2002-09-04September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 4, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr.
Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rick Oliver said he is a resident of Forest Lakes South. Last night it came to his attention that
the Board of Supervisors might spend a portion of today's meeting rethinking the decision of the School
Board in the matter of whether to add 300 or 500 seats to Monticello High School. He did not find that
listed on today's agenda. He asked if the Board has given its constituents a chance to make their views
known on this matter. He said the School Board has spent considerable time debating the merits of the
issue, resulting in a vote for a 300-seat expansion. It was clear from figures presented during those
discussions that 150 seats would accommodate the current overcrowding and 150 seats would
accommodate expected growth. Building 500 seats would open the Board of Supervisors to charges of
building excess capacity where there is no need, of fiscal irresponsibility and of ignoring the needs of the
residents of the northern portion of the County.
Mr. Oliver said although Monticello provides a cost-effective solution for growth in the area it
serves, it is not Albemarle's best long-term solution for growth in the designated northern growth area.
Instead of overbuilding at Monticello, it is time to consider how to provide additional long-term capacity in
the northern part of the County. There are a number of alternatives worthy of discussion and he
encouraged the Board to draw on the expertise of the School Board and respect its decision to build 300
seats. They responded to the facts and to the needs of their constituents on this matter, and the
Supervisors should not second-guess this decision without equally careful deliberation and input from all
parties including that of the citizens the Supervisors serve.
__________
Mr. Jack Marshall said he wished to introduce the Board to a new regional civic organization,
Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP). After months of work, on September 28
ASAP will hold a conference titled "The Myth of Endless Growth, Our Region's Future at Risk." He gave
to each Board member an envelope containing information about the program, and a description of the
speakers. He said the idea for this organization came about eight or more years ago. It has been
created now because a growing number of residents in the County and neighboring localities see three
obvious things. First, Albemarle County's population is growing fast; at a pace faster than India's. They
have calculated that every day the County gains five additional people, and 3.7 more cars. At the rate of
2.1 percent per year, in the next 17 years the County will add 40,000 additional people which is
equivalent to the current population of Charlottesville. Secondly, this growth is not sustainable. It erodes
the quality of life and degrades the environment. The Board knows that nearly all of the County's
problems are caused by or exacerbated by population growth. Conversely, there are no County problems
that will be solved by more population growth. Third, enough is not being done to slow or stop growth, in
part because too many leaders have bought into the myth that growth is inevitable. The County lacks an
explicit comprehensive population policy. The Planning Department has explained publicly that its
approach is simply to accommodate growth, not to stem it. ASAP argues that we should start
immediately not merely to slow growth, but somewhere down the road, to stop it. They do not know yet
how this will be done specifically, or what optimal population they should aim for, nor when the stationary
population size should be reached - it will not happen in the next few years. They believe the population
cannot grow endlessly, and should be planning now on how growth will occur, and what the County will
look like then. He said ASAP looks forward to working with the Board, with the Planning Commission,
and the Planning Department in a cooperative, not adversarial spirit. ASAP will operate primarily through
education and research and will also come to the Board occasionally in an advocacy role. They hope to
work with the Board and staff to develop a Model Population Policy for the County. (Time expired) Their
first effort at community education will be a free conference on Saturday morning, September 28. ASAP
intends to play a constructive role in helping all learn more about one of the most important social,
economic, political and environmental forces in the County - population growth - and in supporting the
Board to make difficult decisions to manage it.
___________
Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison for the TJ Planning District Commission, was present to give
an update on the legislative program for 2003. He said that in the past there have been several
high-priority action items, as well as items of on-going concern presented for consideration. This year, in
light of the heavy emphasis in recent years on State funding to localities, and given the on-going budget
crisis in Richmond and the effect of that on localities, he proposes that the action items this year focus on
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
preserving existing State revenues and the ability to raise revenues locally. There will need to be some
further prioritizing of those programs and services deemed to be most valuable and most important to the
citizens. He will suggest that the Board make some strong statements in the same areas that were
focused on in the past in public education.
Mr. Dorrier said there is to be a public presentation on the bond issue for education. Her asked if
Mr. Blount is involved with that at all. Mr. Blount said there is a small piece of that bond issue for parks,
and the County might make comments on that, but the largest portion is for State education.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board did discuss briefly the matter of the number of seats being added to
Monticello High School at its August day meeting. It has been mentioned each time the School Board
Chairman has been present at a meeting. Currently, the project in the CIP is for a 500-seat addition at
Monticello High. There have been a number of public hearings held on the CIP over the last couple of
years. That is why the project will be discussed, it has nothing to do with the School's plans for
redistricting. Redistricting is not this Board's responsibility.
Mr. Martin said he does not want to get involved in redistricting, but adding 500 seats to
Monticello was planned even before the school was built. The fact that it is being changed is something
this Board has a right and obligation to discuss, because the decision was made more than five years
ago.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Introduction of new Police Captains.
Chief John Miller was present to introduce two new police captains. First was Crystal Limerick
who is an 18-year veteran of the department. She was the first female police sergeant and the first
female police lieutenant, and now is the first female police captain. She was also responsible for the
accreditation of the agency. She is a State assessor for accreditation.
Second, Neal Kearns is from High Point, North Carolina, and has a wide variety of experience in
police work. Most recently, he was in the professional standards division. He will be responsible for the
investigative and administrative divisions. Ms. Limerick will be responsible for all three patrol divisions
and the Community Policing Division.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.6 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for
information. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: February 6, March 25(A), June 5, July 3, July 8(A), and July 10,
2002.
Mr. Martin had the minutes of July 10, 2002, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of June 5, 2002 (pages 27 to the end) and found them to be in
order.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of July 8(A), 2002, but had one question. She asked if the
reinsurance carrier is SAFECO. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
No other minutes had been read.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
__________
Item 6.2. FY 2002 Appropriations, $338,597.00 (Forms #2001-084, #2001-085, #2001-086).
It was noted in the staff's report that additional FY 2002 appropriations are required to provide
additional funding authority for grant programs, self-sustaining fund programs and support services for
various school and local government programs. The total of these additional appropriations is
$338,597.00 which is less than the threshold level for a budget amendment. However, if total additional
appropriations made for FY 2002 cause that threshold to be reached, a budget amendment may be
required at a future date. In that case, these appropriations would be incorporated into that amendment.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriations #2001-084, 2001-085 and 200-1086 for various school and
local government programs for FY 2002.
Appropriation #2001-084, $9000.00. This grant was originally awarded and appropriated in FY
2001 for three Automated External Defibrillators for Fire/Rescue. The actual expenditure of funds took
place in FY 2002. This request appropriates the balance of the grant operations funded at 50 percent
with State grant money and 50 percent with local matching funds. The local match was funded from
current operations.
Appropriation #2001-085, $74,279.43. This appropriation covers funding authority for seven
different School Self-Sustaining Fund programs.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Albemarle County Public Schools is a partner in Virginia's four-year old Preschool Initiative, Bright
Stars. As part of the partnership Albemarle County provides transportation and meals (breakfast, lunch,
snack) to participating children through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Childcare and Adult Day
Care Program. The program reimburses the School Division for meals based on the student's
participation and qualification for free or reduced priced meals. Albemarle County was reimbursed
$29,464.47 for FY 2002.
The Adult Education Program is a federally and state funded program providing educational
opportunities to adults whose skills in reading, mathematics and other subjects are below the twelfth
grade level. State funding for the Adult Basic Education Program was increased by $9785.00 from the
original FY 2002 budget amount of $63,736.00. Also additional revenues were received in the amount of
$168.50 from students for book fees already incurred.
The General Adult Education Program is a federally-funded program that provides instructional
services to meet the needs of adults who are working toward a high school diploma. The actual revenues
received exceeded the anticipated revenues by $3196.00. There is also a fund balance from FY 2001 in
the amount of $1924.51. These funds will help to cover the expenses of the General Adult Education
Program for FY 2002.
The Drivers Safety Fund consists of driver's education behind the wheel and motorcycle safety
programs. Approximately 700 students are trained each year in Driver Safety. Operating before school,
after school, and in the summer, students receive 20 hours of training. The latest driving techniques and
decision-making skills are emphasized. Albemarle County received $24,447.00 from the State for driver's
education for FY 2002 which funds wages for instructors.
The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Grant award was not fully expended in FY 2001. The
grant has a fund balance of $2229.45 which is requested to be reappropriated for FY 2002. Also, the
Program for Seamless Transition (PoST) grant award was not fully expended in FY 2001. The grant has a
fund balance of $2365.01, which is requested to be reappropriated for FY 2002.
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI) Program which provides a regional DI
competition for County students and surrounding school districts, has received additional revenues in the
amount of $699.49 from the proceeds of T-shirt sales. These funds help to cover the expenses of the DI
program.
Appropriation #2001-086, $255,317.72. This appropriation covers adjustments to the FY 2002
appropriations for the following School Self-Sustaining Fund Programs:
The Vehicle Maintenance Fund was established to account for the cost of all of the fuel,
lubricants and parts used to repair the Local Government vehicles serviced and fueled at the School
Division's Vehicle Maintenance Facility ("Bus Shop"). The fund had higher than anticipated fuel costs and
greater than anticipated fueling usage in FY 2002. This appropriation provides $100,195.81 for additional
vehicle and equipment fuel costs, which are offset by an additional $100,195.81 of revenue from fuel
charges.
The School Board approved a contract for Albemarle County Schools Food Services to provide
catering services for the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) staff during their
period of rental of Monticello High School. The AIMR Food Services Fund exceeded its appropriated
budget during FY 2002 because of higher than anticipated food costs and food usage. This appropriation
provides $115,121.91 to cover the additional cost of food supplies, offset by $115,121.91 of revenue from
the AIMR Summer Food Services.
The School Division's Food Services, a self-sustaining fund, which operates in 23 schools,
generates capital for food, labor and equipment. This appropriation request involves the reappropriation
of $40,000.00 from FY 2001 fund balances into FY 2002 to cover the additional cost of Food Services
wages, FICA, and machinery and equipment purchases.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
APP # 2001-084
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 10/21/02
BATCH NUMBER
EXPLANATION: FIRE/RESCUE AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1555 32015 800100 MACH & EQUIP J 1 9,000.00
2 1555 24000 240000 STATE GRANT J 2 4,500.00
2 1555 51000 512004 TRS FROM G/F J 2 4,500.00
TOTAL 18,000.00 0.00 0.00
_____
APP # 2001-085
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 08/19/2002
BATCH NUMBER
EXPLANATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3307 61129 600200 Food Supplies J 1 29,464.47
1 3115 63322 132100 PT Wages Teacher J 1 9,089.64
1 3115 63322 210000 FICA J 1 695.36
1 3115 63322 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 168.50
1 3133 63321 132100 PT Wages Teacher J 1 4,750.00
1 3133 63321 210000 FICA J 1 370.51
1 3305 61235 132100 PT Wages Teacher J 1 22,709.71
1 3305 61235 210000 FICA J 1 1,737.29
1 3131 61311 580000 Miscellaneous Supplies J 1 2,229.45
1 3129 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 699.49
1 3136 61102 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 2,365.01
2 3307 33000 330610 USDA Meals Reimb J 2 29,464.47
2 3115 18000 189900 Misc Revenues J 2 168.50
2 3115 24000 240225 Grant Revenue J 2 9,785.00
2 3133 16000 161232 Revenue-Tuition J 2 2,915.00
2 3133 24000 240240 Revenue-State J 2 281.00
2 3133 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance J 2 1,924.51
2 3305 24000 240771 Drivers Ed State Rev J 2 24,447.00
2 3131 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance J 2 2,229.45
2 3129 18000 189918 Proceeds-Sales J 2 699.49
2 3136 51000 540000 Approp-Fund Balance J 2 2,365.01
3307 0501 EST REVENUE J 29,464.47
3307 0701 APPROPRIATION J 29,464.47
3115 0501 EST REVENUE J 9,953.50
3115 0701 APPROPRIATION J 9,953.50
3133 0501 EST REVENUE J 5,120.51
3133 0701 APPROPRIATION J 5,120.51
3305 0501 EST REVENUE J 24,447.00
3305 0701 APPROPRIATION J 24,447.00
3131 0501 EST REVENUE J 2,229.45
3131 0701 APPROPRIATION J 2,229.45
3129 0501 EST REVENUE J 699.49
3129 0701 APPROPRIATION J 699.49
3136 0501 EST REVENUE J 2,365.01
3136 0701 APPROPRIATION J 2,365.01
TOTAL 148,558.86 74,279.43
74,279.43
______
2001-086
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 08/19/2002
EXPLANATION: ADJUSTMENTS TO FY 01/02 APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FUEL FUND, AIMR FUND
AND FOOD SERVICES
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONCODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3910 62341 600800 FUEL & MAINT FUND J 1 100,195.81
2 3910 16000 161271 FUEL CHARGES J 2 100,195.81
3910 0501 ST REVENUE J 100,195.81
3910 0701 APPROPRIATION J 100,195.81
1 3002 63115 600200 FOOD SUPPLIES J 1 115,121.91
2 3002 16000 161247 FOOD SERVICES J 2 115,121.91
3002 0501 EST REVENUE J 115,121.91
3002 0701 APPROPRIATION J 115,121.91
1 3000 60252 800101 MACH & EQUIP REPL J 1 5,000.00
1 3000 60302 119300 SALARIES J 1 32,512.77
1 3000 60302 210000 FICA J 1 2,487.23
2 3000 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 40,000.00
3000 0501 EST REVENUE J 40,000.00
3000 0701 APPROPRIATION J 40,000.00
TOTAL 510,635.44
255,317.72
255,317.72
__________
Item 6.3. Reapproval of University of Virginia Health Services Foundation Facility at Forest Lakes
North Park and Ride Agreement.
It was noted in the staff's report that on October 3, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a
park and ride agreement with University of Virginia - Health Services Foundation facility at Forest Lakes
North. The site is located at the corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Worth Crossing. The terms of the
current agreement are for one year, which will expire on October 3, 2002. The addendum to the original
agreement will allow for automatic renewal every year. Either party may terminate the agreement by
giving one month's notice in writing to the other party of its intent to terminate. All of the other conditions
will remain the same. Staff recommends that the Board grant the County Executive permission to sign
the addendum.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would be appropriate to send a thank-you letter to
the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation for agreeing to continue this arrangement.)
