2002-08-07August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August
7, 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. (arrived at 9:13 a.m.), Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Dennis S. Rooker.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Attorney, Mark
Trank, Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, Chief of Community Development, David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. At 9:08 a.m., the meeting was called to order 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. Kim K. Thompson, a resident of the Stony Point area, said he would like to have 1500 feet of
Route 600 between Route 20 and Route 29 paved. He has heard that this might be possible under the
Pave-In-Place Program. He said about 10 years ago the other half of that section was paved. VDOT
recently conducted a study of the road, and they found that there are some problems with the width of the
right-of-way on a couple of sections. He is concerned with getting at least the first 500 feet of the road
paved due to the increased traffic in the area.
__________
Ms. Lois Rochester, League of Women Voters, said the League supports the staff’s
recommendation to accelerate the implementation of a groundwater program to become effective July 1,
2003. This will ultimately enable the County to require groundwater assessments prior to subdivision plat
approval, and require the drilling of wells prior to issuance of building permits. These requirements will
promote wise groundwater management and minimize the necessity of extending public water and sewer
lines beyond the designated areas. As a first step, the League thinks it is important for the staff to
proceed with the next phase of the study to gather county-wide baseline data which will be used to
characterize groundwater availability settings and sensitivities, and for the staff to develop technical
guidance in the conduct of these assessments. Concurrently, it seems wise for the staff to prepare
appropriate ordinance amendments. The League also supports the addition of one new employee to
administer the program.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Sandy Wilcox who served as an
Albemarle County appointee to the Board of Directors for the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) from
1983 to 1987 and again from 1995 to 2002. In addition to service on the JABA Board, he was on the
Finance Committee, the Executive Committee and served as treasurer of JABA. His true devotion to
JABA and the seniors of the community was demonstrated in ways both big and small. The dedication
and expertise he brought to JABA, and especially his warm and friendly disposition, will be often and
fondly remembered by the folks of JABA who were fortunate to have had Sandy on their team, and who
benefited so greatly by his commitment to improving the quality of life for Albemarle senior citizens.
__________
Ms. Thomas presented to Mr. John “Dan” Eggleston, Director of Fire & Rescue, a certificate from
the United States Fire Administration. The certificate was given to Mr. Eggleston for his successful
participation in the U.S. Fire Administration’s National Fire Academy’s Executive Fire Officer Program. It
was noted that this had been a commitment to a four-year program.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve Consent
Agenda Items 6.1 through 6.12, absent the minutes not read, and to accept the remaining items as
information.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: February 6, March 20(A), March 25(A), April 3, April 10, May 15
and June 19, 2002.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of April 3, 2002 (Pages 1 through 14 ending with Item No. 14),
and found them to be in order.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of May 15, 2002 (Page 15 beginning at Item No. 11 to the end)
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of April 10, 2002, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of June 19, 2002, and found them to be in order.
The minutes that had been read were approved by the recorded vote set out above.
__________
Item 6.2. Ordinance authorizing Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County and
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority. (Notice was published in the Daily Progress on July 22
and July 29, 2002.)
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority has requested
that the County enter into an agreement authorizing the County Police Department to provide support and
assistance to Airport Special Police Officers (SPOs) who are appointed by the Circuit Court to perform
law enforcement services on Airport property. Under the Agreement, the County Police Department
would provide support for the SPOs at the Airport by providing services, supervision and training. The
County Police would continue to be the primary agency when involved with a law enforcement
incident/event on Airport property. The Agreement also provides that the revenues collected from parking
fines at the Airport would be retained by the County to cover the costs of administering the provisions of
the Agreement.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1300, which authorizes the County to enter into this Agreement as a joint
exercise of powers by political subdivisions, requires that the parties approve the Agreement before the
Agreement may enter into force, and requires the County to approve the Agreement by ordinance. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance and Agreement.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked the cost associated with this agreement. She knows that
parking fines will be assigned to this activity, but wonders if they will cover the cost. Mr. Tucker said it is
anticipated at this time that the parking fines will be sufficient. This is just a temporary item because PSA
should be up and running in the near future.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the Ordinance as presented, and
approved of the proposed Agreement which will go into force only when it has been approved by
all parties, both of which are set out in full below:
ORDINANCE NO. 02-A(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA AND THE
CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that,
pursuant to the authority set forth in Va. Code § 15.2-1300, the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
dated August 7, 2002, pertaining to the provision of support and assistance by the Albemarle
County Police Department to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is hereby approved.
This ordinance shall be effective immediately.
_____
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the ____ day of _________, 2002, by and
between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("County") and THE
CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority").
WHEREAS, Federal law governing airport security requires the Authority to provide or
arrange for on-site law enforcement officers at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport,
and this requirement has historically been fulfilled by the appointment of certain
Authority employees to serve as Special Police Officers for the County of Albemarle
(hereinafter, "SPOs") pursuant to provisions of the Code of Virginia, Title 15.2, Chapter
17, Article 4; and
WHEREAS, the County Police Department has an interest in monitoring the
performance of law enforcement activities conducted by the SPOs, and benefits from
their presence at the Airport; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement intend to establish policies and procedures
by which the County Police Department will provide support and assistance to the
SPOs, to facilitate the performance of law enforcement duties by the SPOs; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-1300 authorizes the parties to enter into this
Agreement as a joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions, requires that the
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
parties shall approve the Agreement before the Agreement may enter into force, and
requires the County to approve the Agreement by ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
SECTION ONE: EMPLOYMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF SPOs
1.1. The Authority will be responsible for the employment functions of hiring, firing,
discipline, employee benefits, maintenance of regular personnel files and other
employment- related duties for the SPOs, except as otherwise expressly provided by
this Agreement. The County's Chief of Police shall have the right to require the
dismissal, de-certification or discipline of any SPO, if such SPO at any time fails or
refuses to meet law-enforcement training or other requirements established by the
Department of Criminal Justice Services of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
1.2. The Authority shall be responsible for verifying that the SPOs meet the minimum
qualifications specified within Virginia Code section 15.2-1705 for law enforcement
officers, i.e., each SPO shall be required (i) to be a citizen of the United States; (ii) to
undergo a background investigation, including fingerprint-based criminal history records
inquiries to both the Central Criminal Records Exchange and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; (iii) to have a high school education or have passed the General
Educational Development exam; (iv) to possess a valid driver's license if required by his
Airport duties to operate a motor vehicle; (v) to undergo a physical examination
subsequent to a conditional offer of employment, conducted under the supervision of a
licensed physician; (vi) to be at least eighteen years of age; (vii) not to have been
convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony or any offense that would be a
felony if committed in Virginia; and (viii) to undergo a pre-employment drug screening,
and not produce a positive result on such screening, unless a positive result can be
explained to the satisfaction of the Authority and the County's Chief of Police.
1.3. The Authority shall ensure that, to be eligible for appointment or employment, each
SPO obtains certification through successful completion of training at an approved
Virginia criminal justice training academy.
1.4. The Authority shall be responsible for preparing the documents and court
applications necessary to obtain court- appointment of the SPOs, and shall present
such documents and applications to the County's Chief of Police for his review and
endorsement.
1.5. At the request of the County Police Department, the Authority will offer training to
County Police officers as to the special security and operational requirements pertaining
to Airport premises.
SECTION TWO: COUNTY SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED
2.1. The County Police Department shall provide support for the law enforcement
activities conducted by SPOs at the Airport, by providing services, supervision and
training described within this section.
2.2. As has been the historical practice, the County's Chief of Police will join with
Authority in making application to the Albemarle County Circuit Court for the SPO
appointment of an Authority employee who meets the minimum qualification and
certification requirements described in this section. The County Police Department will
initiate and complete the background investigation required by Va. Code sections
15.2-1705 and 15.2-1737(B), including fingerprint-based criminal history records
inquiries to both the Central Criminal Records Exchange and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The County Police will inquire, and will verify to the Authority, whether or
not the proposed SPO has ever been convicted of, or pleaded guilty or no contest to, a
felony, domestic assault, or any offense that would be a felony if committed in Virginia,
and whether or not the proposed SPO holds a valid Virginia driver's license. At least
one complete copy of the final written report of the County Police Department's
investigation and inquiries shall be provided to the Authority's Director of Finance and
Administration, for use in the Albemarle County Circuit Court appointment proceedings.
2.3. The County Police Department shall assist and cooperate with the Authority to
complete the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) forms and paperwork
required in connection with an SPO appointment, including, without limitation: DCJS
Form 21 (Initial Appointment) and DCJS Form B-13 (Field Training for Law
Enforcement). If necessary, the County Police Department will supply DCJS forms to
the Authority. The Authority will provide all information necessary to complete the
forms, and then the County Police Department will execute the forms (signing as the
"Agency Administrator," or as the submitting agency, as a particular form may require)
and shall file such forms with DCJS.
2.4. As required by the Library of Virginia, General Schedule 17, the County Police
Department shall keep and maintain records documenting applications pertaining to the
appointment of the SPOs, for a period of at least two (2) years after an SPO's
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
appointment becomes inactive. Records to be maintained include, without limitation,
background investigation materials, interviews, copies of birth certificates, diplomas,
military discharge papers, reference letters, and a copy of the report submitted to the
Authority summarizing the results of the Police Department's investigation.
2.5. The SPOs shall participate in the County Police Department's In-Service Training
Program. The County Police Department and the Authority shall cooperate in
developing a specific plan and schedule for each SPO to be incorporated into the
Training Program.
2.6. The County Police Department shall maintain a file for each SPO, in which file
shall be kept the following records:
2.6.1. For a period of five (5) years, any documents, records or information
provided by a criminal justice training academy pertaining to the SPO's
attendance and completion of entry-level training, and documentation of the
successful completion by each SPO of all compulsory training required by the
Criminal Justice Services Board or DCJS. A copy of all such documentation
verifying successful completion of training shall be provided to the Authority.
2.6.2. For a period of five (5) years, documentation of the completion of
in-service training provided to and received by the SPO, including attendance
records, curriculum/ schedule, documentation of specialized training on
particular topics (e.g., canine, crime scene, basic investigations, etc.) and the
results of any evaluations or testing of the SPO.
2.6.3. Correspondence and other documentation received or created by the
County Police pertaining to the appointment, re-appointment or expiration of the
term of appointment of each SPO.
2.7. The County Police Department shall promptly respond to a request received from
an SPO for assistance in handling any law enforcement matter(s), such response to be
provided within a time that is reasonable under the circumstances of the request. In the
event an SPO makes an arrest on Airport property, the SPO shall immediately notify the
County Police Department and the Police Department shall dispatch a County Police
Officer to transport the arrestee to the Magistrate's office. All offense/incident reports
initiated by SPOs will be on appropriate IBR forms. The County Police shall keep the
SPOs informed as to current individual or departmental contact numbers (telephone,
facsimile, pagers, etc.) to be used to arrange for such transportation.
2.8. When an on-duty County Police Officer is present on Airport property, in the event
that an offense for which an arrest may be made or for which a summons may be
issued is committed in the presence of such Police Officer, the County Police Officer
will make the arrest or issue the summons with respect to that offense. The County
Police will be the primary agency when involved with a law enforcement incident/event
on Airport property.
2.9. The SPOs must be cross-trained for the provision of aircraft rescue and
fire-fighting (ARFF) services. During aircraft rescue and fire-fighting emergencies and
calls, at the request of the Authority the County Police Department will assign regular
County police officers to assist in handling security, traffic, crowd control and other
support duties which may be necessary to supplement the Authority's law enforcement
and security forces.
2.10. On request, the County's Police Department shall keep the SPOs supplied with
Virginia Uniform Summons forms, for which the County's Chief of Police shall account
pursuant to applicable state law and regulation. The County Police Department shall
also keep the SPOs supplied with County parking tickets, in numbers sufficient to
facilitate Airport parking enforcement activities. The County Police Department shall
provide the Authority's SPOs with sufficient training to enable the effective and lawful
use of all such forms by the SPOs.
SECTION THREE: MISCELLANEOUS
3.1. Revenue resulting from the fines collected as a result of parking tickets issued on
Airport property shall be 100% retained by the County to cover the costs of
administering the provisions of this Agreement.
3.2. Nothing contained within this Agreement is intended by either party, nor shall any
provision herein be deemed or construed as a waiver of any sovereign or governmental
immunity to which the County of Albemarle or the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Authority, or their respective officers, officials and employees may be entitled under the
law.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
3.3. This Agreement shall be and remain effective, as of the date first set forth above,
until terminated in writing by one of the parties hereto. To terminate this Agreement, a
party shall give thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the other.
__________
Item 6.3. Proclamation recognizing August 27, 2002, through September 1, 2002, as Albemarle
County Fair Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Proclamation:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK
WHEREAS, for the past 21 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of
thousands of guests during its annual production; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group
of community-spirited people who wanted something special for their
neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has
always emphasized the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by
dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families
and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark
of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local
non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for
their worthwhile programs; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers
exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and
poultry, with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills,
and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of
AUGUST 27, 2002, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1, 2002
as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and
programs sponsored and supported by the more than 250 volunteers,
public and area businesses.
__________
Item 6.4. South Fork Soccer Park Contribution and Appropriation, $20,000.00 (Form #2003-002).
It was noted in the staff’s report that SOCA is in the process of completing development of its
South Fork Soccer Park, which will provide five new fields for SOCA programs. Since SOCA is the
largest user of public playing fields, this is a significant step in the on-going effort to provide sufficient field
space for all the local community athletic program providers. The total cost of the South Fork project is
estimated to be $828,000. SOCA has already committed over $549,000 to the project and has secured a
construction loan for $250,000 to finish the project. At present SOCA has a funding shortfall of $28,000.
The County Parks and Recreation Department has an on-going program of building new athletic
fields and improving existing fields as a part of the County's Capital Improvements Budget. This program
has been developed in consultation with the various community athletic organizations. The program is
updated and project priorities are revised based on an annual survey of needs of the various organiza-
tions. Upon receiving this request from SOCA, County Parks and Recreation Department staff invited
SOCA to meet and review any funding available for other soccer projects and to prioritize this request
with those other planned improvements. It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Department to seek
opportunities to work in partnership with SOCA and other public and private recreation providers to meet
the expanding recreation needs of County residents. Therefore, it recommends that a contribution of
$20,000 be made to SOCA for the construction of the South Fork Soccer Park with that amount being
offset from the Parks and Recreation Athletic Field Study/Development Project Capital Improvements
Fund line-item.
Staff recommends that the County contribute $20,000 to SOCA for the construction of the South
Fork Soccer Park, with that amount being offset from the current appropriation to the Parks and
Recreation Athletic Field Study/Development project line-item in the Capital Improvements Fund. Staff
also recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2003-002 to contribute the $20,000 to SOCA.
