committee presented recommendations in its report, UndergroundAIbemarle, in October, 2001. Since that time, several work sessions have been held with the Planning Commission and one with the Board. AlSo, the County's consultant, ENSAT Corporation, has corn pleted the phase 1 groundwater study for the Ivy & Mechums watersheds, looking at issues of groundwater availability and sensitivity at a basin scale. The Board's approval of additional funding in the current fiscal year for the next phase of the groundwater study provides an opportunity to bring all previous efforts together into a groundwater assessment program that can be considered and acted upon by the Board next spring. This issuejs extremely timely, as Central Virginia continues to be plagued by a prolonged drought, with some measured groundwater levels and stream flows at historically Iow levels. The purpose of this executive summary is to provide the Board with a revised scope of work and accelerated timeline to implement the County Groundwater program. DISCUSSION: Scope of Work: The scope for the next phase of the groundwater study will integrate recommendation #4 of the groundwater committee report (Adopt Greundwa~r Assessment Standards for Proposed Development) with lessons learned from the Ivy & Mechums study. The next phase, .as proposed with this action item, will significantly reduce both the cost and timeframe for completion of the county-wide study. This is possible due to the recent recommendations of the Groundwater Committee, which have reduced the overall scope of the study from what was originally anticipated. Initially, it was planned that this year's funding would be used to complete the next two out of six sections for the groundwater study, leaving two more sections to complete the mapping of the County. This action item will allow 'us to complete the study for the entire County this year while remaining within the existing funding. The ultimate result of completing this work will be the establishment of a regulatory program whereby groundwater assessments are conducted prior to subdivision plat approval and wells are drilled prior to issuance of building permits. This type of program is n accordance with the groundwater committee's proposed "tier testing" program. Proposed elements of.the scope for this study include: County-wide characterization of groundwater availability settings. Specific areas of the County, based on geology and topography, have more or less general tendency to support wells with successful yields. This County-wide characterization will provide baseline data for site-level groundwater assessments conducted when divisions are platted, and will influence the rigor with which site-level data will be required. For instance, in zones where groundwater availability is generally believed to be poor, more extensive site-level data may be needed to verify an adequate supply. Groundwater availability zones will be identified using techniques developed in the Ivy & Mechums study. 07-31-02P02:00 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Groundwater Work Program August 7, 2002 Page 2 · County-wide characterization of groundwater sensitivity. Again, based on work performed for the Ivy & Mechums study, groundwater sensitivity will be characterized based on two variables: source value and contaminant threats. As with groundwater availability, the county-wide data will influence the rigor and nature of site-level assessments. For instance, more data at the site-level may be needed for property that recharges a public water supply or a community well system. · Technical guidance on how to conduct site-level groundwater assessments. The groundwater committee report provides general guidance on several "tiers" of groundwater assessment for proposed divisions, as well as the recommendation that wells be drilled prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed scope will formalize the general guidance in the committee's report into specific technical guidance on how to conduct site-level groundwater assessments for the various tiers. This guidance will become a section of the Design Standards Manual, which is currently in draft form and un(]er internal review. Timing: Recent Board discussions on several requests for adjustment to the water serwce boundary have led Engineering to propose this accelerated timeline for implementing a groundwater program. To further accelerate the establishment of the program, simultaneous to the consultant finalizing this study, Engineering and Public Works plans to begin preparing ordinance amendments for the creation of the regulatory program and the administrative procedures. At the conclusion of the proposed project, the following products would be in place for administration of this program: · Groundwater assessment for the entire County that provides an evaluation tool for characterizing groundwater availability and sensitivity, with accompanying technical guidance for use in this assessment. · Proposed ordinance amendments specifying requirements for assuring adequate groundwater prior to approval of subdivision plats and the requI rement that wells be drilled and meet specific yield and storage standards prior to issuance of a building permit. · Policies and procedures for administration of the ordinance amendments, including technical guidance showing how to comply with the ordinance, which will be included in the County's Design Standards Manual. Staffing: It should be noted that staff believes one new FTE will be needed to administer this new program. This pOsition would be responsible for updating and maintaining the County groundwater database, managing groundwater studies, and assuring ordinance compliance. The position would have to work in close coordination with Thomas Jefferson Health District, and may be a "shared" position (e.g., funded by the County, but with shared administration through the Health District, as with similar positions in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties). Assuming this action item is approved by the Board, Engineering will submit a budget request this Fall for funding this position in FY 04. If the Board wishes to implement this program sooner than July 1, 2003, it will be necessary to evaluate a funding source for the last quarter of FY 03. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to proceed with accelerating the implementation of a groundwater program to become effective July 1, 2003. 02.111 Planning Commission MarCh 5, 2002 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, March 5, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Jared Loewenstein, Chairman, Rodney Thomas, Bill Edgerton, and Pete Craddock. Other officials present were Greg Kamptner, David Benish, Wayne Cilimberg, Elaine Echols, Steven Biel, Scott Clark, Joan McDowell, and Francis MacCall. 4:00 P.M. MEETING ROOM #235: Work session: Groundwater Committee Report (Scott Clark) Mr. Loewenstein called the me~ting to order. Mr. Loewenstein stated that items 4 and 5 should be examined more closely. Mr. Hirschman said that our timing of the groundwater discussion is good. The stream flow in the Rivanna River at Palmyra is at historic Iow flow. That indicates that the water levels are very much depleted. We might get funding for phase II and III. The focus is really on the site level. We decided to hold this third work session to allow guidance as to how we should move forward with these recommendations. Mr. Loewenstein began with recommendation #1. Mr. Hirschman said that the reason we do these regional studies is important, but difficult to answer. We requested funding for phase II and III. We divided the County into six basins. The basins were prioritized for study based on the number of central systems. The idea was to go year-by-year and study different parts of the County. Mr. Hirschman said that recommendation #2 might be the place to start because we can do something about that in the short term. Mr. Loewenstein said it made a great deal of sense, but needs more detail. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Hirschman to elaborate on the sentence that stated "as such they are a Iow cost means". Mr. Hirschman replied that that statement was in terms of implementation and the funds it would take for the County or staff resources. If it is in the comprehensive plan we can recommend them to landowners as official policy. It wouldn't take any funds to implement this. Mr. Craddock asked if it had gotten to the point where we are pulling more out than is being recharged. He asked if we had crossed the line or did we even know that. Mr. Hirschman replied that the Piedmont is a real tricky case. It is almost impossible to answer that, except through very rough means. Mr. Evans said that we don't have an answer to that right now. There may be some areas of the County that are overdrawn. That is one of the goals of these regional studies. We learned something in the first go around. The answer is that we don't know that yet. Whatever we do, it is implicit that we incorporate good development practices. Mr. Edgerton asked what that was. Mr. Evans said that there were things you could do in the way of site planning that promulgate water infiltrating rather flowing off the surface, without spending a lot of money. In many cases, you just need to tell people about it. Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 81 Mr. Hirschman said that there was a section of the report starting on page 9 that addresses good development practices. Mr. Benish said that there are implications of a commitment to do certain things, which is standard. Their recommendations also do speak to some public commitment to look at some options. There is a commitment to education and outreach, support for testing and research. Mr. Thomas asked if any steps would be made to actually test the groundwater, using existing wells to spot check groundwater in terms of quantity. Mr. Hirschman replied that the committee is interested in that and came up with the idea that it could be a volunteer network. It could also be that when subdivision goes in, a monitoring well is drilled. The question is who would take the measurements and what would they do with them. It could be a great tool if we had a way to use the data. Mr. Thomas asked if he thought there wasn't a way to use the figures in terms of both quantity and quality. Mr. Evans the Only way we'll be able to the kinds of questions you are asking is to have a network of observation wells and collect data over time. We have to normalize for the seasons and long-term climatic trends. Mr. Craddock said that he would like to know the percentage of water that goes out into the septic field that can eventually be reused. Mr. Evans replied that it is highly variable, but not implicit. It is certainly not a closed loop system. Mr. Craddock said he thought there would be some percentage that comes back. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that that would be pretty site specific. Mr. Hirschman said that Loudoun County is spending $500,000 putting in a monitoring system of wells. The other ~roblem is how you make that representative. Of the two wells we've been monitoring, one ~s a shallow saprolite well just over the County line in Orange County. The second one is a deep well in Key West. The shallow one is at an historic Iow right now. The deep well is at an average level. Mr. Loewenstein said he thought that Loudoun was doing this to limit development according to water availability. Mr. Edgerton said he didn't think anyone would have any problem with the suggestions. The last one about water use, reuse and recycling is something that is very doable. It would require an educational process with the builders. Gray water would involve the health department. It would be wonderful if we could figure out a way to encourage looking ahead. Mr. Hirschman said that one of the things we can start looking at is a demonstration project. Mr. Loewenstein stated that this approach also allows for some specificity and is controllable. He asked if any commissioner had any other questions. He asked to what degree do we need to provide guidance on those specifics. Mr. Hirschman replied that the committee could work with the staff on the specifics. Mr. Edgerton suggested that as a resource, the city of Austin, Texas has done and lot of work in their building code with rainwater recycling for irrigation. They train builders in the process. Mr. Loewenstein raised recommendation #3. Mr. Hirschman commented that this item interweaves with 4 and 5 quite a bit. He said that there might be reasons aside from planning as to why clustering are good. The thing that concerns us about clustering is if you try to cluster with individual well and septic, there is a question of how far can you go with that concept. You start dealing with some difficult 'jeometry. Are we going to use central wells? How are we going to put groundwater into the mix? Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 82 ._.Mr. Loewenstein said this was a very good point. He said that in #3, unless we adopt some sort of blanket policy, we eed data on which to base some sort of rational decision. Mr. Edgerton suggested that instead of going all the way to a central system, we start exploring allowing a smaller community well that would serve 4 or 5 homes. Perhaps a shared septic system would work. Mr. Hirschman said that was a good point. Right now you can create an RPD, but preservation tracts are private. If you did have an RPD that has community open space, then you have a little more flexibility. Mr. Edgerton suggested that that could be put in as part of the easement. The easement is pretty restrictive. What can be done with it later is mandated by the agricultural use. Mr. Hirschman said there is some appeal to shared wells, but it generates a Jot of calls for the County. Ms. McDowell stated that one of the things that the rural area focus group is talking about is the RPD issue. We will be taking more information back to the focus group. Mr. Edgerton said that you might be able to weave into the easement form. Ms. McDowell stated that Loudoun County does something very similar to that. Mr. Hirschman said that a preservation tract in Loudoun is part open space and part preservation lot. Mr. Edgerton said that the reason it was put in was as a way to try to preserve some of the rural lands. There is abenefit to the developer in the clustering in that it saves money in terms of utilities, etc. Mr. Hirschman raised recommendation #4. ~lr. Loewenstein said that obviously there would be more detail than we have now. Mr. Hirschman said that they have not really looked at it for a long time. The basics are here in terms of how this could work. Mr. Hirschman said that this is something that would have to be done at the time of the preliminary plat. A lot of the small projects are tier 1 in which County staff has to do the work. Mr. Evans stated that this is a real can of worms. We have to ask what are our real long-term interests here. The County wants to reserve, if possible, the authority to require something if the County deems this is a sensitive area. It is the cumulative affect of these things that we are concerned about. Mr. Thomas pointed out that the affect today might not be so drastic, but it could be a major problem later. Mr. Loewenstein said that depending on how much build-out we get from those existing platted parcels, there could be a huge impact. There has to be some way of addressing it in that process too. Mr. Hirschman stated that some will drill, but some will settle and the buyer will drill. Usually, it's the buyer that drills. Mr. Edgerton said that buyers are more concerned about it, most contracts have a contingency for a successful well. Mr. Evans stated that one of the driving forces behind these regional basin studies is the notion that, due to the geology of the region, it is not necessarily appropriate for a one size fits all kind of thing. The tier system is geared toward groundwater availability zones. Mr. Edgerton asked why the County requires evidence of septic potential before they even plat the lot, but not of water. ~rom a development point of view, any expense just gets added to the price. Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 5, 2002 83 . Mr. Hirschman said it was probably driven by some high profile cases. ,,Ar. Thomas asked what the percentage of dry holes would be. Mr. Hirschman replied that it happens, and is happening more, but it is still a very small minority at this point. Mr. Thomas asked if it was because of the groundwater getting lower, or because they are hitting solid rock. Mr. Hirschman replied that he thought that part of it was because the land is being divided into smaller parcels. You have less to choose from with a smaller parcel. There are some cases in which people are drilling two or three wells, but in most cases, people are finding enough water for their family. With the tier 0 the well would be drilled at the time of the building permit. Mr. Edgerton asked if staff considered tying it to the platting. Mr. Hirschman said that this would be before. Mr. Loewenstein said that the way these tiers are set up makes a lot of sense. There has to be a way to organize it and make it as specific as possible. Mr. Hirschman stated that the next step is to put it in an ordinance format. Mr. Loewenstein said it is good to have something specific for the public to react to. Mr. Hirschman said that we are not talking about development rights, but rather about a verification process. Mr. Loewenstein stated that with our current water situation, this is going to be especially interesting for a~,l~t of people. Dur suggesbon would be that Mr. Hirschman said that in the table on page 13 it talks about availability and sensitivity. Availability is not the only issue. The other thing is that we can adopt something like this, but right now we don't have the staff to make this thing run. Mr. Loewenstein raised recommendation #5. Mr. Hirschman said that the committee was not suggesting we create any more of these. Central systems are a tool to best utilize a site's groundwater. If it is going to become a tool that we use, there are some major leaks that we have to take a look at. The only way we could create new central systems is to create some umbrella management structure. We need to have a professional who manages and maintains them. Mr. Loewenstein said that there would then be a single agency that would oversee a number of those. Mr. Edgerton asked if it could be done with regulation. Mr. Hirschman replied that could be done as well. Mr. Edgerton said that would put the burden of regulation on the County and the management on the private owner. Mr. Clark said that you would have to have a monitoring program to keep up with it. Mr. Hirschman said that you could regulate it and have contingency plans. The health department now is requiring a certificate of financial responsibility. Their main problem with these systems is getting the water samples turned in. Cir. Evans stated that that is an important distinction. We have to separate the problems related to the source. Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 5, 2002 84 'vlr. Loewenstein said the issue is what it takes to make sure it's done correctly. It seems that keeping this somewhere in the list and pursuing the possibility of looking more closely at it as a potential tool is worth while. Water resources are diminishing, if that's not true, that is the general perception. We should take this opportunity to look at every possible means of better utilization of that resource. There are a lot of complexities involved. Mr. Hirschman said that the only reason he'd like to see it taken out of the equation is that it leads to the assumption that private individual systems are the way to go. A lot of people with contaminated wells don't even know they're contaminated because testing is not required. It goes back to health and safety. Mr. Thomas brought up financial stability.. Mr. Hirschman said that that is a difficult issue, there needs to be a backup. This is brand new for the health department. Mr. Thomas said that the people that live there will suffer the consequences. Mr. Hirschman said that we could look at Peacock Hill as a success rather than a failure. They pooled their resources and fixed the problem rather than having eight individual failed wells. Mr. Hirschman stated that the more customers you have, the better off you are. Mr. Edgerton agreed that we need to consider all the possibilities. He said that just because there have been some failures, doesn't mean they can't be done better. Mr. Loewenstein said it seems like a fundamental thing that shouldn't be crossed out. Mr. Hirschman asked what do we do in the short term. ;,lr. Loewenstein asked if there was a way to convert that into something that is more quantitative. Mr. Hirschman said that the question is on the table, if you have a statement or a position that reacts to this, the board would be interested. He said that he expects that the board will not want to go in this direction. Mr. Loewenstein said that there seems to be a general agreement that this is something we would recommend pursuing. Mark said that the management structure is the whole question. It has to be done similar to an existing service authority. That is the real crux of the question. Mr. Cilimberg said that the service authority has stated that before they would even want to touch systems that may be approved they would want those designed to a standard that is in accordance with their requirements. Mr. Hirschman pointed out that there is an existing board policy that generally says that they won't be approved. Mr. Evans said it looks as if it might be useful to look at what successful models are out there in different communities. Mr. Hirschman suggested the Virginia Rural Water Association. Mr. Edgerton said that the attached letter has to be respected. Mr. Hirschman stated that the committee has said that it's a tool and if you want to use it, you need to change the rule. Mr. Loewenstein said that in some cases these happened originally for economic reasons. Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 85 Mr. Loewenstein raised recommendation #6. Mr. Cilimberg said that this is what's happening. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would be a new thinking about how we approach central systems based on the discussion. Mr.' Hirschman said that this has been great and thanked the commission. ~e asKea wner6 me commission woule go Trom here. Mr. Loewenstein asked for a timeframe. Ms. McDowell replied that they hoped to have this wrapped up by the end of July. Mr. Loewenstein thanked Mr. Hirschman and the committee for their work. He reiterated the timeliness of this issue. 'ar. Hirschman thanked the commission for their input. 6:00 P.M. MEETING ROOM #241: Mr. Loewenstein called the meeting to order and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Loewenstein asked for additional matters from the public. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda: Approval of Planning Commission Minutes - January 22, 2002 and January 29, 2002. Mr. Loewenstein asked if any commissioner wished to remove an item from the agenda. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Regular Item: SDP 200'1-016 Clover Lawn Village Preliminary Site Plan - Request for preliminary site plan approval for mixed .'esidential and commercial uses on 6.8 acres zoned PD-MC. The zoning allows for and the plan shows 24 dwelling units Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 5, 2002 86 'nd 33,000 square feet of commercial uses. A request to disturb the 20 foot buffer between zoning districts and a request · disturb critical slopes require approval by the Planning Commission. The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcels107, 107A, and 107A1 is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Route # 250, West, across the street from the Blue Ridge Building Supply at 5221 Rockfish Gap Turnpike. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential, recommended for 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre and Neighborhood Service in the Village of Crozet. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Mr. Loewenstein verified that the public right-of-way remains to be finally determined. Mr. Kamptner said that ultimately this is a dis pure that can be resolved privately. Mr. Finley asked if the right-of-way would come from the state. Ms. Echols said that there is an old right-of-way back there and an old roadbed. She said that the right-of-way corresponds to the old road. Mr. Finley asked if the rights-of-way were on recom back then. Ms. Echols said she did not know exactly what was out there. Mr. Loewenstein the wording of that condition should clarify the situation somewhat. Mr. Finley asked how many motions were needed. Mr. Loewenstein said we needed three motions. Mr. Kamptner said that the commission could cover all three in one motion. Mr. Finley moved for approval subject to the following: Recommendation for approval of the critical slopes waiver as shown generally on the preliminary site plan with the condition that slopes be re-graded at a slope necessary to meet ARB requirements for landscaping and in no instance at less than 2:1. · Recommendation for approval to disturb the 20-foot buffer with grading as generally shown on the preliminary site plan. · Recommendation for approval of the preliminary site plan with the conditions that the following items be provided with or on the final site plan: · Planning Department 1. (32.7.2.8) Show ramps everywhere a sidewalk comes to a curb and in front of every HC striped space. 2. (32.7.9.8.a.) Provide vegetative screening around the back and sides of each dum pster enclosure. Each dumpster must be located outside of the 20 foot required buffer. 3. (32.7.9) Provide landscaping and screening plans. 4. (32.7.2) The "optional" pedestrian path, that will go through the area shown for stormwater if provision for a different stormwater facility is made, must not go through a parking space. Room must be made between parking spaces for the pedestrian path through the parking lot and the area must be stri ped across the parking lot. 5. Demonstration that no fence or other structure is located along the northern boundary of the property within either a public right-of-way or private accessway. Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 5, 2002 87 Engineering Department 1. Provide an erosion control plan, narrative and computations. [18-32.7.4.3, 17-203] 2. Provide a completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [17-203, 17-303] 3. Provide a stormwater managementJBMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] 4. Provide completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17-323] 5. Provide drainage computations. [18-32.7.4, Policy] 6. Provide plans to VDOT for approval of improvements that affect the public right-of-way. Architectural Review Board (See Attachment C - page 12 of staff report) Albemarle County Service Authority 1. Provide final construction drawings for the water and sewer extensions. Construction drawings shall be submitted directly to the Service Authority. 2. Provide a note stating the domestic water service lines for the commercial units shall have backflow prevention devices installed on them. 3. Provide adequate fire flow. The available fire flow approximately 1800 feet west of this site is 2580 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, therefore the required fire flow, as currently calculated, cannot be met. 4. Provide a platted water line easement across the entire frontage of the site for a future water line extension. The easement shall be deeded to the Service Authority and recorded in the clerk's office prior to approval of the final site plan. VDOT Show turn radii at entrance. Provide CG-12 (handicap ped accessible curb cuts) at the entrance. Zoning 1. [32.5.6(n)] Show the location of ail outdoor lighting on the plan. 2. [32.6.6(j)] Provide a description and photograph or diagram and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens. Please be aware that installation of such luminaries in the future that are not shown on this plan shall require an amendment to this plan. 3. [32.6.6(j)] [4.17.4(b)] Include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that parking area luminaries are in compliance with 4.17.4(b). 4. [30.6] The final plan approval is subject to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. SDP 2002-003 Monticello Hiqh School Softball Field Lighting Waiver Request - The applicant,requests a waiver of the outdoor lighting regulations in Section 4.17.4(a) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Section 4.17.5(a) 2. A lighting system is proposed for the softball field that exists at Monticello High School. Prior to negotiating a contract for a lighting system, the County's Capital Projects Team seeks approval of this waiver to allow flexibility in finding the best system for the County's purposes. The property, described as Tax Map 91 Parcel 2 is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Mill Creek Drive (Route 1150) approximately .25 miles from the intersection of Route 20 South (Scottsville Road). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property Institutional in Neighborhood 4. (Francis MacCall) .,vJr. MacCall presented the staff report. Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 88 Mr. Thomas asked if there was any significant difference in the lighting here versus at Brownsville. Mr. MacCall replied that there was no significant difference, though there might be a slight improvement in the shielding. Mr. Loewenstein verified that there is nothing that Mr. MacCall said that would negate condition #2. Mr. Mike Stumbaugh said that essentially, this is the same system that is in Brownsville. There is nothing superior to that system. This is the best he could find. He put out the Brownsville model as a minimum. He said he received no other system proposals. Mr. Thomas asked if there was a curfew. ' Mr. MacCall said he did not believe that.was indicated. The Parks and Recreation Department doesn't want to do that. Mr. Thomas noted that some night games would go on until midnight. Mr. Craddock said that poles would likely be shorter. Mr. Stumbaugh said that they would be the same height as in Brownsville. Mr. Finley asked if the conditions were on the Brownsville lighting system as well. Mr. Cilimberg replied that they were the same. Mr. Finley verified that this would come back before the commission when they~ are ready for a contract. Mr. Stumbaugh said that they are at that point. We have received 3 bids and they are all for the same system. It would i~'.hen just be a matter of the best price, there is no two-tiered system in this case. Mr. Loewenstein said he thought that the condition needed to be there anyway. No contract will be signed until an action is taken. Mr. Craddock asked if the system would be up for this season. Mr. Stum~augh replied could get it done by the halfway point of the season with approval from planning in the next week. He said he took the time to bid this so that it would be possible. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing on this issue. There being no comment, the hearing was closed. Mr. Cilimberg stated that they would need to come back to you for approval, which could happen as soon as two weeks. Mr. Thomas moved for approval, removing the two conditions. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed un animously. 5. Public Hearing Item: a. SP-2001-06I Melaml~¥ Shod (Si.~n #88) Request for a special use permit to allow for the fabrication of counter tops and cabinets, and for the sales and installation of these products in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for a home occupation, Class B. The property described as Tax Map 105, Parcel 8M, contains 2.0 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the west side of Buck Island Road (Route 729), approximately 2 miles south of Route 53. The property is zoned RA- Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Steven Biel) Mr. Biel presented the staff report. Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 89 ' ~r. Loewenstein said that despite the fact that the Class B automatically limited the applicant to two employees, did we ~t add that to the conditions anyway? Is the reason we are not doing that because we are getting away from restating the obvious? Mr. Kam ptner replied yes. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if they wanted to lower it to less than two that would need to be in the conditions. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing on this item. Mr. Benny Melampy said that he had not prepared anything to present as most everything is in the report. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Mr. Craddock pointed out that there was no opposition from the neighbors. He moved for approval with conditions. 1. There shall be no on-site sales. 2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials. 3. All production or fabrication activity of products shall occur within the confines of the proposed 30' x 60' utility shed. 4. All requirements of VDOT shall me met, including installing a 14' culvert and widening the entrance to 34'. 5. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. SP-01-067 Gould Farm Utility Building (Siqn #85, 86) - Request for a special use permit to allow for a custom furniture shop in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for a home occupation, Class B. The property described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 50, contains 75 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the east side of Helios Path, approximately 1 mile south of Route 641. The property is zoned PA-Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Steven Biel) Mr. Biel presented the staff report. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing on this item and invited the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Alex Gould said .that the issue is primarily the road and its usage in the subdivision. He said that he was proposing wood usage for the purpose of building furniture. He said he would need to use a trailer to haul some exotic lumber, but it would only be he and the trailer. A hallway divides the space to the building. He said he would not affect the farm in any way, and hopes to cull some of the overgrowth in the forests. Mr. Finley asked what kind of timber was on the farm. Mr. Gould replied that there was a mix of cherry, white oaks, red oaks, he also has an area of black cherry trees. He said he would like to harvest those right away and get good use out of them. The majority of the trees are white oaks. Mr. Finley asked if he imported or purchased the exotic lumber. Mr. Gould replied that he would purchase it. He said he would probably use more native woods than exotic because the mix is a more unusual approach. He said he has only marked a few trees and needs to review it some more. Mr. Finley asked if he would dry the lumber that he cut on the property. Mr. Gould replied that he would. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 90 Mr. Thomas said his only concern was that the traffic might be overbearing. Mr. Gould said the trailer would be no more than 12 feet. Mr. Loewenstein said he thought it was a good idea to use local timber. Mr. Edgerton moved for approval with conditions. 2. 3. 4. There shall be no on-site sales. Th ere shall be no outdoor storage of materials. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the 30 x 80 workshop. Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. CPA- 02-01 Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan. The proposed amendment would amend the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan by revising the words describing the growth management policy, modifying the focus of the goals for development in the Development Areas from promoting the segregation of uses and neighborhoods to goals that are consistent with traditional neighborhood development, as reflected in the Neighborhood Model adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on May 16, 2001, and by amending the guidelines and standards for design and uses in each of the land use designations with in the Development Areas. The proposed amendment would also make corresponding changes to other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the revisions described above." (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols presented the staff report. ~lr. Loewenstein said he would like to defer final action until a later date when the remaining commissioners could also be present. Mr. Loewenstein said that there was a fairly significant span of time involved between the first of these projects and the most recent one. He asked if the definitions of commercia and residential remained constant in terms of the ordinance given the span of time. Mr. Echols replied that they were using square feet. Mr. Loewenstein asked if th ere h ad been any change in the definition of commercial versus residential. Mr. Echols replied that there had not been. Ms. Echols continued the staff report. Mr. Thomas said that he is still confused on the green space versus open space issue. He asked if th e total square footage of the open spaces and green spaces would be combined to the percentage. Ms. Echols replied that you would have a certain amenity and would have to define what that is. If you had a 25% amenity requirement then there would be a 20% green space requirement on the plan. If you found that green space in the amenity, it would be covered. Mr. Edgerton asked Ms. Echols to lead him through page 32, the second paragraph. He asked if that was a total of 40%. Ms. Echols replied that it is two different amenities, if your amenities happen to also be green, then you would only need 20%. .,Ir. Loewenstein said that he did not hear anything from anybody either. Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 91 /Ir. Craddock asked if the chart listing of the urban density for Wayland's Grant should be reversed. Ms. Echols replied yes. She said that the 2% of commercial in that instance was 4,000 square feet of professional office and 85 dwelling units. Mr. Loewenstein thanked staff for their work on this issue. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing on this item. Ms. Marcia Joseph asked the commissioners to turn to page 32, regarding the community service designation. She asked how it was determined. She asked if she would have to reduce the acreage coming in if she felt that residential use was not appropriate. Ms. Echols pointed out page 31 with the acreage. Ms. Joseph asked if that was the maximum acreage. Ms. Echols replied that was the guidance. It can be larger if you have a good reason to do so. Each request would be evaluated independently. Ms. Joseph said that that was a little bit confusing. You list a minimum acreage for any sort of comp plan amendment request. It sounds as if it may be somewhat of a detriment if someone feels an area ~sn't appropriate for residential use. She asked to include museums in the institutional designation. Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, thanked the commission for agreeing to defer this issue. He went through a list of comments. On page 4, item b, where it states services are referred to as existing versus planned, - Joes this suggest that no new services will be developed as master plans develop. Also on page 4, where it discusses .]e direction of development into the growth area and discourages development in the rural area, do we really mean it? Residential building activity over the past 20 years indicates that growth area permits are approximately 60% of the total. Over the same period the rate of subdivision in the rural area is roughly equivalent to growth area subdivision. On page 6, the revisions suggest that rural area services must be well planned, he is not sure what that means. He suggested the definitions of urban areas, communities and villages be revisited using more specific wording. On page 17, relative to the villages, should be clarified for contradiction. Finally, the people of Crozet have raised some key issues regarding the planning of infrastructure and capital improvements running concurrent with the planning process. We need to address this issue head on. There being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Mr. Finley asked if we should hold discussion until the next session. Mr. Thomas said he would prefer to hold the discussion until we are all together. He said that he agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Wemer's last comment. Mr. Loewenstein thanked the community for their comments during this planning time. Mr. Finley asked what the fate of those comments would be. Mr. Loewenstein stated that the minutes would reflect the comments. He also suggested that speakers might want to provide written copies of those comments to staff for incorporation. Mr. Edgerton suggested that we include that in the packet to be reviewed. Mr. Loewenstein asked if staff had any idea of a possible timetable. Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 5, 2002 92 Mr. Benish replied that he would need to look at upcoming agendas, but we can pretty easily respond to a lot of those 3mments. Mr. Loewenstein suggested that we try to get everything into what we look at next time. We should see both the text with changes marked and a clean copy of the text if that's not too onerous. Mr. Benish said that he would hesitate to commit to a date, as he would need to check the calendar. Mr. Kamptner said that the commission could defer because they've already held the public hearing. The commission decided to defer action to a date to be specified by staff. CPA- 01-03 Rivanna Villaqe at Glenmore. The proposed amendment would modify the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan by revising the following information for the Village of Rivanna: updating population and housing information, providing new headings for the recomm ended elements of the plan, recommending improvements to Route 250 East, and recommending mass transit to the Village. The proposed amendment would also change the land use designation for Tax Map Parcels 80-50, 93A1-1,93A1-2, 93A1-3, and 93A1-4 from Neighborhood Density residential (which allows for 3 - 6 dwellings per acre) to CommUnity Service which would allow commercial uses and residential density of 6 - 34 dwellings per acre. The proposed amendment would provide specific guidance for the area designated Community Service by recommending that a neo-traditional street system, a "main street" with retail and office buildings, a variety of housing types, offices, and commercial use not in excess of 240,000 square feet be provided. The amendment would also allow for civic buildings including schools, churches, and community centers to be included in the area designated as Community Service. The amendment would require mass, scale, and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a "human scale" and supports pedestrians, a well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths, and interconnections within the Community Service Area as well as to the rest of the Village. The amendment 'ould recommend that development be sensitive to the location within Monticello's viewshed and that parking be .linimized and buffered and shielded from nearby and adjoining properties. Finally, the amendment would allow for property formerly proffered for a school site on Tax Map Parcel 93A-4to be substituted for provision of other needed public facilities within the area shown as Community Service. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Mr. Craddock recused himself from the discussion. Mr. Thomas said that there were some statements made about assisted living. He asked if there was some definition on that. Ms. Echols replied independent living units are considered to be individual dwelling units and would be counted towards density. Assisted living units are non-residential uses. On page 5, in the middle of the page, we have said that in addition to a density of 6 dwellings per acre, the area may have nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Frank Cox, representing the Kessler Group, said that it had been our hope at the inception of this to serve as a prototype for the Neighborhood Model. We have spent a lot of time and attention focusing on the pictures. We need to recognize that the comprehensive plan recognized this area as a single use village. That laid the groundwork for the Glenmore development. The balance of the plan's boundary for the village comprises close to. 2,000 acres. If the CPA is to be approved, we need to recognize that Glenmore and the Village of Rivanna need to have a center. Our focus in this was to take a 78-acre tract and present it in such a way that it would provide the level of services needed for the area. With those citizens who have met with us one-on-one, we have made efforts to reshape the plan. There is room for improvement and we recognize that. r. Robert Couch, Jr., said that he had two issues. As a neighbor he thinks that if you move the fire station to the road -area, that would be a great idea. He loves the idea of the village. He said he thought you would take part of his septic Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 5, 2002 93 drainfield if it is built. From a taxpayer standpoint, we should know where Route 250 is going to be widened, specifically ~n which side of the road. If it moves on the north side of the road, his home would be history. The board of supervisors should go to VDOT to request the right-of-way. You would eliminate 90% of the businesses on 250 if you use the north side of the road. He would prefer it if the County could procure the right-of-way before proceeding too far. Ms. Carole Milks, spoke on the behalf of the Magruder subdivision. She thanked the commissioners who came to their neighborhood. We also appreciate the consideration given by the developers. We would prefer that the area bordering our community stay in its wooded state. We know that this may not be possible, but if this is approved for development, we hope that our border will be screened as much as possible. At the last work session, there was discussion of moving some of the residential units bordering the subdivision in place of the large commercial parking lot. Most of us consider that to be the lesser of the two evils. Regardless of what is eventually approved, we would like to request that we have an effective amount of screening. We hope that some of the large hardwood trees can be retained. In consideration of the large number of retirees, we also request a fence. We hope that you will see guidelines are put in place so that the village property and the drainage areas will accept the storm runoff from Route 250 so that it does not back up and flood our properties. (attached) Ms. Carol Powell, a new resident of the Magruder subdivision, stated that she selected it because of the Iow traffic and country atmosphere. Her concern is about the traffic on Route 250 as her children board the school bus there. She is also concerned about foot traffic and trash in her yard. Ms. Margaret Duncan is a resident of the Magruder subdivision, close to Route 250 East. She is concerned about the water drainage situation and the right-of-way. This situation needs to be considered in the planning stage. Such a road will bring traffic close to her home and her neighbors. This project will create more traffic and the need for more road expansion. We hope that consideration of the land and the privacy of individual landowners will be considered. (attached) Mr. Jeff Werner, of the PEC, comments are attached. I-here being no further comment, the.hearing was closed. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that this is a CPA project at this time. The process does not begin to address some of the issues of specificity. The language talks about a general form of development and we should keep that in mind as we move forward. He said that VDOT and what they can or might do are murky areas for the County as they are for individual citizens. To a large degree we are at the mercy of the state highway department. We are not any farther along than anyone else in terms of the final specifics of VDOT's plans. Mr. Thomas said that we are at VDOT's mercy. With the state budget in its current state he foresees a lot of roads being delayed or completely taken off the docket. The Route 250 east development is a vision, it is planning ahead. It is not a reality. We don't decide on which side of the road any of this will happen. Mr. Loewenstein said that the commission shared the citizens' frustration. He said that while we did not have specific language to approve for development, stormwater and drainage issues would be addressed at the site plan level. We will welcome specific input when we get to that stage. We are not nearly as far along as it might sound. He asked about the statement on page 6, which refers to the schools. Mr. Benish replied that that was language from the original amendment to the comp plan. This potential school site or Stone Robinson would serve the village. At this point, the school board does not see an imminent need for a new school in this area. Mr. Loewenstein said that this was a little indefinite. How long is until? The point that was made by one speaker is a good example of what can go wrong unexpectedly. He wants to make sure that this statement would not hamstring us. Mr. Benish stated that at the time the Rivanna Village was adopted there was a real concern about brining utilities out to that area. There were trying to articulate that they were setting the stage for further expansion. It should probably be ;truck. Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 5, 2002 94 Mr. Loewenstein said that the second half of the sentence might not matter. Mr. Benish replied that it wou d probably be clearer to say "reserved to serve this Village". Ms. Echols said that the proffer that was made with Glenmore originally was for a school site or other public purpose. It is not intended that a school site or other public purpose be eliminated from this village. That is something we would expect to see at the rezoning. The school site may well be retained in this village, but not in the large acreage style we've seen. Mr. Finley asked if the commission would hear again from the applicant when this come back. Mr. Loewenstein said that there may be some minor changes, we would certainly want to see the minutes and hear from the applicant. Mr. Edgerton suggested that the commission defer our comments until all can be present. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was anything we need to get in place before our final action. Mr. Thomas questioned the density change. Ms. Echols said that the way we tried to deal with this was by calculating the assisted living, in addition to the non- residential uses. Residential square footage can be increased if the non-residential square footage decreases. Mr. Loewenstein asked if anyone wanted a different form of this text. Mr. Benish said that staff would provide a clean version and suggested deferring this issue to March 26~. The Commission unanimously deferred this petition to its March 26th meeting. Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 95 , Id Business. None' New Business. Mr. Cilimberg said that the trip to West Palm Beach would take place on March 15th. Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Thomas have both volunteered. He pointed out that it is in Mr. Edgerton's district. Mr. Cilimberg said that Sharon Taylor, previously the recording secretary-for the BZA, will be joining us beginning March 19~. - . There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. V.~a~ne Cilimbe~rg, Secret~~ \ Recorded and transcribed by Lynda Myers, Recording Secretary Albemarle County Planning Commission- March 5, 2002 96 To'. From: Date: Subject: ~ LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors The League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County August 7, 2002 Groundwater Work Program The League strongly supports the staff recommendation to proceed with accelerating the implementation of a groundwater program to become effective July 1, 2003. This will ultimately enable the County to. require groundwater assessments prior to subdivision plat approval and require the drilling of wells prior to issuance of building permits. These requirements will promote wise groundwater management and minimize the necessity of extending public water and sewer lines beyond the designated areas. As a first step,we think it is very important for the staff to proceed with the next phase of the study to gather county-wide, base-line data which will be used to characterize groundwater availability settings and sensitivities and for the staff to develop technical guidance on the conduct of these assessments. Concurrently, it seems wise for the staff to prepare appropriate ordinance amendments. The League also supports the addition of one new employee to administer the program. We will speak to this at budget time. RECEIVED AT 8~8 MEETING Age~da item #:~_~? -- BOARD -TO -BOARD August 7, 2002 - 10:30 a.m. 2t Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Highlights: School Board Briefs- July 8, 2002 Board Briefs were provided via e- mail. RECENT SCHOOL BOARD/SUPERINTENDENT PRIORITIES: The Board is currently working on developing its Priorities fOr 2002-2004. VSBA GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE: On July 23, Dr. Castner and Mr. Koleszar made a presentation to over 75 school board members and superintendents at the VSBA Governor's Conference. The presentation was on the accountability approach that the School Board/Superintendent uses during the Planning and Evaluation Process. COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS: The Board re-advertised for applicants for the Long-Range Planning Committee from the Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett Districts. In addition to the Long-Range Planning Committee, the Board also re-advertised for applicants to serve on the School Health Advisory Board from the White Hall, Samuel Miller, Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna magisterial districts. Appointments will be made to the committees at our August 8 meeting. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS: At the July 8 meeting, the Board appointed Mr. Michael Struiksma as Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, replacing Dr. Frank Morgan. The Superintendent also announced that Dr. Para Moran would be assuming the role of Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for the 2002-2003 school year, replacing Dr. Jean Murray. RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: Agenda item #:. // {~4erk~ Jr~itials: /~;b FUTURE ITEMS OF INTEREST PROPOSED ADDITION TO MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL: At the June 13 meeting, the Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendations for the next steps in the redistricting process. Part of the process was to make a decision on how large of an addition to make to Monticello High School. The Board has now reached a point in the process where we need to decide whether to build an addition of 300 or 500 seats to Monticello. Whatever the decision, there will be cost implications relative to the CIP. The Board will make a decision on the addition at its August $ meeting. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: The Board received an overview of the Federal legislation that is known as the No Child Left Behind Act at its June 27 meeting. As part of the Act, all Virginia students will now be tested and have progress evaluated in language arts and math in Grades 3 - 8. The Board will be further discussing the No Child Left Behind Act as we develop our Priorities because it will have significant impacts on the Division. Some of our Board members will be attending a Virginia School Boards Association 'Conference on this topic at the end of August. We will keep you updated on information and requirements as we receive them. Ella Carey F~om: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Steven Biel Tuesday, JUly 30, 2002 9:16 AM Ella Carey David Benish Charisse Andrews ACSA Request Withdrawn wOriginal Message-- From: Charisseandrews@aol.com [mailto:Charisseandrews@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:14 AM To: Steven Biel Subject: jurisdiction Dear Mr. Biel, On Saturday, July 27, Fred Jones Well Co dug a third well. They reached water at 165 feet, obtaining I &1/2 gal/minute. As a result, we would like to withdraw our application for inclusion in the jurisdictional area designation for water service. I am optimistic that this w~! suffice for a very long time, and we will have no need to continue the process for inclusion. Please express my gratitude to your department for their help and compassion during a stressful and uncertain time; and especially to you .... thankyou. Thankyou also to the Board of Supervisors, for their time and concern. Sincerely, Charisse Andrews & Phillip Krauth July 11, 2002 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 40t Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 o4012 Charisse Andrews 9130 Totier Creek Road Scottsville, VA 24590 RE: ACSA Request to Amend the Jurisdictional Area for Water & Sewer Tax Map 36, Parcel 50 Dear Ms. Andrews: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 3, 2002, set a public hearing for the above-noted request for August 7, 2002. You may contact the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors at 296- 5481 to determine when this item is scheduled on the agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~cr'i~i~f i~a rey ~ Bill Brent 'elopment Og-l?-OZA08:58 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07-25-02P04:20 RCVD AGEN DA TITLE: Charisse Andrews -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Public hearing to consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide water service to Tax Map 136, Parcel 50A. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Biel AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a 6.74-acre parcel located on the west side of Totier Creek Road, approximately 900 feet south of Route 726 (Attachment A - applicant's request, Attachment B - location and tax map). The prOperty is located within the designated Rural Areas, in the Scottsville Magisterial District, and is part of the Valmont Estates subdivision. The applicant has recently built a home and is requesting water service because the Fred Jones Well Company has determined that there is not an adequate location for a well on the site. Two sites have been drilled on the property to a depth of 305 feet, with both sites coming up dry (Attachment D). Valmont Estates adjoins the Totier Creek Reservoir to the south and west. The applicant's property adjoins the reservoir to the west. The applicant would have run a line approximately 900 feet to Route 726 to connect to a service line, which serves two nearby parcels. Parcel 53 and Parcel 36 are connected to public water (Attachment C). At the July 3 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board moved to hear this request at the August 7, 2002 meeting. DISCUSSION: The subject property is located in the Rural Area. water and sewer service to the Rural Areas: The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)?' "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)." "Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Develcpment Areas in cases where the property is: 1 ) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p.125)." The applicant was scheduled to have a third well drilled on July 3, 2002. The well driller has rescheduled the attempt for'a third well due to the well driller providing service to existing customers with dry wells and the need for new wells. The well driller has promised in writing to ddll a third well on or before July26, 2002 (Attachment F). Regarding the potential extension of public water service, staff is concerned that while the parcel is in close proximity to the Jurisdictional Area, it is not technically adjacent. Furthermore, by providing public water, it would create additional parcels being adjacent to a Jurisdictional Area and potentially eligible for service. AGENDA TITLE: Charisse Andrews -- Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area August 7, 2002 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Due to the fact that an attempt to drill a third well has not been performed, staff cannot make a recommendation at this time. Upon completion of a third well and the results submitted to staff for analysis, staffwill provide an update at the scheduled public hearing, if available at that time. Staff recommends holding the public hearing to receive any public comments and meet the process requirements for this application. Attachments: A - Application B - Location and Tax Map C - Jurisdictional Area D -Well Driller's Report E - Survey Plat F -Well Driller's Update 02.113 APPLICATION TO AMEND THE JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ATTACHMENT A County of Albemarle Department of Planning and ~_ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 804 296-5823 CO-APPLICANT Nam~ (or agent, if any): Signature: Address: Phone: JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: [] Water and Sewer [] Water Only [] Water Only to Existing Structure(s) [] Limited Service (Describe in Justification below) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) ~]130 "7"~; t"~~ i~d ~coff'.-c [O{{ej [//~ 29~ Tax Map(s)/Parcel Number(s): /,3fo - ~O CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): [] Water and Sewer [] [] Water Only to Existing Structures [] Water Only Limited Service For Staff Use Only PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate): [] Inside or [] Outside a Growth Area? [] Adjacent to SAJA? [] Inside or [] Outside a Water-Supply Watershed? [] Adjacent to a Growth Area? Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide service REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes [] No Date of Action ATTACHMENT B KEENE 7951 IRISH R / ./ / ff. Ct4 TOWN OF SCOTTSVfLLE ACSA JURISDICTIONAL AREA CHANGE - TM 136, P 50A '1 INCH = 5000 FEET ACSA JURISDICTIONAL AREA CHANGE - TM 136, P 50A 1 INCH = 400 FEET %/, , / 1EVISED: 8/10/83, 8/11/98 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT C 2[4 32~t~~', / /' / SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 136 FRED JONES WELL CO. ATTACHMENT D P/~'r,,ik,. .~ ,r; .. ~ CRED dOHE8 WELL CO. FRED J~ES WELL CO. ~:~~c ,,,~j. ' ...... , ............. Date-October 15, 2001 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION REPORT PRIMARY DRAINFIELD Lot-# 15 Hole # Horizon Depth (inches) Description of color, texture, etc. Texture Group 1 A 04 dark yellowish brown 10YR 4/6 silt loam Ill B 4-22 red 2.5YR 4/8 silty clay loam !11 C 22-5~t red 2.5YR 4/8 to 4/6 silty clay loam to silt loam with gray weathered schist-CR III 2 A 0-5 B 5-24 C 24-60 dark yellowish brown 10YR 4/4 silt lomn III strong brown 7.5YR 5/6 to red 2.5YR 4/6 silty clay loam III red 2,5YR 4/6 to 5/6 silty clay loam to silt loam with red & gray weathered schist III 3 A 0-6 B 6-25 C 25 -60 strong brown 7.5YR 4/6 silt loam red 2.5YR 4/8 to 4/6 silty clay loam with gr_ay weathered schist red 2.5YR 4/6 to 5/6 silty clay loam to silt loam with yellow & gray weathered schist III 1II III 4 A 0-2 B 2-36 C 36-60 dark brown 7.5YR 3/4 silt loam yellowish brown 10YR 5/6 to red 2.5YR 4/6 silty clay loam red 2.SYR 4/6 to 5/6 silty clay loam to silt loam with red, yellow & gray weathered schist III III III Shrink-Swell Potential Moderate Date-October 15, 2001 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION REPORT RESERVE DRAINFIELD AREA Pagc,.9~of~ Hole # ' Horizon Depth (inches) Description of color, texture, etc.' Texture Group 5 A 0-2 very dark brown 10YR 2/2 loam II B 2-23 red 2.5YR 4/6 & 4/8 silty clay IV C 23-60 red 2.SYR 4/8 to yellowish red 5YR 5/6 to 5/8 silty clay loam to silt loam with red, III yellow & gray weathered schist 6 A O-4 B 4-26 C 26-60 yellowish brown 10YR 5/6 loam II yellowish red 5YR 5/6 to red 2.5YR 4/6 silty clay IV red 2.5YR 4/6 to 5/6 silty clay loam to silt loam with red, yellow & gray weathered III schist 7 A 0-3 B 3-35 C 35-60 light yellowish brown 10YR 6/4 silt loam III strong brown 7.5YR 5/6 to yellowish red 5YR 5/6 silty clay loam III yellowish red 5YR 5/6 to light brown 7.SYR 6/4 silty clay loam to silt loam with red, III yellow & gray weathered schist Shrink-Swell Potential Moderate ATTACHMENT E IEO 0 ,: o~ / / / 0 .~/HI LL I P ~RAUTH t ~ :/2.~/.:2.ae?. @~:,~ ? / FAX '8~-352- 722E.~ NO. : 8842869248 Ju 1. FRED JONES WELL CO, 23 2882 12:36PM P2 ATTACHMENT F In regarc~$ fO tl~e Ancfrews ~ Iocatm:l on t,~fl~r ~ I~ ~n we Drc~nbe fO $crm~ule <~ncf <~il f<)r t~e third ,well o1' fi'm, Andrews resiclen~ on ?OtJer C~oO~ Road an or before July 26, ~ r~ .,tot~$ W~lt Coml:~ny COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2002/03 Budget Amendment in the amount of $771,316.07, and request approval of the amendment and of Appropriations #2003003 and #2003004 to provide the funds for the stated programs. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Hildebeidel; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes / BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment 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 first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e, General Fund, Capital Funds, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. DISCUSSION: This proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment totals $771,316.07. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Education Programs/Projects $ 734,563.07 Local Government Programs/Projects $ 36,753.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES- All Funds $771,316.07 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues 17,675.00 684,463.76 69,177.31 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES -All Funds $771,316.07 This budget amendment consists of two appropriations. Appropriations #2003003 and #2003004 will need to be approved by the Board after the public hearing. A detailed description of the appropriation items is provided on Attachment A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2003 Budget Amendment in the amount of $734,563.07 after the public hearing, and approval of Appropriations #2003003 and #2003004 to provide the funds for the stated programs. 02.110 Attachment A APPROPRIATION #2003003 $734,563.0/ This appropriation includes funds for four separate programs in the Albemarle County Schools Division. Each program is described below. The Goals 2000 Award was not fully expended in FY 2002. The award carryover amount of $10,463.76 retained by the State may be appropriated for FY 2003. These funds will be used to purchase classroom computers and related technologies and provide staff development opportunities in technology for instructional staff. Th e No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The reauthorized ESEA establishes the Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed Tech) Program, which consolidates the current Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) Program and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program into a single state formula grant program. The primary goal of the Ed Tech program is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in schools, providing funds for teacher training and curriculum development. The total amount of the Ed Tech Grant is $36,099.31. The Virginia Initiative for Technology and Administrative Leadership (VITAL) is a professional development leadership experience for principals and superintendents in Virginia. This initiative recognizes the need for Virginia's educational leaders to be given rich and relevant experiences that take advantage of the power of technology to support and improve teaching, learning, and leadership in Virginia's schools. The superintendent and principals each receive $500.00 to purchase technology in support of their participation in the project (provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation. The total amount of the VITAL Grant is $14,000.00 The Virginia Public School Authority (VSPA) conducted the sale of equipment notes, Series II, in the educational technology grant program providing funding to school divisions to implement the Standards of Learning Web- based Technology initiative. Funding for this program in the amount of $674,000.00 is targeted to achieve the following goals: Provide student access to computers at a ratio of one computer for every five students; create internet-ready local area network capability in every school; assure adequate high-speed, high-bandwidth capability for instructional, remedial, and testing needs; and, establish a state-wide web-based Standards of Learning test delivery system. The funds will be a ppropriated to the School Capital Improvement Fund to purchase educational technology equipment. APPROPRIATION #2003004 $36,753.0~' The U.S. Depai~ment of Justice has awarded Al bemarle County a Federal grant of $33,078, with a required local cash match of $3,675 for a total amount of $36,753. The grant is provided for the reduction of crime and improvement of public safety. The time period for using these grant funds began on October 1,2001 and ends on September 30, 2003. The funding formula is based primarily on Part 1 Uniform Crime Report offenses (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle [heft) averaged over the previous 3 years. Grant funds are planned to be used to fun d overtime work by County police officers for additional law enforcement activities. ~FMS2 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE --~APP # *~ 2003 004 REVISED 6184 APPROPRIATION DATE~t 811.3102 BATCH NUMBER ' EXPLANATION: pOLICE GRANT i , ' SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER PE FUND DEPT O'BJEC~ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 I 1537 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES J I 34,t42.00 iI 1537 31013 210000 FICA " j .1 '2,6~!1.00 . 1537 3:1000 300001 FED£RAL GRANT J 2 35,078.00 ' , , 1537 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL F[ OJ 2 3,675.00 . J r , J 1537 0501 Est. Revenue J '36,753.00 i537 0701 'Appropn.'ation .... .'" J ~' . ' ' 36~753".00 , J J J ~ J J J J . ' j J. I . ' j . J , J TOTAL' 73,506.00 36,753.00 36,753.00 , , PREPARED BY: M£L¥1N ~~i ' DAT£: 07118102 ~BD. oF SUP¥: APPROVAL:~, ~-~~ ~AT~:DATE': 811312OO:/ ACCT. APPR0VAL:I - L _ _, . FMS2 T~ COUNTY OF ALREM/~R~_E ---~~ 2003 003 'REVISED 6184 APPROPR!ATION ' . 8113102 BATCH NUMBER I. NATION: EDUCATION GRANTS AND PROGRAMS.---- ' ~ -- -- _ . SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER tYPE FUND DEPT OBJEC1 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ._COD'---~. AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT I 3135 60605 80010~.Mac_hinerylEquiPment J 1 9,000.00 ~ 3135 60605 580500 ~ Development j 1 t/t63.76 ~ 900----~ 6110-~ 8--~0700 Tech Grant Equip ~---~ 674,000.00 I 3131 61311 312500_ Prof Svcs Inst J I 36,099.31 1_ 31. 04 6333_1; 800100 VITAL Grant Equip J I 14,000.00 2_: 3135__ 24000 250324 Goals 2000 Award ~--~ 10,463.76 2_ 9000_' 24000 240265;VPSA~ ~----~ 674,000.00 2~ 3t31 330~ 3--~012~ 'Ed Tech Grant J 2 36,099.31 2 3104 18000 181264 ~ ~ 14,000.00 J __ 3135 _ 0501 Estr. Revenue j 10,463.76 ~ 3~35 _ 0701 App.. ro_priation j 10,463.76 9000 0501 . Est. Revenue J 674,000.00 __ 9000 ~ __ 0701___ Ap_propriation j 674,000.00 __ 313t --~ 0501 Est. Revenue j 36,_099.31 __ 3131 _ 0701 Appropriation j 36,099.31 __ 3104 ___ 0501 Est. Revenue J 14,000.00 3104 070~ Appropriation j___ ~ 14,000.00 J .... ~_ J J J -- .j --- ..... J ---- J O--~AL -- ~-- '- ~ :~_ 1,469,126.14 734,563.07 734,563.07! REPARED BY:_ MELVIN B._.~,EED_EN ./'~=~~-- -- D. OF SUPV. APPR~ ~ _ DATE: 08/13/02 ~~~ DATE: 08/13/02 NTERED BY: ~ ~ DATE: ...... -. ................... COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Leash law request for area along Rt.720 (Harris Creek Road) off of Route 20 South (Scottsville District) SU BJECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST: Establish public hearing for Leash Law Request STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Foley, Ms. AIIshouse AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: According to the County's policy (Attachment A), homeowners may request the Board designate specific areas in which dogs are restricted from "running at large" or what is often referred to as the "Leash" Ordinance. Requests to designate such areas are to include a petition and a copy of~a recorded plat of the proposed area, which identifies the adjacent properties owners' responses regarding the petition. Once the Board receives the information, the Board may order a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may adopt an ordinance in accordance with Section 4-213 of the County Code, which designates the area as one in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large. DISCUSSION: In accordance with County policy, twenty-three property owners who live along or adjacent to Route 790 - Harris Creek Road (located off of Route 20 South in the Scottsville District) submitted a petition to the County Clerk's Office requesting that their area of the County along Route 790 be designated as one in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large. This appears to be the first time residents of a rural area of the county, that is not considered to be within a designated subdivision, have petitioned for this ordinance. Attachment B includes a copy of the property owners' petition, related plat information, and maps that indicate the location of the properties owned by 'those individuals who were approached to sign the petition. According to the petitioners' map, four property owners who were contacted did not want the specific area to be designated; and four property owners who were contacted were unsure. Attachment C is a map of the specific area, which could be the one designated as the official area in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board conduct a public hearing on this matter. If the Board views the request favorably after the public hearing is conducted, the Board will need to adopt an ordinance to amend the county code to include this area as one in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large. 02.116 07-26-02A10:03 RCVD Attachment A David R Bowerman Chmqotl~ Y. Humphfis Forr~ ~ ~, Jr. · COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supt~rs 401 Mdntire Road (804) 296-.5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 TO WHOM ADDRESSED: You have inquired about the County's Dog "Leash" law. In order to quali~ for addition under this law, you must live in an area that can be readily identified by plat which has been recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court (this would apply to most areas referred to as "subdivisions"). The request would need to apply to all recorded sections of a particular subdivision. In order for this request to be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for discussion, you will need to furnish the following information: 1 ) A petition(s) which has been signed by a majorit~v of those persons currently residing in the subdivision (petition forms are attached). 2) A copy (copies) of the recorded plat listing deed book and page numbers for the recording. 3) The plat should be marked to indicate the number of homes in the subdivision; those persons signing in favor; those persons opposed; those persons who could nor be contacted or who refused to sign; the number of vacant lots. When all of this information has been obtained, forward same to the Clerk to the Board, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902-4596. The request will then be placed on the next available agenda of the Board for discussion. At that time, the Board may order a public hearing advertised for a future date which cannot be nearer than three weeks due. to advertising constraints. At the public hearing the Board will take comments from anyone wishing to speak, either in favor or in opposition, to the request. After that part of the process is completed, the Board may adopt the advertised ordinance (a copy of the ordinance is attached). You may also wish to inform your representative on the Board of Supervisors that you are contemplating this action. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Attachments (2) Printed on recyc[ed paper Attachment A (Page 2 of 2)~ PETITION FOR DOG "LEASH" ORDINANCE We, residents of (subdivision or other area), respectfully request that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors include this area under the provisions of County Code Section 4-213(a) which makes it unlawful for any dog to roam, ru_n, or self-hunt off of the property of its owner or custodian and not be under the owner's or custodian's immediate control, the law commonly referred to as the 'Leash' Ordinance. NAME (Please pdnt clearly) 1"' 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...9 10 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 11 36 12 37 13 38 14 39 15 4O 16 41 17 42 18 43 19 ~,'!. 20 45 21 46 22 23 47 48 24 49 25 50 (Sheet No. of Sheets) Date: June 8, 2002 To: Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Attachment ~ (P.age 1 of 6} 06-07-02772:30 ~CVO From' Alice Offield ~ q,6"- ?£fl ~, qo2 ~ff3,qT~ 1622 Harris Creek Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Wanda Mays 1522 Harris Creek Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 We, the adjoining property owners on Rt. 720 Harris Creek Road off of Route 20 South (Scottsville District), are petitioning for a Dog "Leash" Ordinance. On June 6, I, Alice Offield, called our Supervisor for the Scottsville District, Lindsay Dorrier, and explained to him that we are trying to get the petition for a Dog "Leash" Ordinance on Rt. 720. Map 1 - will indicate where the property is located in Albemarle County. Map 2- will indicate in red the properties that are using Rt. 720 to gain access to their property. Highlighted in yellow is Rt. 720. The areas marked in blue are adjoining property owners who are in agreement with the Dog "Leash" Ordinance petition. Map 3 - will indicate the decisions of all property owners on the Dog "Leash" Ordinance. Yellow = yes Green = no Blue = undecided Orange = tried to contact Red = vacant In between the dark blue lines are the property owners on Rt. 720. Yes = 15 No = 4 Undecided: 4 Tried to contact = 2 Vacant = i Surrounding the blue lines, marked in yellow, are property owners who adjoin our property that are in agreement. Marked in orange are the property owners I have been unable to contact. On Rt. 720 we have 25 properties and 28 houses. Just about every house has at least one dog and others more (estimate number of dogs seen 36) just on Rt. 720. Everyone in the neighborhood walks Rt. 720. The houses are very close together, and neighborhood children visit back and forth between homes. We have called the Game Warden in the past about aggressive dogs after first talking to the dogs' owners, but we continue to have a problem. We feel the Dog "Leash" Ordinance will make the home owners (and dog owners who rent property in the area) more reasonable for their dogs and protect neighborhood children and anyone who walks fi:om aggressive dogs. Enclosed is the Petition for Dog "Leash" Ordinance and Maps that indicate property locations and who agrees or disagrees with petition. TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE P. O. Box 276 112 South Main Street Gordonsville, VA 22942 Ernest Duncan Mayor Emily Winkey, Vice-Mayor Carolyn Carpenter, Council Member Robert Coiner, Council Member Rebecca Lynch, Council Member Marilyn Steinke, Council Member Peter Zahn, Council Member J. Hubert Allen, Jr. Town Administrator Ethel Hutchinson Clerk/Treasurer Phone: (540) 832-2233 Fax: (540) 832-2449 June 27, 2002 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Albemarle Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: This letter is to confirm per our telephone conversation earlier today, that the Gordonsville Town Council is on the Albemarle Board of Supervisor's August 7, 2002 agenda, with a meeting time of 9:00AM. It is also understood that the resident engineer for your County will be in attendance. If there is any change in this schedule, please contact me at the above address. Thank you for your assistance in arranging this meeting. Sincerely, J. Hubert Allen, JR Town Administrator 07-01-02^10:35 RCVD Attachment B (Page 2 of 6) Attachment B (Page 3 of 6) , / 26 32 20,~ 37 37D / / III ALBEMARLE COUNTY Attachment 10t (Page 4 of CARTERS BRIDGE / / 50 D SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION il2 MaLj 29 "~32 9:~0 Att~a~ment B (Page 5 of 6) PETITION FOR DOG "LEASH" ORDINANCE We, residenta of. ~'7 ~~~ (su~iviaio. or Omer ama), m~l~ r~u~t ~at ~e ~~e ~un~ Boa~ of 8upe~lsom in~ude ~ a~ under ~e pm~,ision~ of Coun~ C~e S~n ~213(a) ~ioh ~k~ ~ unla~l ~r any d~ to ~m. ru~, or ~lf-hunt off of ~e p~ ef i~ o~er or ~st~ian and not be und~ ~e ~e~ or',~s~n's i~ia~ ~, ~e ~aw ~m~n~y ~ ~ ~ ~e 'Leash' O~an~. F .......... ~a~ o~nt clea~ly) 27 29 ~2 32 33 35 36 38 39 40 41 ~ 42 1¸8 23 !25 43 ~ 47 48 {Sheet No, of___ L;heets) I,l~y 29 '02 9: _-'20 P. 02 Attachment B PETITION FOR DOG "LEA~H" ORDINAN~e 6 o~ 6~ We, residents of.._._ . (subdivision or other ama), respectfully request that ~'Albemarle C--o-u-n-~ Board ot~ Supervisorsinclude this are~ under the provisions of County Code Section 4-213(a) which makes it unlawful for any dog to roam, run, or self-hunt off of the proper~ of'it~ owner or custodian and not be under the ovcner's or custod~n's immediate control, the law commonly referred t~ as the 'Leash' Ordinance. ...... NAME (Please print dearly) 2 3 4 5 6 7 '8 !0 11 16 23 26 27 28 .... 29' 3O 31 $3 35 36 37' 38 39 40 42 43 45 47 49 5O (Sheet .. ~- of__ Sheets) ~SM 2.6 24B2 %~ 24B Attachment C (Page 1 of 1) 26C ~2 -tl 20~ 23C 55D(1) '36 37A 378 $7¢ 37 $7D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Dance Hall Permit SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Application request for a dance hall permit STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Ms. Allshouse AGENDA DATE: August 7, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Mountain View Grill in Crozet recently received a citation from the Albemarle County Police Department for failure to obtain a dance hall permit. The owner indicated that they were unaware of the permit requirement and has submitted an application letter for a dance hall permit. DISCUSSION: Section 12-201 of the County Code requires an applicant to obtain a dance hall permit from the Board of Supervisors before commencing operation of a dance hall. A dance hall is defined as "any place open to the general public where dancing is permitted." (Attachment A) The County zoning ordinance stipulates that "dancing by patrons shall be considered as entertainment accessory to an eating establishment, provided the space made available for such dancing shall not be more than one-eighth (1/8) of that part of the floor area available for dining. Further, Section 12-203 of the County Code restricts persons who operate a dance hall to allow youth under 18 to enter or remain in the dance hall during a time that dancing is being conducted, unless they are accompanied by a parent, legal guardian or family member over the age of 18. The County Code requires that dance hall permit applications include1) specific information from the applicant, 2) certification from the Building Official that the dance hall is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Virginia Statewide Building Code and 3) certification by the Fire Marshal that the dance hall is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention Code. The applicant has met two of the above listed dance hall permit requirements. All necessary information from the applicant is included in the applicant's letter (Attachment B). Attachment C is the letter from the Building Code and Zoning Services Department, confirming that there are no building code concerns associated with the request for a dance hall permit at this location. The third requirement, certification from the Fire/Rescue Department demonstrating the applicant's compliance with the Fire Prevention Code, will be based on a final determination and is pending as of July 26, 2002. Dance halls also are subject to all requirements of the county zoning ordinance. This restaurant is currently classified in the building code category that allows limited dancing "by right" as an accessory use with the primary function of serving food. RECOMMENDATION: Once the applicant has met all the requirements necessary to operate a dance hall "by right" as defined above, staff recommends the Board approve the Mountain View Grill's dance hall permit. 02.118 0'7-26-02P01:31 RCVD ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 3 Sec. 12-102 Intentional false alarms a criminal offense. k shall be a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly and without just cause to activate a security or fire alarm to summon the police department or fire and rescue service in situations where there is no actual or threatened criminal or reasonable belief of fire activity requiring immediate police or fire response. (Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-103 Charges for false alarms. After two (2) false alarms in any twelve-month period, users shall be charged for each subsequent false alarm which results in a police department or fire department response, in such amount as is reasonably calculated to reimburse the county for the costs of responding to such false alarms. Such amount shall be determined by the county executive and shall be based on the average time, manpower and equipment devoted to a police or fire response to false alarms. This charge is to reimburse the county for costs expended; it is not a f'me, and is not dependent upon a criminal conviction under section 12-102 above. (Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-3: Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-104 Administration. Administration of this article shall be the joint responsibility of the chief of police and the director of finance under the supervision of the county executive. (Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-5: Ord. 98-A(1). 8-5-08) Sec. 12-105 Appeals. Any charge imposed pursuant to section 12-103. or notice of withdrawal of consent or order to disconnect, as provided hereinabove, max' be appealed to the board of supervisors by application of the owner filed with the county executive within ten II0) days ot-the date of notice of such charge or order. Upon receipt of such appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief from such charge or order, or may place the matter on the agenda of the board of supervisors for hearing. (Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-6: Ord. 98-A(t). 8-5-98) ARTICLE II. AMUSEMENTS DIVISION 1. DANCE HALLS State law reference-authority to adopt article, see Va. C'ode §§ 18.2-432. 18.2-433. Sec. 12-200 Dance hall defined. For the purposes of this division, the term "dance hall" means, any place open to the general .public where dancing is permitted. (Code I967, § 8-1; Code 1988, § 3-11; Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) State law reference-Authority to codif/.ordinance. Va. Code § 18.2433 12-3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT A Page 2 of 3 Sec. 12-201 Permits--Required; applications. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a dance hall in the county unless such person shall have fa'st obtained a permit fi.om the board of supervisors. B. Applications for such permits shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors at least two (2) weeks prior to the regular meeting of the board of supervisors at which the application is to be considered. Such applications shall contain the following information: 1. name of the person owning the dance hall; 2. name of the person managing the dance hall; 3. the location of the dance hall; 4. a statement as to whether or not alcoholic beverages are to be served on the premises of such dance hall; and 5. certification from the building official and fire marshal that such dance hall is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code. (4-21-76; Code 1988, § 3-12: Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-202 Revocation of permit. Permits issued by the board of supervisors pursuant to the provisions of this division may be revoked by the board of supervisors for. any violation by the permirtee of the provisions of this division or for any false statement made on the application required by the preceding section. No such permit shall be revoked unless the permittee shall have received reasonable notice that he is entitled to a hearing before the board of supervisors prior to action on revocation. Such notice shall state the time and place such hearing is to be held. (Code 1988, § 3-13~ Ord. 98-A(i), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-203 Attendance of persons under eighteen years of age. It shall be unlawful for any person operating a dance hall to allow any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to enter or remain in such dance hall while, dancing is being conducted therein, unless such person is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or bv a spouse, brother or sister over the age of eighteen (18) years, unless such person has the written consent of such parent, legal guardian or spouse. (Code 1967, § 8-2; Code 1988, § 3-14; Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-204 Exemptions. A. The provisions of this division shall no't apply to dances conducted for benevolent or charitable purposes, or when such dances are conducted under the auspices of religious, educational, civic or military organizations. B. The provisions of this division shall not apply to dance halls in any town in which an ordinance adopted pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code § 18.2-433 is in effect. (Code 1988, § 3-15; Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) 12--4 ATTACHMENT A Page 3 of 3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE See. 12-205 Violations; penalties. Any person violating the provisions of this division shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. (Code 1988, ~ 3-16; Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-206 Relation of article to zoning ordinance. In addition to the provisions of this article, dance halls shall be subject to all requirements of the county zoning ordinance. (4-21-76; Code 1988, § 3-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) DIVISION 2. BINGO AND RAFFLES Sec. 12-207 Local ordinance adopted. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 18.2-340.15 the Charitable Gaming Commission shall regulate bingo, instant bingo and raffles, except as otherwise provided in this division. (Ord. No. 94-3(1), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 96-3(1), 8-7-96; Code 1988, § 3-20; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) Sec. 12-208 Limitation on bingo operations. The hours of bingo operation shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. except on Saturdays and Sundays when the hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 1:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. (Ord. No. 94-3(1), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 95-3(1), 4-5-95: Ord. 96-3(I)~ 8-7-96; Code 1988, § 3-28: Ord. 98- A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference-Authority to adopt. Va. Code § 18.2-340.32 Sec. 12-209 Exemption The provisions of this article shall not apply to bingo operations in any town in which an ordinance adopted pursuant to Virginia Code § 18.2-340.32 is in effect. (Ord. 98-A(t), 8-5-98) ARTICLE III. DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS State law reference--Regarding dealers n precious metals generally, see Va. Cbde §§ 54.1-4100 et seq.; authority of county to enact ordinance regulating dealers in precious metals and gems. see Va. Code § 54.1-4111. Sec. 12-300 Definitions~ For the purposes of this article, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section, unless the context requires a different meaning: (1) Coin. The term "coin" shall mean any piece of gold, silver or other metal fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight and degree of fineness, stamped by authority of a government with certain marks and devices, and having a certain timed value as money. 12-5 ATTACHM~N~ B rr~o~ntain oieco grill. p.o. ~ox CROZet. ~3a RRO3~ {4~4) ~-69~4 please ~nD this to Be an application ~2oR a Dance hall penn-it 4.the ~~toi~ o~e~ grill ooes SeROe alcoholic ~.stoa~t Bi~ckheab has spoken mith m~. ~aw schlothaoeR aB~t pe~its, applic~oo e~... hope this Letter ~2in~S eue%]~tbing in oRDeR oar application ~2oR a ~ance hall pe~J~it. rr~ar~ thanks. the rnoc,~tain oiem grill ATTACHMENT C FAX (434) 972-4126 TO: FROM: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 [v~E~v~ORANDU~ v~Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire/Rescue Jay Schlothauer, Building Official Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator~~'' - DATE: June 14, 2002 RE: Mountain View Grill - application for dance hall permit TTD (434) 972~4012 Attached please find the application made by owner, Stuart Birckhead, for a dance hall permit at the Mountain View Grill in Crozet. In accordance with Section 12-201 B (5) of the County Code, this is forwarded for your review. (See attached Code provisions) Please send your comments to me and I will forward them to the staff who will handle this application for review by the Board of Supervisors. Please comment by June 28th, if possible. cODE & 10N~NG S:~",~ t~,ES CC: Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive Crystal Limerick, Captain, Albemarle Police Department ECEIVED 'jUN 1 Fire & Rescue Division August 7, 2002 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I MOVE 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; Date; Agenda Item Clerk's I~ltttalst CLOSED MEE TING CER TIFICA TION The Board hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting, and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered. RECEIVED AT,BO,S MEETING Date: ~ {~'7.{C) ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy Clerk August 2, 2002 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions Ihave updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through November 30, 2002. interviews are scheduled for the August 7 meeting. Thank you. Cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Chamber of Commerce (list only) Six ' ' " DiSTRICT IF WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM.EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? - · i application (Perkins) sent 2/2/01. Daniel Montgomery 12/13/00 12/13/02 No · Readvertised again; no additional applications. Please reappoint. Juandiego Wade 9/30/02 9130/05 Yes Pl~s~ r,~appo[nt, ~ Cli?r~?. Buys ~,, 9/30/02 9/30/05 ~ Yes Advertised; no applican!,~. ~ Arthur, B. Brown, Jr, 12/31!~5 ,, Resigned ~!o ' 3 interviews scheduled for 8~7~02. Mitchell E. Neuman ? 3-year term Resigned from date · ~,. a~ointed Please reappoint this person. Tracy C. Hopper (PC rep) , 718102 ,'II8.104 , Yes Please reappoint this person. William P. Jackameit , , 718102 , 7~8~04 Yes Roxanne White is discussing Michael K. Semanik 718102 718104 Not eligible establishing bylaws with this committee, so no action need be taken on this sl0t at this time. " ' " '; A, Bruce Dotson 7J8/02 7~8~04 ' ' Not eligible " " " Char es M Rot n Jr. ~ 7/8/~2 7~8~04 ,~ Not ~1i¢ jble 3 interviews scheduled for 8/7102. 1 new slot. 7/1/05 Pleas? reappoint, ~ Mark Reisle[ ~ ,~ 10/20102 10/20t04 ~ Yes Marcia Joseph 11/14/02 11114/06 Yes ' ChariesT, Lebo 11114102 ' 11114106 ' Yes Burton M. Webb , 11121/02 I t 1121107 ' Yes Tom Trevillian 11121102. 11/21/07 Yes .... Burton M'. Webb 11121'I02 11/21/07 ~esr (Appointee to complete his term) Chip German 6130104 Resigned (Letter w/suggested nominee info (moving) attached) . INTERVIEWS BOARD OR COMMISSION I # VACANCIES APPLICANT INTERVIEW ~ TIME Russell M. Cummings, Jr. 1:10 ' Dr, Leslie Durr 1:00 ' ' Christine Melnik 12:40 John P. Chamales t2:30 Terry W, Hawkins 12:50 Albert Lafave t: David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hail Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 22, 2002 Mr. Juandiego Wade 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlotte~f,~VA 22902 Dear M~:CTVad e: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, you were reappointed to serve on the Jaunt Board, with your new term to run from October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2005. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreCiation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Salf~y H.~Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth Attorney Donna Shaunesey Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman ]Rio Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr. Scottsvflle Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 22, 2002 Mr. Mark Reisler 2415 Huntington Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Reister: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, you were reappointed to serve on the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with your new term to run from October 21, 2002 through October 20, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CCi Commonwealth Attorney Gordon Walker Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Waiter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August22,2002 Mr. William P. Jackameit 972 Kelsey Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr. Jackameit: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, you were reappointed to serve on the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with your new term to run from July 9, 2002 through July 8, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman ~'t--tTlla b Enclosure cc: Commonwealth Attorney Roxanne White Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G~ Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 22, 2002 Ms. Tracy C. Hopper 2552 Eastham Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Ms. Hopper~/¢~/' '/ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, you were reappointed to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with your new term to run from July 9, 2002 through July 8, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/Iab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth Attorney Roxanne White Printed on recycIed paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas 5arnuel Miller August 22, 2002 Mr. Charles T. Lebo 370 Mallard Ln. Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Mr. Lebo: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, the Board reappointed you to the Architectural Review Board, with your new term to run from November 15, 2002 through November 14, 2006. Duties of this Board are set out in Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Members are paid $45.00 per meeting (Albemarle Code Section 15.1 ). I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. If you have any questions about the duties of this Board, please call Mr. Wayne Cilimberg at 296-5823. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure CC: Wayne Cilimberg Commonwealth' s Attorney Printed on recp'cled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samue} Miller August22,2002 Ms. Marcia Joseph 384 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, the Board reappointed you to the Architectural Review Board, with your new term to run from November 15, 2002 through November 14, 2006. Duties of this Board are set out in Section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Members are paid $45.00 per meeting (Albemarle Code Section 15.1 ). I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. If you have any questions about the duties of this Board, please call Mr. Wayne Cilimberg at 296-5823. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure CC: Wayne Cilimberg Commonwealth' s Attorney Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. S¢ottsvilte Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel MiIter August 22, 2002 Mr. Burton M. Webb P.O. Box 29 Free Union, VA 22940 Dear Mr. Webb: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, the Board reappointed you to the Board of Building Code Appeals, with said term to run from November 22, 2002 through November 21, 2007. Members are paid $45.00 per meeting (Albemarle Code Section 15.1). I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure CC: Jay Schlothauer Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouet~ Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 22, 2002 Mr. Burton M. Webb P.O. Box 29 Free Union, VA 22940 Dear Mr. Webb: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, the Board reappointed you to the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with said term to run from November 22, 2002 through November 21, 2007. Members are paid $45.00 per meeting (Albemarle Code Section 15.1). I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. If you have any questions about the duties of this Board, please call Mr. Carl Pumphrey at 296-5833. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure CC: Carl Pumphrey Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsvilte CharJes S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 22, 2002 Mr. Tom Trevillian 5530 Jamestown Rd. Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Mr. Trevillian: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, the Board reappointed you to the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with said term to run from November 22, 2002 through November 21, 2007. Members are paid $45.00 per meeting (Albemarle Code Section 15.1). I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. If you have any questions about the duties of this Board, please call Mr. Carl Pumphrey at 296-5833~ Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure CC: Carl Pumphrey Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper 2370 Minor Mill Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 · e-maih ch¢~drginia, edu .................... ~ ............................. i July 22, 2002 Ella W. Carey, CMC Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntare Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: This note is intended to accompany my letter of resignation from the Board of Trustees of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. As I leave this role, I'd like to nominate a person to succeed me. He is William H. Fishback Jr., 505 Rosemont Drive, and his telephone number is 296-8974. I have mentioned this to him, and his initial response has been positive. Respectfu,~ yours, R. F. (Chvj/p) J · cc: Mr. John Halliday Home (434) 973-5448 :: Work (434) 982-2638 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr. Scottsvi e Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Reeker -Jack ,louei~ Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 21 2002 Mr. John P. Chamales 1943 Piper Way Keswick, VA 22947 Dear Mr. Chamales: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, you were appointed to the Jail Authority with said term to run from August 7, 2002 through August 6 2005. I have attached a roster with the names of the other members of the Authority. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth Attorney John Isom Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Clmdottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 Board/Commission/Committee Applicant's Name x~O ]~ gl. APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) ~ ~9 tS~ FF)FA ]eg Home Phone Full Home Address Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Phone Business Address Occupation/Title Years Resident in Albenmfle County Previous Residence ~/[/~£//I ~ F)~ 'fi'd P~ Education (De~rees and Graduation Date of Employment Spouse's Name . xf~'~v g) P~ ~- Number of Children 7-- /?'70 Public, Civic and. Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or!nterests ./4q et ~' ~ a.~ ,f~ .~ 7'-(~, ~ Reason(s) for Wishin~ to Serve on this Board/Commtss~_on/Comrmttee , corrfc~;o~M x/x/-er. ~ ~eel lo, ye cc lo3 ¢o o~'~er'-. Signatur~ Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 40I McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 PLEASE RESTRICT ANY ATTACHMENTS TO ONE PAGE 05-30-02P~2:39 RCVD David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack ~Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller August 21, 2002 Mr. Russell M. Cummings, Jr. 3278 Plank Rd. North Garden, VA 22959 Dear Mr. ~/ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 7, 2002, you were appointed to the Commission on Children and Families, with said term to run from August 7, 2002 through June 30, 2005. have attached a roster with the names of the other members of the Commission. On behalf of the Board, I wOuld like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H.' Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth Attorney Saphira Baker Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of Co. untySupervisors 401 McInti/:e Road Omrlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 Board/Commission/Committee Applicant's Name ~sge t I Full Home Address 3 2-'e~' ~ Magisterial District in which y~ur home residence is located APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) ' (w- Home Vhone(/q $ ~ ! Signature Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401Mclntlre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972- 4012 July 18, 2002 Jade White 975 Hilton Heights Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP:2002-024 Wal-Mart Outdoor Storage & Display Amendment Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D5 Dear Mr. White: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 9, 2002, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A site plan shall be submitted for approval to clearly show all existing onsite improvements, all of the conditions for this proposal, including required landscaping, all previously approved special use permits. All conditions shall be shown in a manner acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. 2. Sidewalk display of lawn and garden merchandise shall be limited to the sidewalk areas between the 5' X 5' tree wells, merchandise shall be limited to 4' in height, and shall be on the sidewalk from February 15 through September 15 only. No new s~gnage associated with this use shall be permitted. Pricing information shall not be displayed higher than three (3) feet. 3. Regarding the expansion of the lawn/garden area in the parking lot, landscaping shall be added along the EC frontage to minimize visibility as follows: · Plant Pin Oaks, at 3~" caliper minimum, spaced 35' on center, to complete the row of trees along the Entrance Corridor. · Plant Chanticleer Pears, at 2~" caliper minimum, spaced 40' on center, on the east side of the eastern travelway, that runs parallel to the Route 29 Entrance Corridor, to provide a continuous row along this travelway. · Add ornamental trees or large ornamental shrubs, such as Shadblow Serviceberry, in the open area between the Pin Oaks and Pears identified above. The expansion of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be limited to twenty-six (26) additional spaces, for a total of sixty-three (63) spaces used for the outdoor lawn and garden center display. The period for the outdoor lawn and garden center shall remain the same as previously approved February 15 through September 15 only. o For the south side of the building, nine (9) additional temporary storage containers shall be located within the existing enclosed storage area, for a total of 29 temporary storage containers. For the north side of the building, nine (9) additional temporary storage containers shall be located at the northwest corner of the loading area, one (1) additional temporary storage container immediately alongside the three (3) permanent containers perpendicular to the building. All containers shall not exceed 9'6" in height, and shall not be stacked. For all of the storage containers, "temporary" shall be defined as August 15 through January 15. All containers shall be located as shown on the concept plan. Page 2 July 18, 2002 6. There shall be no new fenced area to the north side of the building. The existing fenced area may be used when the temporary containers are not in place. The weekend community events on the sidewalk to the north of the main exit to the building shall be limited as follows: Only one organization shall be allowed at any one time during the weekend, one table may be used, that tabl.e shall be located in the area shown on the concept plan, and there shall be a maximum of three persons running the event at one time. The area to the east of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be designated as a permanent location for parking lot events. The events shall not use more that 16 parking space, as shown on the concept plan. No one event shall be longer than three (3) days. Each event proposed shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from the Department of Building Code & Zoning Services. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 7, 2002. Please note that review of public hearing items will begin at 1:30 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Francis MacCall Planner FM/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: FRANCIS H. MACCALL JULY 9, 2002 AUGUST 7, 2002 SP 02-024 WAL-MART OUTDOOR DISPLAY AMENDMENT Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested an amendment to the special use permits that have allowed multiple activities to be approved. This request entails the following: The use Of a portion of the sidewalk along the front of the building for display of Iawn and garden center items, the expansion of the outdoor lawn and garden center by 24 additional parking spaces, the addition often (10) storage containers to the south side of the building and ten (10) storage containers to the north side of the building, the use of the sidewalk close to the main entrance to the building for community events on the weekends, and the use of a section of the parking lot by the outside lawn and garden center to be used for parking lot events, such as but not limited to blood drives, safety belt checks. (See Attachment A, Tax Map/Vicinity Map & Attachment B Concept Plan) Petition: Request for a special use permit to expand an existing use of outdoor storage and display in the Entrance Corridor overlay district on 13.284 acres, in accordance with Section 30.6.3,2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 68D5, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on U.S. Route 29 North.: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood 1 and recommends it for Regional Service. Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with the existing Wal-Mart store and its supporting parking. There is year long storage and display of lawn and garden merchandise on the north side of the building and a outdoor lawn and garden center display area exists on the northeast side of the building in the parking lot from February 15 to September 15. The surrounding area is developed with commercial uses, and heavily traveled roads. Development in the surrounding area includes two car dealerships, a convenience store/gas station/car wash, and other various retail outlets. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Planning and Zoning Hi,qtory: SDP-90-52: Wal-Mart Store Preliminary Site Plan SDP-91-60: Wal-Mart Store Final Site Plan, Approved 114,513 square foot building with a proposed 30,000 square foot future addition on the south side o£the building and a garden center and loading area on the north side of the building. SP-93-38: Special use permit approved for outdoor storage, display and sale of garden center merchandise on the north side of the building including an open display area and a temporary 1200 square foot green house, limited to the period of February 15 to July 5. SP-95-33: Special use permit proposal to expand the outdoor storage and display allowed under SP-93-38, extending the time frame and adding six permanent storage containers and up to five additional temporary storage containers, indefinitely deferred at the request of the applicant. SP-96-24: Special use permit approved for an expansion of the outdoor storage, display allowed under SP-93-38, extending the time frame for the outdoor lawn and garden center sales and display from February 15 through September 15 each year and expanding the storage/display/sale to allow merchandise display on the sidewalk in front of the store, and also expanding the area of storage to include fifteen (15) temporary storage containers on the south side of the building. SDP-96-50: Wal-Mart Store Minor Amendment: Amended site plan to meet the conditions of approval of SP-96-24. SP-98-41: Special use permit approved to add five (5) temporary storage containers to the south side of the building increasing the number from fifteen (15) to twenty (20). SDP-98-104: Wal-Mart Store Minor Amendment: Approved a minor site plan amendment to show the addition of the five (5) temporary storage containers approved by SP-98-41. SDP-98-133: Wal-Mart Store Minor Amendment: Approved a minor site plan amendment to add 1,717 square feet to the indoor garden center, and a 4,556 square foot seasonal shop addition. This site plan amendment also incorporated the conditions from all of the approved special use permits. There have been two official notices of violation. V-95-133 was for a sign violation and V- 96-075 was for a special use permit/site plan violation. There have been continuous site compliance checks that resulted in compliance with the special use permits, but no official violations were cited. SPECIAL USE PERMIT Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model: Requests for special use permits in the Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. The ways in which the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in accordance with the Neighborhood Model are provided below. Staff recognizes that very few of the Neighborhood Model principles are applicable to this proposal. Staff has provided an assessment of the principles below: 2 Pedestrian Orientation - There will be adequate sidewalk remaining for pedestrians to safely view the merchandise on the sidewalk. Striping, over the travelway, for Pedestrian traffic already exists for movement between uses onsite. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths - No new streets are proposed with this request Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - This site has a connection to and from two (2) roads. Parks and Open Space - There are no parks or open space to consider on this site. Neighborhood Centers - This proposal does not meet the definition of a neighborhood center. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - The existing building is considered a "big box" development that does not create good spatial enclosure. The building fits the pattern that has existed for some time on the Wal-Mart site. No changes are proposed nor recommended for the design of the site. Relegated Parking - No new parking is proposed for this proposal. Mixture of Uses ~ Currently there is not a possibility for providing a mixture of uses onsite. / Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability - This principle is.not applicable to this proposal. Redevelopment- This principle is not applicable to this proposal. Site Planning that Respects Terrain - This principle is not applicable to this proposal. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas - This site is located entirely within the Development Area and is not adjacent to the Rural Areas. Architectural Review Board Review: The following are comments provided, by the ARB' The Architectural Review Board has no objections to the special use permit for ARB-2002- 57, Wal-Mart Outdoor Storage and Display Expansion, with the applicant strictly following staff's recommendations 1 - 5, as follows: 1. Regarding the lawru'garden .display area along the sidewalk, sidewalk display of lawn/garden merchandise shall be limited to the areas between the trees, and shall be limited to 4' in height. 2. Regarding the expansion of the lawn/garden area in the parking lot, landscaping shall be added along the EC frontage to minimize vi sibility as follows: Plant Pin Oaks, at 3½" caliper minimum, spaced 35' on center, along the EC to complete the row of trees along the EC. Plant Chanticleer Pears, at 2½" caliper minimum, spaced 40' on center, on the east side of the eastern travelway, north of the Route 29 entrance to the site, to provide a continuous row along this travelway. Add ornamental trees or large ornamental shrubs, such as Shadblow Serviceberry, in the open area between the Pin Oaks and Pears identified above. 3. Regarding the temporary storage containers for the south side of the building, storage containers shall be located within the existing enclosed storage area, shall not exceed 9'6" in height, and shall not be stacked. 4. Regarding the temporary storage containers for the north side of the building, storage containers shall be located within the existing enclosed storage area, shall not exceed 9'6" in height, and shall not be stacked. 5. No new signage associated with this use shall be permitted. Pricing information shall not be displayed higher than three feet. (See Attachment D, ARB Letter dated June 19, 2002) A submittal for review by the ARB was made on May 13, 2002 and the item was reviewed by the ARB on June 17, 2002. STAFF COMMENT: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adiacent property? It is anticipated that the proposed expansion will have no negative impact on the surrounding uses or on the site itself, and should not propose any detriment to adi acent properties. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The primary concem with regard to the character of the district is the potential impact on the Entrance Corridor. The additional storage containers on the south side of the building are expected to be hidden from view by the walls that currently enclose the area on the south and east sides. The area to the north of the building already has limited visibility and with additional landscaping, should limit the visibility of additional storage containers even further. The expansion of the outdoor garden center, the use of the side walk for display of garden center items, the use of the sidewalk near the main entrance to the building for weekend community events, and the use of the area to the east of the outdoor garden center as a designated area for parking lot events should not change the character of the area. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staffbelieves the proposal is generally in keeping with the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The proposed expansion of the use will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent property. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? There are no additional regulations for outdoor display provided in Section 5.0. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? There is nothing unusually hazardous or objectionable about this proposal. Additional Comment: Staff has comments on four (4) of the five (5) requests. First, there has been a recent change from the original proposal. Originally, the applicant was proposing ten (10) additional temporary storage containers to the south side of the building. The configuration that was approved through previous special use permits would actually allow only five (5) additional containers. If the layout is adjusted, an additional nine (9) temporary storage containers to the south side of the building could be placed along side the first twenty (20) containers, instead of the original ten (I0). (Attachment C original container layout) The existing twenty (20) containers can be aligned so that they are perpendicular to the building. This would allow nine (9) additional containers to be safely placed along the same alignment as the twenty (20) containers. There would be twenty-nine (29) temporary storage containers on the south side of the building. Staffhas no objections to this request for a change in the alignment of the containers. Second, the location of the area the applicant has requested for temporary events needs to be clarified. The applicant originally proposed the area east of the existing outdoor lawn and garden area to be used for special events. The request before the ARB showed the location to be at a southwestern portion of the parking lot closer to the main entrance and use only nine (9) parking spaces. The ARB has no recommendations regarding the actual location of temporary events in the parking lot. 'The original location works better for accommodating safer pedestrian access to the events. The location closer to the entrance requires pedestrians to cross the main travelway to get to the event and is at a location that appears to be unsafe. Zoning has commented that they would not approve a temporary event in that location. Staff believes that the events proposed would be better suited in the northeast corner of the parking lot to the east of the outdoor lawn and garden center, and recommends that they be designated here. This keeps the pedestrians that take part in the event in an area that already has limited vehicular access, thus limiting conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. In addition, Zoning is willing to designate an area for events but will still require a clearance for the type of event that may be proposed. The applicant has stated that sixteen (16) spaces to the east of the outdoor lawn and garden center will be adequate for the events that would occur. It should be noted that Zoning allows temporary events to last no longer that three (3) days. Staff can recommend this location to the east side of the outdoor lawn and garden center, for temporary events in the parking lot. Third, staff is noting that the request for twenty-four (24) spaces is incorrect. The location of the fence that will surround the lawn and garden center there will actually be twenty-six (26) additional parking spaces used. The total number of spaces used for this display area will be sixty-three (63). In addition, staff will not require landscaping directly around the garden center. The ARB believes that the conditions for the apphcant to provide additional landscaping along the Entrance Corridor will adequately screen the outdoor lawn and garden center display. Fourth, the concept plan shows the location of the 5' X 5'tree wells on the sidewalk incorrectly. The tree wells are actually abutting the building. This would allow merchandise to be placed between the wells as the ARB has stipulated and still allow pedestrians to safely move on the remaining five (5) feet of sidewalk. The location will be corrected with the site plan amendment recommended as a condition of approval. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The Architectural Review Board has no objections to the special use permit. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: The area to the south of the building currently used for temporary storage containers has been set aside on the original site plan for a 30,000 square foot building addition. As of now, the addition has not been built. With approval of this special use permit, the site would have no additional safe and adequately screened area for additional storage containers. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staffrecommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions: A site plan shall be submitted for approval to clearly show all existing onsite improvements, all of the conditions for this proposal, including required landscaping, all previously approved special use permits. All conditions shall be shown in a manner acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. Sidewalk display of lawn and garden merchandise shall be limited to the sidewalk areas between the 5' X 5' tree wells, merchandise shall be limited to 4' in height, and shall be on the sidewalk from February 15 through September 15 only. No new signage associated with this use shall be permitted. Pricing information shall not be displayed higher than three (3) feet. 3. Regarding -the expansion of the lawn/garden area in the parking lot, landscaping shall be added along the EC frontage to minimize visibility as follows: · Plant Pin Oaks, at 3 ½" caliper minimum, spaced 35' on center, to complete the row of trees along the Entrance Corridor. · Plant Chanticleer Pears, at 2½" caliper minimum, spaced 40' on center, on the east side of the eastern travelway, that runs parallel to the Route 29 Entrance Corridor, to provide a continuous row along this travelway. · Add ornamental trees or large ornamental shrubs, such as Shadblow Serviceberry, in the open area between the Pin Oaks and Pears identified above. The expansion of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be hmited to twenty-six (26) additional spaces, for a total of sixty-three (63) spaces used for the outdoor lawn and garden center display. The period for the outdoor lawn and garden center shall remain the same as previously approved February 15 through September 15 only. For the south side of the building, nine (9) additional temporary storage containers shall be located within the existing enclosed storage area, for a total of 29 temporary storage containers. For the north side of the building, nine (9) additional temporary storage containers shall be located at the northwest comer of the loading area, one (1) additional temporary storage container immediately alongside the three (3) permanent containers perpendicular to the building. All containers shall not exceed 9'6" in height, and shall not be stacked. For all of the storage containers, "temporary" shall be defmed as August 15 through January 15. All containers shall be located as shown on the concept plan. There shall be no new fenced area to the north side of the building. The existing fenced area may be used when the temporary containers are not in place. The weekend community events on the sidewalk to the north of the main exit to the building shall be limited as follows: Only one organization shall be allowed at any one time during the weekend, one table may be used, that table shall be located in the area shown on the concept plan, and there shall be a maximum of three persons running the event at one time. The area to the east of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be designated as a permanent location for parking lot events. The events shall not use more that 16 parking space, as shown on the concept plan. N° one event shall be longer than three (3) days. Each event proposed shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from the Department of Building Code & Zoning Services. ATTACHMENTS: A. Tax Map/Vicinity Map B. Concept Plan C. Original container layout on south side D. Architectural Review Board letter dated 6/19/02 ATTACHMENT A TNCC;E~T' I CHORD I 'rr-A"~-'-'~ ' DID..TA . / 145.00' ~n4.' N 27'42'~0' 'E 18'57'00' I 47,52' f~._~_~' $ 64'4730' W ~ 9~"OTO0' I . _~._n~'_ . 4~.~' N I~F.,~O" W ~'~'4~' I PAD i S~1'4~ w 'SITE · :... 200'51'9 RECEIVE£ NOV 0 ] 1999 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 1 fa( 864-'2~3-e9~ WALMA~ ~ MINO~ ~ - ',--' - : ATTACHMENTB '\~\ ~ ~,.~ - PAGE 2 ' ' , , .--:: . -':-'4 ~ ' PAD ~ ........... ~--___J.~ ................ ~ .............. ~ ~ ~ ~ DOC~', '~ '~ ', ', , ~ :: -l~r- !~ ",. -. ..... ~T GP qG-i~iI~'F= LAN~ SIGNS I~1~ CODE~ TI-tI~E~ STOI2AGE CONTAINF=PS SEE SRIECIAL PIEPMIT 96-24- GAI~DEN CtENTE~I~ LOADING CIENTIEI~ GAt~DEN C,~NT'-mI~ / ADDrnoN / :.STOP ,~GN c ':\ -'-.'~ .z_; CAL -:.:E~LLOW C~OSSWALK STOP / .WI~~t= LAlt,~..~. ......... !K[.N....G......i~A, 4" ....~...T.~.. ........... ..- ............. PLANT--~--S~I~UE~$ ......................... (TYP..IC.~.:). ....... ........... ~.~;.-'~ ........................... ........................... ©UTD©©[¢ $~L~$ ........................... (-F~M~-- $7 ........................... $~ ............. ............. ~, .............. ~ ............. ........................... ~ ........ . ..................................... ............. ~.--: ....... ~:. .......................... ................... -:.~. .............. S ~7'11'4-5" W 225.00' .... - ' ATTACHMENT B S. ' I~OUTEE 29 45.00' 73.15:' 4,5.00' 45;64' 25.00' 43.71 N 11 ~ ATTACHMENT B " :CTION I ' DISTANCE ~, 3 W 12.71' '45" ,.5' BIT COI,,IC, I~ETI~ TYPE SM-2A 3.5, BIT C~ ~ l~M-2 TED 21-A -Z i..5,~.,~BiT COI',IC.,,~:~--T E T~ ~ 5,M-2A · 2.5' BIT CONCI~L-=TE TYPE BM-2 PAGE 4 LS 60 PAI~KING SPACES ' ,.$EE.,.,.$p._F=C1AL_-- PERMIT 96-24' .:TED 21-A N..T TIONS VIIL:~GINIA 4 45 -I 68 4 J;~ICE 'CI-~'VOLET . WAL- ._ _ -- -~' '?--"?';' :. .(TEMPOI~A~Y) l I 1' J S ~ ::SpF::CI'AL~F~MIT :98 ._-~:~41 l. -' S '-~ t::34~ ;, S~'.''-~ ~t~ -D~,~TN~ ./ -. - /l CO~Ti~'~ ' 45.00' 73.13' 4.7.52' 85.35' .45.00' 45.64' ' 25.00' -43.71' S 64-'4.7'3O" W N-11~15'30" W ECll0N ,'04'04" .W F36'55" W )'08'4.5" W DISTANCE 8.94' 12.71' - 154..96' ATTACHMENT C -I.5' BIT CONCI~ TTF:'E SM-2A -$.5' BIT C~ TTF'IE BM-2 CTBD 21-A _T ~!.5' BIT CONCI;L>ETE TTPE~ SM-2A ~-2.5' BIT CONCI;~TF: TTPE BM-2 ACTI~D 21-A :~T CTIONS )F= "VII~NS!NIA TM --45 --.- .66 . JIM - PlaICE ' Cl-~VO~ ' CAI;~ D~_ALEI~ I-lC ZONII'~ I~ETAINING WALL--~-..N LS i~ i 'i 'i i Ii i:-i '. i ;~..j ':' ~.~ .................... i.i :~.~-!77/; : ~'"~ .......... NOOO FENCE ,15 STO!~AGE '~ONTAINE~$ (TEMPOI~AI~T) 60 PAi~KING SPACES TEIMPOI~AI~T LOST SEE SPECIAL PEt~MtT ~.~-24 WA LE STO~AGE 'CONTAINE'~S (TEMPOI~AI~T) SPECIAL PERMIT' 98 'NO STPlPE: coUNTY OF A~LBEMARLE Department of ?lanmng & Community Development 401 Mc[ntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 - (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 1 June 19, 2002 Jade White Wal-Mart 975 Hilton Heights Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ARB-2002-57: Wal-Mart Outdoor Storage and Display Expansion Dear Mr. White, The Albemarle CoUnty Architectural Rewew Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, June 17, 2002. The board took the following actions: ' First, the ARB voted unanimously to forward the following recommendation ro the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: ARB-2002-57, Wal-Mart The Architectural Review Board has no objections to the special use permit for Outdoor Storage and Display Expansion, with the applicant strictly following, staff's recommendations. 1 - 5, as follows: ~ 1. Regarding the lawn/garden display area along the sidewalk, sidewalk display of lawn/oarden merchandise shall be limited to the areas between the trees, and shall be limited to 4' in height. 2. Regarding the expansion of the lawn/garden ·area m the parking lot, landscaping shall be added aIong the EC frontage to minimize visibility as follows: · Plant Pin Oaks, at 3V2" caliper minimum, spaced 35' on center, along the EC ro complete the row of trees along the EC. (It is anticipated that 6 Pin Oaks would be required.) · Plant Chanticleer Pears, at 2iA" caliper mmzrnunh spaced 40' on center, on the east side of the eastern travelway, north of the Route 29 entrance to the site, to provide a continuous row along this travelway. (It is anticipated that 5 Pear trees would be required.) · Add ornamental trees or large ornamental shrubs, such as Shadblow Serviceberry, in the open area bet-ween the Pin Oaks and Pears identified above. (It is anticipated that 6 Serviceberry would be containers shall required.) 3. Regarding the temporary storage containers for the south side of the building, storage be located within the existing enclosed storage area, shall not exceed 9'6" in' height, and shall not be storage containers shall stacked. 4. Regarding the temporary storage containers for the north side of the building, be located within the existing enctosed storage area, shall not exceed 9'6" in heig~ht, and shall not be shall not be displayed stacked. 5. No new signage associated with this use shall be permitted. Pricing information higher than three feet. ATTACHMENT D PAGE 2 Second, the ARB voted unanimously to approve a f'mal Ce~'fficate °fAppropriateness for the request, pending staff adm/mstrative approval of the follow/ng conditions: 1. Regarding the' lawn/garden display area along the sidewalk, sidewalk display of lawn/garden merchandise shalI be limited to the areas between the trees, and shall be limited to 4' 2. Regarding the expansion of the lawn/garden area in the parking lot, landscaping shall be added along the EC frontage to m/nim/ze visibility as follows:. /n height. ·Plant Pin Oaks, at 3'/2" caliper min/murrg spaced 35' on center, along the EC to Complete the row. (It is anticipated that 6 Pin:Oaks wou/d be required.) · Plant Chanticleer Pears, at 2¼" caliper mimmum, spaced 40' on center, on the east side of the eastern travelway, north o£ the Route 29 entrance to the site, to provide a continuous row along this travelway. (It is anticipated that 5 Pears wou/d be required.) · Add ornamental trees or large ornamental shrubs, such as Shadblow Serviceberry, in the open area between the pin Oaks and Pears identified above. (It is anticipated that 6 Serviceberry would be required.) 3. Regarding the temporary storage containers for the south side of the bu/lding, storage contahaers s/m/l' be located within the existing enclosed storage area, shall not exceed 9'6" in height, and shall not be stacked. 4. Regarding the temporary storage containers for the north side of the building, storage containers shall be located within the existing enclosed storage area, shall not exceed 9'6" in height, and sba/1 nor be stacked. Staff offers no comments related to the sidewalk or parking lot events. 5.additionalC/early showlandscapingall storageonareaSthe site°n plan.the site plan and clearly indicate all cond/tious of approval. Show the Please provide revised drawings addressing each of these conditions at your earliest converfience' The p/an should include clear notes indicating the approved temporary t/me periods for the storage containers. /nclude a memo /ndicaring how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, /dent/fy those changes in the memo also. When staff's review of th/s /nformation indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate °fAppropriateness may be issued. If you have any quest/ous, please do not hesitate to ~ontact me. - Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner Cc: File //'Francis MacCall COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTION: INFORMATION: X SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Status on major initiatives underway 'n the development departments STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, McCulley, Graham, Cilimberg CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: INFORMATION: A'I-rACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: C+--; .-, BACKG_ROUND: The Board of Supervisors recently requested an update on the status a number of important initiatives currently underway in the development departments. Updates were requested on the following: · Status of the Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan (Attachment A) · Status on review of the Rural Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment B) · Status on the acquisition of conservation easements prog ram (Attachment C) · Status on the development of the Design Manual (Attachment D) DISCUSSION: In addition to simply providing an update, staff has implemented the use of Microsoft Project for the management and reporting of these projects and will be utilizing it for other projects or significant initiatives in the futu re. Use of this management tool will create a new way of doing business that focuses on a greater level of accountability and provides considerable assistance in the reporting and management of significant and complex projects. Attached are updates on the above projects. This includes written reports and schedules for the Design Manual and ACE program and MS Project schedules for the Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan and Rural Areas Review. In addition to providing current updates, bi-monthly updates will be provided to the Board in the future on the Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan and the Rural Areas review. A further update to the enclosed Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan will be provided to the Board and reviewed at Wednesday's meeting. RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for review and comment by the Board. The timelines represent what staff considers realistic estimates for completion of the projects based on a thorough review of the tasks involved. Staffwelcomes Board comments or questions regarding the schedule and input on potential changes. 0,/_31_02Pt 2:2~/ RCVD 02:125 ID Task Name Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan 2OOl 14 t5 19 24 29 3O 40 41 45 5O 59 64 69 76 78 79 84 91 98 106 107 14 115 120 121 127 129 134 138 Staff development of proposed changes PC Review BOS Review Modify Community Facilities Plan Preliminary staff review Overall Facility & Individual Service Objectives Facilities & Service Strategies and Needs Assessment Regulatory Changes Subdivision Changes Shared Driveway/Alleys Vol 2 Subdivision Changes Zoning Changes Shared Driveway/Alleys Neighborhood Model District Critical Slopes PC Review Board Review Volume 2 Changes Master Planning Crozet Master Plan Preparatory Activities Framework Plan Master Plan Subdivision Street Standards Water & Sewer Provisions Coord w/Street Standards Inadequate Service Area Proposal Fire Protection Coord w/Street Standards Parks and Rec Facilities Neighborhood Parks Ownership and Maintenance Inclusion in Community Facilities Plan Parks and Playing Fields Inclusion in Community Facilities Plan Affordable Housing - Ongoing Promoting Infill - Ongoing Fri 6/1/0t Mort 2/4/02 Wed 4/3/02 Tue 7131/01 Tue 7/31/01 Mort 6/3/02 Mon 6/6/02 Wed 6/1/01 Tue 9/4/0'1 Tue 9t4/01 Mon 711 6/02 Wed 6/1101 Tue 914/01 Wed 6/1101 Mort 6/17/02 Mon 12/9/02 Wed Z/12/03 Mo~ 7/I 6/02 Fri 1 I/2/01 Wed 1t30/02 Wed 1/30/02 Frl 6/2/02 Sat 2/0/03 Men 121t0/01 Mort 7129/02 Mon 7129/02 Mort 7/29/02 Tue 9/4/01 Tue gl4/01 Mort 711102 Tue 7116/02 Thu 1/2/03 Mort 711/02 Thu 511/03 Tue 914/01 Fri 2/1/02 Tue 3/26/02 Wed 7110/02 Mort 513/04 Fri 6/23/02 Thu 2/27/03 Mort 513/04 Thu 7/31/03 Mort 3131103 Wed 216/02 Mort 3131/03 Thu 7/31/03 Wed 2/$/02 Tue 12131/02 Thu 7/3t/03 Tua 2/11/03 Wed 4/9/03 Mort 3131/03 Wed 9/10/03 Wed 9110/03 Thu 811102 Wed 1/8/03 Wed 9/10/03 Thu 12/19/02 Tue 6/22/04 Thu 1/30/03 Tue 6122104 Tue 7/29/03 Tue 7129103 Wed 12J31/03 Mon 6130103 Mon 6/30/03 Wed 12/31/03 Wed 12/31/03 Thu 10131/02 Fri 6/I/03 Project: NM-Master Elaine 6-7-02 Date: Wed 7.r31/02 Task Progress Milestone Summary Roiled Up Task Roiled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Page 1 Task Name Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 21 27 28 36 38 4O 42 45 46 48 49 5t 54 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 67 Staff Developme~ of Background InfOrmation PC and Staff Review of Background Information Guiding Principles Uses in the Rural Area Infrastructure/Community Services Staff Review of Adjacent County Issues Related to RA Rural Area Vision Groundwater Water Resoumes Committee Report Staff Preparation Planning Commission Review Review with Focus Group Consideration of P~blic Participation Process Mapping and Data Development Development of Rural Area Vision ~ Public Input Process Preparation for public sessions Public Input Process Planning Commission Consideration Board of Supervisors Consideration Focus Group Update Review of Uses in the Rural Areas Staff Review Uses in the Rural Area Ag/Forestai Industry Support Adjacent County ISsues related to Rural Area Infrastructure/Community Services Planning Commission Review Board of Supervisors Review Review of Land Use Patterns & Density/Dev. Rights Staff Review Land Use Patterns and Density/Dev. Rights RPD's Design Standards Consistency w/Natural Resources & Outtural Assets (CH 2) Planning Commission Review Board of Supervisors Review Task Project: RACompplen Date: Wed 7/31/02 Split Progress FrS 12/1/00 Mon 4/2/01 Mon 4F2/01 Mon 7/2/01 Wed 8/15/01 Mon 4/22/02 Wed 5/1/02 Mon 10/15/01 Mon 10/15/01 Tue 10/I 6/01 Tue 12/18/01 Wed 616/01 Wed 5/22/02 Mon 5/I 7102 Mon 7/18/02 Mon 7/15/02 FrS 1111102 Tue 1/21/03 Wed 2/5/03 Mon 2/10/03 Thu 2/6/03 Thu 2/5/03 Mon 2/17/03 Thu 2/6/03 Thu 2/6/03 Thu 2/6/03 Tue 4/5/03 Wed 7~2~03 Tue 4/1103 Tue 4/1/03 Tue 4/I/03 Mort 6/2/03 Mort 6/2/03 Mon 6t2/03 Tue 5/5/03 Wed Tue 4/10101 Tue 5/21102 Tue 5F21/02 Tue 5/21/02 Tue t 0/30/01 Tue 5/14/02 Tue 5/21/02 Tue 315/02 Mon 10/15/01 Tue 12/11/01 Tue 3/5/02 Tue 3/12/02 Tue 6125102 FrS 11/29102 Frf 2/14~3 Thu 10131/02 Wed 11127102 Tue 1121/03 Wed 2/5/03 Fri 2/14/03 Wed 5/13/03 Thu 3120/03 Mon 3/17/03 Thu 3/20/03 Thu 3/6/03 Thu 3/6/03 Tue 5/17/03 Wed 8/13103 Wed 12/10/03 Thu 7/31/03 Fd 5/30/03 Thu 7/31/03 Thu 7/31/03 Thu 7/31/03 Tue 10/21/03 Wed 1211 Milestone External Tasks Summery ~ External Milestone Projec't Summary ~ Deadline Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .AGENDA TITLE: Progress of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Status of 2nd Round (2001-02) Applications and Anticipated Schedule for 3r~ Round (2002-03) Applications .STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Goodall  : ITEM NUMBER: ugust 7, 2002 ACTION: .IN FORMATION: X .CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ',,~'C~ BACKGROUND: Section A.I. Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program of the County Code specifies in Sec. A.1-110 the application and evaluation procedure for ACE easements and in Sec. A. 1-111 purchase procedures for such easements. Included are requirements and deadlines for applications and evaluation, which may be waived by the Board of Supervisors. As an example, the Board changed the 34 Round (2002-03) application deadline from August 1 st to September 1 st. This was done to accommodate and benefit from the closing ceremony for 1st Round (2000-01) purchases scheduled forAugust 8. The ACE committee decided that the ceremony should not take place until the last easement has been officially acquired and prior to the next application deadline. It appears the last closing will occur sometime in July. The hope is to use the closing ceremony as a means to publicize the program and create momentum going into the 3r~ Round application deadline. DISCUSSION: Experience with the first two rounds of applications to this point indicates that the codified timeframes are unrealistic. The application deadline for 2001-02 applicants was August 1st, 2001. Th ough staff had anticipated a closing date on or around September 1st for easement acquisitions for second round applications, the ACE Committee and staff now believe the original timeline cannot be met. Delays largely attributable to selecting and contracting with an appraiser will likely push the closing date to sometime this fall. Though the Appraisal Review Committee officially selected an appraiser on February 19th, it was over two months before the appraiser and County ratified a Contract Agreement and the appraiser received a "n otice to proceed". According to the Contract Agreement, the appraiser has 75 days from April 29 to complete the appraisals. Since then, however, one of the applicants was dropped and two new ones were added (per the July 3r~, 2002 Consent Agenda) thus increasing the number of appraisals from seven to eight. This necessarily extends the length of the Contract by at least two weeks, creating an unofficial deadline of August 1st to complete the appraisals. Since two new landowners were added to the appraisal list late in the process, they and their attorneys must have time to review the Deed of Easement. Once approved, these properties will be ready for an appraisal. To expedite matters, staff has asked the appraiser to concentrate on completing the first six properties. Once they are done, review of the Deed of Easement should be completed and the appraiser can begin on the last two properties. It is anticipated, this will delay completion of the appraisals to mid-August Based on the current status of the application process, staff anticipates the following timeline to complete the purchase of second round of conservation easements: ATTACHMENT C Page 2 of 4 Late August - completion of appraisals, review of appraisals and confirmation by the Appraisal Review Committee Late September- Board of Supervisors receives appraisals and authorizes acquisition November- Acquisition of ACE properties from FY 2001-02 application pool There is much staff has learned to this point regarding the ACE prog Attachment A), ~am's progress that might be im proved (see but also necessitates changes to the timeline for the 3 Round (FY02-03). Attachment B indicates an anticipated schedule, which would result in all easements being purchased by October 31, 2003. This could be shortened by up to 2 months if we are able to use smaJl purchase procedures to procure the appraiser. .RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board waive the requirements for deadlines for 3rd Round (2002-03) applications as listed in Sec. A. 1-110 to reflect the anticipated schedule listed in Attachment B. ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT C Page 3 of 4 ACE: Improvin~ the Proces~ Ches and I met July 8, 2002 to begin evaluating the ACE process. Our goal is to eliminate unnecessary or repetitive steps, to reduce the time required for certain milestones to be accomplished, and to provide more information to the owner which, in turn, should expedite the process. Ar~r)raisal procurement: After two rounds of ACE appraisals to give us an idea of the expected appraisal costs, and an increase in the ceiling for small purchase procedures to $50.000. apprmser should be procured using the small purchase procedures. A master agreement the should be developed (most recent edition was for the Crozet Master Plan) for use. If the $50,000 ceiling is not threatened, consider an agreement on a two-year cycle. Offer: The offer form letter should be revised to clearly state that the offer is made with the isaSSuranCeclear andthat titleallinsurancetitle issUeswillWillbe beissued).addressed to the satisfaction of the County (i.e., so that title .Acceptances: The acceptance letter should clearly inform the owner that he or she must address all title issues identified in the preliminary and final title reports. The preliminary title report will continue to be provided to the owner; however, the acceptance letter should reflect the terms of the offer - that all title issues will be addressed to the satisfaction of the County. The acceptance letter should also fully explain the process that will follow, and provide detailed instructions of the steps the owner needs to take to bring the transaction to closing. Milestones: All of the milestones should be identified between the completion of the appraisal and the closing. Dates for completing each milestone should be established, up to the fn-st milestone for the owner to obtain. Once the owner has obtained the milestone, dates for completing each subsequent milestone should then be established, until the next milestone for the owner to obtain, and so on. Overall processing: Each application should be processed to closing on its own schedule, rather than attempting to have all transactions close at the same time. Still to research: Are there any unnecessary or repetitive steps that should be eliminated? ATTACHMENT B ID ~@ 3 ~ 6 7 ~ 8 ~ I0 ~ 12 ~ 13 ~ 16 ~ Task Name Application Submittal Evaluation by Program Administrator Evaluation and Ranking by ACE Committee Evaluation and Ranking by BOS Appraisal of Easement Value RFP Contact and Notice to Proceed Completion of Appraisals ARC Approval of Appraisals BOS Approval of Appraisals Idenitification of Initial Pool of Applicants Approval of Purchase Price Invitation of Offer to sell by BOS Offer to Sell (By Owner) Acceptance of Offer by BOS Easement Established (Deed Recorded) Tue 9/3t02 Wed 9/4/02 Thu 12119/02 Wed 1/8/03 Mort 1/13/03 Mort 1/13/03 Mon 3/31/03 Tue 411/03 Mon 6/30/03 Wed 7/9/03 Thu 7/10t03 Fd 7tl 1/03 Mon 7/14/03 Fri 8/1/03 Wed 9/3/03 Tue 9/3/02 Tue 12t3/02 Thu 12/19/02 Wed 1/8/03 Wed 7/9/03 Fri 2/28/03 Mon 3/31/03 Mon 6/16/03 Mon 6/30/03 Wed 7/9/03 Thu 7/10/03 Fd 7111/03 Mon 7/14/03 Fri 8/1/03 Wed 9/3/03 Fri 10/3t/03 Project: ACE - 3rd Round Date: Wed 7/31/02 Task SpIN Progress Milestone Summary Project Summary Page t External Tasks External Milestone Deadline ATTACHMENT D Page 1 of 2 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM Tom Foley, Asst. County Executive Mark B. Graham, Director of Engineering and Public Works 08 July 2002 Design Standards Manual, Status Report This memo is to update you on where we stand on the subject. Following the discussions with you and the County Attorney regarding the standing of this manual earher this year, Engineering revised its work plan. That revision greatly reduced the work necessary to complete the mamml. Engineering has now completed the draft manual and has started the quality review process. We anticipate this quality review process will be completed this Fall and the manual will be fully implemented at that time. We are presently circulating this draf~ manual to other development review departments and agencies for their comments. That comment period will end this month (July) and those comments will be incorporated into the draft manual. It is anticipated that task will be completed in early Augnst. Once that work is completed, we will circulate the draft manual for public comment. In addition to having printed copies available for comment, we plan to include making the manual available over the Intemet. The Internet access is planned to include a means of offering comments by e-mail and sharing comments for discussion through an electronic bulletin board. We anticipate leaving the manual open for pubhc comment for a m/n/mum of 30 days. If we see that additional comment time is requested to assure issues are adequately addressed, wen extend the comment period but begin incorporating the previous comments. Once we've incorporated the pubhc comments, we'll present the manual to the Planning Commission and Board, and begin using the manual. The primary revision to the work plan was creating this manual as a compilation of existing pohcies and procedures rather than establishing any new requirements. As such, there are no ordinance revisions reqtdred to implement this manual and action by the County Board or Planning Commission is not required. That does not mean the manual has no regulatory basis, just that we are not trying to extend the existing regulatory framework with the implementation of this manual. For example, the Water Protections Ordinance authorizes the director of engineering to implement procedures and standards for enforcing that ordinance. That has been done with this manual. It is anticipated that future ordinance amendments can accomplish a similar purpose. For example, changes are currently being proposed with the the parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the ordinance amendment, it is proposed to allow the director of engineering and public works to set standards for parking lot design. We have presented our proposed standards for the parking lot design with this ordinance ATTACHMENT D Page 2 of 2 amendment and will include those in this manual if the ordinance amendment is approved. A similar process is planned for any other amendments that delegate authority to County administration. Finally, I will note that we plan to share the manual over the Intemet and include an update process for this manual with the initial implementation. Sharing the manual over tile Internet will allow users to verify they are working with the current requ/rements and to easily update their paper copies without the need to buy an entire new manual. The manual will include a listing of all updates to make this task relatively easy. The updates to the manual will be changes and/or additions to requirements as found necessary to maintain consistency with ordinance requirements and customer service objectives. By including an update process, we can make revisions in a manner that allows the public to comment on any changes before they are put in place and assures those using this mant~ the ability to plan for these changes on future projects. Parties that wish to be notified of proposed updates will be given the oppommity to be notified by e-mall. That would include coordination with ordinance amendments to assure that any new requirements have a similar opportunity for comment. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0'7-3!