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board granted the County Executive permission to
sign the addendum to the Park and Ride Agreement with the University of Virginia Health Services
Foundation for use of its facility at Forest Lakes North.
FIRST ADDENDUM
This First Addendum to the Park and Ride Facility Agreement dated October 3,2001 by
and between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA and the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION is effective the Third day of October 2002.
SECTION 3. B. Term is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language:
The term of this Agreement shall be one (1) year from the date hereof. Thereafter it shall
automatically renew every year. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving one month's
notice in writing to the other party of its intent to terminate.
All other terms and conditions of the October 3,2001 Agreement shall remain unchanged and
in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures below.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
HEALTH SERVICES
FOUNDATION
________________________________
______________________________
By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Marc J. Dettmann
Title: County Executive Chief Executive Officer
Date: September 11, 2002 Date: July 31, 2002
__________
Item 6.4. Request to amend Leash Law to include area located along Route 720 (Harris Creek
Road) located off of Route 20 South. (Defer public hearing until October 9, 2002)
At the request of staff, this matter was deferred until October 9, 2002.
__________
Item 6.5. Resolution to accept roads in Blandemar Farms Estates into the Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Blandemar Farms Estates Subdivision, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 4, 2002, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Blandemar
Farms Estates, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 4,
2002, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
'
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Blandemar Drive (State Route 1041) from the intersection of Route 708 (Taylor's Gap
Road) to the intersection of Route 1042 (Waldemar Drive), as shown on plat recorded 03/11/98
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1682, pages
321-328, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.27 mile.
Blandemar Drive (State Route 1041) from the intersection of Route 1042 (Waldemar
Drive) to .61 miles East of Route 1042 (Waldemar Drive), as shown on plat recorded 03/11/98
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1682, pages
321-328, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.61 mile.
Blandemar Drive (State Route 1041) from .61 miles East of Route 1042 (Waldemar
Drive) to the intersection of Route 1043 (Chopin Road), as shown on plat recorded 03/11/98 in
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1682, pages
321-328, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.74 mile.
Blandemar Drive (State Route 1041) from the intersection of Route 1043 (Chopin
Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/11/98 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1682, pages 321-328, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.54 mile.
Chopin Drive (State Route 1043) from the intersection of Route 1041 (Blandemar
Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 08/05/98 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1732, pages 692-703, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.53 mile.
Waldemar Drive (State Route 1042) from the intersection of Route 1041 (Blandemar
Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/11/98 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1682, pages 321-328, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.77 mile.
Total Mileage - 3.46 mile.
__________
Item 6.6. Request for dance hall permit by Mountain View Grill (deferred from August 7, 2002).
At the request of staff, this matter was deferred until October 2, 2002.
__________
Item 6.7. Letter dated August 8, 2002, from Norma C. Job, Regional VWP Engineer, Department
of Environmental Quality, addressed to the Honorable Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, re: Joint Permit
Application No. 02-0410, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Albemarle County, Virginia, was received for
information. It is noted that the proposed project by Mill Creek Environmental Consultants, as an agent
for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, is located along Route 606 and Route 743 northwest of
Charlottesville, and involves safety improvements to the airport facility and runway. The project proposes
to impact 3.42 acres of wetlands, with the impacts being mitigated.
__________
Item 6.8. County of Albemarle 2001 Development Activity Report, as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information.
__________
Item 6.9. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, September, 2002, was received for
information.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had a proclamation which was not forwarded with the other agenda
materials. It is "Students Make A Difference Day" and she summarized it for the record. Since it was not
part of the agenda, she will just sign it and pass it along.
STUDENTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY
Whereas, the youth of our nation are its future; and
Whereas, working together to help others bridges the differences that separate
Americans and strengthen the bonds that tie us together; and
Whereas, we, the American people have a tradition of philanthropy and
volunteerism; and
Whereas, many of our citizens need the help of others to live happy and
productive lives; and
Whereas, millions of individuals have already enhanced the lives of others on the
eleventh annual day of doing good by giving where there was a need,
rebuilding what had been torn down, teaching where there was a desire
to learn, and inspiring those who had lost hope; and
Whereas, USA WEEKEND Magazine and its affiliate newspapers and The Points
of Light Foundation and its affiliate volunteer centers have joined to
promote an annual national day of doing good that celebrates and
strengthens the spirit of volunteer service; and
Whereas, volunteer services is an investment in the future we all must share;
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Now, Therefore, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
proclaim
October 26, 2002
as
Students Make A Difference Day
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and urge our fellow citizens to
encourage and assist our students in completing projects to benefit the
community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He said the Department has finished the slurry
seal for the year. He said it is a mixture of aggregate, asphalt emulsion, and filler, mixed together
according to a laboratory's design-mix formula and applied to the road surface. He said the department
gets a lots of calls about this application which is basically a driveway seal that is put in subdivisions
where there is less traffic. It lengthens the life of the pavement. There have been some complaints about
dirty gutters and spattering onto cars. They put out a notice in advance of the application of this seal to
warn the residents that it is about to be done.
________
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Bryan for the work done to Route 600.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said there has been some confusion about his remark concerning the crosswalk
markers on Jefferson Park Avenue in the City. He said the marker is a visible alert in the middle of the
street so drivers know they are approaching a crosswalk. It is very effective. He was thinking about this
concept for the area around the Senior Center. They could also be used further up Hillsdale Drive where
there are some other crosswalks. They do not impede traffic, but they are visual indicators for drivers,
and he asked that they be considered in some of the dangerous areas of the County. He does not think
this needs to wait until the study of Hillsdale, Greenbrier and that whole area is completed. Mr. Bryan
said he will check into this request and see what can be done.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she noticed in the University area a place where one pushes a button for use of
the crosswalk, and lights in the pavement blink at you. She was interested in it because it is a technique
which is being used right in this community. She mentioned that while on a visit to Canada she was
impressed by their facilities for pedestrians which seem to be raised walkways above the street. Mr.
Bryan said he will discuss it with the Traffic Engineer.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked the process to get a street light installed along a state road. Mr. Tucker said
street light requests are handled by the County's Engineering Department. Mr. Rooker asked if the light
is on a State highway is it funded by the State or the County. Mr. Tucker said it is County funding. Mr.
Bryan said there also is a permitting process involved.
___________
Mr. Rooker asked who people should call regarding clean-up on State roads. Mr. Bryan said they
can call the local VDOT office.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he has mentioned the timing of the stop light at Rio and Route 29 several times.
On Sundays, it goes into some kind of different sequence and only allows two cars through before it turns
yellow. Mr. Dorrier said he has had the same problem at that light during the week. Mr. Bryan said he
will have it checked.
__________
Mr. Dorrier mentioned a subdivision being built near Monticello High School right at a traffic light.
He is worried about that light and the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Route 20. With all of the
apartments being built there, there will be a tremendous increase of traffic at that light. He asked if the
Highway Department has any plans for that intersection. Mr. Bryan said he will review this question, but
is sure it was discussed during the site plan review process, and appropriate proffers were made to
handle that situation.
__________
Mr. Dorrier mentioned the stretch of road between Route 20 and Route 53 where some
improvements had been made, but which is still a dangerous section. Ms. Thomas said that is one of the
County's Six-Year Road projects which has been slowed down because of budget cuts. Mr. Bryan said
the Traffic Engineering Division wants to put a flashing light at the intersection of Route 53 and Route 20
South to add more visibility.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said that last night at the Scottsville Planning Commission meeting they talked about
the new Food Lion store which is being built at the Shopping Center. At the intersection of Route 6 and
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
James River Road there is a problem with sight distance. There will be a tremendous increase in traffic at
that intersection, and he would like to have Mr. Bryant look into this question.
Ms. Thomas asked if Scottsville is making the applicant help with the changes. Mr. Dorrier said
the project has just come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bryan said VDOT would require them to
help with any changes.
__________
Mr. Tucker said VDOT and staff are looking at the Airport Road/Dickerson Road intersection and
discussing a round-about as one design feature. When the road was designed as four lanes, a signalized
intersection was discussed. There are many heavy trucks using the road so they must be sure these
trucks can use such a feature safely, as well as fire engines and other equipment. At some point, this will
come to the Board and the Airport Authority for either approval or advice on what should be done. This is
probably the most significant intersection where a round-about is being designed. Mr. Bryan said the
department would like to have a decision by December. It was discussed with County staff last week as
to its key aspects and costs. He supports it, but it is the Board's decision.
Ms. Thomas said round-abouts have been discussed by the MPO. She was impressed with what
she heard about their safety and the number of cars which could be put through a round-about which far
exceeds what can be handled at an ordinary intersection.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it the same as the one in Gordonsville. Mr. Bryan said that is not really a
round-about because it has stop signs and its radius is tight. There are no such facilities in this area. He
said that statistically, they are much safer.
Ms. Thomas said if there is one close by, maybe the Board could make a field trip to see it. That
might help both the Board and its constituents with the idea.
Mr. Perkins said they may seem a little old fashioned, but apparently they work.
Mr. Rooker said there is a gentleman in Northern Virginia at the National Highway Testing
Service, which operates in Greene County, who is a specialist in round-abouts. The reduction in fatal
accidents at intersections with round-abouts is unbelievable. Mr. Bryan said there are no stop signs
involved, only yield signs, but cars have to slow down. He said Mr. Butch Davies, who is a member of the
CTB Board, is in favor of the use of round-abouts, particularly the one at the Airport.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bryan is keeping in touch with the MPO's plans for Route 29 North
(Emmet Street and its intersections). The MPO has a draft of a Scope of Work. She said they are finally
getting people at higher levels to help solve the traffic problems, as opposed to what has been going on
the last ten years, when it was a bypass situation no attention was paid to local concerns. There has
been no progress on alternative roads and grids.
Mr. Bryan said there has been a lot of work done over the last five years. A lot of good studies
done by private consultants. Ms. Thomas said the Scope of Work lists many of those studies so they are
not duplicated.
__________
Mr. Rooker said the situation at the entrance to Colthurst has been discussed, and the possibility
of lowering the speed limit in the area to 45 mph mentioned. He said the speed limit is increased to 55
mph heading west as one passes Montvue. The Board also discussed having a left-turn lane installed for
people heading west turning into Colthurst. Mr. Bryan said he would call Mr. Rooker in the next two
weeks to discuss this subject.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to amend the jurisdictional (service) areas of the
Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to TM 32, P 24H (Joyce and Duane Smith),
located on Pritchett Lane off Proffit Road. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress
on August 19 and August 26, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is requesting water service to a 3.0 acre parcel located at 3503
Pritchett Lane (Route 785), approximately 1200 feet north of Proffit Road. The area is designated Rural
Areas. The site is located on the east side of Pritchett Lane, which forms a boundary for the Hollymead
Development Area and the jurisdictional area, for water only, to the west. Approximately 12 years ago
the existing water line was relocated from the west side of Pritchett Lane to the east side during road
improvements performed by VDOT. The existing waterline served Northwoods Mobile Village, located on
the west side of Pritchett Lane. Due to right-of-way and grading issues, and the time factor of reinstalling
the water line for Northwoods Mobile Village, the water line was relocated on the east side of Pritchett
Lane. In addition, the meter boxes are also located on the east side of Pritchett Lane. The water line
was located on the applicant's property without an easement being granted.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant's existing well is currently stressed. The applicant has informed
staff that water flow is extremely low and he can only use water for approximately ten minutes before flow
is completely lost. It then takes approximately three hours to regain minimal flow. The applicant has
supplied staff with a well driller's report that supports the applicant's request. Furthermore, there is limited
access to the property, which would make it difficult to drill another well. The applicant has not attempted
to drill any additional wells to determine whether another acceptable location can be found on-site, so
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
staff cannot confirm that the Comprehensive Plan criteria for public health and/or safety has been met.
The parcel is small and narrow, but is about one acre larger than the minimum rural area lot size.
Mr. Cilimberg said that although a well driller's report has been provided that states the existing
well is, in effect, dry and there is limited access to the property, an attempt has not been made to locate
an alternative on-site well. If the Board is of the opinion that the current condition of the existing well is
sufficient to document the need for public water, staff would recommend approval for "water service only."
Ms. Thomas said she noticed that the Moore Well Drilling people, in their letter, said they did not
think the Health Department would give permission for another well site. Mr. Steven Biel, Planner, said
they could not have another site for a well based on the size of the house and configuration of the septic
system. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not ask the Health Department to comment regarding their permitting
on this property. They are extremely busy and he is not sure it would have been done.
Mr. Bowerman asked the depth of the current well. Mr. Biel said it is over 300 feet. If they
haven't hit water at that depth, it is unlikely that they will.
Ms. Thomas asked if what the Governor has done in terms of postponing this kind of regulation
would make it any easier to drill another well on the site. Mr. Cilimberg said he cannot answer that
question.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should have some information to indicate that another well is
not possible.
With no further questions for staff at this time, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant
asked to speak.
Mr. Duane Smith said if they run water from the well for five to ten minutes, the water pressure
goes down. After waiting from thirty minutes to an hour, the pressure is back to a point where someone
can take a shower, wash clothes, etc., and the pressure goes back down. His next door neighbor redid
his well about three years ago. Right now, they are having water hauled in to put in the well in order to
wash clothes, but it only lasts about five days. Since the public waterline exists on the property, they
thought that rather than digging another well which eventually could go dry, their best solution was to
connect to public water.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Smith should explain to the Board members his difficulty with digging another
well on the property. Mr. Smith said the house is located near the main highway. In order to get a
well-drilling truck onto the property it would require that trees be cut down and the fence be taken down.
The septic system is also on one side of the lot. He was told 12 years ago when the public waterline was
put across his property that he could connect to it if the need ever arose. However, regulations have
changed during that time.
Mr. Bill Brent from the Albemarle County Service Authority said that prior to a redrawing of the
ACSA's boundary lines in the early 1980s, this parcel was within the service area, but was removed
during that redrawing.