This appropriation is a transfer of funds between projects within the Capital Improvements Budget and
does not increase the total amount of the appropriated Capital Improvements Fund Budget for FY 2003.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said archeologists have applauded the County and SOCA for setting
aside some property for an archeological dig in that area which has turned up some highly significant
items.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION NO. 2003-002
DATE: 8/12/02
EXPLANATION: CONTRIBUTION TO SOCA FOR FIELD CONSTRUCTION
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9010 71000 950130 SOUTH FORK SOCCER PK 20,000.00
1 9010 81000 950044 FIELD DEVELOPMENT (20,000.00)
TOTAL .00
__________
Item 6.5. Adopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds in
an Amount not to Exceed $50,000,000 for Martha Jefferson Health Services.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority")
has considered the application of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both
nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health
Services"), requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $50,000,000 ("Bonds") to be issued in one or more series from time to time to
assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing its plan of financing
("Plan of Financing") for the following (collectively, "Project"): (1) the acquisition,
construction and equipping of a three-story health care and medical office facility
consisting of approximately 93,834 square feet, including without limitation a diagnostic
imaging center, an urgent care center, an outpatient surgery center, a women's health
center and a prenatal diagnostic center, to be located at Peter Jefferson Place business
office park on the Peter Jefferson Parkway near the intersection of Interstate 64 and 250
East in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) the acquisition of approximately 84 acres of land
located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park on the Peter Jefferson Parkway
near the intersection of Interstate 64 and 250 East in Albemarle County, Virginia, for
future healthcare use, (3) the acquisition, renovation, construction or equipping of capital
expenditures on the campus of Martha Jefferson Hospital's acute care healthcare facility
located at 459 Locust Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and at 3263 Proffit
Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, including without limitation the costs of routine
capital expenditures, a MRI scanner, accounting systems, angiography equipment and
renovation, and a linear accelerator, and (4) any related working capital, capitalized
interest, costs of issuance, and other financeable costs that Martha Jefferson Health
Services may deem desirable.
The Authority held a public hearing on July 9, 2002, as required by Section
147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Section
15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). Section 147(f)
of the Code also provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer
of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the
proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds.
The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia
("County"); a portion of the Project is to be located in the County; and the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County.
The Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the
Bonds.
A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject
to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves (i) the Plan of Financing and (ii) the issuance of the
Bonds pursuant thereto by the Authority for the benefit of Martha Jefferson Health
Services, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section l5.2-4906 of the Virginia
Code to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services with its Plan of Financing.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
2. The approval of the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds do not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the
creditworthiness of the Plan of Financing or Martha Jefferson Health Services.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 6.6. Adopt Resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board to consider
restricting through truck traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) between Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Route
20 (Stony Point Road).
It was noted in the staff’s report that at its meeting on June 19, 2002, the Board held a public
hearing on the restriction of through-trucks on Proffit Road between Route and Route 20. The request for
the through-truck restriction came from the residents of Jefferson Village Homeowners Association,
Landford Hills Homeowners Association, Meadowfields Homeowners Association, Pritchett Lane
Homeowners Associations, and residents of Chesterfield, Forest Ridge and Terrybrook subdivisions. The
residents requested the restriction because they believe the road is not designed to handle the current
traffic and it is very unsafe.
The Board supported this restriction and requested staff to initiate the through-truck restriction
process with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT requires a resolution from the
County that supports the restriction. Staff recommends that the Board endorse the resolution as drafted.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
Resolution
Request for the Commonwealth Transportation Board to Consider Restricting
Through-Truck Traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) Between Route 29 (Seminole
Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road)
WHEREAS, Proffit Road was not designed to handle truck traffic and has blind
curves, poor banking, narrow traffic lanes, and shallow building setbacks; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on June 19, 2002,
to obtain public comments on restricting through truck traffic on Route 649 (Proffit
Road); and
WHEREAS, local residents have requested that through-trucks be restricted
from using Proffit Road; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has evaluated the five criteria that the Virginia
Department of Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board will
consider in reviewing a through truck restriction and has determined that three of these
criteria are met on Proffit Road: 1) reasonable alternate routes exist for trucks to use in
the event of a restriction, 2) the functional classification of Proffit Road is a rural
collector, which meets VDOT criteria, and 3) the engineering of Proffit Road and
accident history of the route proposed for restriction indicate that it is not suitable for
truck traffic; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees to use its good
offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law
enforcement agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board consider
restricting through truck traffic on Route 649 (Proffit Road) between Route 29 (Seminole
Trail) and Route 20 (Stony Point Road).
__________
Item 6.7. FY 2002 Appropriations, $38,296.00 (Forms #2001-081, #2001-082 and #2001-083).
It was noted in the staff’s report that several additional FY ‘2002 appropriations are required to
provide carry-over funds, grant programs and donations for various school and local government projects.
This request involves three separate appropriations totaling $38,296.00, which is considerably less than
the threshold level for a budget amendment. However, if additional appropriations are needed for FY
‘2002 that cause that threshold to be reached, a budget amendment may be required at a future date and
these appropriations would be incorporated at that time.
Appropriation #2001-081, $1904.00. Traditionally police departments have attempted to
improve child safety seat usage by enforcement. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles using
Federal pass-through moneys approved a grant to the County to fund check points at strategic locations
throughout the County to assist citizens with proper installation of child safety seats. The check points
utilized police officers that have been properly trained. This grant was originally approved for the 2001
fiscal year. It was extended for the 2002 fiscal year. There is no local match.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Appropriation #2001-082, $17,434.31. Monticello High School received a donation of $201.00
from Daniel and Debra Alleman. This donation will be used to fund the gifted program at the school.
The Textbook Fund collected $35.46 from the schools for textbooks that were lost, damaged or
sold. This money will be used to purchase replacement textbooks.
The State Department of Education reimbursed Albemarle County Schools in the amount of
$697.85 for satellite-related expenses incurred at Monticello High School.
Woodbrook Elementary School received a total of $16,500.00 in grants and donations for the
Action in Reading-Woodbrook (AIR-Woodbrook) program. This is a summer reading intervention
program targeting the ever-increasing "at risk" student population at Woodbrook Elementary School. A
grant award in the amount of $5000.00 was received from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Foundation. The
school also received a matching grant in the amount of $5000.00 from a foundation that wishes to remain
anonymous. The donations received are $5000.00 from the Bama Works Fund and $1500.00 from
ForeProperty, Inc.
Appropriation #2001-083, $18,957.63. The Preschool Special Education Grant was not fully
expended in the school budget for FY ‘2001. The grant carryover amount of $18,957.63 was retained by
the State and may be appropriated for use in FY ‘2002. These funds cover additional Preschool summer
school expenses incurred.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriations #2001-081, #2001-082 and #2001-083.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the FY 2002 Budget
amendments as requested, and adopted the following Resolutions of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-081
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF DMV CHILD SAFETY SEAT GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1532 31013 600100 POLICE SUPPLIES $1,904.00
TOTAL $1,904.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1532 33000 330011 FEDERAL GRANT $1,904.00
TOTAL $1,904.00
__________
__________
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
__________
Item 6.8. Final Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Staff Recommendations - Water
Supply Strategies.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following Rivanna Water &
Sewer Authority Final Staff Recommendation, a Multi-step, Integrated Water Supply Strategy,
Urban Water Service Area Report, dated July 22, 2002:
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A MULTI-STEP, INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY
URBAN WATER SERVICE AREA
July 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
At the direction of the Board of Directors, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA)
began a most important journey some six years ago. The journey was focused on
determining the best possible strategy to supply the future drinking water needs of our
community.
From the onset, the RWSA Board of Directors insisted that the public have extensive
opportunity for input and that their views be carefully considered in forming the final
recommendation. The RWSA took this charge very seriously and, over the course of the
study, offered numerous opportunities for public input and the RWSA carefully
considered many options suggested by the public. The public participation process is
perhaps a model for others to follow when considering important subjects that will help
shape our community in the future.
The objective of this report is to provide the RWSA Board of Directors with the results of
this six-year journey in the form of a final staff recommendation for Board consideration at
the July 22, 2002, Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - PLANNING HORIZON
The water supply study effort focused upon a fifty year planning horizon for the future
urban water supply. However, during the study it became apparent that there is
uncertainty in making long-range water supply projections. Members of the public
articulated to the RWSA that many variables could affect 2050 water supply demand
projections including uncertainty about area population growth, uncertainty as to the level
of community support for water conservation along with other factors including future
governmental policies or decisions.
The RWSA staff is therefore recommending to the Board that our future water supply
strategy be a two-step strategy with our initial efforts focused on meeting the projected
water supply need through 2030. The second step in our recommended strategy will be
to reassess the projected 2050 water supply needs and take timely action to obtain
necessary permits and construct needed facilities to address any projected shortfall.
RWSA staff believes that more accurate and complete data will be available to predict the
2050 water demand in the future. For example, better data on area growth will be
available, the results on water conservation will be clear and the Board will have the
knowledge gained from implementing the 2030 water supply strategy.
In the 2020 time frame, it is recommended that the Board of Directors direct RWSA staff
to re-evaluate the then better defined gap between 2050 water needs and projected 2050
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
water availability. Again, this process should involve the public and it should be started in
time to ensure adequate time for the possible lengthy permitting process if the Buck
Mountain Creek reservoir is selected as a 2050 water supply option.
The projected water supply demands, developed by the RWSA staff from the six-year
study, for 2030, and for 2050, adjusted for three percent water demand reduction due to
water conservation, are:
2030 16 MGD
2050 19.5 MGD
These figures assume that unaccounted for "water loss" is maintained at 13 percent or
less by RWSA, the City and the ACSA. A 13 percent "water loss" is acceptable for a
complex and older water supply system like ours. Some of this water is not truly a "loss"
in that it is used for fire protection, in-plant uses and other legitimate purposes.
The public has commented that the three percent water conservation assumption made
by RWSA staff is low particularly when the City and ACSA have established 10 percent
water conservation goals. The RWSA staff believes our community can do better than
three percent; however, for the purposes of this recommendation we have elected to
remain conservative and use the three percent goal. If the community can sustain a
greater than three percent reduction in water use, it will stretch the need for further
investments and improvements in the water supply. We are hopeful that the community
will prove our assumption to be wrong and both achieve and sustain the ten percent
water conservation goal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - SAFE YIELD
The urban water supply serving the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County is
currently served by four reservoirs. The future water supply study highlighted a serious
sedimentation problem in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR). The study experts
predicted that the SFRR will continue to lose capacity each year due to sediment load
from the watershed, and, its safe yield will fall to zero sometime around 2050.
The March 2002 bathymetric study conducted by RWSA indicated there was a small gain
in SFRR capacity in 2002 (questionable given the accuracy of the measurement method).
This was certainly positive news but we believe it was mainly attributable to the lack of
major storms in the watershed in the last year, which will not be the case in future years.
RWSA staff believes that the characteristics of the watershed and the historical trend
data illustrates that the sedimentation problem in the SFRR is real and must be
addressed as part of the future water supply strategy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - MINIMUM IN-STREAM FLOWS
Members of the public have clearly articulated a desire for RWSA to provide releases
from its reservoirs to the Rivanna River and the Moormans River to supplement in-stream
flows. The RWSA staff believes that we have a responsibility to protect and enhance the
environment as an integral part of our water supply mission. In the current severe
drought, RWSA has changed its operating procedures to minimize draw down from the
Sugar Hollow reservoir. We have also continued our release to the Moormans River and
continued our historical in-stream flow release to the Rivanna River. We have artfully
transferred production to the Rivanna water treatment plant to reduce water withdrawals
from the Sugar Hollow system, and to help maintain water in the Sugar Hollow system for
water supply and more naturalized in-stream flow. While our highest priority in a water
supply crisis must be our customers and the community we serve, our recent actions
demonstrate that the times when RWSA will not be capable of making in-stream releases
should be a very small percentage of the time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - BASIC COMPONENTS OF STRATEGY
On February 25, 2002, the RWSA staff made a draft recommendation to the Board
concerning our future water supply strategy. The staff recommendation was a synthesis
of the findings by the technical experts, comments from the public, along with RWSA staff
judgment. The February 25, 2002, staff recommendation was built upon the following
strategic building blocks:
· WATER CONSERVATION
· WATERSHED APPROACH
· MAINTENANCE DREDGING
· SELECTED INFRASTRUCTURE ADDITION
· ENVIRONMENT TOO
This harmonized strategy is a modern strategy and not one dominated by "building new
stuff." It is perhaps a more challenging strategy since some of its elements, like
watershed protection and maintenance dredging, are new ideas not completely locked
down with engineering precision. We believe the innovative strategy we are
recommending to the Board is a model for others to follow and we are excited to have the
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
opportunity to work through the challenges and paradigm shifts, which we will face in
bringing the approved strategy to fruition.
This strategy is a multi-step, integrated solution which RWSA staff believes is the optimal
route to meet our area's future needs and which is clearly responsive to the views of our
community.
CURRENT DROUGHT CONDITIONS
Our area is in the midst of a major drought that has its genesis as far back as four years
ago. Annual precipitation over this time period has consistently been below historical
levels. Area streams are at all time daily low flows and groundwater levels are severely
depressed. The low groundwater levels adversely affect the base flow in area streams
that, in turn, reduces recharge into our reservoirs. Our community clearly needs a long,
extended time period of above normal precipitation to replenish our groundwater, provide
base flow to streams and replenish our reservoirs. The current conditions will not be
corrected by a week, a month or a season of higher rainfall. It is essential that our water
supply strategy recognize that droughts are a reality which must be addressed.
In October 2001, our total reservoir capacity reached approximately 68 percent and
RWSA, the City and the ACSA called for voluntary water conservation. The City and
ACSA have provided water conservation leadership in our community for years. Most
recently, they have launched a major water conservation campaign, fully funded by the
City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority, which is striving to
convince area residents that water conservation is both easy and important. This is a
long-term journey and we must stay the course to change individual water use patterns.
The current drought has brought urgency to the timetable to move forward on our future
water supply. The message appears clear ... it is time to move forward to implement a
Boar- approved water supply strategy for our urban service area.
PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING THE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY
The principles underlying the strategy being recommended by RWSA staff were generally
outlined in the February 25, 2002, report to the Board. Nearly all of these principles were
strongly supported in the public comments at the May 1, 2002, public hearing.
The key strategic principles underpinning the RWSA staff recommendation are as
follows:
· The community wants the SFRR preserved which requires that we
address the sediment problem.
· RWSA needs to be more active in watershed protection and both water
supply and environmental benefits will occur.
· Controlling sediment loads, at the source, in the watershed is desirable.
· Water conservation must continue to be a key strategic element for the
long-term.
· The Buck Mountain Creek reservoir must be retained as a future water
supply option.
· Environmental protection is an integral part of RWSA's basic mission.
PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETINGS WITH ELECTED/APPOINTED OFFICIALS
On May 1, 2002, the RWSA held a public hearing on the proposed water supply strategy.