-02A10:15 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Monticello Fire/Rescue Station Staffing SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review of alternatives to address staffing issues STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Eggleston AGENDA DATE: August7,2002 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The Monticello Fire & Rescue station and the County have been actively recruiting volunteers for the operation of the new station, due to open in January of 2003. As a result, the station currently has over 30 applicants that are in various stages of preparing themselves to provide service. Many of the applicants are attending the July 2002 training academy, but it is estimated that only 10 will completely finish the courses and successfully pass the required testing. The estimated 10 volunteers combined with the 8 career fire fighters that are in the FY 2003 budget will not be sufficient to staff the station 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This issue is also addressed in the attached letter from Charles Anson, Chairman of the Monticello Fire/Rescue Station Board of Advisors. Listed below is a summary of recruitment efforts to attract volunteers for the new station. · Held community meeting to inform the public about the plans for the station and recruit volunteers. · Sent Out recruitment flyers to neighborhood associations and business/commercial locations. · Spoke at community events. · Used the groundbreaking ceremony to recruit via television, radio, and newspaper. · Used radio talk shows during EMS week in May. · Set up recruitment venues at the community college and UVA. · Used recruitment advertising campaign through Adelphia Cable and the ACFR web site. · Installed an information box on the sign at the Station 11 construction site. · We are currently in the process of installing recruitment flyers in water/sewer bills. DISCUSSION: Staff and Monticello vol unteers will continue to aggressively recruit volunteers for station 11 and other volunteer stations. While the City/County contract will ensure that 24/7 coverage remains in effect in this area until July 1, 2003, if the Board's objective is to provide staffing around the clock from 'the new station when it opens in January 2003, other alternatives will need to be considered. Listed below are two options to address this staffing issue. Option 1 Staff the station with the 8 career fire fighters Monday-Friday, 24 hours a day and establish a schedule for 12 volunteers to cover the station Saturday and Sunday. When the volunteers are not available to cover Saturday or Sunday, the station will be taken out of service and the City will cover emergency calls in Monticello's area. Advantages · No increase in career staffing 07-31-02^70:28 RCVD Disadvanta,qes · In order to keep the station staffed 24/7, the schedule will require 12 volunteers (we estimate that only 10 will complete training AGENDA TITLE: Monticello Fire/p,escue Station Staffing August 7, 2002 Page 2 by January) to work a 12-hour shift every weekend. A 48-hour per month schedule may cause volunteer burnout over time if the volunteers strive to keep the station completely staffed. When County career personnel do not staff the station, advanced life support (ALS) services will not be provided to the araa. The City Fire Department does not guarantee that ALS trained personnel will staff their apparatus. (However, because we did not anticipate our volunteers to be trained at an ALS level either, the addition of four career staff does represent an increased level of service not originally planned for Station 11. ) Option 2 Hire four additional career personnel and combine the career staff with the estimated 10 volunteers. This would enable the department to staff the station 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The cost to hire 4 additional fire fighters from October through June is $141,667. Advantages · Creates a hybrid-staffing model (career/volunteer), which allows more startup-training opportunities for the volunteers. · The station will be staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with ALS personnel · If the volunteer membership can be increased to the level that will support weekend staffing, the additional career staff could be re-deployed for other system needs such as staffing for the planned Northern station when it opens or to address expected requests for additional day time assistance from other volunteer stations in the future. Disadvantages · The cost of hiring 4 additional career fire fighters. Finally, as the Board is aware from previous discussions of the City/County fire contract, beginning July 1,2003 the City will no longer provide coverage to areas outside of the automatic response district (AP, D), with the exception of responding to structure riras. The AP,D includes the County's urban areas immediately outside the City. This change in service will primarily affect the Monticello area. This reduced coverage from the City will require that additional volunteer or career staff be in place prior to July 1,2003. If the Board should decide not to hire new staff in October, new staff will need to be hired by April if additional volunteer assistance is not obtained over the next six months. An April hire date will ensure that new fire fighters are trained and ready to respond to calls when the City reduces coverage. The difference in cost between hiring staff in October ($141,667) and April ($56,667) is $85,000. Staff and the Monticello volunteers are confident once Station 11 opens in January, our exposure will increase and thus help in the recruitment of additional volunteers. The goal is to continue to aggressively recruit volunteers to the point that they can staff the station 24 hours a day on weekends. RECOMMENDATION: The above options are considered the only viable alternatives to address the staffing issues at Station 11. While 24/7 coverage will continue to be provided under either option from January - June 2003 because of the City/County fire contract, if the Board's objective is to provide 24/7 coverage from the new station, regardless of the City's service, additional staffing will be needed. 02.122 ALBEMARL.~ COUNTY RECEIVED JUL 1 2 2002 County o~ Albemarle County Executive's Offic~ David C. Cason District Chief Monticello Fire & Rescue Station #11 Albemarle Co. Fire and Rescue, AdministratiVe Office 401 Mclntire Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tel: (434) 296-5833 Fax: (434) 9724123 Charles M. Anson, Jr. Chair, Board of Advisors July 10,2002 J. Daniel Eggleston, Director Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Chief Eggleston: The Monticello Fire & Rescue Board of Advisors has reviewed the. present state of our volunteer staffing. We have thirty-two applicants with four who have declined to become volunteers for various reasons. One applicant wants to become an administrative member if he can be of assistance. Sixteen applications have been received and nine have signed up for Firefighter I. There are two possible meanbers of the Board of Advisors who will be available for active status with one trained and the other taking Firefighter I. Eleven applicants have not yet sent in their applications'. The bottom line as of today is that elevem volunteers will be t~ained, provided they all pass Firefighter I. There is the possibility of two more that are already trained. Using the scenario that only 7 out of the 10 volunteers pass Firefighter I and we add the other two volunteers, we are dealing with approximately I0 volunteers to start service. We cannot provide the service that the community deserves for Fire & Rescue protection with 10 volunteers. Our projection is that we will require a total career staff,of 12 to provide initial service 24/7 with 3 tours. As we obtain more trained volunteers we can adjust our overall staffing to provide better service and or reassign career staff where they'are needed at other stations. Keep in mind that we intend to staffan ambulance 24/7 after July 1, 2003 and will have to continually readjust volunteer and career staff figures. Please give your utmost consideration to our request for 4 more career staff(total of 12) as of opening day December 2002 ~ January 2003 to provide the community with 1st rate Fire & Rescue protection. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charles M: Anson Chairman - Board of Advisors ,.~/r~ c~.~5 Dave Cason District Chief "B~ Pa~t of O ~e texeoe!" Cc: Thomas Foley, Assistant County Executive David P. Bowerman, Board of Supervisors ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM BUREAU 2002 PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS NATIONAL 1. It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure the safety of our food supply, both domestic and imported. 'We call for vigilance by our government to ensure safe imported food, healthy livestock, and compliance with safe pesticide levels on imported food. Notes:'Originally stated out of concern over Mad Cow Disease and other health concerns, along with inconsistent inspection standards for imPorted foods. This resolution remains a priority because of the heightened danger of terrorist threats to our food supply. We insist that all regulatory legislation, especially EPA regulations, be based on sound scientific'evidence, alid that any mandated programs be accompanied by appropriate compensation to affected individuals. Notes: A lot oflegislation'over the years has been the result of .an emOtional response to concerns and allegations that are scientifically unsubstantiated. 3. We recommend that. Social Security funds be totally isolated from the general Federal budget, and thereby protected from use for general budget balancing measures and bookkeeping devices. Notes: There is no lack of "creative" bookkeeping in government as well as in · corporate business. 4. We call for the denial 0f federal tax-exempt status under 501(c)- charitable organizations, to any group who either directly or indirectly supports acts ofeco- terrorism, violence, agro-terrorism, or otherwise encourages the commission of unlawful acts. Notes: An article in the May/June issue ofthe ~Farm Journal' cites multiple examples of abuses of tax exempt filing by organizations using terrorist techniques, such as PETA's donation to the American Liberation Front's defense of firebombing at Michigan State University, tomemtion only one example. 5. 'Our government, through policy, needs to foster self-sufficiency in American produced food to avoid unwise dependence on other countries as the primary supplier of our food supply. Notes: One needs only to look at the situation in the oil industry to realize the need for independence in our food industry. 6. We applaud the enactment of estate tax reform, but urge making the elimination of the estate tax permanent by revoking the sunset provision. Notes: The bill eliminating all estate taxes, as currently written, expires in 2011. The House passed permanent exemption this year but it failed to pass the Senate. We need to keep this matter before our congressmen. STATE 1. We request enabling legislation from the General Assembly to allow for local impact fees on development of property. Notes: The county is looking at ways to deal with the cost of burgeoning growh~ Impact fees are added to the cost of new construction as a means of recovering from the developer a portion of the expense of new services. 2. As farmers who depend on being adaptable in a changing economy to survive, we support laws protecting private property, and oppose any taking or reduction of value without just compensation. Notes: More antl more mandated programs are requiring costly actions by landowners without reimbursement. 3. We support continuation of state Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMP's) as the guiding standard for regulations on forest harvesting and water quality, and we oppose the enablement of localities to impose greater restrictions on timbering. . · Notes: In certain situations, local government has added unreasonable restrictions to forestry practices beyond proven guidelines akeady required by state law. 4. We request enabling legislation from the General Assembly allowing counties Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), which give localities a tool to compensate farmers for preserving open spaces. Notes: TDRs are the transfer of development rights from the landowner to the developer enabling concentration ofbuikling lots into areas designated for growth, while preserving open land. Without legislation from the General Assembly, localities are not allowed to implement this practice. 5. All importers of trash into Virginia must bear responsibility for full . environmental costs of importation, including long-term environmental effects, water quality, lost land value, and-local impact. Notes: The person or business who profits from'the exploitation of a resource should relieve the public of the cost of their actions. LOCAL 1. We believe all county growth should be truly self-sustaining. This could be achieved through such means as service districts, Purchase of development Rights, Transfer of Development Rights, and impact fees on new constructior~ Notes: See above notes for state #s 1 & 4 We urge that there be no restrictive policies or measures imposed upon farms and agricultural activities without just compe~asation. Notes: The cost Of any practice for the public good should be berne by the public in general. We maintain that historic preservation on private land should be voluntary, and supported by a strong information and educatiOn program as well as private funding to preserve historic properties. Notes: While We support historic preservation, the landowner should have the freedom to use the resource as he sees fit, unless he is given the financial compensation to accomplish the requirements. Additionally, the owner o£a property or building should be free to seek the best use of that resource. 4. We recommend zoning procedures that would encourage by-right subdivision into smaller lots, thereby resulting in larger agriculturally viable acreages. Notes: CmTently, the compleXitY of fl~e clustering process, discourages builders from taking advantage of the rural areas zoning ruleS'which allow them to depart from the 21 acre minimum lot size. 5. A-beautiful viewshed is a priviledge, not pUrchased with a house or lot. We oppose, restrictions on the'use of private property based solely on the viewshed principle. 6. We urge 'the county to maintain Land Use tax' relief. Notes: This tax deferral is often attacked by those who don't understand that the farmer pays full taxes On his homesite. Farm land requires less money in services than it produces in tax revenue, whereas the reverse is true for homes and commercial properties, 7. In developing the new Rural Areas portion of the county's Comprehensive · Plan, we ask that restrictions be l~osened on 'non-farm' activities allowed in Notes: Increasingly farmers are unable to keeptheir land on the basis of what they can earn from it by f ,a~ming. They need supplemental'income in order to avoid the less of open land to more profitable uses. The changing face of agriculture may require a more objective perspective by our lawmakers and a less restrictive theme in our ordinances. 8. We call on the county to express clear and straightforward policy to protect agriculture and forestry activities in areas zoned R.A.(rural agricultural). Notes: As the population increases in our rural areas, farmers need protection From 'nusiance suits' by-those who fail to understand the necessity of certain Agricultural practices. 9. We ask the county to seek alternative revenue sources to supplement Real Estate taxes. Notes: Real estate taxes were enacted when land was the principal source of wealth. A more equitable source of revenue should be utilized for local revenue. 10. We insist that a county referendum be required for any major increase in total County indebtedness: Notes: County debt service for FY 2003 approximates $11,443,000. We all must live within our means, including our local government. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Members, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Harrison B. Rue, EXecutive Director JulY 25, 2002 Notes from Commission Retreat - July 17, 2002 These are the rough notes from last week's Commission Retreat. Please review for a short discussion next week. TJPDC Successes [] TJEDP [] Jaunt ' [] Sustainability Accord rn Better relationships between the counties and the City [] MPO [] Guidance and assistance with Comprehensive Plan for LouisaJGreene/Fluvanna Counti es [] Un Jam in Greene [] Regional Strategic Plan [] Build-out map showing regional growth patterns [] Still exist after 30 years [] Help in planning to counties [] Sustainability - got the word known [] Roads - studies D Housing - from surveys in the 70's to organizations, Home, coalition [] Welfare Reform- from planning to transportation for all folks getting offwelfare [] ACCT [] Sustainability Accords [] Fostering and supporting regional plan for Zion Crossroads [] Workforce Training development [] Legislative response/update on issues [] Workforce investment initiatives - one stop, CASBA, etc. [21 Ride Share [] Genesis of Rivanna River Roundtable [] Un Jam Issues/Challenges to Apply Formula of Success to in the Next Two Years (# of"dots" given to the item) [] Education and training - workshops, publications, video/tv, website (9) [] Regional mobility- near and far term (6) Draft Retreat Notes ~ Rural tourism, Promote State park in the region (6) [] Continue the "Tried and true" - HOME, WIA, Ride Share, MPO (agreed to bY all) [] Help develop ordinances to implement Comp Plans (4) [] Agricultural. marketing - Regional distribution center, marl~eting plan (caution- plan with Co. Extension agents, maybe only start with legislative budget support of Co. extension) (4) [] Quality of life for everyone - housing, jobs, training, environment. Extend access to "quality of life" to all residents, public transportation, vocational education, recreational opportunities (4) [] Air Quality counterpart to Rivanna River Roundtable (2) [] Further'deveiopment of sustainahility accords. Generate work plan for implementation of: EPI. Sustainability Accords, Regional Economic Dev't Plan. E.g.. Town meeting to build enthusiasm. (3) -~ Hydraulic-Emmet intersection study (MPO policies) (2) [] Land use planning/viewshed watershed protection, development rights, alternative agricultures, lobby presence in Richmond (1) [] Revenue Sharing (1) [] Mixed use (village scale) economic development (1) [] Tie transportation and workforce to tourism and technology [] Rivanna Watershed Planning Criteria for selecting top priorities for the next two years 1. I-I/gh degree of involvement by the Region 2. Good fit for the TJPDC 3. Of importance to the Region 4. Greatest return for the effort 5. Good chance of being implemented 6. Resources available to implement Further discussion of "Re~ion Mobility - near and far" * Provide workshops for people not yet involved e.g. Chris came to Lovingston - do more of these *Intersection improvements (visuals) *Greenw.ay ... how was it done?? *Presentations by Harrison * Short videos *Presentations to the public e,g. UnJam *Presentations to neighborhood associations 1. Define all "hot spots"/grid locks - 29, Pantops, 53 (panic!) include Forest Lakes, Ruckersville, also accident spots in the rural areas 2. Create short tem solutions (next two years) 3. work with major employers ... where are employees going? how do they get there? Draft Retreat Notes 2 4. How to avoid accidents/ (stop lights) 5. Coordinate lights Do not give up on long range planning - in No Va some 13 - 40 year old zoning is finally coming to fruition Gather better info on existing programs Speak as a Region - one voice - we need this to get money for new ideas Bring pro and con By Pass people together Focus on commuter/peak traffic times Further discussion on "Rural Tourism" We need a park in this region Keep money in house - instead.of paying a consultant to help implement Comp Plan Heritage Tourism and Rural Tourism - create a single focus event ~' Further discussion of "Quality of Life" This represents an overall philosophy There are people who don't enjoy the region's quality of life ... who are they? where are they? how can our policies help them? (use data from JABA, Commission, on Children and Families) Further discussion on "Agricultural Marketing" Local farmers and orcharders need a regional marketing plan Regional distribution center Coordinate with extention agents A good way to preserve farm land Alternatives to traditional agriculture (e.g.. leaves from C-ville turned into mulch, natural maize, vineyards, organic farming) Market products in local stores - help package them so they can be sold in Kroger Little specialties - e.g.blackberry and lime sorbet Consider creating a Regional Brand -"Piedmont Pick" Ways to Have TJPDC be better known/devdop more trust [] Create a one page visual newsletter for Bds and for newspapers [21 Commissioners: Report back to your Boards ,verbally, on a monthly basis [] Design a website- print it out on one page and distribute it [] Post minutes on a website [] Send reminder emails to read the website [] Arrange for free coverage/space in local newspapers [] Get a reporter to cover a TJPDC event Draft Re,eat Notes 3 Elements of TJPDC's Formula of Success [] Focus on citizens in the region [21 Start with issues of regional concern [] Get people to the table [] Overcome distrust through information [] Develop powerful ideas [] Get money from many sources [] Encourage spin offs [] Place localities in a broader context [] Collaborate, don't compete [] Know where to look for money [] Coordinate volunteers and professionals [] Create a forum for cooperation and action [] Bring together people every month [] Find common ground [] Quality staff with expertise [ZI Create a forum for grassroots groups and elected officials [] Address quality of life issues [] Address regional issues Draft Retreat Notes 4