Ms. Thomas asked if many of the properties in this area were removed, or was it just this one
property? Mr. Brent said that at that time most of the area all the way to Proffit was included in the growth
area. Mr. Tucker said that in 1980 when the Comprehensive Plan was amended, and the comprehensive
rezoning took place, the jurisdictional areas were reduced to match the growth areas. Ms. Thomas said
in the earlier days the policy was to provide water for annexation battle purposes. The County had to be
able to prove that it could provide water. Mr. Tucker said the jurisdictional areas did not match the growth
areas prior to 1980.
Mr. Brent said the uniqueness of this particular street is that it was one of the streets in this large
growth area that at that time had water available to it. When the lines where redrawn, although the
waterline was already in place, the properties were removed from the jurisdictional areas.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were houses which were actually connected at that time. Mr. Brent
said "yes." Mr. Rooker asked if they were cut off from public water at that time. Mr. Brent said "no", they
are still connected to public water, they were grand-fathered.
Ms. Thomas asked if any of the neighboring properties are connected to public water. Mr. Brent
said he did not know. Mr. Cilimberg said there are no parcels on the east side of Pritchett Lane which are
served by public water.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Martin said he realizes there are questions that need to be answered, but he thinks this is a
unique situation. The waterline is already on Mr. Smith's property, and he would have to destroy trees to
even test to see if he can get another well. He thinks this situation is unique enough that the Board can
make this approval without having to approve other such requests in the future. He thinks the difficulty of
even testing for another well on this property makes this situation unique. Most important is that the line
is right on his property and he was told that he would be able to hook to it which was the reason he gave
permission for the line to be on his property. He knows there are other such situations throughout the
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
County, but he thinks the Board can make this situation unique enough that it would not be exposing itself
to having a lot of people come in and make the same request.
Ms. Thomas said she is searching for a way to make this request unique. The Board has made
people disturb their property before.
Mr. Bowerman said that the properties which were grand-fathered still have well water. He thinks
the Board should be looking at a reasonable way to allow connection on either side of Pritchett as long as
the property fronts on that road, rather than having those people come one at a time and making this
same request. Maybe the unique situation is that there are multiple properties along this road which
should be entitled to water service if they lose their well water.
Mr. Rooker said the waterline is located on Mr. Smiths property without an easement. He was
=
not paid anything when they put the line on his property. It is somewhat unique for someone to have a
waterline across his property and not have been paid anything for it. He does not know the amount of
tree disturbance which would take place, but anytime you put a well on a lot you have to disturb the trees,
but this is a three-acre lot.
Mr. Brent said he is not sure of the easement situation, but the pipeline has been there long
enough that the ACSA could claim it through adverse possession. How it got on the property without an
easement, he does not know.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this property is unique, or does that line continue up Pritchett lane without
easements. Mr. Brent said if the pipeline is in the road, it must run to the centerline of the road. Mr.
Tucker said Pritchett Lane has been in existence long enough that 25 feet is dedicated to the centerline of
the road.
Mr. Bowerman said the precedent the Board would be setting would be to allow anyone coming
forward who had lost well water reasonable access to the water that exists. He asked for more
information about aspects beyond this property. Mr. Tucker said staff can look at the issue in that light,
and also similarly situated properties. Mr. Bowerman said he is only interested in Pritchett Lane.
Ms. Thomas said there are many lots along that road. Mr. Cilimberg said it may or not be unique,
but they set a meter on that property. Mr. Brent said VDOT made improvements to the road ten or more
years ago. They put in a new line and service connections to avoid having to dig that new road up in the
near future.
Mr. Martin asked that some of these questions be answered by next week. Mr. Tucker asked if
the Board wanted an answer to Mr. Bowerman's question only. He does not think staff could develop a
policy in a week.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not see any reason to hold up this request.
Mr. Perkins said it seems the Service Authority made promises years ago and it is the County's
obligation to honor these promises. The ACSA "runs a tighter ship today."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin to provide water service only to existing structures on Tax
Map 32, Parcel 24H, Joyce and Duane Smith, based on its being adjacent to existing lines, and also the
fact that the meter is already on the property and that no easement has been granted. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Thomas said she can support that motion. With water only to existing structures, the Board
will not be opening this up for a precedent.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the meter indicates that there were promises made.
At this point, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on a request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the
Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to TM 78, P 43A, (Phil Hawkins), located at
the Rt 250E/I-64 interchange. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on August 19
and August 26, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is requesting jurisdictional area designation for water service to a
0.53 acre parcel located at 2091 North Hill, approximately 600 feet east of Route 250 East and
approximately 250 feet south of the Ramada Inn. The property is located within the designated Rural
Areas. The well report was prepared by C. R. Moore Well Drilling Company.
Mr. Cilimberg said the site is located to the south and adjacent to the jurisdictional area for water
only. A small commercial area at the southeast portion of the I-64/Route 250 East interchange, including
the Ramada Inn is served in this area. The well driller's report has concluded that the wells in the
surrounding area are marginal and cannot support more than one household. Furthermore, there is no
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
other place on this property to drill a well due to the size of the lot, placement of the septic field and the
location of the reserve septic field.
Mr. Cilimberg said this property, and surrounding residential properties, has a history of water
problems. Due to the site and the immediate surrounding area having water problems, the small acreage
of the parcel, and the location of the primary and reserve septic fields, there seem to be no other on-site
alternatives for the location of a new well. Staff has recommended that the Board approve the request for
water service only.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in this area, the "water only" designation is used and not the "water only to
existing structures" designation.
With no questions for staff at this time, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant asked to
speak first.
Mr. Phil Hawkins said this property only contains one-half acre and both wells are dry at 305 feet
deep. There are no alternative sources of water due to the acreage, the size of the house and the septic
fields. Two neighboring properties do have access to County water, as does the Ramada Inn which is
across from his driveway. Last month there was some water in one of the wells, but that has now dried
up. He has installed a water tank in his front yard. He has no other alternative.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is a rental property. Mr. Hawkins said it is now, but he intends to move
back into the house.
Mr. Rooker asked when the house was built. Mr. Hawkins said the original section was built in
the 1940s, and there was an addition added in the 1970s. He does not believe the original structure had
indoor plumbing. That was added when the addition was added.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is a single-family dwelling. Mr. Hawkins said "yes."
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this meets the health/safety/welfare criteria that is normally used to
look at these questions. He has already dug a second well, and although this size lot would not be
approved in the rural areas today, the house is there, and there does not appear to be any alternative.
He will support the application.
Ms. Thomas said she will also support the application, but has some preference for taking the
water from the Ramada Inn line, rather than the alternative.
Mr. Bill Brent from the Albemarle County Service Authority said he understands the property
owner will run his service connection to some point on the line and there will be no extension by the
ACSA. The ACSA will set the meter at the requested point of connection, and he will run his line from
that point to his building.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would confirm that the jurisdictional designation adjacent to this property is
for "water only." Mr. Tucker said it can also be designated as "water only to existing structures."
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it should be "water only to existing structures."
Mr. Bowerman said this property is remote from the current boundary and he thinks it should be
singled out as not able to support habitation, so it meets the criteria.
Ms. Thomas said although it is not near a jurisdictional area, it is near a line. Mr. Bowerman said
it is apparently near a grand-fathered line. Mr. Cilimberg said the property abuts a jurisdictional area for
water only.
Mr. Rooker said he would move approval of a request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority jurisdictional areas to include to Tax Map 78, Parcel 43A, Phil Hawkins, for "water only to
existing structure." The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28, 2002.)
Mr. Roger Hildebeidel said this is a proposed FY 2003 budget amendment totaling
$16,466,233.77. The great bulk of the amendment is the reappropriation of unspent balances from the
prior year in the Capital Improvements Program and purchase orders which were issued prior to end of
the fiscal year, but have not yet been delivered or billed. The only new item is $10,000 in the School
Fund which is a Federal funded amount given to Monticello High School for an Air Force Junior ROTC
program. He said $15,957,000 is in fund balances, and of those, about an equal amount is in the Capital
Improvement Fund.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2003 budget amendment in the amount of $16,466,233.77
after the public hearing is held, and approval of Appropriations #2003-005, #2003-006, #2003-007,
#2003-008, #2003-009 and #2003-010 to provide funds for various General Government, Capital
Improvement and School programs.
Appropriation #2003-005, $4,804,089.57, School Capital Improvements Projects. The following
on-going School Capital Improvement Fund projects have project balances requiring reappropriation from
FY 2002 into FY 2003:
School Board - ADA Structural Changes $169,729.78
Brownsville Elementary School 87,679.50
Crozet Elementary School 69,098.58
Greer Elementary School 19,317.27
Stony Point Elementary School 18,996.69
Baker-Butler Elementary School 1,222,691.25
Southern Elementary School 1,185,000.00
Burley Middle School 1,789,790.36
Jack Jouett Middle School 81,826.37
Walton Middle School 23,602.07
Albemarle High School 4,193.98
Murray High School 8,683.50
Monticello High School 9,415.88
C.A.T.E.C. 8,772.34
Vehicle Maintenance Facility 4,957.50
Class/Instruction - ADP Equipment 100,305.58
Class/Instruction - Technology Grant 28.92
Appropriation #2003-006, $512,219.65, General Fund Outstanding Purchase Orders. Several
departments had funding for projects approved in FY 2002 that had not been completed as of June 30,
2002. This appropriation will reappropriate the remaining balances for the following uncompleted projects
for which purchase orders were outstanding as of June 30, 2002:
Management & Budget $29,286.20
Telecommunications $ 1,839.20
Carpet Replacement 2,447.00
QUIP - Training 25,000.00
Finance $ 8,718.20
Building Renovations $ 2,481.00
Professional Services 3,100.00
Office Supplies 3,137.20
Fire/Rescue - Administration $27,207.00
Motor Vehicles $27,207.00
Fire/Rescue - Training $ 822.00
Merchandise for Resale $ 822.00
Fire/Rescue - Operations $41,142.53
Medical/Lab Supplies $ 2,098.19
Uniforms 3,358.14
Vehicles & Equipment Repairs 8,579.20
Motor Vehicles 27,107.00
Volunteer Fire Department $ 3,470.62
Machinery & Equipment $ 3,470.62
Engineering & Public Works $14,531.09
Professional Services-Consultant $11,313.04
Maintenance-Detention Basin 2,505.00
Groundwater Study 325.35
Auto-Mart Soil/Erosion 387.70
Solid Waste $46,312.57
Contract-Keene Landfill $36,610.00
Curbside Recycling 9,702.57
Public Works - Maintenance $16,022.86
Maintenance Contract-Building $ 441.00
Motor Vehicle-Replacement 15,581.86
Social Services - Management $ 2,290.00
Contract Services $ 2,290.00
Social Services - Benefits $ 9,819.87
F.S. Issuance - Contract $ 9,819.87
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Social Services - Employment Services $ 380.91
Books & Subscriptions $ 380.91
Parks & Recreation - Summer Swim $ 225.00
Lease & Rentals $ 225.00
Parks & Recreation - Athletics $ 547.20
Repair & Maintenance Supplies $ 547.20
Parks & Recreation - Community Centers $ 630.00
Repair & Maintenance Supplies $ 630.00
Parks & Recreation - Special Activities $ 2,566.02
Education & Recreation Supplies $ 2,566.02
Gypsy Moth $ 9,993.00
Contract Services $ 9,993.00
Planning and Community Development $226,814.78
Professional Service-Consultants $ 8,511.83
Development Area Study 217,787.96
Furniture & Fixtures-Replacement 169.99
Contract Services 253.00
Printing & Binding-External 92.00
E911 / Planning $71,439.80
Aerial Photography $ 71,043.00
Travel - Education 396.80
Appropriation #2003-007, $9,652,769.15, General Government Capital Improvements Projects.
The following General Government Capital Improvements Fund projects, many of which are multi-year,
have project balances requiring reappropriation from FY 2002 into FY 2003.
Finance Assessment System $19,073.20
Courts $733,263.87
Space Study $ 117,201.13
Repairs and Maintenance $ 61,070.66
Renovations $ 554,992.08
District Court - Machinery & Equipment $5,000.00
Juvenile Court - Repairs & Maintenance $42,554.19
Clerk of the Court - Imaging System $8,537.00
Public Safety $945,503.72
Radio System $ 760,154.00
CAD $ 124,364.58
Video Equipment $ 6,189.57
Training/Firing Range $ 40,000.00
Public Safety Facility $ 14,795.57
Emergency Communications Center $3,677.03
Fire/Rescue $1,472,030.06
Buildings & Equipment $1,428,526.42
Records Management System $ 18,503.64
Incident Reporting System $ 25,000.00
Engineering $1,576,790.44
Consultants $ 10,400.00
Ivy Landfill $ 446,000.00
Sidewalk Improvement $ 505,420.50
Street Lights $ 116,929.21
North Berkshire $ 3,079.00
Meadow Creek Pkwy-Eng $ 24,275.41
Keene Landfill $ 368,872.80
Meadow Creek Path $ 20,000.00
Ivy Road $ 51,667.00
Barracks Road Sidewalk $ 5,550.25
Meadow Creek Pkwy-Phase I $ 15,196.27
Corville Farm Improvements $ 9,400.00
Street Improvement $696,997.65
Landscaping - 29 North $ 74,251.75
Avon Street/Route 20 $ 407.00
Wakefield Road $ 22,162.00
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Revenue Sharing Roads $ 473,176.90
Airport Road Sidewalks $ 127,000.00
Public Works $549,064.51
Facility Maintenance $ 330,300.05
COB - Chillers $ 6,646.25
Storage Tanks $ 2,471.45
Parking Lot $ 1,000.00
Board Room Renovation $ 55,060.50
Human Resources Dept Renovations $ 7,178.26
Development Dept Renovations $ 50,000.00
Entry Corridor $ 77,500.00
Polling Sites $ 18,908.00
Parks and Recreation $586,565.82
ADA Changes $ 23,623.97
Maintenance Projects $ 37,204.68
Miscellaneous Projects $ 50,000.00
Crozet Park $ 15,639.39
Scottsville Center $ 28,361.65
Towe Park $ 73,590.18
Athletic Fields Development $ 108,950.49
Southern Park $ 28,383.12
Ivy Landfill $ 14,614.28
PVCC Facility $ 93,000.00
Simpson Park $ 72,109.71
Athletic Fields Irrigation $ 41,088.35
Tourism Related $870,495.50
Visitor's Bureau $ 8,700.00
Rivanna Greenway $ 81,550.00
Route 250/616 $ 110,000.00
Ivy Bike Lanes $ 5,500.00
River Access $ 30,000.00
Boat Access $ 369,745.50
Free Bridge $ 15,000.00
Court Square $ 250,000.00
Libraries $259,310.93
ADP Equipment $ 95,000.00
Maintenance Projects $ 100,704.83
North Library $ 4,223.10
New Library $ 500.00
Contingency $ 58,883.00
Planning $1,883,905.23
A.C.E. $1,135,760.60
Neighborhood Plan $ 455,744.78
Greenbrier Pd./Bike $ 75,000.00
Transportation Planning $ 100,000.00
Parcel Conversion Project (G.I.S.) $ 117,399.85
Appropriation #2003-008,$1,167,726.45, Storm Water Capital Improvements Projects: The
following ongoing Storm Water Capital Improvements Fund projects have project balances requiring
reappropriation from FY 2002 into FY 2003:
Westmoreland Court $6,555.28
Birnam/Wynridge Basin 401,188.73
Woodbrook Channel 26,505.00
Ivy Road Drainage 80,000.00
Ricky Road 90,560.66
Engineering 562,916.78
Appropriation #2003-009, $319,428.95, ECC - Capital Projects: The C.A.D. System is an
Emergency Communications Center project funded jointly by the County, City of Charlottesville, and
University of Virginia. This appropriation will reappropriate the available balance for this uncompleted
project.