A copy of the hearing summary is attached (on file in the Clerk’s Office).
The February 25, 2002, future water supply recommendation was also presented to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the City of Charlottesville City Council and the
Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
IMMEDIATE WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY (ADDRESS NEEDS TO 2030)
The RWSA staff recommends the following water supply strategy be implemented to
meet our area's projected water supply needs through 2030.
1. TAKE A WATERSHED APPROACH
Become More Active Watershed Stewards
RWSA will increase its role in the active stewardship of the watersheds serving our water
supply system. We will work as partners with responsible individuals and organizations
to protect and preserve the watersheds feeding our water supply. We will talk and act in
a manner that illustrates that we have no higher priority than the protection of our
watersheds.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Address Sediment Load from the SFRR Watershed
RWSA, working with others, will identify the significant sources of sediment currently
entering the SFRR reservoir. It is thought to be mainly sourced from stream bank and
erosion during high flows but we need to understand our watershed better and identify
the actual sources of sediment entering the SFRR.
RWSA then needs to develop partnerships with landowners and proactively seek creative
ways to secure watershed improvements. We need to help organize a more active
watershed community to bring greater focus and resources to bear on known and future
challenges. We need to offer funding support where we identify severe watershed
problems that are adversely affecting our future water supply. We will seek other
partners and possible grant funds and become more visible watershed leaders.
We believe that source control of sediments will be a wise investment in that it will
maintain or extend reservoir life and minimize the amount of sediment that must be
removed through more expensive dredging.
2. GENERATE BETTER DATA FOR DECISIONS
Good decisions require good data. Good data on stream flows and water quality is
currently lacking and we must address this fault.
RWSA will continue to assist, as needed, in the financial support of the Mechums River
gauging station. This station was recently restored to operation through the joint efforts
of DEQ and the RWSA.
RWSA will partner with the DEQ and the USGS in establishing a flow gauging station
downstream of the SFRR. RWSA will also investigate the development of a water supply
model to enhance our ability to achieve the optimal balance in the operation of our
facilities.
Sampling of the SFRR and its major tributaries was unfortunately discontinued several
years ago. RWSA has already re-initiated this sampling program and the first set of
water quality samples have been collected. RWSA is also investigating a data
management system to better organize all of our monitoring data, which is now only
available in hard copy. We believe such a system will enhance our ability to track trends
and make databased decisions.
3. WATER CONSERVATION BY ACSA AND THE CITY
RWSA will continue to support the City of Charlottesville and the ACSA in their efforts to
institutionalize water conservation. We offer hardy congratulations to both our customers
for developing and funding the current 10 percent water conservation campaign. We
believe in our local citizens and believe that they will embrace water conservation with
the same enthusiasm they have recycling.
4. ADD FOUR-FOOT CREST CONTROLS ON THE SFRR
RWSA will immediately proceed with the surveying, engineering, and construction, of
four-foot crest controls on the SFRR. Our first steps will be to commission a survey in the
fall to define the new reservoir level and communicate with the watershed community.
This action will increase useable system storage by 600 million gallons and provide an
increase in safe yield of at least 7 MGD in 2050. Our technical experts estimate the cost
of this improvement to be $5 to 7 million. RWSA staff believes this is an essential part of
our immediate water supply strategy.
5. MAINTAIN DOWNSTREAM STREAM FLOW RELEASES AND MATCH
DURING CRITICAL DROUGHTS
RWSA understands its responsibility for both water supply and sound environmental
management. We do not see a conflict between these two important responsibilities.
It is RWSA’s intent to honor the historical commitment to make an 8 MGD in-stream flow
release from the SFRR except during severe drought conditions during which such action
would threaten our ability to provide drinking water to the community. We believe these
occasions will be rare but we recognize that they may occur. Our technical experts have
estimated that RWSA will be able to make the 8 MGD release approximately 99 percent
of the time. Our environmental stewardship during the current drought illustrates our
commitment to making the environment part of our daily operating philosophy.
During critical drought events, RWSA will match the SFRR release to the estimated flow
into the SFRR during the critical drought event.
The RWSA also intends to honor our commitment to release 400,000 gallons per day to
the Moormans River at all times unless the total available reservoir water storage falls
below 80 percent. Again, we have continued to make this release during the current
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
drought. In time, we understand the need to look closer at the adequacy of this release
to determine if it is protective of the Moormans River and its biota.
6. IMPROVED WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT
PREDICTION
RWSA has already taken action during the current drought to improve the environmental
management of our water supply system. We have demonstrated the ability to make
"systems decisions" in which we maximize water storage in one or more reservoirs and
vary production at our treatment facilities to maximize operating flexibility while still
meeting customer demands and environmental goals. We believe the water supply
model we are investigating will help us further optimize our daily operation to meet overall
objectives.
We will, of course, continue to work constructively with the City, the ACSA and other
organizations, along with citizens, to research ways to improve drought prediction and
better ways to communicate drought warnings to the public.
7. PERFORM MAINTENANCE DREDGING ON THE SFRR
A great deal of the public comment and debate has occurred concerning dredging the
SFRR. In the recent public hearing, there was strong community support for preserving
the SFRR as a community asset and determining ways to perform dredging. One public
commenter has stated that other communities have found ways to economically dredge
their reservoirs.
RWSA has not conducted any new studies on the feasibility and costs of maintenance
dredging of the SFRR since we have been in a public comment and evaluation period.
We recognize that some of the costs previously advanced by RWSA contractors were
extremely large and RWSA experts also identified a myriad of potential logistical
challenges. Any dredging project will generate a large volume of material, requiring
significant transportation costs and a need to locate a large land area for the dredged
solids.
RWSA staff believes that periodic maintenance dredging of the SFRR should be part of
our future water supply strategy. We believe that periodic maintenance dredging will
preserve water supply capacity along with the beauty and environmental benefits of the
reservoir. Having said that, we also recognize that questions about dredging and its
costs must be further researched.
As part of its watershed approach, the RWSA also believes that source control in the
watershed is clearly linked to the protection of the SFRR from future sedimentation.
RWSA staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to study the methods, costs and
logistics of periodic maintenance dredging with the understanding that RWSA staff will
provide the Board with the study results and a recommendation prior to proceeding with
any actual dredging project.
RWSA staff also recognizes that the approximate 5 MGD historical loss of SFRR safe
yield could be recovered through restorative dredging if proven economical.
8. EXPAND WATER SOURCES TO INCLUDE THE MECHUMS RIVER
A pump station formerly existed on the Mechums River, which was part of the urban
water supply system. The pump station formerly captured Mechums River flow and
pumped it to the RM (Ragged Mountain) reservoir or the Observatory water treatment
plant.
Since February 25, 2002, RWSA staff, county staff and a local citizen have been working
to determine the potential costs and benefits of re-constructing this pump station.
Meetings have been held with regulators as a part of this analysis.
The normalization of flow in the Moormans River was a major component of public
comments made throughout the water supply study process. Many citizens expressed
the view that a Moormans River solution should be included as a part of the future water
supply strategy and they pointed to the environmental value and beauty of the Moormans
River as an asset to our community.
RWSA staff does not currently possess the technical information to determine the
desirability of reactivation of the Mechums River pump station as a supplemental water
source that would also add to our available water supply while decreasing reliance upon
water drawn from the Sugar Hollow system, or to determine the environmental benefits
and/or impacts of such action. Additionally, the Mechums River is currently setting all
time daily low flows during this sustained drought which must also factor into our
analyses.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Also, as part of the Ragged Mountain dam rehabilitation study, we will be looking at the
costs and benefits of increasing water supply storage in RM. As such, a Mechums River
pump station may provide a water supply source that will allow us to take advantage of a
storage and safe yield increase at the RM reservoir. An additional benefit of a Mechums
River pump station is that it would provide a "non-reservoir" source of water to our
system, although it could not meet 100 percent of our demand.
RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain this option as a part of our water supply
strategy while RWSA staff continues to work towards a complete technical evaluation of
the water supply and environmental benefits (including potential RM storage benefits),
the costs and environmental impact of this proposal. RWSA staff will then make a formal
recommendation to the Board before proceeding with a project.
LONGER TERM WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECTED 2050
WATER DEMAND
The urban water supply needs through 2050 will not be met simply by implementing the
2030 water supply strategy. We fully expect that RWSA will eventually need to add
additional sources of water to meet the 2050 water demand. The two-step strategy we
are recommending to the Board will, however, allow us to make immediate needed
progress and earn the time to better define our future water needs and the available
water supply options.
As part of its two-step strategy, the RWSA believes that the following strategies constitute
viable 2050 water supply options that the Board should consider more fully after we have
gained additional experience. RWSA is not recommending that immediate action be
undertaken to implement the following water supply alternatives but RWSA staff currently
regards them as part of the potential strategy to meet 2050 water needs.
1. CONSTRUCT DAM AND RESERVOIR ON BUCK MOUNTAIN CREEK
The RWSA staff believes that the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir property must be
retained by the Board as a potential 2050 water supply alternative for our community.
2. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM THE JAMES RIVER
The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option to take water from the
James River to supply our 2050 area needs.
3. OBTAIN RAW WATER FROM CHRIS GREENE LAKE
The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option of taking raw water from
Chris Greene Lake to supply our 2050 area needs.
4. ADD EIGHT-FOOT CREST CONTROLS ON SFRR
The RWSA staff recommends that the Board retain the option of adding four additional
feet of crest controls on the SFRR to supply our 2050 area needs.
5. UPSTREAM BASE FLOW AUGMENTATION WITH HIGHLY TREATED
WASTEWATER
The RWSA staff believes that a potential future water supply option is using highly
treated wastewater from the Moores Creek Treatment Plant to supplement flow upstream
of our reservoirs. We believe that public acceptance will need to evolve, however, before
this could be considered to be a viable alternative.
WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY - SAFE YIELD AND COST PROJECTION
The following summarizes the available safe yield and very preliminary costs for
implementing the immediate water supply strategy to satisfy water needs through 2030:
ELEMENT SAFE YIELD COST
WATERSHED APPROACH
·STUDY SEDIMENT$100,000
·BUFFERS/STABILIZATION $250,000/year
·SEED MONEY FOR WATERSHED GROUP $ 10,000/year
BETTER DATA/DECISION $ 25,000/year
·MODEL AND NEW GAUGE $ 75,000
WATER CONSERVATION Addressed by City and ACSA
4-FOOT SFRR CREST CONTROLS 7.0 to 11.0 MGD $5.0 to $7.0 million
IN-STREAM FLOW RELEASES 1.6 MGD $400,000
IMPROVED DROUGHT MANAGEMENT 2.4 MGD $250,000
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
SFRR MAINTENANCE DREDGING 7.2 MGD $100,000 for study
·RESTORATIVE DREDGING 5.0 MGD Subject to further study
MECHUMS RIVER WATER SOURCE $ 10,000 for study
Subject to further study
The total projected cost is approximately $11,000,000 which is very preliminary and
which does not include the costs for dredging and the Mechums River pump station. The
RWSA needs to better define these costs over time, and the Board will have to consider
a major bond issue to address these needs.
SCHEDULE FOR ACTION
With Board approval, the RWSA staff intends to move forward within the approved
budget. However, significant progress is tied to obtaining funding from a new bond issue
and FY 2004 operating funds. As previously described, we are already actively
implementing several elements of the strategy. With the concurrence of the Board, we
would suggest that we focus upon the initial tasks for the addition of the four-foot crest
controls, which is the long-lead item in our strategy. Our present estimate is that if we
start now, the crest control improvements would be operational in late 2006.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE RWSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The RWSA staff recommends that the Board approve the future water supply strategy as
outlined in this presentation. A specific financial plan will be presented at a future Board
meeting. The financial plan must also include the results of the CIP, the RM dam
rehabilitation project, and the infrastructure and deferred maintenance study to provide a
complete picture of the future costs.
__________
Item 6.9. Adopt Resolution to abandon portions of State Route 606 and request that other
portions be added to the Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of Mr. Bryan O. Elliott, Executive Director, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Authority, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION ABANDONING PORTIONS OF STATE ROUTE 606 AND
REQUESTING THAT OTHER PORTIONS BE ADDED TO THE
SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided this Board
with a plat dated November 5, 2001 (hereinafter, the "plat") depicting the additions and
abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of a
project to abandon State Route 606 and dedicate the new roadway, which plat is
recorded in Deed Book 2229, Page 729 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road
identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state
highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the right-of-way and drainage
easements to be dedicated for relocated State Route 606 across lands of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of
Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of
the secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as
the existing right-of-way and sight easements to be abandoned on State Route 606,
pursuant to Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
Item 6.10. Planning Commission request for consultant services - Cell Tower Review.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Planning Commission has requested that the Board
authorize hiring a consultant to assess the metal pole diameters necessary to support the type of wireless
infrastructure requested by applicants. Some Commissioners have questioned if the poles are being
unnecessarily oversized. In considering this issue, staff believes that a meeting between staff and two
members of the Board and Commission would be useful to more clearly define the objectives of hiring a
consultant. Staff believes this meeting will provide clearer guidance regarding expectations in the review
of applications. If the Board is in agreement, staff will coordinate with the Chairs of the Board and
Commission in arranging a meeting.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
(Discussion: Mr. Martin asked that this item be pulled. He wants to discuss whether the Board
should hire a consultant to discuss the diameters of metal poles used for cell towers. Ms. Thomas said
the recommendation is actually to have a group come together to discuss whether to do this. The Board
would not be authorizing the hiring of a consultant at this time. Mr. Martin said he has serious
reservations about this item.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of staff coordinating with the
chairs of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission to set up a meeting to provide
guidance regarding this request.
__________
Item 6.11. Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) Funding Request.
It was noted in the staff’s report that in November, 2001 following the arrival of a new Executive
Director, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) began an internal assessment of the
agency's administrative and program management. As part of the review, staff and the Board
investigated the nature of "temporarily restricted net deferred assets" that had been noted in MACAA's
financial audits for several years. These funds represent annual dollars appropriated to MACAA that
were not expended on those programs in any fiscal year. However, these "year-end surpluses" were not
reported to the County according to County policy.
Surplus funds from the County, City and the United Way have accumulated over the past seven
years (FY ‘95 to FY ‘01) and total $92,886; the County's share being $9542.28. The primary factors
appear to be temporary staffing vacancies and over-budgeting exacerbated by poor accounting where
program expenses were not adequately associated with specific program revenue. The surplus funds
appear as accumulated totals on MACAA's audits, but they are not identified by individual program or by
jurisdiction in the audit. It appears that these funds were expended as part of the agency's normal cash
flow requirements over the seven-year period and that programs did deliver services to clients.
Administrative staff covered staff shortages in the programs when needed and budget deficits were
covered by administrative dollars. The City and United Way also have surplus funds in the amount of
$57,860 and $25,484, respectively. The City has agreed to forgive the debt and United Way is currently
deciding whether to ask MACAA to repay the funds over an extended period of time. Albemarle's share
of the net deferred assets is $9542.28 and is allocated among the following youth-oriented programs:
Camp Horizon $3,661.36
Beating the Odds $3,784.34
Young Guys of Distinction ($2,654.88)
Project Discovery $2,096.58
For a thorough explanation of the history and findings of this investigation, as well as proposed
corrective actions, please see the attached letter (on file in the Clerk’s Office) from Mr. Noah Schwartz,
Executive Director
MACAA Board members and the Executive Director met with representatives from the County,
City and United Way in February to apprise them of this issue and to inform them that MACAA staff and
their auditors, Hantzmon, Wiebel and Company, were doing an in-depth review. The same group also
met in May with Hantzmon, Wiebel representatives where the FY ‘01 audit and final numbers were
presented for discussion. There is no evidence of fiscal impropriety on MACAA's part. All revenues and
expenditures were tested as part of the annual audit, all net deferred assets were reported in the audit,
and there was no indication from the auditors of any irregularities.
MACAA is requesting resolution of this situation from each of the funders who are owed net
deferred assets. The options are to: 1) require MACAA to repay the funds; 2) require MACAA to put the
funds into the respective programs; or, 3) "forgive" the cited amounts and allow the agency to take them
off their books. Staff does not believe that the first two options are valid, as they would create a financial
hardship for MACAA at this time. The agency does not have adequate liquid assets to repay the money
to the County or to repay the funding directly into their programs. MACAA might be able to borrow
against their assets to raise funds, but would be limited to borrowing only what it could afford to repay.
Staff recommends that the County forgive the $9542.28 in prior year surplus funds and allow
MACAA to remove the temporarily restricted net deferred assets from their books. These surplus funds
are insignificant over a seven-year period of time and were in all probability spent on various community
services. Moreover, repayment of the funds would cause an additional financial hardship at a time when
MACAA is trying to improve its financial practices and organizational strength. The County, on a quarterly
basis, will monitor current year spending and link program results to expenditures through an on-going
reporting mechanism.
(Discussion: Mr. Martin said the Board should move carefully as it works with this agency. He is
more concerned about the report than the amount of money involved. Mr. Bowerman said he had trouble
reading the report because it referred to “surplus” funds even though, in reality, it was a deficit amount.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved staff’s recommendation that the
County forgive the $9542.28 in prior year surplus funds and allow MACAA to remove the
temporarily restricted net deferred assets from its books.
__________
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item 6.12. Resolution for Federal Disaster Designation for Albemarle County due to Drought
Conditions.
It was noted in the staff’s report that Mr. Thomas M. Eddins, Executive Director for Albemarle/
Greene/Nelson Farm Service Agency County Office, has provided some vital information on the impact of
the recent drought conditions on agriculture in Albemarle County. To obtain State and Federal disaster
relief to address this critical situation among Albemarle County farmers, a resolution asking the Governor
to seek disaster designation and Federal relief for the jurisdiction must be adopted by the Board. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was adopted.
RESOLUTION
Declaring Albemarle County an Agricultural Disaster
Due to Drought Conditions
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has received a four-year rainfall deficit totaling
-42.27 inches; and
WHEREAS, during the growing season of this year, the County of Albemarle
has received considerably less rain than normal while experiencing unseasonably high
temperatures
WHEREAS, the drought conditions in the County of Albemarle have severely
affected farmers; and
WHEREAS, the conditions in the county are becoming critical, so that the
spring planted crops of grass; corn and soybeans are severely stressed; and
WHEREAS, the first cutting of hay was below average, with little prospect of a
second cutting; and
WHEREAS, many farmers are already feeding their livestock and are facing the
lack of available water for livestock due to the drought conditions; and
WHEREAS, if Albemarle County is declared a drought disaster area, then its
farmers are eligible for low interest Emergency Loans and other disaster programs that
may become available if the drought conditions continue;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle, Virginia
be designated as a drought disaster area, and the County Executive is hereby
instructed to file notification of this action with the Governor of Virginia.
__________
Item 6.13. Updated 2002 Citizen Survey provided by the Center for Survey Research (CSR).
It was noted in the staff’s report that in April 2002, the Board received copies of the County's
2002 Citizen Survey prepared by the University of Virginia's Center for Survey Research (CSR).
Recently, CSR updated the report to make corrections to a narrative description that accompanied Table
3.2 (page 18), which compares information obtained during the 2002 Citizen Survey with the results
obtained in the County's 1994 Citizen Survey on selected items. While the information included in the
table is correct, CSR corrected errors that were found within a few paragraphs (included on pages 18 and
19) that described the results of Table 3.2. For example, while the chart indicated that preserving natural
resources and open space, preserving farmland and forested land, reducing traffic congestion, and
preserving historic places and areas decreased in level of importance since 1994, the narrative stated
that the level of importance increased. Similarly, the chart shows that the importance of affordable
housing decreased since the 1994 report (from a mean of 2.53 to 2.4 on a 1 to 3 scale), while the
narrative in the first report stated the importance of affordable housing to the public increased over the
same time period.
These corrections only affected the narrative that describes Table 3.2 and does not change the
information CSR provided to the Board of Supervisors during their presentation on April 3rd and did not
change the results of the 2002 Citizen survey as outlined in the Executive Summary section and the
remainder of the original report. CSR has provided corrected copies of this report to the County. The
corrected report has been posted on the County's web-site.
This report was received as information only.
__________
Item 6.14. Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting.
It was noted in the staffs report that the County of Albemarle has been awarded the Government
Finance Officers’ Association of the United States and Canada's (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 2000-2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and
its management. This is the seventh consecutive year the County has received this award. The CAFR
has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating
a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential
users and user groups to read the CAFR. This notice was received as information.
__________
Item 6.15. Timeline for Strategic Planning Process.
At its meeting on July 5, 2002, the Board requested a copy of the County's strategic planning
timeline. The timeline was forwarded with the information for this meeting and it outlines strategic
planning activities and identifies the County's planned implementation efforts through October 2004.
There is to be a work session in September, at which time the Board will review staff input into the
process. The Board will be asked to approve the Goals and Strategic Objectives at its October 2, 2002,
meeting. An additional work session is proposed for December, prior to the Board approving the County's
strategic planning implementation priorities in January. Citizen input was obtained through the
Countywide Citizen Survey early in the process. Staff will give further consideration to the public
participation process and discuss this further with the Board in September.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier asked that this item be pulled so the Board might hear from Ms. White.
Mr. Tucker said this is just a timeline report; there is a work session scheduled on this item next month.)
This report was received for information only.
__________
Item 6.16. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's operating budget for FY 2002-03.,
was received for information.
__________
Item 6.17. 2002 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received as information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she would like to mention that the report states that 77 percent of
development is now taking place in the designated Development Area.)
__________
Item 6.18. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for July 9, 2002, was received for
information.
__________
Item 6.19. Copy of letters of OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND
PARCELS, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, were received for information:
a. Letter dated July 11, 2002, to Marilyn Gale, Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., re: Tax
Map 40B, Parcel 71 (Section 10.3).
b. Letter dated July 19, 2002, to Linda Lloyd, re: Tax Map 126, Parcel 31L (property of
Mitchell O. Carr) Section 10.3.1.
c. Letter dated July 19, 2002, to Gaither Pratt, Limehouse Architects, re: Tax Map 79,
Parcels 5, 5A and 5B (property of Ray A. Graham, III) Section 10.3.1.
d. Letter dated July 24, 2002, to Forbes R. Reback, re: Tax Map 128, Parcel 29A, Tax Map
134, Parcels 2, 3 & 19 and Tax Map 135, Parcel 1 (Property Lone Oak, LLC) Section
10.3.1.
__________
Item 6.20. Notice of applications filed with the State Corporation Commission (on file in Clerk's
office):
a. Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company to revise its market prices for
generation and resulting wire charges pursuant to the Virginia Electric Utility
Restructuring Act, Case No. PUE-2001-00306.
b. Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company to revise its fuel factor pursuant to
Virginia Code §56-249.6. Notices received for information.
__________
Item 6.21. Update on 800 MHz Radio Project.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the most recent update provided to the ECC Management
Board regarding the status of the Regional 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Project was being forwarded to
the Board. ECC staff, regional representatives and the ECC's consultant are continuing to finalize the
contract with Motorola for the purchase and installation of the system. The following is provided as an
additional update to the memo (on file in the Clerk’s office):
Motorola Contract: One of the most critical performance issues remaining to be finalized in the
Motorola contract is the radio coverage guarantee for the system. Currently, the guarantees for coverage
in the City and development areas of the County are acceptable. Negotiation continues on the final
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
coverage guarantees and testing requirements in the rural areas of the County. This information was
prepared by Jim Morgan of RCC Consultants, Inc. in response to questions originally asked by
Supervisors Thomas and Rooker.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources (Section 106 Review - Peters Mountain). After a
lengthy process of developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the Peters Mountain tower,
the VDHR has approved the agreement and it will be forwarded to the FCC for its consideration. The
MOA was developed with the participation of the County, Piedmont Environmental Council and other
landowners from the Southwest Mountains. The VDHR made final decisions regarding the language in
the agreement after receiving input from the parties involved. The FCC will be considering this document
over the next 30 to 90 days.
Peters Mountain Tower Site. On behalf of the region, the County recently closed on the Peters
Mountain property needed for the final tower site for the system. The license for this site is currently
under consideration by the reviewing agencies, including the FCC. County staff is also in the process of
attempting to obtain easements from adjoining property owners to ensure the protection of a 200-foot
buffer around the Peters Mountain tower site. While the action taken by the Board during the special use
permit process obligated the ECC to maintain a 200-foot buffer, it was not binding on the adjoining
property owners. For this reason, additional efforts are being made to obtain easements on these
properties to ensure protection of the buffer. When additional information is available, this item will be
brought back to the Board for further consideration.
This report was received as information only.
__________
Item 6.22. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, August, 2002, received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Update on Through-Truck Restriction on Route 22
and Route 231 and a Request from the Gordonsville Town Council to use Route 860 and Route 231 in
Albemarle as alternate routes for through trucks in Gordonsville.
Mr. Benish said staff had forwarded to the Board an update on its work regarding the request for
a through truck restriction on Routes 22/231. He referred the Board to the staff’s report, which is on file in
the Clerk’s Office. He said there are representatives from the Gordonsville Town Council present this
morning and their Town Administrator would like to make a presentation regarding their request in this
matter.
Mr. Benish said both Orange County and the Town of Gordonsville are interested in through-truck
restrictions on Route 231 and on Routes 15/33. The Orange County Planning Commission held a public
hearing to request through truck restrictions on Route 231 from Somerset to Gordonsville. They
unanimously forwarded that to their board of Supervisors. However, VDOT informed the Orange Board of
Supervisors that they couldn’t restrict trucks on Route 231. VDOT did say they would consider signage
regarding speeds of trucks, but that would require a resolution from the board. Gordonsville wants to
restrict truck traffic through the town, especially on Main Street. They would need to establish an
alternate route and have proposed using Route 860 and Route 231 (a small portion of these roads being
in Albemarle County). He said the request from Gordonsville is inconsistent with Albemarle’s efforts to
restrict through truck traffic on Route 231. He said there might be a need to address multi-localities'
issues with through truck traffic in a regional manner.
Mr. Hubert Allen, Gordonsville Town Administrator, said he would give a brief history of the
request, and why they wish to make these changes. He said that in 1999 and in 2000, the Town
submitted a CDBG request for street infrastructure and facade improvements in its downtown area, and
each year it was rejected. The Department of Housing and Community Development told them they
qualified for $750,000 in grant funding, but the request was rejected because of the heavy influx of
commercial vehicles, most of which are semi-trucks running four feet from buildings. The State will not
sponsor the project because of damage from commercial vehicles. They worked through 2000 and 2001
to restrict truck traffic on Main Street, which is Route 15 and Route 33. In December 2001, Town Council
passed a resolution to CTB and in January 2002, it voted to restrict through truck traffic on Main Street in
Gordonsville.
Mr. Allen said in the mid-1980s an alternate truck route through town was identified and that is
High Street. However, it has difficult turning radii on the northern and southern ends. It is also near the
elementary schools, several churches, and an apartment complex. In addition, there is also a CSX rail
crossing only one block from the school. There are seven to eight trains each day, which use that
crossing. With construction of the new Wal-Mart distribution center, there has been an increase in truck
traffic. There are now convoys of dump trucks going through town. It is so bad that the State Police
Motor Carrier Division is keeping one motor carrier trooper in town about three days each week, and on
the other days, there are two troopers along with a sergeant. Last week, one trooper stopped and
inspected eleven trucks. Of those 11, two were taken out of service, eight were cited for numerous safety
violations, only one truck passed inspection.
Mr. Allen said the Town has been working with Louisa County and Albemarle County on a bypass
around town, which seems to be the only remedy (Mr. Martin has attended some of the bypass
meetings). However, that is approximately 15 years off into the future. Some preliminary drafting work of
routes started, but has now been tabled because VDOT has no funds. He has spoken with Mr. Butch
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Davies, a member of the CTB, and he said he would do whatever he could to obtain some funding. Mr.
Allen said he has also spoken with Senator Ed Houck and Delegate Broman. He said when the Wal-Mart
distribution center opens, it is anticipated that there will be between 1000 and 1200 trucks a day going to
that facility. Wal-Mart in Bentonville, Arkansas told him that they anticipate the majority of traffic from that
facility will be northbound, either into the Shenandoah Valley, or into Maryland. They are saying the
trucks will utilize I-64 to I-81, or I-64 to I-295, but he does not think that will happen because a trucker will
not take a detour that puts him an hour south of where he needs to be.
Mr. Allen said the only alternative is from Route 860 north on Route 231 to the town limits. Route
860 was built for truck traffic using State Industrial Access Funds. He understands that when Kloeckner-
Pentaplast was built, and they put their corporation area just north of the town of Gordonsville, some
upgrades were made to that area of Route 231. The town realizes Route 231 is of particular concern to
Albemarle County since it is a scenic byway. The town supports the idea that from Route 860 south to
the intersection at Route 22 and then to Route 250, that should be restricted to truck traffic. The Town
Council feels the impact on three-quarters of a mile of Route 231 in Albemarle will not make a major
impact. He then showed to the Board photographs of the town to emphasize the problems.
Mr. Allen said they realize it will take a concentrated effort by the three localities to try to make
things better for one locality. He said there are an estimated 25,000 vehicles passing through the town
each day. There have been three accidents. They ask this Board’s help today to utilize roads, which are
designed for heavy commercial truck traffic.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has learned through an E-mail from a citizen that Mr. Butch Davies
and Mr. Creigh Deeds are proposing to host a forum to discuss issues of regional interest regarding
transportation in the Tri-county area around the town of Gordonsville, principally having to do with tractor
trailer traffic on Routes 15, 33, 231 and 22. She thinks the Board should encourage that this meeting be
held, and it should also include Senator Houck and Mr. Broman.