Appropriation #2003-010, $10,000.00, School Funds from Air Force Junior ROTC: Monticello
High School received funds in the amount of $10,000.00 from the Air Force Junior ROTC. These funds
will be used for operational start-up costs to purchase a TV, Laptop, Printer and a Projector.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the $1.2 million for the Southern Elementary School is for property
acquisition. Mr. Hildebeidel said it is the remaining balance of the amount previously appropriated to get
the school started.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Al Reaser said since the Southern Elementary project has been delayed, that amount of
money will go to the Jack Jouett project which will reduce the amount of bond money needed for Jouett.
That project is already underway.
Mr. Perkins mentioned the project under "Engineering" at the Ivy Landfill. He asked if the
$446,000 listed is just the County's share of the expenses. Mr. Tucker said that is the County's share to
fund the remaining operations at the Landfill. Ms. Thomas asked if this is just the amount that will be
necessary for operations this year. Mr. Tucker said "yes." Mr. Hildebeidel said that is the amount which
was appropriated at the end of last fiscal year from the FY '01 fund balances. The Board agreed to put
additional money into the CIP for that project and along with additional funding for the Capital Reserve.
That was done at the end of the last fiscal year, so that amount is being carried forward.
Ms. Thomas asked if this is the County's portion of the $1.2 million that will be needed for the
coming year. Mr. Hildebeidel said another $425,000 was appropriated, so there is $850,000 set aside for
this expense.
Mr. Rooker said that under "Tourism" there is a boat access project listed for $369,745. He
asked for an explanation of the project. Mr. Tucker said that is for a new "put-in" at the upper end of the
reservoir near the dam.
Ms. Thomas asked that staff provide an update on this project. She said there are projects which
have not been done since the Board appropriated the money. Now those moneys are being
reappropriated, and that is frustrating to her. Mr. Tucker said it has been the policy of this Board not to
condemn land, and that is the hold up on this project. Ms. Thomas said that some of these
reappropriations indicate that things just have not gotten done. She would rather see a smaller
reappropriation amount in coming years. Mr. Dorrier asked how the $368,872 listed for the Keene Landfill
will be used. Mr. Tucker said it will be used to continue monitoring wells around Keene. It is an on-going
expense that the County will have to pay for the next 20-plus years.
Mr. Hildebeidel said that after holding the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the
budget amendment and approval of the six appropriations listed.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve the FY 2003 budget amendment
as advertised, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation Nos. 2003-005, 2003-006, 2003-007, 2003-008,
2003-009 and 2003-010 with the clarification that the money which had been set aside for the new
Southern Elementary school will go to the Jack Jouett project (a total of $1.2 million plus the $80,000
already shown for Jouett).
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2003-005
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 08/15/2002
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60100 800665 SCHOOL BOARD ADA J 1 169,729.78
1 9000 60202 800901 BROWNSVILLE BUILDING RENO J 1 87,679.50
1 9000 60203 800605 CROZET CONSTRUCTION J 1 13,002.34
1 9000 60203 800652 CROZET KITCHEN RENO J 1 56,096.24
1 9000 60204 800673 GREER HVAC IMPROV J 1 19,317.27
1 9000 60211 800987 STONY POINT PARKING/PLAYGR J 1 18,996.69
1 9000 60217 312350 BAKER-BUTLER ENG/PLANNING J 1 70,640.70
1 9000 60217 580000 BAKER-BUTLER MISC EXPENSES J 1 24,958.00
1 9000 60217 800120 BAKER-BUTLER EQUIP/MATERIALS J 1 17,883.15
1 9000 60217 800200 BAKER-BUTLER FURN & FIXTURES J 1 309,000.00
1 9000 60217 800630 BAKER-BUTLER SITE PREPARATION J 1 59,129.00
1 9000 60217 800650 BAKER-BUTLER CONSTRUCTION J 1 581,548.40
1 9000 60217 800670 BAKER-BUTLER UTILITIES J 1 34,421.80
1 9000 60217 800700 BAKER-BUTLER ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 94,149.79
1 9000 60217 800750 BAKER-BUTLER PURC OF LAND J 1 3,211.61
1 9000 60217 950129 BAKER-BUTLER POWELL CREEK J 1 27,748.80
1 9000 60218 312350 SOUTHERN ELEM ENG/PLANNING J 1 20,000.00
1 9000 60251 800901 BURLEY BUILDING RENO J 1 1,789,790.36
1 9000 60253 800901 JOUETT BUILDING RENO J 1 81,826.37
1 9000 60253 800901 JOUETT BUILDING RENO J 1 1,165,000.00
1 9000 60254 800901 WALTON BUILDING RENO J 1 23,602.07
1 9000 60301 800605 ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION J 1 4,193.98
1 9000 60303 800901 MURRAY BUILDING RENO J 1 8,683.50
1 9000 60304 312350 MONTICELLO ENG/PLANNING J 1 3,568.85
1 9000 60304 800120 MONTICELLO EQUIP/MATERIALS J 1 5,847.03
1 9000 60410 800665 C.A.T.E.C ADA J 1 8,772.34
1 9000 60510 800901 VEHICLE MAINT BUILDING RENO J 1 4,957.50
1 9000 61101 800700 CLASS/INSTRUC ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 100,305.58
1 9000 61101 800707 CLASS/INSTRUC TECH GRANT EQUIP J 1 28.92
2 9000 51000 510100 TRANSFERS FUND BALANCE J 2 4,804,089.57
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
9000 0501 EST REVENUE 4,804,089.57
9000 0701 APPROPRIATION 4,804,089.57
TOTALS 9,608,179.14
4,804,089.57
4,804,089.57
_____
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2003-006
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 08/15/2002
BATCH NUMBER
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF ITEMS AND SERVICES FOR WHICH PURCHASE ORDERS
WERE OUTSTANDING AS OF JUNE 30, 2002.
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12015 312390 MANGEMENT & BUDGET J 1 25,000.00
1 1000 12015 520300 MANGEMENT & BUDGET J 1 1,839.20
1 1000 12015 800663 MANGEMENT & BUDGET J 1 2,447.00
1 1000 12141 310000 FINANCE J 1 3,100.00
1 1000 12141 800901 FINANCE J 1 2,481.00
1 1000 12142 600100 FINANCE J 1 1,757.80
1 1000 12142 600100 FINANCE J 1 1,379.40
1 1000 32011 800500 FIRE RESCUE J 1 27,207.00
1 1000 32012 601500 FIRE RESCUE J 1 822.00
1 1000 32015 600400 FIRE RESCUE J 1 1,201.00
1 1000 32015 600400 FIRE RESCUE J 1 300.19
1 1000 32015 600400 FIRE RESCUE J 1 597.00
1 1000 32015 600900 FIRE RESCUE J 1 8,579.20
1 1000 32015 601100 FIRE RESCUE J 1 1,020.14
1 1000 32015 601100 FIRE RESCUE J 1 2,338.00
1 1000 32015 800500 FIRE RESCUE J 1 27,107.00
1 1000 32020 800100 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT J 1 3,470.62
1 1000 41000 312341 ENGINEERING J 1 325.35
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING J 1 995.50
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING J 1 9,847.54
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING J 1 470.00
1 1000 41000 331901 ENGINEERING J 1 2,000.00
1 1000 41000 331901 ENGINEERING J 1 505.00
1 1000 41000 950023 ENGINEERING J 1 387.70
1 1000 42040 390001 SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING J 1 22,937.00
1 1000 42040 390001 SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING J 1 12,320.00
1 1000 42040 390001 SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING J 1 1,353.00
1 1000 42040 390010 SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING J 1 9,702.57
1 1000 43002 332200 PUBLIC WORKS J 1 441.00
1 1000 43002 800501 PUBLIC WORKS J 1 15,581.86
1 1000 53011 312210 VA PUBLIC ASSISTANCE J 1 2,290.00
1 1000 53012 301212 VA PUBLIC ASSISTANCE J 1 9,819.87
1 1000 53014 601200 VA PUBLIC ASSISTANCE J 1 380.91
1 1000 71013 540000 PARKS & RECREATION J 1 180.00
1 1000 71013 540000 PARKS & RECREATION J 1 45.00
1 1000 71014 600700 PARKS & RECREATION J 1 547.20
1 1000 71015 540000 PARKS & RECREATION J 1 630.00
1 1000 71016 601300 PARKS & RECREATION J 1 2,566.02
1 1000 71031 312210 GYPSY MOTH PROGRAM J 1 9,993.00
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING J 1 253.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING J 1 4,922.96
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING J 1 191,265.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING J 1 21,600.00
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING J 1 5,400.00
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING J 1 3,111.83
1 1000 81010 350000 PLANNING J 1 92.00
1 1000 81010 800201 PLANNING J 1 169.99
1 1000 81017 312385 E-911 / PLANNING J 1 71,043.00
1 1000 81017 550400 E-911 / PLANNING J 1 396.80
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F BALANCE J 2 512,219.65
1000 0501 EST REVENUE 512,219.65
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION 512,219.65
TOTAL 1,024,439.30
512,219.65
512,219.65
_____
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2003-007
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE
08/15/2002
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 11010 999979 BD OF SUPV RESERV J 1 5,573,744.42
1 9010 12140 950004 FINANCE ASSESS SYS J 1 19,073.20
1 9010 21000 312343 COURTS SPACE STUDY J 1 117,201.13
1 9010 21000 331000 COURTS REPAIRS & MAINT J 1 61,070.66
1 9010 21000 800901 COURTS RENOVATIONS J 1 554,992.08
1 9010 21020 800100 DIST COURT MAC & EQUIP J 1 5,000.00
1 9010 21050 331000 JUV COURT REPAIRS & MAINT J 1 42,554.19
1 9010 21060 800708 CLK. COURT IMAGING SYSTEM J 1 8,537.00
1 9010 31000 800305 PUB SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM J 1 760,154.00
1 9010 31000 800306 PUB SAFETY COMPUTER AIDED DISPJ 1 124,364.58
1 9010 31000 800733 PUB SAFETY VIDEO EQUIP J 1 6,189.57
1 9010 31000 800910 PUB SAFETY TRG/FIRING RN J 1 40,000.00
1 9010 31000 800915 PUB SAFETY PUB SAFETY FAC J 1 14,795.57
1 9010 31040 800650 ECC BUILDINGS-CONST J 1 3,677.03
1 9010 32010 950092 FIRE/RESCUE BLDG & EQUIP J 1 1,428,526.42
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
1 9010 32010 950110 FIRE/RESCUE RECORDS MGT J 1 18,503.64
1 9010 32010 950140 FIRE/RESCUE INCIDENT REPORTJ 1 25,000.00
1 9010 41000 312700 ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS J 1 10,400.00
1 9010 41000 700006 ENGINEERING IVY LANDFILL J 1 446,000.00
1 9010 41000 800690 ENGINEERING SIDEWALK IMPR J 1 505,420.50
1 9010 41000 800960 ENGINEERING STREET LIGHTS J 1 116,929.21
1 9010 41000 950035 ENGINEERING N. BERKSHIRE J 1 3,079.00
1 9010 41000 950039 ENGINEERING MC PARKWAY J 1 24,275.41
1 9010 41000 950059 ENGINEERING KEENE LANDFILLJ 1 368,872.80
1 9010 41000 950061 ENGINEERING M.CREEK PATH J 1 20,000.00
1 9010 41000 950090 ENGINEERING IVY ROAD J 1 51,667.00
1 9010 41000 950091 ENGINEERING BKS RD SIDEWALKJ 1 5,550.25
1 9010 41000 950116 ENGINEERING M. CR PKWAY PHASE 1J 1 15,196.27
1 9010 41000 950143 ENGINEERING CORVILLE FARMJ 1 9,400.00
1 9010 41020 950024 STREETS LANDSC-29 NORTH J 1 74,251.75
1 9010 41020 950051 STREETS AVON ST/20 J 1 407.00
1 9010 41020 950068 STREETS WAKEFIELD ROAD J 1 22,162.00
1 9010 41020 950081 STREETS REV SHARING J 1 473,176.90
1 9010 41020 950115 STREETS A. RD SIDEWALKS J 1 127,000.00
1 9010 43100 800666 PUB WRKS FACILITY MAINT J 1 330,300.05
1 9010 43100 800687 PUB WRKS COB - CHILLERS J 1 6,646.25
1 9010 43100 950042 PUB WRKS STORAGE TANKS J 1 2,471.45
1 9010 43100 950102 PUB WRKS PARKING LOT J 1 1,000.00
1 9010 43100 950119 PUB WRKS BOARD RM J 1 55,060.50
1 9010 43100 950123 PUB WRKS H/R RENOV J 1 7,178.26
1 9010 43100 950127 PUB WRKS DEV'L. RENO J 1 50,000.00
1 9010 43100 950128 PUB WRKS ENTRY CORRIDOR J 1 77,500.00
1 9010 43100 950142 PUB WRKS POLLING SITES J 1 18,908.00
1 9010 71000 800665 PARKS & REC ADA CHANGES J 1 19,549.97
1 9010 71000 800668 PARKS & REC ADA CHANGES J 1 4,074.00
1 9010 71000 800949 PARKS & REC MAINT PROJECTSJ 1 37,204.68
1 9010 71000 950000 PARKS & REC MISC PROJECTS J 1 50,000.00
1 9010 71000 950003 PARKS & REC CROZET PARK J 1 15,639.39
1 9010 71000 950009 PARKS & REC SCOTTSV CENTERJ 1 28,361.65
1 9010 71000 950034 PARKS & REC TOWE PARK J 1 73,590.18
1 9010 71000 950044 PARKS & REC ATH. FIELD J 1 108,950.49
1 9010 71000 950050 PARKS & REC SOUTHERN PARKJ 1 28,383.12
1 9010 71000 950064 PARKS & REC IVY LANDFILL J 1 14,614.28
1 9010 71000 950069 PARKS & REC PVCC FACILITY J 1 93,000.00
1 9010 71000 950121 PARKS & REC SIMPSON PARK J 1 72,109.71
1 9010 71000 950137 PARKS & REC IRRIGATION J 1 29,088.35
1 9010 71000 950138 PARKS & REC IRRIGAT-TOWE PKJ 1 12,000.00
1 9010 72030 568901 TOURISM - VISITOR'S BUREAU J 1 8,700.00
1 9010 72030 950026 TOURISM - RIV GREENWAY J 1 81,550.00
1 9010 72030 950055 TOURISM - RT 250/616 J 1 110,000.00
1 9010 72030 950056 TOURISM - IVY BIKE LANES J 1 5,500.00
1 9010 72030 950107 TOURISM - RIVER ACCESS J 1 30,000.00
1 9010 72030 950111 TOURISM - BOAT ACCESS J 1 369,745.50
1 9010 72030 950112 TOURISM - FREE BRIDGE J 1 15,000.00
1 9010 72030 950135 TOURISM - COURT SQUARE J 1 250,000.00
1 9010 73020 800700 LIBRARIES - ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 95,000.00
1 9010 73020 800949 LIBRARIES - MAINT PROJ J 1 100,704.83
1 9010 73020 950076 LIBRARIES - NORTH LIBRARY J 1 4,223.10
1 9010 73020 950114 LIBRARIES - NEW LIBRARY J 1 500.00
1 9010 73020 999999 LIBRARIES - CONTINGENCY J 1 58,883.00
1 9010 81010 580409 PLANNING - A.C.E. J 1 1,135,760.60
1 9010 81010 950053 PLANNING - N'BORHOOD PLAN J 1 455,744.78
1 9010 81010 950108 PLANNING - G'BRIER PED/BIKE J 1 75,000.00
1 9010 81010 950136 PLANNING - TRANS PLANNING J 1 100,000.00
1 9010 81010 950139 PLANNING - PARCEL CONVERS J 1 117,399.85
2 9010 16000 160531 CHG FOR SERVICES CITY TOWE PARKJ 2 8,000.00
2 9010 18000 189916 MISC REVENUE - CHAMBER OF COMJ 2 6,775.90
2 9010 24000 240231 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE VDOTJ 2 54,150.33
2 9010 51000 510100 TRANSFERS - FUND BALANCE J 2 15,033,222.76
2 9010 51000 512023 TRANSFERS - FROM E-911 J 2 124,364.58
9010 0501 EST REVENUE 15,226,513.57
9010 0701 APPROPRIATION 15,226,513.57
TOTAL 30,453,027.14
15,226,513.57
15,226,513.57
_____
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2003-008
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 08/15/2002
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED STORM WATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9100 41057 800975 WESTMORELAND CRT J 1 6,555.28
1 9100 41036 312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN J 1 8,391.45
1 9100 41049 800975 WOODBROOK CHANNEL J 1 26,505.00
1 9100 41036 800975 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN J 1 51,147.28
1 9100 41037 800975 IVY ROAD DRAINAGE J 1 80,000.00
1 9100 41054 800975 RICKY ROAD J 1 90,560.66
1 9100 41000 950093 ENGINEERING J 1 237,407.72
1 9100 41000 800975 ENGINEERING J 1 325,509.06
1 9100 41036 800750 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN J 1 341,650.00
2 9100 16000 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE J 1 10,000.00
2 9100 24000 240540 DEPT OF CONS & RECREAT J 2 100,000.00
2 9100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 1,057,726.45
9100 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,167,726.45
9100 0701 APPROPRIATION J 1,167,726.45
TOTAL 2,335,452.90
1,167,726.45
1,167,726.45
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2003-009
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 08/16/2002
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH PROJECT
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4105 31061 390003 CONTRACT-ADM. FEES J 1 31,442.63
1 4105 31061 800306 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH J 1 287,986.32
2 4105 16000 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE J 2 153,070.35
2 4105 16000 160503 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE J 2 138,280.79
2 4105 16000 160512 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA J 2 28,077.81
4105 0501 EST REVENUE J 319,428.95
4105 0701 APPROPRIATION J 319,428.95
TOTAL 638,857.90
319,428.95
319,428.95
_____
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2003-010
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 08/19/2002
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL FUNDS FROM AIR FORCE JUNIOR ROTC
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2304 61101 601300 EDUC/REC SUPPLIES J 1 10,000.00
2 2000 33000 330118 AIR FORCE JUNIOR ROTC J 2 10,000.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 10,000.00
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J 10,000.00
TOTAL 20,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service
Authority to provide water service to TM21, P13 (Mickey and Barbara Pugh) located at 4954 Dickerson
Road, Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said he will only give an update to the information furnished to the Board in the
staff's report (on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). He
said there is a unique circumstance here by the fact that this property is actually listed in the jurisdictional
area list to receive service to certain structures, but it was not included on the map. There was a question
of whether or not this requires jurisdictional area approval by the Board since it is listed as a property to
receive service. Staff has been able to clarify with people who have a history of what happened back in
1980 that this property was contiguous to the waterline. There were several different areas which were
listed on the jurisdictional area list to receive water service to certain structures upon their application to
request that water service. At that time they would automatically be included in the jurisdictional areas.
In essence, the Board does not need to hold a public hearing on this request. It can be taken care of
through the process of application for service. The property was identified in 1980 for service to specific
structures upon application. The owners are just getting around to applying. They will get the
jurisdictional map designation automatically. No action is necessary by the Board. He apologized for any
confusion and delay, but said this is the first time this situation had come to light. Staff found information
concerning this subject in the Board's minutes.
Mr. Pugh was present and asked if he would receive a refund of his $130.00 application fee. Ms.
Thomas said he would.
Ms. Thomas said that at some point in the future she would like to have a report to see if this is
"just the tip of the iceberg."
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Thomas said that earlier today there was a person present who asked if the Board would be
discussing the Monticello High School project. She said the Board did so last month, and might do so this
month.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman, was present and introduced Mr. Mike Struiksma, the new
Assistant Superintendent for Support Services. Ms. Thomas welcomed Mr. Struiksma for the Board.
Mr. Koleszar said he has two things to say about the Monticello project. The School Board in
looking at numbers and seeing that the growth has been relatively flat over the last few years so at this
time it does not appear that 500 seats will be needed in the near future. The Board decided that 300
seats are the number needed at this time.
Mr. Al Reaser said the current largest classes are the ninth, tenth and eleventh grades which are
over 1000. The incoming kindergarten through second grades are under 870. It is anticipated that after
the recession is over, the system will be back on a growth pattern, which is unknown at this time. The last
three years enrollment have been relatively flat. There are only three more students system-wide now
than at this time last year.
Mr. Bowerman asked the indications of the live birth rate. Mr. Reaser said they indicate a leveling
off in the 700 to 800 range. Last year was the first time he had seen the live birth rate of six years ago be
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
less than the kindergarten enrollment. As a school division, they must be cautious because of what was
seen during the 1992 recession.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Reaser had historical background and figures that deal with what
incoming population numbers. How does the indication of 800 kids compare to the number actually
entering kindergarten? Mr. Reaser said that until last year kindergarten enrollment had always exceeded
the live birth rate in previous years. He said that historical data is now "mush". They are building a new
data base. There have been 900 houses built per year averaged over the last of three years, and
enrollment has been flat.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board also looked at the Weldon Cooper Center numbers. They
consider more things than just live births, etc. They are saying the numbers for high school enrollment
will not show that great of an increase.
Mr. Dorrier said Monticello was originally planned to have 1500 seats. Mr. Koleszar said that is
correct, but there was not enough money to build that many seats, so it was built for 1000 students.
Mr. Dorrier said when Mr. Koleszar talks about the foreseeable future, how many years into the
future he is talking about. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board was looking at about seven years out in
terms of this project. There was a consensus that 300 seats would be built now, and the addition would
be planned so it would be easy to add on 200 more seats. It was thought that the extra ten percent cost
for doing construction in two parts would be more than offset by the savings of up to four years on bond
issue costs.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Koleszar is speaking as Chairman of the School Board and not as an
individual Board member. Mr. Koleszar said that is correct.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Koleszar, as an individual Board member, would say the County will not
need the 500 seats in the next six to seven years. Mr. Koleszar said there is good reason to believe that
to be true. He thinks this is something the School Board has looked at carefully, and it is their decision to
make. He thinks the Supervisors should trust the School Board to do the process.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Koleszar had said the incremental cost of deferring building is about ten
percent. Mr. Koleszar said it is ten percent of $2.5 million to build the other 200 seats, or $250,000. Mr.
Rooker said by delaying that decision it is actually $250,000 plus the $2.5 million plus an inflation factor.
Mr. Koleszar said that is correct.
Mr. Bowerman said that factors off of the bond issue costs for that six or seven years. Mr.
Koleszar said that is right. Mr. Bowerman said it is ten percent net. Mr. Koleszar said it is ten percent
growth. The reduction in the bond issue has not been considered in that number.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Koleszar will have his support because he has said this decision was made
based on the belief that growth will be flat. His concern was that the decision was being made on political
grounds or on the grounds of "not wanting to step on toes."
Ms. Thomas said this presentation this morning sounds different than what the Board had
previously heard. She asked what has changed in the last month. Mr. Reaser said the big change has
been this year's enrollment figure. They did not know if last year was just an anomaly, but now this is the
third year and it can be assumed that this is the beginning of a trend.
Ms. Thomas said that flat growth for three years is the back up figure for suggesting that not more
than 300 seats will be needed in the high schools in the next seven or eight years. Mr. Reaser said that
is correct. They are also keeping a close eye on the kindergarten numbers. When the kindergarten
numbers and the general population figure goes up, that is why the CIP is checked each year.
Dr. Kevin Castner said the information on which the School Board based its decision is still
dynamic information. There are now new enrollment figures, so the capacity issue will be discussed
again to see if the capacity actually reflects reality. When they looked at the capacity of the buildings for
the middle schools, they added the orchestra class, and it is not a regular classroom. Also, in the high
schools there are computer labs. Originally, they thought the computer labs would be regular
classrooms, so somewhere they have to get that information with greater accuracy. The School Board
has said that the numbers at this time do not justify the need for 500 additional seats. Yet, they will
continue to monitor that information as it is reported. Some of this information is still evolving, so it will be
analyzed again before getting into the CIP process.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to respond to the comment "trust us, it's our job." She said the
Supervisors have all said they do not want to get into the redistricting issue. However, as long as the
Supervisors have the taxing authority, it is their job to make sure that what is done with taxpayer dollars
makes sense. If the school will need 500 seats soon, and only 300 are to built for some other reason,
then it is the Supervisors responsibility to say redistrict however you want to, but this building should
=A@
have 500 seats.
Mr. Koleszar said the numbers do not show that pressure will need to be relieved on Albemarle
High School in the near future.
Mr. Dorrier said there are two different time frames being discussed. Eventually 500 seats will be
needed, but not within the next six or seven years. Mr. Koleszar said there is no way to know exactly
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
what is going to happen in the future. In another ten years, if more high school seats are wanted, what
kind of seats will they be. As instruction methods change, the old physical classroom may not be as
important. They don't want to build for an old technology.
Mr. Rooker asked the total amount of enrollment that could be accommodated at the high school
level today. Dr. Castner said staff has a report which the School Board will not see until September 12.
Copies will be sent to the Supervisors after that date.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is still capacity in the high schools. Mr. Reaser said that as of last
Friday there were 3836 students in the high schools, there are only 180 seats available county-wide in all
four facilities.
Ms. Thomas said the gamble is that there will not be 180 new high school students in the future.
Mr. Koleszar said it will actually be 480 seats after this new addition is completed.
Mr. Rooker said the most compelling thing about the School Board's argument is that the cost of
the delay is not that great.
Ms. Thomas said interest rates are very low at this time, but if the recession ever hits the real
estate market, then building costs will also be low. It is possible the County would hit a low cost time
whereas in the past the County has tended to hit high cost times. Mr. Reaser said coming out of the 1992
inflation, there was double digit inflation along with the growth the County was experiencing. Whenever
the University shuts down like it is doing now in the way of hiring increases, the School's growth levels off
and stops. That makes a huge variable. In reality, when things start up again, there will be more
students and a large increase in costs. Ms. Thomas said the University is going to start building again
which means that local building costs will start to go up.
Mr. Koleszar asked if the Board had concerns they would like for him to carry back to the School
Board. Ms. Thomas said she can only say "be careful."
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has renewed the Superintendent's contract. Dr. Castner will
be here until June 30, 2006. Recently the SAT scores were released, and there was a sizeable jump in
both the Verbal and Math sections. The average SAT score in Albemarle is now 1095. There was a
recent article in The Washington Post which said the average score in Fairfax was 1096. Montgomery
County is at 1095. Those are the highest.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this increase in scores can be attributed to any one item. Mr. Koleszar said
the system has been working hard on literacy, math instruction, making sure that every kid learns. The
second grade reading level is now at 88 percent of grade level whereas seven years ago, it was 68
percent. That is not an accident.