Mr. Martin said he would like to drive around Gordonsville with a member of the Council to see
the situation.
Mr. Allen said some of the town Council members are present and might like to speak.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Allen coordinate with the legislators the setting up of a meeting.
Mr. Allen said Gordonsville has taken the lead in pursuing a bypass; he is Chairman of the Bypass
Committee, which is made up of representatives from Orange County, Louisa County, and Mr. Martin has
attended some of the meetings.
Mr. Bob Coiner, Gordonsville Town Council, said he does not want truck traffic to impact the
scenic byway (Route 231). If their request would put trucks on all of Route 231, he would not support it.
He thinks it is unfortunate that Kloeckner, and now the new power plant, are located right off of the scenic
highway. He is a member of the Piedmont Environmental Council and he spoke against the power plant
before the Louisa County Board of Supervisors. He thinks it is important to know that both facilities are
right on the scenic highway and trucks must have access to both facilities. In the future, there will be
trucks running from Gordonsville on Route 231 regardless of what anybody does. Town Council does not
support having trucks on Route 231 from that point further into Albemarle. Unfortunately, trucks have
“taken over the town.” He does not think this is inconsistent with getting trucks off of Route 231 because
they are already there.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the bypass. Mr. Coiner said VDOT talks about 15 or more years, but it
was discussed in the 1960s when it was said that it might be in the plan within 10 years. Truck traffic was
only about a tenth of what it is now at that time, and automobile traffic about one-third of the present
traffic. He said there has never been a concentrated, tri-county effort made to get a bypass. He thinks all
three counties need a little help.
Ms. Rebecca Lynch, Town Council member, said Gordonsville is trying to revitalize their town. A
lot of people want to open new businesses, and attract tourists. did a piece about
Virginia Currents
Gordonsville saying people should come and shop and enjoy the scenery. It is hard to be a friendly,
inviting town when there is a highway running through it. They did lose the majority of their points on the
CDBG grant because of the traffic. Traffic may be off of Main Street onto High Street, but it is still a
problem for the town because lots have very small setbacks from the road. She said the town’s streets
are not designed for industrial use. Even though it is an U.S. highway, it cannot handle that type of traffic,
but Kloeckner Road was designed as an industrial road. Also, they do not want truck traffic on Route
22/231. She said Town Council would like to work with the Albemarle Supervisors to get traffic onto
Kloeckner Road, which was designed and is suited to that use.
Mr. Pete Zahn, Town Council member, distributed to the Board a copy of the resolution
Gordonsville’s Council adopted. He said six of the seven council members are present today. Something
needs to be done, and a bypass is the best solution, but it is years away. Referring to a map, which was
included in the staff’s report, he said High Street is a substantially smaller road. The difference in mileage
using the High Street route rather than using Route 231 to Kloeckner and on is about 2.9 miles. Time
wise it is slightly under six minutes to go the Kloeckner route and two to three minutes using the High
Street route. That does not include the time it takes to turn onto High Street from Route 231. Often
trucks are waiting at that intersection for five to six minutes because there is not the turning radius
needed for them to get into that street. Town Council does not want truck traffic on Route 231, but he
does not think using the Kloeckner option as a bypass around Gordonsville would be adverse to
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Albemarle’s efforts to get trucks off of Route 231 from there south. In order to convince VDOT to take the
truck traffic off of Routes 22/231, what is the alternative for the trucks that want to go northbound on
Route 15? That would move traffic from Route 231 to Route 15 and put them onto High Street in
Gordonsville, as well. If traffic moves from Route 231 to Route 15 and comes north, that will exacerbate
the problem. He lives right on Route 15, and yesterday a relative counted 30 trucks in 15 minutes passing
his house. When construction of the Wal-Mart Center is completed, that traffic will decrease some.
There will be no bypass unless there is a concerted effort of the localities. Orange County supports the
idea of a bypass. Louisa County supports a bypass. They would like for Albemarle County to join them.
He has heard that the proposed route for the bypass is on the East end of Gordonsville, so it would not be
in Albemarle County at all.
Ms. Thomas thanked the people who had spoken, and said she is convinced that a regional
discussion of this issue is needed. She said the staff report indicates there will be a report in October.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Polo Grounds Road/Railroad Bridge, Update.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He distributed a map and drawing of the road in
question. He said the road (Route 643) is about 2.7 miles in length running from Route 29 to Proffit Road
(Route 649). It is not a collector road or an arterial road, but a local road. VDOT studied the road in 1999
and again in 2001. The traffic count has actually gone down since 1999. There has been only one
recorded accident in the last five years, and that a slick roadway caused one. He believes there are no
accidents because the road is traveled by local people who know the road. As one gets to the railroad
underpass, one has to slow down their speed. He said if the Board determines that the road needs work,
he has three recommendations. 1) Do nothing; 2) add a signal; and 3) add a signal on each end of the
underpass, which stays red all the time, and the green is only activated when there is a car. “If it is not
broken, don’t fix it” is his recommendation.
Mr. Martin said it is not broken. He said the people in the area have no problem, and he does not
understand why the press is making it sound like this is the worst thing that ever happened in Albemarle
County. Just because one or two people who do or do not live in the area say something, it is ridiculous.
The majority of the people living in the area want it to stay the same.
Ms. Thomas said this is built-in “traffic calming”. Mr. Bryan said he recommends that nothing be
done.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bryan said that last month Route 708 was mentioned. It is an unpaved road project, which is
listed, in the Six-Year Road Plan for 2002, but there is some right-of-way, which has not been donated.
His office looked at the Pave-in-Place option, the Rural Rustic Road option, and the conventional, no-plan
unpaved road option. This is not a good candidate for the Pave-in-Place program. Route 708 is a good
east/west connector, which does not get a lot of traffic now. When paved, that will change a lot. The
road does not necessarily meet the Rural Rustic Road standards, particularly if it will pick up additional
traffic. He said the conventional, unplanned surface treatment appears to be a good option, although
there is a need for some additional right-of-way at its intersection. They will pursue this option.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bryan is saying VDOT will do a standard conventional, unplanned surface
treatment where there is already 50 feet of right-of-way, and where there is not the necessary right-of-
way, the road will just be tapered. Mr. Bryan said they would probably modify the shoulders of the road; a
motorist would not know the difference. He has learned that the major constraint for a Pave-in-Place
project is drainage. Most of the gravel roads are sunken roads, which means that the shoulders and
ditches need to be expanded.
Mr. Martin said he thought VDOT was going to look at all possible projects in the County, and
then make a recommendation to the Board as to which might be Pave-in-Place projects. Mr. Bryan said
with the current Six-Year Plan, he thinks staff can now look at gravel road projects and determine which
might be appropriate for Rural Rustic Road standards.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Pave-in-Place means that asphalt is just added to the present roadway. Mr.
Bryan said it would mostly likely be a surface treatment. According to VDOT’s standards, the shoulders
and the ditches are needed. There are not too many roads in the County, which meet that requirement.
Mr. Martin said that Mr. Thompson who lives on Route 600 was told there could be Pave-in-Place
on that road except for certain areas. Mr. Bryan said VDOT is going to try and add that road to this year's
surface treatment plan, which is covered by Maintenance Funds. It is only two-tenths of a mile. The
roadway width is there. It will have to be graded and prepared a little, but it will be added to the surface
treatment plan. There should be no problem in doing that without going through the whole six-year
process.
Mr. Benish said staff has been putting together a priority list for gravel roads. VDOT is going to
look at the roads to decide if they qualify under either Pave-in-Place or the Rural Rustic Road standards.
Mr. Perkins asked if a road has to be a dead-end in order to qualify for Pave-in-Place. Mr. Bryan
said it is not necessary, but is generally the case.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Thomas said there have been people living along these roads who have been assured that
paving will never take place. If it is going to take place, the Board will have “opened up a can of worms.”
Mr. Martin said the flip side is that there have been people waiting for many years to have their
road paved, and this offers them some hope.
__________
Mr. Perkins said Route 674 (Clark Road) runs from Millington Bridge to Route 810. It has been
the subject of many complaints about its condition (road surface and safety issues such as hairpin curves
and guardrail. He asked that VDOT look at that road.
__________
Mr. Perkins said residents have expressed their concerns about the large trucks using Route 680
(Brown's Gap Turnpike). He said there are speed limit signs on the north end of the road, but none on
the south end. He asked that a traffic study be performed, and a speed limit sign erected. Also, there is
a lot of brush overhanging the road, and there are no shoulders on Route 680.
__________
Mr. Martin said a citizen had mentioned the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250. He has had
problems turning left from Route 20. If the Board concurs, he would like VDOT to examine that
intersection. Mr. Bryan said that examination is already underway. Another lane may need to be added.
__________
Mr. Martin mentioned the Dance Studio at the curve in Proffit Road. He asked if the widening of
Proffit Road is planned for the other side of the road. The lady at the studio is considering making an
investment in that property and does not want to do so if the building will be taken for the widening. Mr.
Bryan said the survey has been done on that road and he will check the right-of-way.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he appreciates the extra pavement width between Keene and Carter's Bridge.
He asked about utility work taking place at Carter’s Bridge. Mr. Bryan said they are just getting ready for
the Carter's Bridge project.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he appreciates the new bridge on Route 53 entering into Monticello. Mr. Bryan
said he had nothing to do with it. That project was done with grant money. Ms. Thomas said it was a
TEA-21 project. Mr. Bryan said VDOT provided inspectors and some safety oversight, and liaison. Mr.
Dorrier said they did a nice project.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked that the lane delineators be replaced on Hillsdale and Greenbrier Drives.
Most have been knocked off by truck traffic.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked VDOT for working with the residents along Morgantown Road. There is still
one issue she hopes will be worked out soon. The residents still want a blinking light. Mr. Bryan said if it
is not a standard, recognized signal out of the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Traffic
Division feels they are liable if there is an accident, so they are hesitant to modify any blinking light. Ms.
Thomas said if it is left as it is it won’t be modified. Mr. Bryan said that is correct, but there is a sign,
which says 25 MPH when flashing, and then there is another sign, which just states 25 MPH. He thinks
that is stupid. Mr. Perkins agreed.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked that VDOT work with the Route 250 West Advisory Committee on the issue of
the commercial area in Ivy. There are a lot of people driving through the area who do not know how
dangerous the area is, so do not drive in an appropriate way. She thinks the Committee may be able to
help because a lot of things that could be done for improvements would be on private property.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said the City has put in a crosswalk on Jefferson Park Avenue, and in the center
of the road there is a caution indicator. It really identifies the area as a crosswalk. He asked if VDOT has
any position on things like that where there is a high traffic area for pedestrians. Mr. Bryan said he would
look into the question.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional (service) areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to Tax Map 32, Parcel 24H (Joyce and
Duane Smith), located on Pritchett Lane off Proffit Road.
Mr. Benish summarized the staff’s report (on file in the Clerk’s Office). He said staff has just
received a letter from a well driller (he handed copies to the Board.) The applicant has informed staff that
water flow is extremely low and they can only use water for approximately ten minutes before flow is
completely lost. It then takes about three hours to regain minimal flow. He said the action requested of
the Board today is to set a public hearing, and in the meantime, the staff will get additional information to
support the report. The public hearing should be set for September 4, 2002.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:28 a.m.)
Mr. Martin said for some reason, the public water line is on the Smith’s property. This makes for
an odd situation. Based on that, and the letter just handed to the Board members, he offered motion to
set this matter for public hearing on September 4.
Mr. Perkins gave second to the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional (service) areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to Tax Map 78, Parcel 43A, (Phil
Hawkins), located at the Route 250E/I-64 Interchange.
Mr. Benish summarized the staff’s report (on file in the Clerk’s Office). He said that with the
continuing dry weather the well on this small parcel couldn’t support normal water usage. Staff has
received some documentation. The applicant has provided a well driller's report supporting his request
for inclusion into the jurisdictional area for water only. Staff recommends that the Board set a public
hearing to consider providing public water service to the site.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin to set this request for public hearing on September
4, 2002. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Groundwater Work Program, Discussion of.
(Note: At 10:31 a.m., Mr. Martin left the room, and Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.)
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, summarized the staff’s report. He said the Groundwater
Committee presented recommendations in its report, , in October, 2001. Since
Underground Albemarle
that time, several work sessions have been held with the Planning Commission and one with the Board.
Also, the County's consultant, ENSAT Corporation, has completed the Phase I groundwater study for the
Ivy & Mechums watersheds, looking at issues of groundwater availability and sensitivity at a basin scale.
Mr. Graham said the purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a revised scope of work
and accelerated timeline to implement the County Groundwater Work Program (on file in the Clerk’s
Office). Staff believes that one new FTE will be needed to administer this new program. This position
would be responsible for updating and maintaining the County groundwater database, managing
groundwater studies and assuring ordinance compliance. The position would have to work in close
coordination with the Thomas Jefferson Health District, and may be a "shared" position (e.g., funded by
the County, but with shared administration through the Health District, as with similar positions in
Loudoun and Fauquier Counties). Assuming this item is approved by the Board, the Engineering
Department will submit a budget request this Fall for funding this position in FY ‘04. If the Board wishes
to implement this program sooner than July 1, 2003, it will be necessary to evaluate a funding source for
the last quarter of FY ‘03. Staff is requesting that it be directed to proceed with accelerating the
implementation of a groundwater program to become effective July 1, 2003.
Ms. Thomas said she was excited that staff would go ahead and begin preparation of an
ordinance so it can be ready when the technical data is available. Staff is asking that the Board approve
of accelerating the implementation of the groundwater program to July 1, 2003.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks staff can proceed, but has some questions relating to the whole issue
of water. The Board has seen a lot of information from the TJ Soil and Water Conservation District about
collecting water and using it for different things, and possibly using cisterns or some collection system. In
Sunday’s newspaper, there was an article about the use of “gray” water. He asked how all of these
things fit in. What does the Building Code say about using gray water, or cisterns? What rules now
regulate those things? If there are going to be ordinances, maybe these things should be included.
Mr. Graham said staff has been looking at the cistern issue because there has been a lot of
interest in that. They have outlined for citizens what they need to do without creating the need for a
plumbing permit or a building permit. Another thing tied to the cistern issue is a safeguard against
mosquitoes.
Mr. Perkins said using a rain barrel would not do because it will attract mosquitoes. But, there is
a lot of water there which goes to waste and often causes a lot of erosion problems. Apparently, in other
localities, people are using gray water to water gardens and flowers. He thinks it should be considered.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bowerman asked what the Health Department says about in-house plumbing separating the
septic from the gray water. Mr. Graham said that is a Building Code issue and it really gets complex if
talking about having gray water systems inside of the house. Staff is still researching that question.