Ms. Thomas said it is impressive that 72 percent of the kids are taking these tests. The national
average is 46 percent according to a chart Mr. Koleszar gave to the Board.
Mr. Koleszar said the chart shows that 49 percent of high school graduates have taken at least
one AP course or equivalent, so one-half of high school graduates have had the chance to get one group
of college credits.
Mr. Koleszar said that there was a successful opening day of school. Nearly 12,200 students
attended, which was one student over the projected number.
Mr. Koleszar said that during the 2002-03 School Year, ten schools will pilot the Design 2004
instructional model through which teacher teams will get grants to develop 21st Century teaching skills.
In Henrico County they gave each of their students a laptop computer, and it was a "sink or swim"
situation. In Albemarle the instructional piece will be put together first. It is important that the teachers
know how to teach using this technology.
Ms. Thomas asked how using a laptop computer is working for the School Board members. Mr.
Koleszar said he finds it to be a great help, it is not so for every member.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board will be adopting the Board/Superintendent Priorities for
2002-2004 at its meeting on September 12, 2002. A copy will be forwarded to the Supervisors soon
thereafter.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Koleszar for the report, and for the School Board members who had
attended today's meeting.
(Note: At 10:51 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. County's Strategic Planning Framework.
Mr. Tucker said at its meeting on August 7 the Board received a copy of the County's strategic
planning time line. To keep the Supervisors updated on the progress of this process a draft strategic
planning framework developed by the County's Leadership Team and the Management Group, including
an initial outline of the County's Vision, Mission, Goals and identified "strategic issues" relating to each
goal, was forwarded to the Board members with the materials for this meeting. As these materials are
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
reviewed, the Board will note that staff has proposed some additional goals and has combined some goal
areas while maintaining the Board's direction. In accordance with the strategic planning time line, staff
members will continue to refine this framework. They will develop strategic objectives for specific
prioritized issues which will be presented to the Board in October.
Mr. Bowerman asked if some of this information was lifted from the sustainability report. Mr.
Tucker said some parts came from that report, as well as a lot from other plans which have been adopted
by the Board. Staff will try to prioritize and not have a massive strategic plan. Eventually, he would like to
have four to five major issues to work on. If it gets too comprehensive it will lose its effectiveness.
Mr. Dorrier said he was at the Veterans Hospital yesterday and noticed that they had vision and
mission statements posted so everybody could see and appreciate those statements. Mr. Tucker said
those same kind of statements for the County are posted in various departments, but are not right at the
front door of this building.
Mr. Dorrier said it is noted that "Education and Lifelong Learning" will be developed later. He
asked how that will be done. Mr. Tucker said the schools did a nice job on this item so it is staff's intent to
basically use the plans they have already developed, with those plans being reviewed by the Board. Staff
did not feel it should develop separate plans. This would be confusing to the public.
Ms. Thomas said she has a comment about the general direction this process is taking. As
someone sitting on the legislative side of the table, she can see that staff is getting this a little bit more on
the staff side. For example, under "Protect the County's Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources", the last
goal is stated as "Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional
level." As an elected official she thinks the Board should also make sure that its regulations, its legislative
acts and its land use decisions are environmentally-sensitive. She thinks the environment should be
kept in mind when making zoning decisions and rewriting the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said that
language might be tweaked, but operations also entails the legislative side.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people are members of the Leadership Committee. Mr. Tucker said
it is basically composed of the department heads. The Management Group, which has also participated
in this, is made up of assistant directors and chiefs of divisions, probably 45 people.
Mr. Dorrier asked if keeping it simple is being stressed. Mr. Tucker said eventually the objectives
will be more definitive than the language presented today. He does not want this to become voluminous,
or be something which is difficult for the citizen to understand.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that on the "green page", one of the issues noted is to "pursue measures
to protect wooded areas." He thinks that should say "forested", or possibly eliminate it altogether. Mr.
Tucker said staff tried to provide at least two priorities for each issue, but some may be redundant and will
be eliminated.
Mr. Perkins said that on the "aqua page" under "Maintain a strong and sustainable economy", it
says "Enable every citizen to be a sufficient contributing member of a skilled workforce." He, personally,
does not want to be a member of a workforce forever. He suggested that it read "Enable every working
age citizen to be a sufficient contributing member of a skilled workforce."
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is anything in this that deals with senior citizens and retirees. Mr.
Tucker said "yes." He noted the sentence reading "Plan and implement strategies to address the needs
and resources of the growing aging population."
Mr. Martin noted that on page 1 under "Provide Effective and Efficient County services where it
@
says "Create and maintain an effective dialogue with the community that incorporates on-going feedback
systems" he would like to see the word "problem-solving" included. He thinks the Board needs to move in
the direction of solving problems, rather than just saying "no."
Mr. Tucker said staff will be working on this throughout the month of September. It will come
back to the Board in October. He asked that Mr. Hildebeidel make a presentation on the dynamics of this
process.
Mr. Roger Hildebeidel said strategic planning is all about the management of change. How do we
maintain an organization that is relevant and vital in the face of change? This kind of planning is an
attempt to create a framework in which you look at what is happening around you in the environment.
There has been an environmental scan, the citizens survey, and a look at the overall organization. This is
a way to determine what is happening that staff should be aware of. These issues will affect the way the
County needs to operate as an organization in the future to be responsive and vital. The strategic
planning exercise is a dynamic process. Staff has taken a lot of available information, what was done at
the retreat a couple of months ago on the goals, and brought them into context. They will determine
which of them are key issues on which County government should focus. It is not envisioned that this will
be a huge document, but only some key items that will be guiding principles and objectives for the
organization. Not everything the County does will be covered, only those items which need to be done
differently, better and more effectively than we are doing now.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda. (Moved to the
afternoon session.)
_______________
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 11:26 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into closed session under
Va. Code Sec. 2.3711(A) under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions;
under subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for a public use finding that a discussion in an
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the denial of a
site plan; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation relating
to a public safety incident; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel regarding specific legal
matters requiring the provision of legal advice relating to an agreement between the County and other
political entities.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session.
At 1:35 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session, with Mr. Bowerman being absent at this
time.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board members' knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Mr. Martin offered motion to:
Reappoint Mr. Sonny Beau and Mr. Frederick A. Missel, as the University of Virginia
representatives on the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, with terms to expire
December 31, 2004.
Reappoint Mr. Joseph T. Samuels, Jr., to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee, with term to
expire December 13, 2003.
Reappoint Mr. Franklin P. Micciche (Rivanna District), Mr. George R. Larie (Jack Jouett District),
Mr. James E. Clark, Jr. (Scottsville District), Mr. W. Ivar Mawyer (Samuel Miller District), Mr. Dabney B.
Sandridge (White Hall District), and Mr. C. Marshall Thompson (Rio District) to the Equalization Board,
with terms to expire on December 31, 2003.
Reappoint Mr. Bruce W. Kirtley to the Piedmont Housing Alliance, with term to expire December
2, 2005.
Reappoint Mr. Samuel A. Anderson as the University of Virginia non-voting representative on the
Albemarle County Planning Commission.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2002-021. Carmichael Motors - Auto Sales (Signs #23 & #24).
Request in accord w/22.2.2(8) of the Zoning Ord which allows automobiles sales in the C-1 district. TM
'
78, P 2A contains 0.524 acs zoned C-1 & EC. Loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250), at the intersec w/ Free
Bridge Lane (Rt 1421). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on
August 19 and August 26, 2002.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2002-030. Carmichael Motors - Outdoor Storage and Display (Signs
#66 & #81). Request in accord w/30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for outdoor storage & display
'
in the EC Overlay Dist. TM 78, P 2A contains 0.524 acs. Znd C-1 & EC. Loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250)
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
at the intersec w/ Free Bridge Lane (Rt 1421). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in
the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 26, 2002.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 20. Appeal: SDP-2002-45. Carmichael Motors Preliminary Site Plan - Critical
Slopes Waiver Denial. Request preliminary site plan approval for construction of one-level bldg (900 sq
ft) & parking lot for automobile sales on 0.524 acs. Znd C1 & EC.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office. He said the
applicant's proposal is for the establishment of an automobile dealership, which would utilize an existing
building as an office and a new structure as a shelter for washing and detailing along with two additional
auto display spaces in that building. The property is located on the north side of Route 250 at the
intersection of Free Bridge Lane. All nearby parcels are similarly zoned and established with existing
commercial uses.
Mr. Cilimberg said this site consists of the last vacant parcel within the area fronting on Route
250. It is recommended for Regional Service in the Comprehensive Plan. The property lies between
U.S. Route 20 North and the Rivanna River. This proposal is an opportunity for in-fill development in a
location where the County's Urban Area abuts a boundary that is shared with the City of Charlottesville.
Due to the small size of this site and the fact that all of the nearby properties have been developed with
an orientation toward Route 250, few of the twelve Principles in the Neighborhood Model appear
applicable to this proposal. Staff has provided an assessment of the principles.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed automobile dealership is a use that is compatible with the Tuffy
Muffler auto service on the adjacent property located to the east. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the
meeting at 1:40 p.m.) Properties within this area have been largely developed with a mixture of uses that
range from automobile service stations and convenience stores specializing in fuel sales to fast food
restaurants. The nearest automobile dealership is located approximately one-eighth mile east of this site
at the intersection of U.S. Routes 250 and 20 North.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is no fill activity being proposed within the flood plain on the property.
This site would not require an additional point of access from Route 250 because of the shared
inter-parcel driveway connection with an adjacent parcel. He said the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
reviewed the request to allow outdoor storage and recommended approval with conditions. Staff
recommended approval of both special use permits subject to five conditions. The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on July 2, 2002, unanimously recommended denial of both petitions due to their concern
that this is an inappropriate use adjacent to the river.
Mr. Cilimberg said the critical slopes waiver would allow grading in an approximate 80 square foot
area. The site plan shows that a small portion of the site for grading activity. Also, several large-sized
street trees are proposed for placement on top of the mound where the critical slopes exist. The slopes
are now characterized by a thin strip of vegetation that is approximately 20 feet at its widest point, and
extends northward along the frontage of Free Bridge Lane located within the one hundred year flood plain
in an area designated as a Major and Locally Important Stream Valley. County Engineering staff has
determined that no fill activity is proposed within that flood plain, and this site is separated from the
largest portion of the critical slopes that abut the river by an existing public road. Staff would recommend
approval of the requested critical slopes waiver which would allow the planting of large street trees along
the public road frontage. He then offered to answer questions.
With no questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant to speak first.
Mr. Steve Melton was present to represent the applicant. He handed to the Board members a
copy of a rendering of the proposed facility, and explained the location of this site. He said the site is
fairly small and has limited building opportunities because of its proximity to the flood plain. There is also
the cross-easement coming from the Tuffy Muffler facility (which was imposed by the County when it
approved the Tuffy Muffler site plan), in order to keep entrances at a minimum off of Route 250. One
important issue is that the existing building will not be torn down, but will be maintained in its original
character. A new carport structure located about 25 feet behind the main building will be constructed to
match the existing building as much as possible.
Mr. Melton said the building will be leased to Michael Wilson and his wife. There will be only one
part-time employee. Sales will consist of high-end imported vehicles, Porsche, AUDI and BMW. There
will be regular business hours, no extended late night hours. Site lighting is minimal on this site. There
are two exterior pole lights 18 feet in height which match the lights at Tuffy Muffler. At the request of the
ARB they have recessed the lights in the canopy of the carport to reduce the overflow from any interior
lights. There is to be no mechanical work or gasoline storage on site, only detail work which will take
place in one day in the lower garage area. As required by the Engineering Department, they have
equipped that area with sand and an oil trap.
Mr. Melton said there has been a lot of interest expressed for use of this property, uses such as
an ice cream parlor, a coffee shop, a hot dog stand, all with drive-through windows which seems to be
what people want. They think Carmichael Motors would be the best use on this site. Also, the traffic
generated by this site would be much less than any food or retail type of business. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, they met with the ARB and the ARB approved the project. He said that with the
existing related businesses in the area, both on the City side and the County side of the river, and with
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
the opportunity to keep the existing building intact and maintain its character, they hope the Board will
support this project. Mr. Wilson is also present.
Ms. Thomas asked how the original little brick building was used. Mr. Melton said he has heard
that it was a gas station at one time, a bus station, and he remembers it as a fruit stand. It has been used
in the recent past by the Boy Scouts to sell Christmas trees. The ARB has been influential in trying to
keep it. They have had numerous calls asking for just the building, not the land.
Mr. Rooker asked if there have been any inquiries for an agricultural use. Mr. Melton said "no".
The building is relatively small, only 900 square feet. If that building is torn down, another building cannot
be put back in its place. If there were an office project proposed, there is a problem with the easement on
the back of the property and the parking situation. It is a unique site. He wishes it were larger.
Mr. Jeff Werner handed to the Board a copy of a statement from the Piedmont Environmental
Council (which is on file with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). He said the PEC
believes this proposal provides opportunity to look to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations to
"explore opportunities for river-oriented development." He said this proposal provides an opportunity to
look to the future of the Growth Area along the river. From that perspective, PEC encourages the Board
to view the river as an asset and not as an unseen ditch from which one may only view the back walls of
commercial development. Mr. Werner said he has no specific opposition to this request. His comments
only concern the future of the riverfront as a whole.
Ms. Leslie Middleton said she lives in the City and wished to express opposition to the requests.
She said this site is unique in its location adjacent to the Rivanna River and its intersection with numerous
community byways. The County's Greenway coming south from Darden Towe Park will go under the
bridge and continue down river. Here, the Rivanna Trails circling the City meets the County's Greenway.
Finally, the river itself is a state-designated scenic river and a designated American Treasure. It is the
pathway for the newly-created Rivanna River Water Trail. The proposed used car business does not in
any way provide a functional or aesthetic relationship to these very important community amenities. What
happens on this site will signal either a new way of looking to the river, or simply business as usual. With
this decision, the Board can encourage businesses and activities that face the river and extend its
welcome to us. For this reason, she asked that the permits be denied. (Note: A copy of Ms. Middleton's
statement is on file in the Clerk's Office and is much longer than what is excerpted here.)
Mr. Lee Freudberg said he is a resident of the County. He participated in the Rivanna
Conservation Society's annual clean-up day. He has also boated down the river several times. They
took off from Darden Towe Park and it was exciting to go under the bridge. When they landed on the
other side of the river he thought it was a fairly pristine area, but now finds that there are several
construction projects under way in the area between this site and Darden Towe Park. He asked that the
Board reject the requests before it today and that serious consideration be given to projects which would
be in conjunction and collaboration with the river itself for people to enjoy. Mr. Freudberg said he brought
a copy of a publication . He said this is the only river designated as an
Mr. Jefferson's River, The Rivanna
American treasure which is a designation by the Save America Program, a public/private partnership.
Again, he asked the Board to begin to look at the river and the development along it from the river's
point-of-view instead of the view from the highway.
Ms. Michelle Mattioli said she lives on Market Street in the City. She came today to oppose the
applications because she feels strongly about the way lands are used along the Rivanna River. She can
empathize with the applicant, but the common good must be served through good land use planning in
order to create and maintain a community which is enjoyable to live in. For many people that means
preserving the health of the Rivanna River. She is member of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's
Citizens Advisory Committee, but today she speaks as a private citizen. She said a major focus of the
water supply recommendations which were adopted last month after years of study and much community
input is an emphasis on the health of the watershed as a critical part of maintaining an adequate and safe
water supply. A public discussion sponsored by the County and RWSA at 7:00 p.m. tonight in Room 235
will discuss the possible update of watershed plan. The Rivanna Rivers run through undeveloped
woodlands, agricultural areas, suburban housing developments and the City. The idea of a river corridor
plan needs to be resurrected to guide land use along the river and near the City as well as in the rural
areas. Without these guidelines, siting car dealerships and U-Haul storage lots along the river is the
option. More and more impervious parking lots lead to storm events that load sediment in the river
compromising its integrity. Petroleum runoff from asphalt parking lots, as well as nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution, damages the life of the river. She said guidelines for land uses that would not
cause environmental damage to the Rivanna River should be developed. There is no reason why the
river cannot be clean and healthy throughout its entire length even in the urban area. She said this area
has a responsibility as part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed to do what can be done to buffer as much
of the river as possible. She urged the Board to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation not
to approve this application. She said the Rivanna River is a tremendous asset that requires careful
stewardship. She asked that people in the audience who are opposed to approval of this request raise
their hands (five people were present in opposition).
Mr. Reuben Clark said he is present to speak for the Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative (ASGI). It
is a political action committee registered under Virginia law that supports smart growth for this region. It
rejects the inevitable consequence of present development patterns that in the lifetime of our children will
convert Albemarle to sprawl from the Blue Ridge to Louisa county. He said this committee is not
composed of "no-growthers" which is just a pipe dream. He said they seek good growth. He
congratulated the Board for what it has already done to slow down the dismal prospect of eternal sprawl.
In three respects, the Board has taken significant action. It has rejected the further intrusion into the
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
County of "big-boxes." The Board has put into place and financed the ACE Program, and has done it in a
way that it is being used as a model by other communities. Only last month the Board unanimously
approved the Neighborhood Model amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that all of this is
progress, but the hard part is yet to come.
As to the Carmichael petitions, Mr. Clark said ASGI has mixed emotions. On the one hand it
supports economic development policies that prefer local businesses over large foreign entrants. It
supports government rules that make it easier for such local businesses to develop naturally in creating
local jobs. He said it appears that Carmichael complies with these existing rules. On the other hand, the
Rivanna River front is something special. Obstacles must not continue to be created that may limit the
County's options in the future. Such obstacles must not prohibit along the river, the sort of urban core
mixed use development to which both the County and the City are committed. Current development must
be river, not highway directed. In the future, we must not be kept from following the pioneering examples
of all the initiatives and resources that we possess. Cities such as Chattanooga, Portland and San
Antonio have developed the urban banks of their rivers to the benefit of all. If the countryside is to be
saved, cities and growth areas must be saved first. All of this is made more important by the emerging
presence of the Lewis and Clark museum to be located on the river above Free Bridge. This project
surely can be a substantial catalyst for development along the river in a way that will be consistent with
and a great boost to the kind of mixed-use development that is consistent with the newly amended
Comprehensive Plan.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she is glad Mr. Clark mentioned the Lewis and Clark museum. She and Mr.
Dorrier are members of the Exploratory Center Advisory Board; it hopes to have its center on the Rivanna
on a piece of Darden Towe Park further along the river where George Rogers Clark was born. She went
to the site of the Riverfront Apartments to see how they find it being close to the river. The Board had
turned down a couple of other applications on that piece of property. There are about 125 apartments in
the complex, and about two-thirds of them look toward the river. Their sales are going well, and they are
charging more for the apartments that look out at the river. The Board held out for something that is
river-oriented in that location, and she thinks that was the right thing to do. The developer is delighted
with what he has, and with the popularity of the river view.
Mr. Rooker said he supported the prior application a couple of weeks ago for a U-Haul facility
behind the Shell Station. He did not think for that piece of property there were many options for a
river-oriented use. That site is also not visible in either direction when one crosses the river. This is a
different issue. This site is highly visible, probably the most visible site as one enters Albemarle County
from Charlottesville. He thinks the speakers articulated good reasons why the Board should hold out for
a use that is more oriented toward the river. He thinks the applicant did a good job of a proposed design
for the facility, but he thinks it is the wrong use in the wrong place. He mentioned a car dealership of
similar size at the corner of Hydraulic Road and Route 29 North where they took an old bank building and
turned it into a car lot. It is not a good looking facility. In terms of where it is located, it is highly visible on
that corner of the City, but when one drives by it is not an aesthetically pleasing. He thinks it is
unfortunate that the property developed in that way. This site has that same kind of visibility, but it is on
the river which is a major crossroads for various transportation modes. He said Mr. Melton did a good job
with how he put this proposal together, but it is the wrong use in the wrong place. He cannot support the
request.
Mr. Dorrier said he is serving on the committee looking at a center for the Lewis and Clark event.
They have been looking at putting the center on the Rivanna River. He agrees with Mr. Rooker about
the difference in this site and the one where the Board agreed to allow a U-Haul operation. That site was
a little bit hidden and not directly on Route 250, plus it is in a shopping center area. This site is very
prominent and central to the entrance corridor on Pantops Mountain. The car dealerships along the road
are further up the mountain and not right on the river. This site is small and while this building is
somewhat attractive, he cannot support having a car operation on that small site.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Rooker.
With no further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to deny SP-2002-021. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Martin said it was stated by Mr. Melton that if this building is torn down it can't be replaced.
He said if the County were willing to buy this property, what would the Board expect to be put on that site
under the best of scenarios. He wonders if everybody is using the same definition of river-friendly.
A@
Mr. Rooker said he does not think marketing used cars on a highly visible site going into and out
of the county is the best use for the site from a community standpoint. There are numerous potential
uses such as an agricultural marketing site, a canoe site, a nursery, a small café, or a small office. The
site could provide access to the greenway. He think there are a number of uses that will not be as
aesthetically displeasing in the Entrance Corridor as a car dealership.
Mr. Martin said he will go along with what seems to be the majority feeling of the Board.
However, he gets a bad feeling in his stomach when there is an existing building, and it is an in-fill
situation and the Board says that something different would go there better. He said the only reason he
supported the ACE program is that he thinks "you should put your money where your mouth is."
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Rooker said this is a special permit use, and the applicant can come back with other uses.
This is a legislative, discretionary decision by the Board that this is not a proper use for the site. The
property is already zoned and he can make use of it in several ways without the Board making a
discretionary decision.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it is subjective to say these foreign cars sitting next to this building will
look worse aesthetically than canoes sitting next to the building.
Mr. Bowerman said he just counted the parking spaces to see if canoes could be accommodated
in terms of parking, and they clearly can.
Mr. Dorrier said the key issue is that this site is the most prominent site in the area. He can
understand that it would be a good business location for Mr. Carmichael. He thinks the County has plans
to make the Lewis and Clark Center an historically significant place, and that corner will be very
important.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board had any say when the Shell Station located across the street
from this site. Mr. Cilimberg said that was a by-right development, and did not need to come before the
Board.
Ms. Thomas said she is not thinking of this as an aesthetic issue. Her vote is not anti-commercial
either. She recently walked the canal path in Richmond which has awakened the community to its
waterfront and they have put a great amount of public and private money into that waterfront. One of the
main criticisms of the area is that there are no amenities for the people who walk or take the canal boat
ride. They would like to have a restaurant or someplace where they can stop in. That is where the
commercial world comes in, so she does not think of this as anti-commercial.
Mr. Martin said he was not criticizing Mr. Rooker and apologizes if it sounded like that. But, ever
since he read the staff report he has been struggling with this question.
Ms. Thomas said she is sorry staff made some of the comments it did in its staff report. One of
the things it says is that this is a piece of property where the County borders the City, but this property
actually borders the river across from the City boundary. She thinks that makes a difference in whether
this is an in-fill site, or something different from the usual in-fill site. The fact that there are other such
uses further up Pantops does not seem to be relevant to this piece of property. She is sorry that the
Board did not have this discussion weeks ago so that all this work did not go into making this proposal.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked that the roll be called. The motion for denial passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to deny SP-2002-030. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to uphold the denial of the critical slopes waiver by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. SP-2002-022. 20 South Kitchen (Signs #85 & #86). Request to allow
Home Occupation, Class B for catering business, in accord w/10.2.2(31) of the Zoning Ord. TM 102, P
'
17E, contains 65 acs. Loc on E sd of Rt 20, N of its intersec w/Rt 708 at 1138 Roundtop Farm. Znd RA.
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August
26, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested approval of a special use permit for a Home
Occupation-Class B to allow for the operation of a catering kitchen that operates on a somewhat seasonal
basis. The applicant proposes to construct a 968 square foot kitchen to be used for preparing food for
events off-site. A private road from Route 20 accesses the site and minimal traffic would be generated by
the proposed use. The applicant does not plan to have any employees on-site, but he would frequently
hire contract workers to work off-site at an event.
Mr. Cilimberg said the property under review contains 65 acres, and the surrounding area can be
characterized as heavily wooded and farmland, with minimal residential development. The property is
located adjacent (northeast) to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District. The Agricultural and
Forestal Committee has reviewed the proposed use and has recommended approval. The level of
intensity of the proposed use would be compatible with the character of the Rural Area. The applicant
would grow produce to be used in the proposed catering business at his site.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Cilimberg said staff and the Planning Commission (at its meeting on August 6, 2002, by a
vote of 6:0) have both recommended approval of the petition subject to three conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked if this operation is limited to two employees. Mr. Cilimberg said the Ordinance
actually limits it to two non-family members working on site.
With no questions for staff at this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Pierce McCleskie, the applicant, had no comments, but offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2002-022 subject to the three
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. There shall be no on-site sales;
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials; and
3. All requirements of the Health Department shall be satisfied.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2002-031. Puopolo Cottage (Signs #72 & #73). Request for an
office/cottage in accord w/10.2.2(31) & 5.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM 103, P 50 (contains 3.806 acs), P
''
34M (contains 38.584 acs), & P 34G (contains 30.069 acs). Loc on S sd of Rolling Rd (Rt 620), approx
600 ft S of Rt 620 & Rt 795 intersec. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in
the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 26, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this Home Occupation-Class B request would allow for the use of a cottage as
an office/guest cottage (approximately 1,200 sq. ft.) and would allow for the outdoor storage of materials
used in the applicant's business. The applicant currently operates Liberty Corporation from the primary
residence with the outdoor storage located on an adjacent property, also owned by the applicant.
Business hours are normally dawn to dusk. The business sells, builds, and maintains a variety of
recreational amenities, such as tennis courts, basketball courts and putting greens. Locally-obtained
construction materials are generally shipped to specific sites and assembled at the sites. No construction
or assembly occurs at the applicant's site. However, the applicant does have unused materials shipped
back from the customer site to his property and stores the materials outdoors. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left
the room at 2:30 p.m.) Occasionally, materials will be shipped to the applicant's site and then the
materials are shipped to the customer site. The applicant employs two part-time office workers on-site
and has a production manager, several salespersons, and labor workers who work off-site and
occasionally attend meetings at the applicant's office. Additionally, the cottage has a bedroom that is
sometimes used by a prospective dealer while visiting the applicant.
Mr. Cilimberg said the surrounding area can be characterized as wooded with residential
development. The applicant was cited for a violation as noted in the staffs report. Approval of this
=
application would abate the violation cited by the Zoning Department. This site and the surrounding area
are located in the Rural Area. Staff expressed concern that this use is more consistent with more
intensive commercial and industrial uses of the development areas, but it is also noted that the applicant
has the support of adjacent property owners to continue to operate the business as a home occupation.
The applicant has been cooperative in working with staff to resolve the outdoor storage issues and to
abate the current violation. The applicant has proposed to construct a storage shed to satisfy the outdoor
storage issue and to limit the amount of business-related vehicular traffic to the site. Therefore, staff
recommended approval of SP-2002-031 subject to conditions. He said the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on August 20, 2002, unanimously recommended approval subject to seven conditions, with No. 5
being modified from what staff originally recommended regarding VDOT approval. (Note: Mr. Bowerman
returned to the meeting at 2:34 p.m.)
Mr. Rooker noted that in the history of this application, it is noted that an application for a special
use permit was filed in January, 2002, but the application was not accepted. He asked if that was
because the proposal did not meet the definition of a Home Occupation. Mr. Cilimberg said this request
was a revision from the original application.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is because the business was not on the same site as the home. Mr.
Cilimberg said that is being addressed through the conditions. This permit will bring all of the parcels
owned by the applicant under the one home occupation permit. Whatever was the limiting factor was at
the time has been resolved in this application.