Ms. Thomas said articles she has read indicate that is a better source because it is present all the
time as opposed to rainwater.
Mr. Perkins said it is better if there is adequate storage for rainwater.
Ms. Thomas said staff wants the Board to encourage their accelerating the implementation of the
groundwater program. She said there is a general nodding of heads and if that is sufficient for staff, it can
consider itself to be encouraged.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 10:32 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present. He said
summer is a quiet time, and the School Board has been working on developing its Priorities for 2002-
2004. These should be finished by their first meeting in September.
Mr. Koleszar said he and Dr. Castner attended the Virginia School Boards Association
Governor’s Conference in Richmond on July 23. The presentation was on the accountability approach
that the School Board/Superintendent uses during the Planning and Evaluation Process. There was good
attendance at the sessions.
Mr. Koleszar said two assistant superintendents left the system this summer, Dr. Frank Morgan
and Dr. Jean Murray. The School Board has hired Mr. Michael Struiksma as Assistant Superintendent of
Support Services. Dr. Pam Moran will assume the role of Acting Superintendent for Instruction. He said
this is a bad time to advertise for assistants, and that is why the position is not being filled at this time.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has readvertised for applicants for the Long-Range Planning
Committee from the Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett Districts. They have also readvertised for applicants
to serve on the School Health Advisory Board from almost all districts. Those appointments should be
made at their August meeting.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board would decide tomorrow night whether to increase the size of
Monticello High School by 300 or 500 additional seats. It is felt that 300 seats will cover the needs of the
current Monticello feeder pattern. There are eight trailers at that school now for the coming school year.
If 500 seats are added, the School Board could redistrict some students from Albemarle High and avoid
the risk of Albemarle’s enrollment rising to 2000 students again.
Mr. Martin asked why it would be left at 300. Mr. Koleszar said there has been a lot of agitation
against redistricting in general. However, if left as is, Albemarle will get too crowded. Mr. Martin said if
only 300 seats are added, he thinks that will necessitate another redistricting. Mr. Koleszar said that
ultimately a redistricting would be necessary. It is just a question of when. He said there are varying
opinions among Board members, and he thinks some of them are listening to people who are anti-
redistricting.
Ms. Thomas said she has always believed that a school system should make sure a child gets a
good education; it is not a life-threatening event to be redistricted. The people who have sat on the
School Board know that is a difficult message to get across.
Mr. Bowerman said it is possible that if the Supervisors feel strongly about this question, if the
School Board proposes a 300-seat addition in the next CIP, it is possible it might not be honored. That is
his personal opinion.
Mr. Dorrier said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Koleszar asked if the Supervisors would feel comfortable with him conveying this feeling to
the School Board members tomorrow night. Mr. Martin said he would.
Mr. Bowerman also agreed. He said there is a lot of growth projected for the southern part of the
County, and there will be a need for another urban high school in the not too distant future. It seems that
500 seats are necessary for the southern part of the County, as much as to prevent redistricting now.
Mr. Koleszar said he would convey the Supervisors' feelings to the School Board.
Mr. Tucker said that in looking at the report Ms. Thomas referred to earlier in the meeting (2002
Second Quarter Building Report by the Planning Department), most of the growth is in the Scottsville
District primarily due to all of the apartment complexes which have now been constructed.
Ms. Thomas cautioned Mr. Koleszar not to make it sound like a threat from this Board.
Mr. Martin said this is coming from three members of the Supervisors who are ex-School Board
members. All of them made decisions about redistricting and know how tough it is to do so.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Koleszar refer the School Board members to this Building Report.
Mr. Koleszar asked if he could say the Supervisors would be fully willing to support the cost. Mr. Perkins
said there could be some cost savings, too. Mr. Koleszar said if it were built for 300 with the
thought of adding 200 seats later, that would cause considerable extra cost.
Dr. Kevin Castner said one of the School Board members did ask for an estimate of the cost to
build a high school for 500 students. That was estimated at $20.0 million. Mr. Tucker said that is just in
capital costs, it does not get into operational costs.
Dr. Castner said that at last month’s Board meeting, it was mentioned that 23 out of the County’s
24 schools had been accredited. A full report will become part of the public record tomorrow evening. All
of the high schools are accredited, so there is no variance in the student success rate. The school that
showed the greatest improvement was Monticello High School.
Mr. Koleszar said that last year the Federal government adopted new legislation entitled "No
Child Left Behind Act." The Act places a lot of mandates on localities. The School Division is working to
cope with those mandates. It will not have as much of an impact on Albemarle County because all of its
schools will be accredited. It will be hard on school divisions who have schools that are not accredited.
VPSA will have a conference concerning this subject and some School Board members will attend. He
then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she was recently at Western Albemarle High School to attend the annual Farm
Bureau meeting. The attendees were amazed at what a modern high school cafeteria looks like in terms
of where the food is served. This was a fiscally conservative group and they were impressed that Food
Services is a self-sustaining activity. She mentioned to them that Food Services provides food for senior
centers, and for the summer contract at Monticello High School. They were very impressed. Mr.
Koleszar said everyone is impressed that Food Services is self-sufficient.
(Note: At 10:51 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:03 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public hearing on a request to amend the jurisdictional (service) areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to TM 136, P 50A (Charisse Andrews),
located at 9130 Totier Creek Road, Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on July 22 and July 29, 2002.)
Ms. Thomas said the applicant has requested that this matter be withdrawn from the agenda
since the third well drilled has produced water. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Bowerman,
seconded by Mr. Martin, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on Proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28, 2002.)
Mr. Roger Heidelbeitel said these proposed FY ‘2003 Budget amendments total $771,316.07.
The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Education Programs/Projects $734,563.07
Local Government Programs/Projects $ 36,753.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds $771,316.07
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues $ 17,675.00
State Revenue $684,463.76
Federal Revenues $ 69,177.31
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds $771,316.07
Mr. Heidelbeitel said staff recommends approval of the FY ‘2003 Budget amendment in the
amount of $771,316.07 after the public hearing is held, and approval of Appropriations #2003-003 and
#2003-004 to provide the funds for the stated programs.
Appropriation #2003-003, $734,563.07. This appropriation includes funds for four separate
programs in the Albemarle County Schools Division. Each program is described below.
The Goals 2000 Award was not fully expended in FY ‘2002. The award carry-over amount of
$10,463.76 retained by the State may be appropriated for FY ‘2003. These funds will be used to
purchase classroom computers and related technologies and provide staff development opportunities in
technology for instructional staff.
The “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA). The reauthorized ESEA establishes the Enhancing Education Through Technology
(Ed Tech) Program, which consolidates the current Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) Program
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program into a single State formula grant program. The
primary goal of the Ed Tech program is to improve student academic achievement through the use of
technology in schools, providing funds for teacher training and curriculum development. The total amount
of the Ed Tech Grant is $36,099.31.
The Virginia Initiative for Technology and Administrative Leadership (VITAL) is a professional
development leadership experience for principals and superintendents in Virginia. This initiative
recognizes the need for Virginia's educational leaders to be given rich and relevant experiences that take
advantage of the power of technology to support and improve teaching, learning and leadership in
Virginia's schools. The superintendent and principals each receive $500.00 to purchase technology in
support of their participation in the project (provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation). The total
amount of the VITAL Grant is $14,000.00
The Virginia Public School Authority (VSPA) conducted the sale of equipment notes, Series II, in
the educational technology grant program providing funding to school divisions to implement the
Standards of Learning Web-based Technology initiative. Funding for this program in the amount of
$674,000.00 is targeted to achieve the following goals: Provide student access to computers at a ratio of
one computer for every five students; create Internet-ready local area network capability in every school;
assure adequate high-speed, high-band width capability for instructional, remedial and testing needs;
and, establish a State-wide web-based Standards of Learning test delivery system. The funds will be
appropriated to the School Capital Improvement Fund to purchase educational technology equipment.
Appropriation #2003-004, $36,753.00. The U.S. Department of Justice has awarded Albemarle
County a Federal grant of $33,078.00, with a required local cash match of $3675.00 for a total amount of
$36,753.00. The grant is provided for the reduction of crime and improvement of public safety. The time
period for using these grant funds began on October 1, 2001, and ends on September 30, 2003. The
funding formula is based primarily on Part 1 Uniform Crime Report offenses (murder, rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft) averaged over the previous three years.
Grant funds are planned to be used to fund overtime work by County police officers for additional law
enforcement activities.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin immediately offered motion, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the FY ‘2003
Budget amendment in the amount of $771,316.07 and to adopt the following resolutions of Appropriation
#2003-003 and #2003-004 to provide the funds for the stated programs.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Request to set public hearing to amend Leash Law to include area along
Route 720 (Harris Creek Road) off of Route 20 South. Scottsville District.
Mr. Tucker said this is a request for a “Leash Law” along Route 790 (Harris Creek Road) located
off of Route 20 South. Twenty-three property owners out of a total of 31 signed the petition. This
appears to be the first time that residents of a rural area not in a designated subdivision have petitioned
for this law. Staff recommends that the Board conduct a public hearing on this matter on September 4,
2002. He said Mrs. Alice Offield who got the petition signed is present this morning.
Ms. Thomas said residents have complained that they don't know a leash law is in effect in their
subdivision when they first move into the area. Since this is not subdivision, how would anyone know that
they are in a leash law area? Mr. Tucker said normally this law is enacted for subdivisions, but this
request is unusual because this is just for a rural area.
Mr. Dorrier said the Town Council of Scottsville has discussed having a leash law in the town.
But, it is hard to enforce that law. In looking at the Crozet leash law, which sets out the boundaries by
streets, it would take a Dog Warden a half-hour just to figure out where the line actually is. Mr. Tucker
said that is true of all areas, whether or not the land lies in a subdivision. What the law does is help the
people who live in the subdivision know they need to have their dog under control. It was nicknamed
“leash law” but one need only have the dog under control, the dog does not have to be on a leash. He
said Mrs. Offield is present and can speak if the Board so wishes.
Mr. Dorrier said this area is in the Scottsville District, and he has received a few calls, but not
many. He wonders what kind of problem is being experienced.
(Note: Mr. Trank returned to the meeting at 11:10 a.m.)
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board wanted to hear from Mrs. Offield today or wait until the public
hearing. Mr. Martin said he does not know if he will support holding a public hearing with this area being
just a rural area.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to hear from Mrs. Offield the type of problems being experienced
with dogs. Mr. Tucker said the area being requested to be included under this law has been defined by
Mrs. Offield. It is rather arbitrary, but it has still been defined.
Ms. Thomas said she would prefer that Mrs. Offield respond to questions. The first question is
how bad is the problem? Mrs. Offield said there are some aggressive dogs in the neighborhood. One
neighbor, who was renting, was asked to move because she had two Pit Bulls. A new neighbor moved in
who had four dogs, and these dogs chased children. Occasionally, there are dogs which are running at
large chasing her animals, which she keeps in a cage. Everyone is worried about the aggressive dog,
because of the children who walk.
Mr. Dorrier asked if all of these dogs have owners, do they have collars? Mrs. Offield said “no.”
Mr. Dorrier asked the breed of the dogs. Mrs. Offield said she did not know, the next door neighbor got
rid of two of the dogs. One dog was a chow mix, which was the more aggressive dog. He chased
children.
Mr. Martin asked what Mrs. Offield defined as “the neighborhood.” Mrs. Offield said there are 23
houses and most all of the people have lived there most of their lives. But, there are a few houses which
have been sold; people move in and out.
Mr. Martin asked if when Mrs. Offield said people go from house-to-house, if that is without going
to a main road. He asked if these are interconnected roads on which the lots are located. Mrs. Offield
said Route 720 comes off of Route 20 and all of the houses run along Route 720. The kids walk the road
to visit other children. Mr. Martin asked if it is a dead-end road. Mrs. Offield said State Maintenance of
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
the road ends where the road enters the vineyard. Mr. Martin said this is then a neighborhood like that in
a subdivision. Mrs. Offield said that is correct.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Dog Warden has been called about the problems. Mrs. Offield said they
have called several times. He came out when the Pit Bull came into her yard and bit a neighbor. The
Police came also, and they called the Game Warden. Mr. Dorrier asked if he was able to catch the dog.
Mrs. Offield said “no”; the neighbor kept the dog in her yard that time.
Ms. Thomas said she was confused by the answer. Mrs. Offield said the Game Warden said
someone saw the dogs chasing kids, but he did not take the dog. He talked to the owner who said she
would keep the dogs up. However, she does let them run sometimes in the afternoon.
Mr. Bowerman said this problem was not caused by there being farms in the area, or by the dogs
usually kept in a farm setting. This is a rather confined neighborhood where the lots are relatively small.
Mrs. Offield said that's true. She knows people are concerned about hunting dogs, but that is not their
concern. They are concerned only about aggressive dogs.
Mr. Martin asked Mrs. Offield to indicate the boundaries of the area on a map.
Ms. Thomas said the Board tries not to impinge on people who are doing agricultural practices in
rural areas. She asked if people who own the farms surrounding this area actually support the request.
Mrs. Offield said the two farmers with property to the back of their properties and the owner of the
vineyard at the end of Route 720, support the request.
Mr. Dorrier asked where the dog owner lives. Mrs. Offield said she lives on Parcel 24D.
Ms. Thomas said it is an interesting issue, since it is a “new” type of request. Mr. Tucker said this
is a rural division, rather than a request for a subdivision.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Dog Warden could go there now and catch a dog running at large. Mr.
Tucker said “no,” he cannot. Mr. Dorrier said if the dog is biting at people, then the Dog Warden can go
in. Mr. Tucker said if the dog is deemed to be vicious, the Dog Warden could capture the dog. Mr.
Dorrier said the only difference then is that under a leash law, the Dog Warden can go in and capture a
non-vicious dog running at large. He thinks a dog that is chasing someone and snapping at him or her, is
vicious. He said approval of this request will give more tools to the Dog Warden, but will it solve the
problem? If someone called the Dog Warden, and he could not catch the dog, then he has no more
power than he has at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not see this area as being materially different from a subdivision.
This is a community containing an existing group of people with dwellings on relatively small lots.
Mr. Martin said he could support holding a public hearing because it does look like a community.
But, it scares him. He does not want to get involved in dog issues.
Mr. Perkins said this area is denser than the area the Board approved at Afton that was platted
subdivision. He then offered motion to set this request for a public hearing on September 4, 2002. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas said she would also vote to hold a public hearing, but has concerns about
considering this law for a rural area. Mr. Tucker said the ordinance might need to have a definition of
“area.” Mr. Martin said he thinks the word is “neighborhood,” not necessarily subdivision.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the leash laws are being enforced throughout the County. There are some
36 areas designed in the ordinance as being in leash law areas. Mr. Tucker said the Dog Wardens would
say they could do little when they receive a call if the area is not in a designated leash law area. That is
what they have told staff, and is what they tell the residents. That is why Mrs. Offield is applying for this
ordinance change.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to know the acreage of some of the large parcels, which
surround this area. Mr. Martin suggested defining a community, rather than just being a rural area.
Mr. Bowerman said if there is a group of large lots, there would probably not be 50 percent of the
people signing for a law because they would most likely want to let their dogs run at large. It is when
people live in close proximity to each other that the problem occurs. He does not want to get into all kinds
of definitions. If the Board chooses not to enact this law for this area, that is the Board’s role. He is
opposed to having a closely defined set of circumstances under which a group of people can do this.
Mr. Martin said if it is not too difficult to draft a definition, he would like to see one.
Ms. Thomas said the Board would need to state clearly the reasons that this area is being
included, where other such areas are not included, such as the area being on a cul-de-sac, a dead-end
road, neighborly visits, etc.
Mr. Dorrier said if this group of people feels they are a separate community, why do they need the
Board to define them as a subdivision before they can act? Mr. Tucker said it would be better to use
some discretion. Staff can draft some criteria, maybe designating density, or proximity of dwellings to
each other.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Martin agreed with Ms. Thomas’ proposal. He can clearly state that if he supports this
request, it will be because he feels it is a community.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked that the roll be called. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
It was the consensus of the Board that the Clerk would notify all of the property owners in the
area that this matter is scheduled for a public hearing on September 4, 2002.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Request for dance hall permit by Mountain View Grill.
Mr. Tucker said the Mountain View Grill in Crozet recently received a citation from the Albemarle
County Police Department for failure to obtain a dance hall permit. The owner indicated that they were
unaware of the permit requirement and has now submitted an application letter for a dance hall permit.
Section 12-201 of the County Code requires an applicant to obtain a dance hall permit from the Board
before commencing operation of a dance hall, which is defined as "any place open to the general public
where dancing is permitted."
Mr. Tucker said the applicant has met two of the requirements for a dance hall permit. The
Building Code and Zoning Services Department has confirmed that there are no building code concerns
associated with this request. Certification from the Fire/Rescue Department demonstrating the applicant's
compliance with the Fire Prevention Code will be based on a final determination and is still pending.
They have asked for a deferral until next week’s meeting. He thinks it may take longer, and suggested
that the deferral be until September 4, 2002.
Mr. Bob Lowry, Assistant Fire Chief, said staff will be meeting with the applicant today. He thinks
that by August 14, they will have finished. Mr. Tucker said in looking at the history of this request, he
would prefer that the deferral be until September 4 just to be sure the work is completed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to defer this request until the Board’s meeting September 4,
2002. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
______________
(Note: Since the Board meeting was running ahead of schedule the Board went to Agenda Item
No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Mr. Perkins distributed to the Board members a copy of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau 2002
Proposed Resolutions to the State Legislature.
__________
Mr. Perkins distributed a copy of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission notes from
the Commission Retreat held on July 17, 2002.
Ms. Thomas said during that session she was impressed that members from other counties
report every month on what the PDC has done. She and Mr. Perkins do not make such reports, and
likewise, she and Mr. Rooker who represent the Board on the MPO, do not make such reports. Mr.
Martin and Mr. Tucker do not report about the Jail Board or the Airport Board. She asked if the Board
members feel such reports would be helpful to them.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that if the Board members need to know something, they will ask. Also,
he thinks that when something important has come up, that member will bring it up at the next Board
meeting.
Mr. Tucker said at one time the minutes of various organizations were forwarded to the Board,
and it was felt that was too much information, so that practice was stopped. Ms. Thomas said some of
these organizations do have their minutes on the County’s web-site now.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he had read an article on retirement funding in . It talked about
NACO News
counties being able to provide some type of matching program for their employees, which would be a
great benefit and could be cost-effective for both the County and the employee. He was intrigued by it
because he thought it would be a good selling point for Albemarle County, and also is good management.
Mr. Tucker said VACO through NACO has a provision where they can match the funds put in by
an employee. Albemarle County has not done that because of the fiscal ramifications. Mr. Martin said
the Benefits & Compensation Committee has discussed it. Mr. Tucker said County staff has VRS, which
is a fixed benefits retirement plan. What Mr. Dorrier is referring to is a 457 Plan, which is a tax-deferred
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
account. The plan has actually been available for a couple of years. He does not know why they are
bringing it to the forefront at this time.
Mr. Martin said for State employees, the State makes a contribution occasionally, but it is not
necessarily a match.
Mr. Dorrier said if the County is looking for top quality employees they can hold on to, this should
be considered as an option to see how it fits into what is being done now. Mr. Martin said the
Compensation Committee is looking into it. Their next set of meetings will include this as a discussion
item, as well as the existing “cafeteria” plan.
__________
Ms. Thomas said for the ACE program the first group of recipients will be honored tomorrow at
10:30 a.m. at Red Hill Elementary School. Red Hill was chosen because it looks out at the Jimmy Powell
farm, and Mr. Powell is one of the recipients. The State Secretary of Natural Resources, Tayloe Murphy,
Jr., is coming to speak at the ceremony.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she would attend a meeting Friday, which the High Growth Coalition has
arranged with Mr. Schewel, Secretary of Commerce and Trade, Mr. Whit Clement, Secretary of
Transportation, and Mr. Tayloe Murphy, Secretary of Natural Resources. They will be urged to work
together to make transportation planning fit in better with land use and with economic development.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she and staff gave new City Council member Rob Schilling a two-hour
orientation to the County. It is the first time a City Councilor has done this, and he was very interested in
the way the County operates.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had received a letter from the Bellair Homeowners’ Association saying the
County is not participating as it should in the matter of the University’s new parking garage. Bellair is the
closest County subdivision to this new garage.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has been appointed by the Governor to the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations. Their mission is to promote positive intergovernmental relations in Virginia.
She thinks it will be good to have an Albemarle County representative on the Commission.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the ACIR is going to be meeting at the VML Annual Conference. The County is
a member of VML if any Board member is interested in attending that meeting which is scheduled for
Norfolk in October.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she was disappointed that the County did not get the TEA-21 funding for
Crozet. She hopes staff will investigate this further to see what the weaknesses were in the application.
__________
Ms. Thomas said a resident has complained about the new apartment complex going in near
Monticello High School. It has been described as a “total rape of the land." She said it really is awful
looking, but maybe it is worse than others are because it is situated on a hill where every section of dirt
that has been disturbed can be seen. She said that actually everything that could be removed from the
land has been ripped up.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the VACO annual meeting is held in November. She asked that Board
members give notice if they will attend so reservations can be made.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the MPO and PDC are trying to get VDOT to fund some guidance on Route 29
concerning land use and interchanges, intersections, traffic, and how they all fit together. She believes
that influenced the Albemarle Planning Commission at its meeting last night to not approve the
Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Sperry property. She said City Council is just awakening to this
project, and becoming very interested.
__________
Mr. Martin said the Courts Study recommendations may still be on schedule for next spring.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said that there is group from the City going to France to visit a town they are
considering for a Sister City relationship. It has been mentioned that the area around this town is similar
to Charlottesville/Albemarle County. He wondered if there is any interest in the County exploring such a
relationship.
Ms. Thomas said she is not interested. Mr. Martin agreed. Ms. Thomas said the people who
were here from Italy this last time wanted to know if commercially or governmentally there was anything,
which could be done, that might be of mutual benefit. They met for a couple of hours, but had a hard time
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
trying to think of anything that could be done except for the student exchanges, other than getting
international awareness back and forth.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 11:55 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session with Mr. Greg Kamptner replacing Mr.
Mark Trank as Counsel.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify that to the best of each
Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting, and only such public business
matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or
considered.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Mr. Martin recommended the appointment of Mr. Russell M. Cummings, Jr. to the Commission
on Children and Families, with the term to run from August 7, 2002, through July 1, 2005.
Mr. Martin recommended the appointment of Mr. John P. Chamales to the Jail Authority, with the
term to run August 7, 2002, through August 6, 2005.
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. Juandiego Wade and Mr. Clifford R. Buys to
the JAUNT Board, with terms to run from October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2005.
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Ms. Tracey C. Hopper as the Planning
Commission representative on the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with term to run from July 9, 2002,
through July 8, 2004.
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. William P. Jackameit to the Fiscal Impact
Advisory Committee, with term to run from July 9, 2002, through July 8, 2004.
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area Board on
Aging, with term to run from October 21, 2002, through October 20, 2004.
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Ms. Marcia Joseph and Mr. Charles T. Lebo to
the Architectural Review Board, with terms to run from November 15, 2002, through November 14, 2006.
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. Burton M. Webb to the Board of Building
Code Appeals, with term to run from November 22, 2002, through November 21, 2007.
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. Tom Trevillian and Mr. Burton M. Webb to
the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with terms to run from November 22, 2002, through November 21,
2007.
Mr. Bowerman gave second to the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2002-024. Wal-Mart Outdoor Storage & Display - Amendment (Signs
#48, #49 & #50). Public hearing on a request to amend an existing SUP, in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2 of the
Zoning Ord. The proposal is for the addition of 10 outdoor storage containers on S sd & 10 outdoor
storage containers on N sd of existing Wal-Mart Store bldg, expansion of outdoor garden center, use of
sidewalk as display area, use of sidewalk for community events on weekends, & use of portion of parking
lot for special events. TM 45, P 68D5. Znd HC. Loc on Rt 29 N. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing
was given in the Daily Progress on July 22 and July 30, 2002.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff’s report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office. He said the
applicant requests amendment of special use permits, which allow multiple activities on the site. The
applicant proposes specifically to use an additional 26 parking spaces for the expansion of an outdoor
garden center, use of a portion of the sidewalk for display of lawn and garden merchandise, use of
another portion of the sidewalk near the main store entrance for weekend events, a portion of the parking
lot for temporary events, and the addition of 19 temporary storage containers.
Mr. Benish said the review of the request focused mainly on the impact to the entrance corridor.
The Architectural Review Board did review the request and has recommended approval and provided for
conditions that would minimize the impact to the Entrance Corridor. Circulation of pedestrians and
vehicles were also considered in this review particularly with regard to the multiple events and expansion
of the garden center. Those were found to be acceptable by staff. He noted that the plan, which has the
proposed changes on it, is inaccurate in terms of some of the existing physical improvements, so one of
the conditions of approval asks for an updated site plan. He said staff finds this proposal consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked at what point modifications to the original special use permits for outdoor
display and storage constitute a need for an improvement in the building itself. Mr. Benish said to the
extent that there is latitude within the sales and display area to approve continued expansions, they can
continue to occur. There is no specific threshold. Mr. Kamptner said with respect to the outdoor storage,
it would require Board action. Mr. Benish said there have been at least seven special use permits, which
allowed for incremental expansions of outdoor, temporary and permanent storage. This request is an
amendment to those permits. Staff takes that into consideration when reviewing these requests. There
are practical mechanics of the ordinance which must be considered. At some point they may run short of
required parking. It is a legislative act, so the Board has that discretion.
With no further questions from Board members, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and
asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Jade White, Wal-Mart Manager, said the outdoor storage and the parking lot swap back and
forth. The addition he is asking for will be used during the months between February and August, and
then it will be dismantled. After that, trailers are brought in on the side of the store during the Christmas
period. It does not all happen at the same time. When the building was expanded, that took away
parking spaces, which were used, for outdoor storage, and they also lost use of the sidewalk, so basically
he just wants to have back what was previously approved. Use of the sidewalk for community events
was not approved previously, but he thinks it should be looked at. Every week he gets calls from
community organizations wanting to hold some fund-raising event in front of the store. The parking lot
events would be one day or weekend type of events. When NASCAR comes to Richmond, because Wal-
Mart is a sponsor, they want to bring cars to set up in the parking lot for a day just to generate excitement
about the race. The fire departments like to set up in the parking lot and do safety belt checks. There is
not the space available to do this now.
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 SP-2002-024, Wal-Mart Outdoor
Storage & Display Amendment, subject to the eight conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission at its meeting on July 9, 2002.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions, as approved, are set out in full below.)
1. A site plan shall be submitted for approval to clearly show all existing onsite
improvements, all of the conditions for this proposal, including required
landscaping, all previously approved special use permits. All conditions shall be
shown in a manner acceptable to the Zoning Administrator;
2. Sidewalk display of lawn and garden merchandise shall be limited to the sidewalk areas
between the five (5) feet by five (5) feet tree wells, merchandise shall be limited to four
(4) feet in height, and shall be on the sidewalk from February 15 through September 15
only. No new signage associated with this use shall be permitted. Pricing information
shall not be displayed higher than three (3) feet;
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
3. Regarding the expansion of the lawn/garden area in the parking lot, landscaping shall be
added along the EC frontage to minimize visibility as follows:
· Plant Pin Oaks, at three-and-one-half (3 1/2) inch caliper minimum, spaced
thirty-five (35) feet on center, to complete the row of trees along the Entrance
Corridor.
· Plant Chanticleer Pears, at two-and-one-half (2 1/2) inch caliper minimum,
spaced forty (40) feet on center, on the east side of the eastern travelway, that
runs parallel to the Route 29 Entrance Corridor, to provide a continuous row
along this travelway.
· Add ornamental trees or large ornamental shrubs, such as Shadblow
Serviceberry, in the open area between the Pin Oaks and Pears identified above;
4. The expansion of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be limited to twenty-six (26)
additional spaces, for a total of sixty-three (63) spaces used for the outdoor lawn and
garden center display. The period for the outdoor lawn and garden center shall remain
the same as previously approved February 15 through September 15 only;
5. For the south side of the building, nine (9) additional temporary storage containers shall
be located within the existing enclosed storage area, for a total of twenty-nine (29)
temporary storage containers. For the north side of the building, nine (9) additional
temporary storage containers shall be located at the northwest corner of the loading area,
one (1) additional temporary storage container immediately alongside the three (3)
permanent containers perpendicular to the building. All containers shall not exceed nine
(9) feet six (6) inches in height, and shall not be stacked. For all of the storage
containers, "temporary" shall be defined as August 15 through January 15. All containers
shall be located as shown on the concept plan;
6. There shall be no new fenced area to the north side of the building. The existing fenced
area may be used when the temporary containers are not in place;
7. The weekend community events on the sidewalk to the north of the main exit to the
building shall be limited as follows: Only one (1) organization shall be allowed at any one
time during the weekend, one (1) table may be used, that table shall be located in the
area shown on the concept plan, and there shall be a maximum of three (3) persons
running the event at one time; and,
8. The area to the east of the outdoor lawn and garden center shall be designated as a
permanent location for parking lot events. The events shall not use more that sixteen
(16) parking spaces, as shown on the concept plan. No one event shall be longer than
three (3) days. Each event proposed shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance from
the Department of Building Code & Zoning Services.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Update on Development Issues, Discussion.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has emphasized several times the need to adhere to a timeline for
several projects currently underway in the development departments. He has requested staff to be sure
that projects stay on budget and on time, specifically, the Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan, the
Rural Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the acquisition of conservation easements program,
and the development of the Design Manual.
Mr. Tucker said staff is utilizing software called “Microsoft Project” for the management and
reporting of these projects. He said that Mr. Tom Foley would show to the Board all of the things involved
in these significant and complex projects.
Mr. Foley said the purpose of this item is to give an update and answer any questions Board
members have about these projects. He said that Mr. Mark Graham, Ms. Amelia McCulley and Mr. David
Benish are present from the Development Departments to answer questions. Mr. Foley handed to the
Board members a chart showing the implementation plan for the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Foley said the first major task was modification of the Comprehensive Plan, and that process
was completed in July 2002. The ten implementation steps originally reviewed by the Board in October
2001 have now been completed. The major activity underway now is Master Planning and it involves
multiple steps. He said the consultant procurement process has been completed. A lot of activity went
on concerning the Crozet Master Plan during the time a consultant was being procured. There was a
“kick-off” meeting in March and a community meeting in May. There was an “existing conditions” meeting
in August. He said the Planning Commission decided that instead of doing a detailed master plan in the
beginning of the process, they would develop a framework plan for the master plan first to set the general
outline of what would go on in the development area. After that part, they will move to the more detailed
design work. Based on the Commission’s work with staff, it was broken into two phases and the
framework development plan will be developed from now until the end of the year. Staff proposes that
the Board and Commission get together some time between the 17th of December and the 8th of January
to go over that framework plan. After the Board and the Commission have reviewed the framework plan,
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
the more detailed phases of developing the master plan will be started. The Board’s review and decision
on that Crozet Master Plan is scheduled for September 2003.
Mr. Foley said staff felt it might be good to have a couple of the Planning Commission members
involved in the work going on so it would not come to them without them being involved at all. He said
target dates have been scheduled for different parts of the implementation schedule. If a date is missed,
the whole schedule will be adjusted accordingly. He said this is a good management tool and a good
recording tool for the Board. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said criticism has been leveled that County procedures cause delays for developers/
landowners. He asked if a tool like this would be useful to move along projects and permitting
procedures. Mr. Foley said staff has heard these issues before and is in the process of developing
permitting tracking software. It should be implemented by January 2003. That new software will track,
update and provide all the information necessary for any proposal submitted. It will set target dates and
send reminders on deadlines that have to be met. Staff in the Development Departments has been
discussing ways to reorganize and stay more focused on some of the regular kinds of reviews. Staff is
also developing a system where management can look at when a plan came in, when it was supposed to
be completed, how far behind it is, etc. This particular software is more geared to projects that have a
specific start and end date.
Mr. Tucker said he would like to emphasize that when Board members hear constituents say
County regulations hold up a project, sometimes the County is waiting for information from the applicant.
Staff normally has timelines for items scheduled to be heard by the Commission, and these timelines are
set out by Code. He knows that sometimes the County creates delays, but he thinks it is important that
the Board know it is not always staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the personnel involved. Mr. Foley said at this time the “Resource
Graph” is not fully developed. Staff focused mainly on timelines. Resources are included in some cases,
but it is not a complete look.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this model works correctly, will staff know if it is short of resources. Mr.
Foley said “yes.” He said this is new software for the County, so all employees are not fully versed on it
yet. Just doing the part that has been done so far causes staff to think the work cannot be accomplished
within the resources it has.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the Board’s review and decision on the Crozet Master Plan is scheduled
to end in September 2003. Someone should look at that with an eye toward putting it into CIP planning.
She assumes that all County Departments will have access to this timeline. Mr. Foley said various
departments have been involved in putting this timeline together, it was not just done by executive staff.
This clearly links certain decisions to other actions. That has been developed, and may be refined more.
The Community Facilities Plan is the second major task of incorporating some of those things into the
CIP process. Staff will discuss this issue this year as it looks at the ten-year CIP.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the Rural Areas. She feels “out of the loop” as to what is going on in
development of the Rural Area vision, etc. If staff wants the Board to take the action noted in February,
then the Board needs to be “brought along” during the process. She said the Board is on this timeline
also.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission had been going through review of the Rural Areas in a
more traditional process by working through each section and bringing that section to conclusion and then
going to public hearing. They would then move on to the next section, but there are certain parts of the
Rural Areas section which are very important and others which staff wants to get settled quickly. One
item is a vision for the Rural Areas since there has not been such language in the plan before. When
staff presented a draft statement to the Commission, there were a number of public comments received
from people who wanted to help with drafting of the vision statement through holding four to six outreach
meetings in different parts of the community. That made a change in the schedule. Staff anticipated
making a presentation, and then having a facilitator handle the meeting from that point. It will be a labor-
intensive effort for staff to develop that process. He said if there is anything in this schedule which is
aggressive, it is the fact that staff is expecting the Commission to finish items faster than they have in the
past. There is only a month to six weeks for Commission review, and it will take a commitment by the
Commission and staff to make that happen.
Mr. Benish said staff felt that for the framework plan, it would be advantageous to have a joint
meeting of the Board and Commission, rather than each body reviewing it separately. It is not expected
that there would be a public hearing on that item, but rather just an understanding of what is going on
before proceeding to development of the actual master plan. To expedite the master planning process,
staff wants to get some Commission members involved, so there will be liaison between the consultants
and the Commission. The Board might like to have a member(s) involved also.
Mr. Tucker said for the Board’s review of the Rural Areas, in the schedule it appears that there is
only one month for that activity, but there are actually two meetings set aside for that review.
Ms. Thomas said the only way she knows what has been going on in the Rural Areas is that Mr.
Bob Watson wrote an article in the , which she read. If staff wants
Blue Ridge Homebuilders’ Newsletter
the Board to be able to act on the Rural Areas recommendations when they are received, the Board
should be getting some kind of information along the way. She hopes this will not involve more staff
work. It might be something given to the Commission that the Board would not ordinarily receive.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Tucker said information about the Neighborhood Model and the Crozet Master Plan is being
put on the County’s web-site now. Mr. Benish said staff is setting up a separate web-site for the Rural
Areas; it should be online soon.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the focus groups mentioned for the Rural Areas plan. He asked how the
groups were selected. Mr. Benish said the Rural Areas focus groups were selected working with the
Commission. They tried to get a representative cross-section of interests in the rural areas.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the groups geographically represent the County. Mr. Benish said they were
chosen working with the Commission and Mr. Watson; the focus group is being used as a sounding
board.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the second piece of software that was mentioned earlier. Mr. Foley said
the software is called City View and is software, which all three development departments can use when,
reviewing a plan. They will be able to enter their comments, and then everyone will have access to those
comments. The program will also set timelines. Eventually, it will be used on the web-site.
Mr. Dorrier asked that staff give the Board a report on how the software is working at some point
in the future. Mr. Foley said staff could make such a report in September. He asked if the Board wanted
a report quarterly, or bimonthly. It was the consensus that a bi-monthly report could be included on the
Consent Agenda.
__________
Mr. Foley noted paperwork attached to the staff’s report concerning the ACE Program. He said
that based on the current status of the application process, staff anticipates the following timeline to
complete the purchase of the second round of conservation easements:
Late August - completion of appraisals, review of appraisals and confirmation by the Appraisal
Review Committee.
Late September - Board of Supervisors receive appraisals and authorizes acquisition.
November - Acquisition of ACE properties from FY 2001-02 application pool.
Mr. Foley said staff recommends that the Board waive the requirements for deadlines for third
round (2002-03) applications as listed in Sec. A.1-110 to reflect the anticipated schedule listed in
Attachment B-C, Page 4 of the Staff’s report (on file in the Clerk’s Office). (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the
room at 3:01 p.m.)
Motion to accept the staff’s recommendation was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that on Page 3 of that attachment, the description of what has gone on before
seems to be laying the blame on the applicants because of title issues. Mr. Kamptner said the
attachment was written after a meeting with Mr. Ches Goodall. They are not blaming the applicants.
They realize that staff’s letter to the applicants did not contain clear instructions.
Ms. Thomas said she was glad to see that the County’s Design Standards Manual will be put out
on the Internet.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 3:03 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Monticello Fire/Rescue Station Staffing, Discussion.
Mr. Dan Eggleston summarized the staff’s report. He said construction of the station is actually
ahead of schedule. They have already received a new engine and it is being used in the training process.
There have been aggressive recruitment campaigns undertaken to attract volunteers for the operation of
the station; the station is due to open in January 2003. Actually, a good, cross-section of people have
been attracted for this new Station 11, as well as for other stations in the County. However, it appears at
this time, that the station will not be able to operate 24-hours per day, seven days per week. The
estimated 10 volunteers combined with the eight career firefighters that are funded in the FY ‘2003
budget will not be sufficient to staff the station 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are a couple of
options for the Board to consider.
Option 1. Staff the station with the eight career firefighters Monday through Friday, 24 hours a
day and establish a schedule for 10 volunteers to cover the station Saturday and Sunday. When
the volunteers are not available to cover Saturday or Sunday, the station will be taken out of
service and the City will cover emergency calls in Monticello's area.
Mr. Eggleston said the advantage to this option is that there is no increase in staffing or costs.
The disadvantage is that there would be a new fire station out of service. He said when career staff is
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
placed in that station, they are able to provide advanced life-support service. The City cannot guarantee
that service.
Option 2. Hire four additional career personnel (for a third shift) and combine the career staff with
the estimated 10 volunteers. This would enable the department to staff the station 24 hours a
day, seven days a week.
Mr. Eggleston said the advantage to this option is that there would be a group of new volunteer
firefighters who have just finished the training academy, who are very excited about this work. Combining
those firefighters with career firefighters would make a very good system. Another advantage is being
able to provide 24-hours of advanced life-support services to the citizens in that district. Also, if the
volunteer membership can be increased to the level that will support weekend staffing, he thinks that will
be a magnet for other volunteer stations in the County. The additional career staff could then be
re-deployed to other stations, such as staffing for the proposed new station in the northern part of the
County. Or, they could be used to address expected requests for additional daytime assistance from
other volunteer stations. The disadvantage would be the hiring of additional firefighters in the middle of a
budget period.
Mr. Eggleston said there would be significant changes for the County when the City’s fire
department stops running outside of the automatic response district (ARD) (with the exception of
responding to structure fires). It is anticipated that in order to provide ALS services 24 hours a day,
people will have to be hired in April so they can be trained and ready to work by July 1. If new staff is not
hired in October 2002, it must be done in April 2003. The difference in cost between hiring staff in
October ($141,667) and April ($56,667) is $85,000.
Mr. Eggleston said the Board needs to decide if the station should be open 24 hours a day or if
the County should rely on the City to service the area when the station must be closed due to staffing
shortages.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Eggleston had inferred that hiring more professionals would attract more
volunteers. Mr. Eggleston said when there are professionals on staff; there is always someone at the
station to help the volunteers with training.
Mr. Dorrier asked when that station would be short-staffed. Mr. Eggleston said it is on weekends.
Mr. Bowerman said just because there are professional firefighters at the station it does not mean they
will be there on the weekends. At the other stations, there is a core group of trained volunteers who can
deal with the training and mentoring of young firefighters. At Monticello, there will not be that type of
expertise there on the weekends. Mr. Eggleston said the volunteers at the other fire stations are more
seasoned so they are able to sustain the weekends by themselves.
Mr. Perkins asked if any consideration has been given to offering volunteer firemen throughout
the County an opportunity to serve as volunteers at Monticello until their membership is sufficient to carry
their own load. He said each community bears the responsibility of providing volunteers. In the future,
the County may be looking at an all paid firefighting system. The longer that can be put off, the cheaper it
will be. Mr. Eggleston said that question has been addressed by the volunteer assistant chiefs. They are
not in favor of doing this because it would take away coverage from their stations.
Mr. Tucker said to help the Board decide on this issue, he will say that revenues are coming in
lower than the projections made last January. While savings in expenditures were good, the shortage in
revenues is primarily due to collection of the personal property tax, which is much lower than expected.
He said it will be a little harder to fund some things, but there will need to be staff hired in April anyway
because the County has to be ahead of the City contract which ends on June 30. The second proposal is
to fully fund all necessary staff, and that would need to occur in October.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board could always use General Fund moneys to fund public safety issues.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to speak about some strategic factual items the Board must
deal with. He said the essence of the Neighborhood Model and the essence of what the Board is trying to
do with the Rural Areas is to encourage population within the urban areas. In order to do that, the Board
must provide amenities and a level of service, which has not been provided in the past. That includes not
only public safety, but in the near future front-end funding some utility expenses. The area around
Monticello is a growing community. To have an almost $3.0 million capital item put there and close its
doors two days per week is not something he wants to do. He thinks it should be funded so it can open
from Day 1, 24 hours per day, and provide not only ALS, but also the fire service. He believes that will
also encourage additional volunteers. If 12 people are hired for the station and then there are enough
volunteers to man that station, there will be another station asking for paid volunteers. There were some
things done this past year to cut back on the number of calls, and even though the call volume is down,
the companies are running more real calls. He said that $85,000 is a lot of money, but for six months for
four people, that is a reasonable investment to make. He would not like to see that station opened, have
the equipment in the building, and then close the doors two days a week. He encouraged the other
Board members to look favorably on the October hire of the 12 firefighters. Although it is not a usual
practice for the Board to use the Fund Balance, there is a balance there which could temporarily fund
these positions.
Mr. Perkins said the Board has to consider the entire county; what effect does this have on other
stations that may be having trouble getting volunteers. He thinks that eventually all stations may be
manned by paid staff, but the Board needs to do everything possible at this time to encourage volunteers.
August 7, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
He said people are getting services that the whole County pays for, so there may be a time when the
Board has to consider service districts. He said when the City contract changes, there will be fewer
County people getting the benefit of that contract. When people want a lot of services, the Board can
consider service districts, and the people can have the services they are willing to pay for.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that is a valid point. At some point in the future, the Board may
articulate a need for a differential tax rate. The Board can then say what that money will go for
specifically. He agrees that if the County is successful in what is planned in terms of where the
population will be located, that argues stronger for the service district approach except for police services.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that Mr. Eggleston get more information for the Board on what other
localities are doing in the way of service districts for fire service. Mr. Eggleston said he went through this
process for Southampton County when he was in Franklin. Mr. Tucker said service districts have been
looked at in the past as a way to provide utilities. Staff has even looked at the idea of making the County
a fire service district so that a percentage of the tax rate goes for that service.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board really wants staff to provide information on service districts now;
how extensive should a study be? Mr. Foley said Mr. Eggleston is presently working on a Five-Year Plan.
It will be presented later and will include funding options.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve Option 2 as set out
above. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/05/2003
Initials: EWC