With no further questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the
applicant to speak.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Mike and Ms. Beth Puopolo were present. Mr. Puopolo said the cottage is on Parcel 15, and
they live on Parcel 34M, so the original application could not go through because they did not live on the
parcel with the business.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any increase in development rights from the combining of parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg said "no." The rights come from the property as it existed in 1980.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2002-031 subject to the seven
conditions recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials;
2. To limit the amount of business-related vehicular traffic, there shall be no more
than four (4) on-site business meetings per month with sales representatives,
labor workers, production manager, and other personnel related to the
operation of this home occupation;
3. There shall be no on-site sales of materials;
4. Parcels 34M, 50, and 34G shall be combined prior to the issuance of a Zoning
clearance for this use. Parcels shall be combined within sixty (60) days after
Board of Supervisor approval;
5. Requirements of VDOT for sight distance and sight distance easement (if
necessary) shall be completed within sixty (60) days after Board of Supervisor
approval;
6. The construction of the storage shed, as shown on the sketch plan (Attachment
A), shall be completed and all outdoor storage associated with this use shall be
contained inside the storage shed within sixty (60) days after Board of
Supervisor approval; and
7. If all conditions are not met within sixty (60) days after Board of Supervisor
approval, the use shall be discontinued.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. SP-2002-033. Bentivar Subdivision - Reconfiguration (Sign #77). Request
to allow resubdivision of 6 parcels in Bentivar Subdivision in accord w/10.5.2.1.a of the Zoning Ord. TM
'
46, Ps 135, 136, 136A, 137, 137A & 138A contains 14.318 acs. Loc on Bentivar Dr (Rt 1033) approx 800'
from intersec of Rt 1033 & Rt 643. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on August 19 and August 26, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is proposing to reconfigure six lots in the Bentivar subdivision. It
is not possible by right as proposed because the development rights of the lots being reconfigured would
need to be transferred outside of their original parent parcels. This area is designated as Rural Area in
the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal would not change the number of houses to be built on the
properties, and would not significantly change the expected level of impact on surrounding parcels. This
area has already been developed in a suburban nature. This proposal would not change the character of
its surroundings. The proposal would add a new internal road for access to the parcels, which in their
current lay-out would be accessed from Bentivar Drive. The property's size and suburban context make it
largely unusable for economically-viable agriculture and forestry. This particular site is approximately 0.3
mile from the boundary of the Hollymead community. No increased public services or facilities would be
required as related to this proposal. The original six lots are considered developable in a by-right
situation.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of SP-2002-033 with conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on August 20, 2002, unanimously recommended approval with those same
conditions.
With no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
speak.
Mr. Steve Melton said he was present to represent Bentivar. Also present is Rick Carter who is
the contract purchaser for these six lots. He said this change is to basically give a better marketable lot.
The lots now are 150 feet wide, and 1000 feet long. In most cases these lots were done back in the late
60s and early 70s. For the homes they are building now, a waiver would be required from the ARB within
the subdivision itself. He thinks this will create something nice. He offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion by immediately offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2002-033 subject to the three
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
1. The development rights granted by this special use permit shall be used in lieu
of the six (6) remaining theoretical development rights on the property;
2. Driveways in the proposed reconfiguration shall be separated by a minimum of
seventy-five (75) feet; and
3. The applicant shall secure a signed final plat for the proposed division within
two (2) years of the approval date of this permit, or this permit shall expire.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14: From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Davis said he had handed to the Board members earlier a copy of an ordinance dealing with
the Governor's Executive Order of last Friday which placed mandatory water restrictions on groundwater
usage, as well as surface water usage in most of the Commonwealth. Albemarle County is included in
the area where the mandatory restrictions apply. The Governor, in that Order, provided authority to allow
localities to enforce those restrictions. Unless this Board adopts an ordinance, County staff would have
no ability to enforce those restrictions. The restrictions, as set out in the ordinance, limit the use of any
water for watering laws, washing vehicles, filling swimming pools, and irrigating golf courses, except
under very limited circumstances. That would apply throughout the County whether people are on private
or public water systems, including individual wells.
Mr. Davis said what is proposed in this emergency ordinance is that any violation of the
Governor's Executive Order would be treated the same as violation of the County Code section which
deals with Albemarle's emergency water restrictions imposed in the urban ring by the Albemarle County
Service Authority. It would be a Class 3 misdemeanor which would be punishable by up to a $500 fine. It
is anticipated that any violations would be prosecuted by the County Attorney's office, and Mr. Tucker
would determine, as needed, what County staff would be allocated to enforce these measures.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a person would be charged with two violations. Mr. Davis said if a person
in the urban ring were watering a lawn they would most likely be charged under the ACSA restrictions
because their personnel would be dealing with that violation. Outside of the urban area, other County
staff could cite someone for a violation of the Executive Order.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this declaration would cover those houses using wells. Mr. Davis said as
it stands today, this emergency declaration continues in effect until June 30, 2003, unless the Governor
lifts it. It is possible that the reservoirs could be full, and the ACSA regulations may not require the
restrictions that have been imposed by the service authority, but these restrictions could stay in place
county-wide, including those houses using wells.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board could revoke this emergency ordinance. Mr. Davis said that under
the Virginia Code, and emergency ordinance may only remain in effect for 60 days. Basically, an
emergency ordinance is one which is adopted without advance published notice. This Board will still
have an opportunity in the next 60 days to determine whether it wants to continue to enforce the
Governor's declaration of water restrictions. If the Board does not adopt another ordinance within the
next 60 days to enforce it, then enforcement would be left up to unknown state officials.
Mr. Martin said he would move adoption Of Ordinance No. 02-E(1), An Emergency Ordinance
Establishing That a Violation of Executive Order Number 33 Issued by the Governor of Virginia on August
30, 2002, Shall Be a Class 3 Misdemeanor in the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
Mr. Bowerman gave second to the motion.
Ms. Thomas said this will take some explaining. She has been talking to people who live in the
urban ring who thought that if they had a private well they would not need to pay any attention to
restrictions. The idea that the County is restricting what people can do with their own well water is a good
idea, but it will take some alerting of the public. It goes counter to what everyone has always thought.
Historically, people on wells use less water per household than people on public water.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02- E(1)
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THAT A VIOLATION OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 33 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA ON AUGUST
30, 2002 SHALL BE A CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR IN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
WHEREAS, the Honorable Mark R. Warner, Governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, issued Executive Order Number 33, Declaration of a State of Emergency Due to
Extreme Drought Conditions Throughout the Commonwealth, effective August 30, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Section C of Executive Order Number 33 prohibits any person or
household who utilizes surface waters or groundwater in Albemarle County from watering
lawns, washing vehicles, filling swimming pools, and irrigating golf courses with the following
exceptions: commercial car washes, pools used by health care facilities for patient care and
rehabilitation, and watering of golf course tees and greens between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
8:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, Section C of Executive Order Number 33 further provides that Albemarle
County may establish, collect, and retain fines for a violation of the restrictions promulgated
therein; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County finds that a violation of
Executive Order Number 33 should parallel a violation of Albemarle County Code Section
16-500, Conservation of Water During Emergencies, and be enforced as a Class 3
Misdemeanor; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors further finds that an emergency exists requiring
the adoption of this Ordinance without prior published notice pursuant to Virginia Code Section
15.2-1427.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED THAT:
(1) A violation of any restriction on the use of surface waters or groundwater set
forth in Section C of Executive Order Number 33 issued by the Honorable Mark R. Warner,
Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, effective August 30, 2002, or as it thereafter may be
amended, shall be a Class 3 Misdemeanor in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the County
shall prosecute and enforce these restrictions and collect and retain fines for violations of these
restrictions.
(2) The County Executive is authorized and directed to enforce the restrictions in
Albemarle County by utilizing County employees and resources as he deems necessary.
(3) This Ordinance shall take effect immediately, being adopted under emergency
procedures pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1427, and shall remain in effect not longer
than sixty days unless readopted in conformity with the applicable provisions of the Virginia
Code.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition met with the secretaries of Natural Resources,
Transportation, and Commerce a couple of weeks ago. It was a very interesting meeting and the County
was well received by these three people. The Secretary of Commerce was particularly concerned that
the County pay more attention to affordable housing. The Secretary of Natural Resources wanted to
know if there were a way that local comprehensive plans could be made more effective. The Secretary of
Transportation asked for a list of things that might be done without requiring legislation that would be
conducive to the type of development Albemarle is thinking of under DISC. She said that was a different
kind of response from the state.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he thinks one of the most important things the Board can do is follow through on
the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance. It went to the Planning Commission in 1998 and was passed
unanimously. The Board made changes to the Comprehensive Plan that set the stage for the ordinance.
He thinks it is the most important thing that can be done to protect the natural resources, scenic
resources, tourism economy, and water resources. He is proposing that the Board consider putting the
ordinance back on the agenda and advertise it for a public hearing in the form approved by the
Commission in 1998. He thinks it would be a good idea to have another public hearing and then the
Board move forward with the ordinance and take action. He is prepared today to make a motion that at
the earliest and most convenient point on the Board's schedule, the ordinance be included for public
hearing purposes.
Mr. Martin said he would prefer that instead of making a motion to add it to the agenda, to do
what the Board normally does with new thoughts and that is to have staff furnish the Board with a short
history of the issue, the votes the Board has taken, and how it got to this point. At that time, a motion
could be made. He remembers that the Board voted on the Mountaintop plan, but opposed the
Mountaintop ordinance. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board voted on the Plan, but never voted on the
ordinance. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Rooker said he wishes the Board to actually take a vote on the
ordinance, one way or the other.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks all the Board members need to be refreshed on the subject. He was
disappointed in the ordinance because "you can't tell people what color to paint their house." He thinks
that was the biggest part of the problem.
Mr. Dorrier said that was three or four years ago. It may be that if the ordinance were modified, it
would be less objectionable.
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Perkins asked how that ordinance fits in with the Rural Areas Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said
mountaintop protection is a specific item in the rural areas review. He thinks Mr. Rooker wants to take the
ordinance as it went before the Commission, and return it to public hearing. In the rural areas review,
staff will go back into the mountaintop protection plan itself and find if there are other items which have to
be modified. That study is still a year away.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks using a committee to hammer out the details would be an effective
procedure.
Mr. Rooker said there was a committee that recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
That committee worked for a couple of years and then came forward with a recommendation to change
the Comprehensive Plan. It also recommended an ordinance which went to the Planning Commission
which held numerous work sessions. There was a public hearing that lasted about six hours, about 80
people made comments, and changes were made to accommodate some requests by the public. The
ordinance did not eliminate any development rights, but basically said if there were development rights on
a property, they had to be exercised off of the ridge line, if possible.
Mr. Martin said there were some serious problems with the ordinance. He remembers going out
with several people, walking their property and looking at where the ordinance told them they would have
to build, versus what would have been the best site, and the most out-of-sight place for them to build. Mr.
Rooker said there would have been a special use permit procedure if the ordinance said someone could
not built in the best site. Mr. Martin said he is just saying that before even voting on whether to take this
ordinance to a public hearing, he would like to get a presentation and a copy of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested sending the Board members a copy of the packet they originally
received for this item, along with a copy of the minutes of that last Board meeting.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any specific threats to the mountain ridges now. Mr. Cilimberg said
he is not aware of any proposals coming to the County. There are many existing lots which could be built
on.
Mr. Davis said when the Board went through this process last time, there were people who tried
to beat adoption of an ordinance by platting lots. Those have all been platted. He is not aware of any
proposed development that would make an impact at this time.
Ms. Thomas said the Water Resources Planner is working on the mountain ridges as recharge
areas. She asked for an idea of how soon the Board will get that information.
Mr. Rooker said he would be happy to wait and make the motion next week. His motion will be
that the Supervisors look at the ordinance which was approved by the Planning Commission in an
unanimous vote. The ordinance was discussed by the committee for a couple of years, and it was the
subject of work sessions and hearings, and it was unanimously approved by every representative of
every district. He just wants this body to look at that ordinance and vote. He does not think that is too
much to ask for the people who worked on the ordinance for such a long time.
Mr. Martin said it was his understanding that the Board did vote to split the two things apart so
action could be taken on the Comprehensive Plan. He would like to have his memory refreshed.
Mr. Davis said some amendments were suggested by the Board after the Planning Commission
had made its recommendations. It had been tinkered with somewhat during work sessions before the
Board held its public hearing. Procedurally, the Board could be attacked by not holding additional public
hearings of the Planning Commission and the Board. There is no solid case law where something could
wait for four years to be acted upon. It may be subject to some criticism if it does not go back to the
Commission.
Mr. Martin said the ordinance had the whole community "up in arms". Both the people in favor,
and the people opposed, felt the world would come to an end if the ordinance were adopted. He is not
willing to put himself in a situation where something that brought about that much public intensity just
comes back on the agenda and gets a vote without people having a chance to speak.
Ms. Thomas said when the ordinance was the subject of discussion, a letter was sent to every
landowner that was going to be affected. Now, there has been a change in the State law. She asked Mr.
Davis for an update on that question.
Mr. Davis said the County is required to do what it did optionally last time. Notice by the Board
does not have to be by letter. If a new legal advertisement is required, the County will repeat the same
process as before.
Mr. Dorrier said one of the assets of this Board is that it listens open-minded to both sides of an
issue before making a decision. He thinks that is important to build credibility with all persons in the
community, in the development community, the smart-growth initiative, and even the no-growth group. If
the Board compromises itself in an effort to speed up the process, it does not hear all the voices and will
lose some credibility. He thinks it is important, procedurally, that the Board do the right thing.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board follows Mr. Martin's suggestions, it will do what is appropriate.
Mr. Dorrier said the way to get from "A" to "Z" involves following a path, and the Board has followed that
September 4, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
path well and got credibility because it got an 80+ percent satisfaction rate in the County on the recent
survey.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Martin's recommendation is a good one because it brings the question
back before the Board and allows the Board to have this very discussion.
Ms. Thomas said what has been suggested is that staff put together existing materials, maybe
with the exception of her request that the Board find out what the Water Resources Manager is adding to
this discussion, and then have this discussion next week. She said that next week the meeting will start
at 7:00 p.m., and then at 8:00 p.m. outside of the building is a candlelight vigil, and the organizers have
asked that the Board attend. It is a fairly short meeting, so that might be possible.
__________
Ms. Thomas reminded the Board members that tonight there is a meeting in the County office
Building about the watershed management plan of the Rivanna Reservoir, which is an old plan with a lot
of new information added. There is a question of whether the plan should be revised. Board members
would be attending as citizens.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. With no further business to come before the Board, at 3:05 p.m., motion
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until September 11,
2002, at 7:00 p.m.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials