2000-01-05January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
5, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. (Note: Mr. Dorrier was elected as the
new Scottsville Magisterial District representative on November 3, 1999, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins were
both reelected this same date.)
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Board Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by the County Executive, Mr.
Tucker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Tucker opened the floor for nominations for
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Calendar Year 2000. Mr. Bowerman nominated Mr. Charles S.
Martin. There were no other nominations. Mr. Tucker closed the nominations and called for the vote.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin thanked his colleagues for selecting him as Chairman of the Board for another year. He
said it is a very special feeling.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Mr. Martin opened the floor for nominations for
Vice-Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Calendar Year 2000. Ms. Humphris nominated Ms. Sally H.
Thomas. Mr. Bowerman seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Mr. Martin closed
the nominations and called for the vote.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas thanked the Board members for this appointment.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk. Ms. Humphris recommended
the reappointment of Ms. Ella W. Carey as Clerk to the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors and Ms.
Laurel Bentley as Senior Deputy Clerk to the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors for Calendar Year
2000.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2000.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set the meeting schedule for
Calendar Year 2000 as follows: first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., second Wednesday of the
month at 7:00 p.m. and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m., with said meetings to be held in the
Albemarle County Office Building on McIntire Road in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Board also canceled its
third meeting in December, 2000 (December 20, 2000).
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by Citizens
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set the following dates for
hearing Zoning Text Amendments requested by citizens: July 19 and October 11, 2000, and January 17
and April 11, 2001. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Boards Rules of Procedure, Readoption of.
=
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to readopt the Boards Rules of
=
Procedure with no changes being made thereto. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Rules of Procedure are set out in full below.)
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
A.Officers
1.Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who,
if present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during
the year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the
Chairman shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions
and for ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia
Code 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423)
''
2.Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a
Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence
of the Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during
his absence or disability. (Virginia Code 15.2-1422)
'
3.Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for
one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more
additional terms. (Virginia Code 15.2-1422)
'
4.Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice
Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be
chosen to act as Chairman.
B.Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy
Clerks who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk
shall be those set forth in Virginia Code 15.2-1539 and such additional duties
'
set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (Virginia Code
15.2-1416)
'
C.Meetings
1.Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly
elected members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting
held in January of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual
meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days,
times and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year.
(Virginia Code 15.2-1416)
'
2.Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day
or days as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may
subsequently establish different days, times or places for such regular
meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia
Code 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls
'
on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on
the next regular business day without action of any kind by the Board.
(Virginia Code 15.2-1416)
'
If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and
declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board
members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next
regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the
Board and to the press as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further
advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code 15.2-1416)
'
Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to day
or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next
regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code
'
15.2-1416)
3.Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at
such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be
adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient.
(Virginia Code 15.2-1417)
'
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two
or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of
the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon
receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman,
shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the County Executive, and the
County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and delivered to the person or to
his place of residence or business. The notice shall state the time and place of the
meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No matter not specified in
the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members are present.
The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting or if
all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code 15.2-1418)
'
The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such
special meeting and the matters to be considered.
D.Order of Business
The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation with the
Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall
be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation.
The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda shall
be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more than three persons
will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for "Other Matters Not
Listed on the Agenda from the Public". Each person shall be permitted no more than five
minutes to provide comments.
Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public hearing
on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral request to the
Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week prior to the scheduled
public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively by the Clerk.
The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the deferral will be
announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any
request received later than the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a
deferral for the same application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion
of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board
determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public
caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a deferral
is granted.
E.Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the
Board. If during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action
can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again
established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code 15.2-1415)
'
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any
regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such
meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next
regular meeting.
F.Voting Procedures
1.Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be
made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion
properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that
is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote on the motion shall be
by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each member voting and how
he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he
shall state his abstention. The abstention will be announced by the Chairman and
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. (Article VII,
Section 7, Virginia Constitution)
2.Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all
elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or
resolution (1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing taxes;
or (3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code 15.2-1428)
'
3.Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board
requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may,
however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or
consideration of such matter.
The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public
hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the
applicant shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application.
Following the applicant's presentation, any member of the public shall be
permitted no more than three minutes to present public comment. Speakers are
limited to one appearance at any public hearing. Following the public comments,
the applicant shall be permitted no more than five minutes for a rebuttal
presentation.
4.Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly
seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on
the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members
making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the
amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration. If the motion to
amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the Board for its
consideration.
5.Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member
moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call
for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of
those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion
under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to
debate and shall take precedence over any other matter.
6.Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a
motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held
on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may
be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be
discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be
to place the matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was
voted upon.
7.Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map
amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances (these exceptions shall
only be subject to reconsideration as provided above), may be rescinded by a
majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be
made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be
discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify
the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map amendments, special use permit
decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the
legal requirements necessary for taking action on such matters as if it were a new
matter before the Board for consideration.
G.Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next
regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is
given.
H.Suspension of Rules of Procedure
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members
present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the
Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the
motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before
the Board. Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit
the Board to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the
Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law.
I.Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed
by .
Robert's Rules of Order
______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Mr. Martin presented certificates of appreciation to:
Mrs. Martha Harris for her service as a member of the Social Services Advisory Board from
February 7, 1996, to December 31, 1999, serving as Chairperson from May, 1997 to December, 1999.
This was a period of significant changes to the Department including the implementation of Welfare
Reform, the Federal Safe Families Act, the addition of two Bright Stars Programs, the Family Support
Program, the Multiple Response Child Protection Program, and the Childrens Medical Security Insurance
=
Program. She chaired the Board during its transition from an administrative to an advisory board, helping
create new by-laws and a direction for the Board. Mr. Martin said he has known Mrs. Harris for about four
years and she is very thorough and goes after what she wants with a smile and with finesse. He has
appreciated working with Mrs. Harris. He then presented the certificate of appreciation.
Mr. Edwin Strange was a member of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory
Committee for the past three years. He was an active participant bringing topics to the table for discussion
and acting as a conduit for concerned citizens. He accepted additional responsibilities by agreeing to chair
the Facilities Subcommittee which met almost monthly to discuss the various Rivanna facilities
brainstorming ways to make the sites more community service oriented. He had a strong desire to see the
reduction of waste in the area and this spurred him into being proactive. Mr. Martin said the Board of
Supervisors and the Rivanna Authority both recognize Mr. Stranges commitment to the environment and
=
they thank him for his years of service. Mr. Martin then presented the certificate of appreciation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Ms. Christine Stacy, a resident of Northfield Subdivision said she has lived on Wakefield Road for
almost 28 years. When they purchased their house they knew the road had a public right-of-way and was
not a private road. They were told that it was unlikely that anything would happen to the road in the near
future because there were not many houses on the road at that time. Over the years, she has tried
periodically to get the County to pave and maintain the road. These attempts have been unsuccessful.
Three years ago, there was a medical emergency and the rescue squad was not able to find their house.
She has requested that the name of the road be changed so there will not be three different roads named
Wakefield Road. That is going to happen but it has caused ill feelings in the neighborhood. She has to
A@
walk about three blocks to get her mail. She said it is the only road in Northfield Subdivision that is not
paved. After 36 years, she does not think it is unreasonable to free the property owners from the burden of
paving and maintaining that road and to protect the residents and make them safe.
Mr. Dorrier asked the length of the road in question. Ms. Stacey said it is less than three city blocks
in length to her house. When they first moved into their house, the road went from Northfields Road to
Huntington Road. Because they could not afford to maintain the entire road, and because there were no
other houses the grass has grown in the road.
Mr. Bowerman said he will bring this matter up for discussion under Agenda Item No. 14a.
_____________
Mr. Paul Grady, a resident of Crozet, said that at several of the last MPO meetings he has
expressed his frustration at not being able to make a presentation to the Route 250 West Advisory
Committee on his ideas about how Route 250 West could be improved without widening it all to four lanes.
Ms. Hannah Twaddell sent him a letter suggesting that he might be able to make a presentation to this
Board at some future date. He asked if that is a possibility.
Mr. Perkins said the Board is supposed to receive a report from VDOT soon. Mr. Cilimberg said the
report is due by the 15th of January. Mr. Perkins said VDOT had a public hearing last Spring at Murray
Elementary School. That was the time to put in public comments, although it was not a public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said there will probably be a public hearing on the report. Mr. Bowerman said if a
public hearing is held, that would be the appropriate forum for Mr. Grady to make his comments. Mr. Grady
said he would need more than three minutes in which to make his comments. Ms. Humphris suggested
that Mr. Grady send his comments to the Board in writing. Mr. Grady said he has a six-foot map that he is
preparing for that presentation. It would probably take about 15 minutes to do the presentation.
Mr. Martin asked if this was one of the informational type of meetings conducted by VDOT. Ms.
Thomas said yes and people wrote down their comments. The comments were then summarized for the
A@
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Committee by the consultant. Ms. Humphris said it was a very crowded walk-through. Ms. Thomas said it
was good for the people who wanted to gather information. It was not a time for people to have their ideas
presented, and certainly not presented and discussed by the whole committee. She understands Mr.
Gradys frustration.
=
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board wait until it gets the materials and make a decision at that time
as to whether or not there will be a public hearing scheduled, and if there is to be a public hearing, the
Board will decide at that time how to manage that hearing.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like for Mr. Grady to have the time to make his presentation. Mr.
Bowerman asked how the Committee worked in terms of its meetings prior to the formal public meeting.
Ms. Thomas said the Committee members were carefully selected to represent interests and localities all
along the road. They were reminded a number of times that that was the representation and the members
were to act as the conduit for information. So, the Committee did not have a separate public hearing, but it
hoped that through its representatives it could express all of the different interests.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Grady if he had contacted any member of the Committee. Mr. Grady
said he talked to the Chairman and was told that he would be invited to the last meeting of the Committee,
but that did not occur. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board should proceed along the lines he just
mentioned. He said Mr. Grady will be informed of that meeting ahead of its being on the agenda.
______________
Mr. Grady said a little over a year ago he came before this Board and talked about the excess land
owned by the County across from Monticello High School. At that time, Mr. Marshall said the land would be
needed for a police substation, a fire station, and possibly a library. Mr. Grady said he would like to see that
land used as a permanent home for the Albemarle County Fair. He has been told that the University of
Virginia is planning to move its last department out of the Blue Ridge Hospital property this Spring. After
that they are going to declare that property as surplus. He has heard that the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation wants to purchase the building. If they are able to buy the land, he has heard that it is their
intent to move the Visitors Center onto that property from the current facility. If that happens, he suggests
=
the County obtain and use the Visitors Center building for a police substation, fire station or a library. That
=
means the land across from the high school would still be available for a home for the Albemarle County
Fair.
____________
Mr. Martin said he would like to welcome the newest Board member, Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Dorrier said
he is proud to be representing the Scottsville District which is the home of the Town of Scottsville,
Monticello, Piedmont Community College and the Blue Ridge Sanitorium. He looked in John Hammond
Moores book and found an interesting item. The founding fathers, at their first meeting on
Albemarle
=
February 28, 1745, concluded the meeting with an order to the new sheriff to give public notice to all
persons to help undertake the building of a prison, courthouse and stocks in Albemarle County. He found it
interesting that the first county government was considering the building of a courthouse, and the present
board is still considering the building of a courthouse. He said that while time passes, the issues dont
=
change.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.12, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda
as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 12.1. Appropriation: Community Development Block Grant 98-07, $770,989 (Form #99008).
It was noted in the staffs report that the United States Department of Housing and Urban
=
Development, through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, approved a
$770,989 multi-year grant for the Porters Road/Yancey School Neighborhood in Southern Albemarle
County. This grant will pay to: rehabilitate 27 owner-occupied homes; substantially reconstruct one
owner-occupied home; rehabilitate one rental home; purchase a site and develop five new homes for
first-time home buyers; demolish and remove four abandoned and dilapidated structures; begin to develop
a community park; and improve the W. D. Ward Community Center. This grant is part of a $1,762,084
program consisting of CDBG grant, Federal Home Loans, AHIP funding and private mortgage funding.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99008 in the amount of $770,989.
(Ms. Thomas asked who is in charge of administering this grant. Mr. Tucker responded that the
County Housing Office is in charge, but the vast majority of those funds will be coordinated through AHIP for
about 27 owner-occupied rehabilitation units.)
By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99008
FUND: GRANT
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG 98-07)
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
112248103111000 SALARIES$ 24,863.00
112248103121000 FICA 1,902.00
112248103131000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES275.00
112248103131230 ARCHITECT17,000.00
112248103131280 AUDIT3,215.00
112248103151000 UTILITIES3,243.00
112248103153000 INSURANCE5,294.00
112248103154000 RENT5,251.00
112248103155040 TRAVEL-EDUCATION2,390.00
112248103155040 TRAINING1,127.00
112248103156310 AHIP589,989.00
112248103160010 OFFICE SUPPLIES5,572.00
112248103160140 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES2,868.00
112248103180000 CAPITAL OUTLAY60,000.00
112248103180075 LAND ACQUISITION48,000.00
TOTAL$770,989.00
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
212243300033000 CDBG-FEDERAL$770,989.00
TOTAL$770,989.00
____________
Item 12.2. Appropriation: Funding for Republican National Convention Presidential Primary,
$20,085 (Form #99045).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Republican Party of Virginia has announced its decision to
=
select delegates to the Republican National Convention through a presidential primary to be held on
February 29, 2000. Pursuant to the Code of Virginia, the cost associated with the presidential primary must
be paid by the locality. The Registrar has estimated that the cost associated with the primary will be
$20,085. Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriation totaling $20,085 as detailed on
Appropriation Form #99045.
By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99045
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
CONVENTION PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100130212000 OVERTIME WAGES$1,300.00
1100130212910 O/T WAGES CUSTODIAL120.00
1100130221000 FICA110.00
1100130231251 ELECTION OFFICIALS11,500.00
1100130235000 PRINTING & BINDING350.00
1100130236000 ADVERTISING325.00
1100130239000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES4,750.00
1100130252010 POSTAL SERVICES100.00
1100130252030 TELECOMMUNICATIONS1,100.00
1100130254020 LEASE/RENT BUILDINGS150.00
1100130255010 MILEAGE130.00
1100130260010 OFFICE SUPPLIES100.00
1100130260170 COPY SUPPLIES50.00
TOTAL$20,085.00
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100510051010 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$20,085.00
TOTAL$20,085.00
__________
Item 12.3. Appropriation: Education, $12,167.34 (Form #99046).
It was noted in the staffs report that Scottsville Elementary School received a one-time donation in
=
the amount of $10,000 from the Patricia Kluge Foundation to be used to support a temporary increase in
hours for the Title-One Teacher, Ms. Beth Zirkle, to organize the Book Buddies Program at Scottsville, and
provide lesson plans for the volunteers to use.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
The Albemarle County Resource Center received reimbursements in the amount of $1,586.64 for
conferences attended by teachers, training seminars, and snacks, coffee and drinks provided for training
purposes.
Crozet Elementary School received a refund from The Minolta Corporation in the amount of
$580.70. This refund is the result of an overage on their Minolta Copier for the 1998-99 fiscal year. It is
requested that this refund be appropriated for the 1999-00 fiscal year.
Staff recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $12,167.34
as detailed on Appropriation Form #99046.
By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99046
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1220611011210 TEACHER SALARIES$9,235.00
1220611021000 FICA765.00
1211613158050 STAFF DEVELOP1,586.64
1220614154010 LEASE/RENT EQUIP580.70
TOTAL$12,167.34
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200181018110 DONATION$10,000.00
2200190019022 TUITION REIMB-ARC 1,586.64
2200190019991 PRIOR YEAR RECOVERY 580.70
TOTAL$12,167.34
__________
Item 12.4. Appropriation: DMV Traffic Safety Grant PT00-40-56540, $8,000 (Form #99047).
It was noted in the staffs report that traffic activity continues to increase in the County. The Virginia
=
Department of Motor Vehicles recognizes this problem and has funded grants using Federal pass-through
moneys to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing officers
working overtime. The grant period commences October 1, 1999, and extends through September 30,
2000. The total grant is $8,000. The Federal award is $6,000. There is a $2,000 (25 percent) local match
funded from current operations. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99047 in the amount
of $8,000.
By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99047
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
11533101120000 OVERTIME WAGES$7,267.00
11533101210000 FICA733.00
TOTAL$8,000.00
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
21533300330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT$6,000.00
21535100512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER2,000.00
TOTAL$8,000.00
__________
Item 12.5. Appropriation: DMV Traffic Safety Grant AA00-04-56304, $8000 (Form #99048).
It was noted in the staffs report that traffic activity continues to increase in the County. The Virginia
=
Department of Motor Vehicles recognizes this problem and has funded additional enforcement equipment,
such as radar equipment, using Federal pass-through moneys. The grant period commences October 1,
1999, and extends through September 30, 2000. The Federal award is $6,000. There is a 25 percent local
match of $2,000 which will be funded from current operations. Staff recommends approval of
Appropriation Form #99048 in the amount of $8,000.
By the above recorded voted, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99048
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT GRANT
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
11533101380010 EQUIPMENT$8,000.00
TOTAL$8,000.00
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
21533300033001 FEDERAL DMV GRANT$6,000.00
21535100051200 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER2,000.00
TOTAL$8,000.00
__________
Item 12.6. Appropriation: COPS in Schools Grant, $26,305 (Form #99049).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Federal Department of Justice, Office of Community
=
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), is funding the assignment of School Resource Officers through their
"COPS in Schools" Grant Program. The program funds the salary and benefits of new officers for three
years with no required local match, based on the understanding that this new officer will replace a veteran
officer who will be assigned as a School Resource Officer. The Police Department has been awarded
$108,163 to fund one new, additional full-time officer for three years. The grant extends through August 31,
2002. Training for the newly-assigned School Resource Officer and a representative from the partnering
school is an additional requirement that is fully funded directly by the COPS program. The Federal award is
prorated at $26,305 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000. There is no required local match. Related
expenses will be funded from current operations. Staff recommends approval of appropriation Form
#99049 in the amount of $26,305.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99049
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: GRANT FOR COPS IN SCHOOL PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100310111000 SALARIES$20,140.00
1100310121000 FICA1,541.00
1100310123100 HEALTH INS1,936.00
1100310123200 DENTAL INS62.00
1100310122000 RETIREMENT2,252.00
1100310127000 WORKER'S COMP374.00
TOTAL$26,305.00
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100330033041 DOJ-COPS IN SCHOOL PROGRAM$26,305.00
TOTAL$26,305.00
__________
Item 12.7. Adopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds in
an Amount not to Exceed $14,000,000 for The Covenant School, Inc.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Covenant School has requested that the Industrial
=
Development Authority of Albemarle County issue up to $14,000,000 of it revenue bonds to assist the
School in the financing or refinancing of (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a new upper
school for grades 7-12 consisting of approximately 85,000 square feet of classrooms, offices, library,
athletic facility and fields and combined cafeteria/auditorium, together with related utility and infrastructure
improvements, to be built on a new 26-acre campus on Hickory Street near the intersection of Oak Hill
Drive and certain other capital improvements and additions located at the new campus on Hickory Street,
and (2) amounts required for reserves, capitalized interest and costs of issuance in connection with the Plan
of Financing.
By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution approving the application of The Covenant
School for the issuance of Industrial Development Authority bonds in an amount not to exceed $14.0 million
was adopted:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has
considered the application of The Covenant School, Inc. ("School") requesting the issuance of the
Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $14,000,000 ("Bonds") to be issued at one
time or from time to time to assist the School in financing and refinancing of the following
(collectively, "Plan of Financing"): (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a new upper
school for grades 7-12 consisting of approximately 85,000 square feet of classrooms, offices,
library, athletic facility and fields and combined cafeteria/auditorium, together with related utility and
infrastructure improvements, to be built on a new 26-acre campus on Hickory Street near the
intersection of Oak Hill Drive, and certain other capital improvements and additions located at the
new campus on Hickory Street, and (2) amounts required for reserves, capitalized interest and
costs of issuance in connection with the Plan of Financing.
The Authority held a public hearing on December 9, 1999, 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 (the "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"); the
projects included in the Plan of Financing are 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 the School, as required by Section 147(f) of the
Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Plan of Financing or the School.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section
5f.103-2(f)(1), this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its
adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 12.8. Adopt Resolution to accept Savannah Court in Brownsville Heights Subdivision into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
=
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street in Brownsville Heights Subdivision described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 20, 1999, fully incorporated herein by reference, is
shown on plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Brownsville Heights, as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 20, 1999, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
'
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)Savannah Court from the intersection of Route 250 (Station 10+01, edge
of pavement of Route 250) to the cul-de-sac (Station 18+15, end of
cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 6/25/97 in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1627, page 183, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.154 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.154 mile.
__________
Item 12.9. Adopt Resolution to accept roads in Still Meadow, Phase 1, Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following resolution:
=
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Still Meadow, Phase 1, Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 20, 1999, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivi-
sion Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Still
Meadow, Phase 1, Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
December 20, 1999, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229,
'
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Pheasant Way from the intersection of Route 854, Carrsbrook Drive,
(Station 0+0, centerline of Carrsbrook Drive) to the intersection of Still
Meadow Crossing (Station 6+66, at end of intersection radius) as shown
on plat recorded 1/19/99 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1793, pages 359-363, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.126 mile.
2)Still Meadow Crossing from the intersection of Pheasant Way (Station
0+0, centerline of Still Meadow Crossing) to the intersection of River Inn
Lane (Station 14+81, centerline of River Inn Lane) as shown on plat
recorded 1/19/99 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1793, pages 359-363, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.280 mile.
3)Pheasant Crossing from the intersection of Still Meadow Crossing (Station
0+0, centerline of Still Meadow Crossing) to the intersection of River Inn
Lane (Station 5+74, centerline of River Inn Lane) as shown on plat re-
corded 1/19/99 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1793, pages 359-363, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.109 mile.
4)River Inn Lane from the intersection of Still Meadow Crossing (Station 0+0,
centerline of Still Meadow Crossing) to the cul-de-sac (Station 3+52, end
of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 1/19/99 in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1793, pages
359-363, for a length of 0.067 mile.
5)River Inn Lane from the intersection of Still Meadow Crossing (Station 0+0,
centerline of Still Meadow Crossing) to the intersection of Pheasant
Crossing (Station 3+50, just past intersection) as shown on plat recorded
1/19/99 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 1793, pages 359-363, for a length of 0.066 mile.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
6)Still Meadow Cove from the intersection of Still Meadow Crossing (Station
0+0, centerline intersection) to the cul-de-sac (Station 2+85, end of
cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 1/19/99 in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1793, pages 359-363,
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.054 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.702 mile.
__________
Item 12.10. Adopt Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South, Sections 6 and 7, Subdivision
into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
=
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South, Sections 6 and 7, Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 16, 1999, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Forest
Lakes South, Sections 6 and 7, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
December 20, 1999, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code
'
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Teakwood Drive from the intersection of Ashwood Boulevard (Station 0+0, at
edge of pavement of Ashwood Boulevard, to the intersection of Cherrybark
Lane (Station 10+07, at centerline of Cherrybark Lane) as shown on plat
recorded 5/30/97 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1616, pages 165-174, with a 40-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.19 mile.
2)Cherrybark Lane from the cul-de-sac at the end of (Station 0+0 center of
cul-de-sac) and (Station 0-30 end of cul-de-sac) to the cul-de-sac at end of
(Station 3+70 center of cul-de-sac) and (Station 4+00 end of cul-de-sac) as
shown on plat recorded 5/30/97 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1616, pages 165-174, with a 40-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile.
3)Birchcrest Lane from the intersection of Teakwood Drive (Station 0+0 center
of Teakwood Drive) to the cul-de-sac at end of (Station 7+44 center of
cul-de-sac) and (Station 7+84 end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded
9/16/97 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1642, pages 385-388, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.15 mile.
4)Cricklewood Court from the intersection of Birchcrest Lane (Station 0+0
center of Birchcrest Lane) to the cul-de-sac at end of (Station 2+67 center of
cul-de-sac) and (Station 2+97 end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded
9/16/97 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1642, pages 385-388, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.06 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.48 mile.
__________
Item 12.11. Adopt Resolution Supporting Passenger Rail Service to Nelson County.
It was noted in the staff’s report that Nelson County has requested that the Albemarle Board
support its request to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) that the Oak
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ridge Estate Train Station be designated as one of the stops along the proposed Washington, D.C., to
Bristol, Virginia, passenger rail service (Trans-Dominion Express).
The Albemarle Board previously adopted a resolution supporting this rail service with the
planned inclusion of a stop in Charlottesville. The Board also listed this as a priority project during the
Spring VDOT Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper. Staff has discussed Nelson County's request with
VDRPT to see if support by Albemarle County would present any conflicts. VDRPT indicated it would
not and forwarded to the County copies of letters to Senator Emily Couric and Nelson County indicating
their intention to analyze a potential stop at Oak Ridge should the service be funded. Staff
recommends that the Board endorse the resolution.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution concerning passenger
rail service to historic Oak Ridge Estate in Nelson County, Virginia:
R E S O L U T I O N
PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE TO HISTORIC OAK RIDGE ESTATE
IN NELSON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the feasibility of expanded passenger rail service from the Washington,
D.C. and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia, has been studied and documented
by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT); and,
WHEREAS, local and statewide support is being established for this proposed
service, the Trans-Dominion Express; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County supports this service and the opportunity it presents
to provide economic, tourism and transportation benefits to the communities that would be
served; and,
WHEREAS, the VDRPT study did not identify or recommend the location of a
passenger station in Nelson County to be served by the Trans-Dominion Express; and,
WHEREAS, on October 12, 1999 the Nelson County Board of Supervisors adopted
a resolution in support of the proposed expanded passenger rail service project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports consideration of the historic Oak Ridge Train Station as a
destination stop of the Trans-Dominion Express; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby encourages and requests that, in the implementation of the Trans-Dominion
Express service by the Commonwealth of Virginia, an analysis of a potential stop at Oak
Ridge Train Station be incorporated.
__________
Item 12.12. Authorize County Executive to Execute Service Agreement with Stony Point Volunteer
Fire Company, Inc.
It was noted that several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the
ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This Fund, currently funded at $2.0 million, provides
the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed firefighting and rescue squad equipment and
buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests
for disbursements from the Fund are monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue
Association (JCFRA). The current amount available in the revolving fund is $304,094.32. Stony Point
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $30,000 to be used for the
purchase of a brush truck and has executed the standard service agreement approved by the County
Attorneys office. This advance can be disbursed upon approval of this agreement by the Board.
=
Repayment of the allocation will be over an eight-year period beginning in Fiscal Year 2000-01. JCFRA has
approved of this request. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the
agreement on the Countys behalf.
=
By the above recorded vote, the County Executive was authorized to execute the following
agreement with the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company on behalf of the County:
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ____ day of ________, 1999, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the County), and the
A@
STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the Fire
A
Company).
@
WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire protection
services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response
Area Maps located at the Emergency Operations Center (Service Area); and
A@
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
WHEREAS, the Fire Company desires the County to contribute Thirty Thousand
Dollars ($30,000) for the purchase of fire apparatus necessary for providing fire services.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the
County and Fire Company agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Company Thirty Thousand Dollars
($30,000) to be used for the purchase of a brush truck. The funds shall be allocated from
the Countys Fire Fund (Fund) and shall be made available upon execution of this
=A@
agreement.
2. The Fire Company agrees that the County will withhold Three Thousand Seven
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($3,750.00) from the Countys annual appropriation to the Fire
=
Companys operating budget beginning July 1, 2000, and ending after a final withholding in
=
July, 2007. Thus at the end of eight (8) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of
$30,000 shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by the County to replenish the
Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding is in
addition to the withholding for all prior advances under prior service agreements with the
Fire Company dated October 10, 1986, May 1, 1989, May 10, 1994, and July 2, 1997. The
Fire Company agrees that any amount of this repayment which may exceed the Countys
=
annual appropriation will be remitted to the County no later than July 31 of each repayment
year.
3. The Fire Company agrees that the Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) contribu-
tion shall be used only for the purchase of the brush truck to be used to provide fire services
in Albemarle County. The Fire Company further agrees that it shall not convey the brush
truck or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the Countys prior
=
written consent during the useful life of the brush truck or the term of this Service
Agreement, whichever is longer. For purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the
brush truck shall be fifteen years from the date the brush truck is placed into service. In
addition, the Fire Company agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim
related to any damage to the brush truck shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and
improvement of the brush truck unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different
use for such proceeds.
4. The Fire Company agrees that at such times as it no longer provides voluntary
fire protection services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the
County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in paragraph 1 to the
County at no additional cost to the County upon the Countys request.
=
5. The County and Fire Company agree that the covenants set forth in their prior
agreements dated October 10, 1986, May 1, 1989, May 10, 1994, and July 2, 1997, to the
extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.
6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations
by the County to the Fire Company, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to
support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Company.
____________
Item 12.13. Copy of resolution adopted on October 21, 1999, by the Rosemont
Homeowner's Association regarding the Ivy Landfill was received for information. The Homeowners
do not perceive any of the recent events regarding the Landfill as at all satisfactory. They feel the
Landfill should have been closed long ago.
__________
Item 12.14. Copies of Resolutions of Intent adopted by the Planning Commission on November 23,
1999, requesting amendments to Section 4.12, Off-Street Parking & Loading Requirements, Section 4.0,
Basic Regulations, and Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance were received for
information. The Planning Commission wishes modification of the minimum number of parking spaces
allowed under Section 4.12 and wishes to establish uniform procedures for appeal to the Board of
Supervisors of Planning Commission waivers, modifications or variances under Section 4.0 and 5.0.
__________
Item 12.15. Letter dated December 21, 1999, from Mr. Robert H. Connock, Jr., District Construction
Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice that public workshops will be held concerning the
Route 29 Corridor Development Study (Proj: 6029-963-F01,PE100) from I-64 to the North Carolina state line
was received for information. The workshop in Albemarle County will be held on Tuesday, January 11,
2000, between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Red Hill Elementary School.
(Ms. Humphris said she wants to be sure everyone is aware of, and attends, this walk-through
meeting on the Route 29 Corridor Study since what happens to Route 29 from Charlottesville to Danville is
extremely important to this area. She said the Phase I study of Route 29 between Charlottesville and
Warrenton made it obvious to her that VDOT had predetermined that the road would become an interstate-
like, limited-access facility. However, the Committees recommendation was in opposition to limited-access,
=
so the Commonwealth Transportation Board never acted on that recommendation. If VDOT does get Route
29 changed to a limited-access facility from Danville, Virginia, to Washington, D.C., the proposed Route 29
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Western Bypass, which is to go through neighborhoods in Albemarle County and threaten the water supply
reservoir and County schools, etc., would carry about 43,000 vehicles a day. The road would have a level of
service of E or F in the year 2022. A huge number of those vehicles would be trucks diverted from I-81
A@A@
and I-95. This community never considered that such a thing could happen to it.
Ms. Humphris read from a letter written by Secretary of Transportation, Ms. Ybarra, to a member of
the Planning District Commission in Martinsville, Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Martinez, is supportive of
A
the concept of providing an interstate-type facility along the Route 29 corridor and concurs that the potential
for economic development in the Danville area will be greatly enhanced. This office has been working with
the North Carolina Department of Transportation regarding the redesignation of Route 29 from Greensboro
to Danville, Virginia, as Interstate 785. Ms. Humphris said signs to this effect have already been erected in
@
that area. She said that when VDOT first started working on the Phase I study, the purpose of the study was
to provide a continuous controlled limited-access highway. When the proposal in the Phase I study failed,
A@
Commissioner Gehr wrote In light of the problems with Phase I, the scope of work needs wordsmithing.
A>=@
With that, the purpose of the study was changed to upgrade the corridor to the appropriate standard of
highway on the National Highway System omitting the use of the term limited-access. Ms. Humphris said
A@
everyone needs to be aware of what is happening to this community in these studies. She asked that the
Board members turn out at the meeting even if they only get to walk-through and make comments. She
thanked the Board members for hearing her.
Ms. Thomas also urged everyone to attend this meeting. She said that she and Mr. Cilimberg have
been attending the Policy Committee meetings, and occasionally speaking up as to the difference between
this Boards view of industrial developments dependence on that interstate highway and Lynchburgs view.
===
She said there may be a different type of highway from Lynchburg south compared to the type of road
proposed from Lynchburg north. She advised everyone not to be lulled by the word parkway. It is not
A@
what this Board has in mind for the Meadow Creek Parkway.)
____________
Item 12.16. Letter dated December 29, 1999, from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer,
Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, concerning transportation matters discussed at
the October 6, November 3 and December 1, 1999, Board meetings, was received for information as
follows:
We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the
A
October 6, November 3 and December 1, 1999, Board meetings.
STOP bars at the Belair intersection have been adjusted to allow for better visibility
$
westbound.
The County proposed a process for obtaining public feedback regarding gravel road
$
projects due to concerns voiced about the upcoming Wyant Lane project. We suggest in
lieu of surveying property owners regarding their preference for continuing gravel road
>=
projects, that the County notify (by mailings) those affected property owners that the
Secondary Six Year Plan public hearing has been scheduled. This public notice is intended
to solicit comments and concerns about upcoming road projects. Notification by the County
should occur at least two years in advance of actual construction.
The Department has met with County Staff to discuss options for the Route 240/250
$
connector. A primary or secondary six year plan project is an option so long as any road
project does not serve a development interest (developer of adjacent land will be
responsible for any necessary transportation infrastructure). Other options are either a
capital improvement project or a developer-built roadway.
We have upgraded signs on the westbound approach at the Route 29/250 ramps at
$
Barracks Road.
A meeting has been scheduled for the Georgetown Task Force for Wednesday, January
$
19, at 3:30 p.m. in the VDOT conference room. At this meeting, we will discuss the status of
the pending Georgetown Road improvement project.
A speed study will be conducted on Browns Gap Turnpike (Route 680) from Route 240 to
$=
Route 810. We will share the results of this study once it has been completed.
The Department was asked to move Route 606 up on the priority list, however, this and
$
many other gravel road projects do not have the appropriate right of way available. Citizens
who are interested in having gravel roads improved and who feel that a majority of their
neighbors also favor such improvements, might consider obtaining dedicated rights of way
themselves. Without interested citizens assistance in obtaining right of way, it is difficult to
=
add these projects to either the Secondary Six Year Plan or priority list. We have
successfully obtained a lot of dedicated right of way through interested citizens in Greene
County and are happy to discuss the procedure with those in Albemarle County that indicate
an interest.
The following is a brief summary of the Traffic Calming Pilot Program actions to date:
$
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Travel Lane Narrowing
Route 652 (Old Brook Dr) Travel lane narrowed to six-foot wide pavement markings
Route 656 (Georgetown Rd) Travel lane narrowed to six-foot wide pavement markings
Route 854 (Carrsbrook Rd) Travel lane narrowed to six-foot wide pavement markings
Route 1427 (Westmoreland Rd) Travel lane narrowed to six-foot wide pavement markings
Route 1428 (Huntington Rd) Travel lane narrowed to six-foot wide pavement markings
Route 1520 (Hollymead Dr) Travel lane narrowed to six-foot wide pavement markings
Route 1521 (Powell Creek Dr) Travel lane narrowed to nine-foot lanes w/4" pavement markings
Roundabouts
Route 1521 at Route 1520 is proposed for implementation pending funding allocation
Route 1090 at cul-de-sac is proposed for modified roundabout pending community concurrence
Route 1520 at Springridge Subd is proposed for implementation pending developer submittal
Route 1670 at Stratford Glen/Chimney Rd, existing & operating, approved developer installation
Route N/A at Route N/A, proposed in later phase development, approved developer installation
(Peter Jefferson Place)
Through Truck Restriction
Route 631, currently in place, established prior to pilot
Route 692, currently under consideration
Considered
Route 1177 (Dunlora Dr) all-way stop-control request, finite subdivision, not a cut-through situation
Route 692 (Batesville area) failed to meet criteria
Please share this information with the Board members. I will be prepared to discuss these and other
transportation issues at the January 5, 2000, Board meeting.”
__________
Item 12.17. Copy of a resolution entitled "A Resolution to Seek an End to the Reversion Proceed-
ing" as adopted by Charlottesville City Council on December 20, 1999, was received as information.
A RESOLUTION
TO SEEK AN END TO THE REVERSION PROCEEDING
WHEREAS, more than 3 years ago, in November of 1996, citizens of the City filed a petition
in the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville stating that it was desirable that the City make a
transition to town status; and
WHEREAS, both the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle were made party
defendants to that law suit; and
WHEREAS, the petition began a process established by the Virginia General Assembly
which, if carried to its end, can conclude with a transition or "reversion" to town status by the City;
and
WHEREAS, the filing of this petition was preceded by 12 months or more of debate, study,
and thoughtful discussions by and among community leaders, civic organizations such as the
League of Women Voters, this Council, and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, by a
number of public meetings and forums on the benefits and disadvantages that Reversion might
bring to our community, and by lengthy negotiations between the Council and the Board of
Supervisors in an effort to reach a Voluntary Settlement in lieu of Reversion; and
WHEREAS, such discussions, meetings, negotiations, and debate continued off and on for
18 months or more after the Reversion petition was filed; and
WHEREAS, between July of 1997 and June of 1999 the legal process has seen the
Reversion case dismissed by the three judge trial court, appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court by
both the City and the citizen petitioners, and then reinstated and remanded (or sent back) to the trial
court; and
WHEREAS, the case as remanded is about to begin anew the validation proceeding with
respect to signatures on the Petition; and
WHEREAS, during the 5 years or more that have elapsed since Reversion first became a
serious point of discussion for Charlottesville and Albemarle, City Council has not taken a formal
position favoring or opposing Reversion; and
WHEREAS, during this same 5 year period, the overall health of the City has come under
close scrutiny by Council and the City Manager and together they have implemented certain
changes designed to improve the long term vitality of the City, including (a) adoption of a new
housing strategy, (b) renewed focus on economic development, and particularly redevelopment,
and (c) refinement of cost controls in order to retain the City's strong financial position and its highest
possible (AAA) Municipal Bond Rating; and
WHEREAS, favorable federal, state, and local economies have contributed to the City's
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
success in improving its financial position, as was exhibited by the City's successive budget
surpluses over the last 4 years; and
WHEREAS, consideration of Reversion during these 5 years has had its beneficial effects,
the disadvantages have been twofold: (1) the significant intangible, but very real, adverse influence
the process has imposed on City-County relations, and (2) actual costs to the community (almost
$300,000 for the City alone); and
WHEREAS, this Council concludes that at this time under the current circumstances
Reversion to town status is not the right solution to the challenges facing our City and this
community; and
WHEREAS, in light of our judgment that we must do everything that we can to foster a
sense of community, trust, and enhanced dialogue between the City and County, we think that both
Charlottesville and Albemarle will be better served if the current litigation were ended now; and
WHEREAS, putting the Reversion litigation behind us will promote the type of joint effort
between our two local governments that our community expects - indeed, must have - if the mutual
and regional challenges we face are going to be solved; and
WHEREAS, the list of current and potential joint efforts that we will seek and that should
benefit from any improved City-County relations is lengthy and includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
·
A long term cooperative Fire services Agreement,
·
Formation of a joint working group or commission on school excellence through combined
efforts,
·
An improved cooperative, joint planning process, particularly for the urban area, in order to
preserve the environment and open space while enhancing job and housing opportunities
for our citizens,
·
An integrated, effective regional transportation plan,
·
Revisiting the funding formula for joint city-county services, and
·
An area wide plan to meet the future public water supply needs of our community; and
WHEREAS, we are informed by the citizens who filed the petition for reversion that it is their
intention to respect the wishes of the Council pertaining to the prosecution of the Reversion litigation,
and it is the Council's desire to affirm the right of citizens who undertake voter initiatives to participate
in the prosecution and termination of such proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia, that:
(A)The City Council expresses the view that reversion is not presently in the best
interests of the City or the region, and that cooperation and negotiation are more
likely to bring the positive outcomes that the community seeks;
(B)The City Council expresses its thanks to all groups and individuals who have been
involved in the exploration of reversion and its alternatives, including, but not limited
to:
(1)The citizens who exercised their legitimate rights under the law to bring a
petition;
(2)The League of Women Voters, which sponsored forums and conducted
outreach;
(3)The 5Cs Committee, which was instrumental in resolving an impasse in the
Fire Services Contract discussions; and
(4)The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, which worked with Council in
an effort to reach agreements on a number of issues, and continues to
evidence interest in further cooperation with the City; and
(C)The City Council requests that discussions with Albemarle County on the above
joint efforts begin as soon as possible.
________________
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: September 1, October 13 and October 20, 1999.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of October 20, 1999, and gave the Clerk a list of typographical
corrections.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of October 13, 1999, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve the minutes read.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14a. Transportation Matters: FY 2000-2006 Six-Year Secondary Road Plan,
Work Session on.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has been provided with a list of priorities for the Six-Year Secondary
program, an update on project costs, and information on possible additional efforts that could be made in
the unpaved road policy. The Planning Commission forwarded staffs report and recommendations to the
=
Board along with their recommendations. Staff recommends that a public hearing be held concerning the
proposed priority list, on February 16, 2000.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been a substantial increase in the cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway
Phase I. As a result of that, and because of work staff has not had time to accomplish, it does not know how
to deal with Old Ivy Road as an improvement project. This project has been under discussion for over ten
years.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has outlined some additional steps in the Unpaved Road Policy. Ms. Angela
Tucker sent in a suggestion concerning early notification of those along roads what would be subject to
paving under the priority list, and how these people might be made aware of upcoming public hearings. He
offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates staff work on the Unpaved Road Policy. She believes having
people come to a public hearing will land the whole Board in a situation such as that in her district where
there appears to be a 50/50 split in the neighborhood as to whether they want the road paved. She agrees
with staffs proposal to have a meeting with the property owners and get a clear understanding of the scope
=
of the project. She believes that after that meeting, the Board member representing that district would have
ascertained the feeling of the community.
Mr. Martin said when the Board last discussed this issue, he believes all Board members agreed that
at least 75 percent of the people would need to be in opposition to the project.
Ms. Humphris noted the staffs suggestions: 1. When VDOT works with the landowner on donation
=A
of the necessary rights-of-way, VDOT will stake the property and show the owner a basic cross-section; and,
2. County Planning staff, with assistance from VDOT staff, will hold an informational meeting within a year of
the estimated construction advertisement date. The purpose of the meeting will be for the landowners to
understand the basic scope of the project. The proposed improvement will be re-staked and a rendering will
be shown. The necessary Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors representative will be invited to
attend. She feels these suggestions are fine, but when she got to the last line which said It can then be
@A
determined in the next Six-Year Plan revision if the project will remain in the Plan there was no criteria given
@
on which to make that decision. Also, what is VDOTs part in this? If VDOT has collected the easements
=
over the years and the Board then makes a change, what happens to those easements?
Mr. Martin said he thinks any policy should be very specific, just like the Road Name Change Policy.
That policy does not create problems because the road either meets the criteria, or it does not. He thinks
that if 75 percent of the people wanted to change a past decision, that would be fine. If it was only 74
percent, it would not be good enough. Ms. Humphris wondered if that would present legal problems in terms
of the easements already in place.
Mr. Dorrier said considering the limited availability of money, he thinks the amount of rights-of-way
available could be considered. Ms. Thomas said a road cannot even get on this list unless all of the right-of-
way has been dedicated. She said she had listed a 12-point process to follow, but VDOT did not like that
process because of its impact on their process for obtaining rights-of-way which consumes a lot of their time.
In fact, that was stated in a letter the Board received from Ms. Tucker last month. Ms. Thomas said some
roads are more important to the County as a whole than other roads. She has been dealing with a road that
has no overriding County interest. The Board will have to deal with some roads in a different manner
because of this County’s interest in having the road paved. Ms. Thomas said she is not particularly opposed
to requiring 75 percent, but she thinks the Board needs to realize that there are going to be different
situations.
Mr. Martin said VDOT goes through their effort to get the right-of-way donated. The Board votes to
put the project into the Six-Year Plan. The project works its way forward, slowly, over the years. Sometimes
it takes 20 years to get to the top of that list. Finally, when it gets close to the time of construction and people
say they no longer want the road paved, he does not want the Board to be making subjective decisions. If
the Board is going to be involved at all, he wants it to be a completely objective decision. Mr. Dorrier said
with the limited amount of road funds, he thinks the citizens who want a road paved should come first. Mr.
Martin said there are people who have lived on the road for 20 years who still want the project. Then there
are people who have moved into the area during that time who do not want the project.
Mr. Dorrier said real estate values will go up if the road is paved. Mr. Bowerman said this is a unique
situation. Twenty years ago everybody agreed about having the road paved. There has been a change in
the population mix during the last 20 years. The population mix now has a difference of opinion about what
they want to do, so the Board is faced with a policy decision. If something was done in the past with a 100
percent agreement, and if these rights-of-way exist, what number should be needed to change the will of
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
those who gave the easements to begin with. Does the Board go forward with the initial Plan which moved
the project up on the priority list? That is the issue, and the one Ms. Thomas has alluded to and it is very
complicated.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that the Supervisor representing that district have the decision-making power.
Ms. Thomas said in some ways that is the system. She said Catterton Lane is another road where a similar
change of heart took place. She does not want to set a precedent on this dead-end road, a precedent the
rest of the Board members would wish she had not set. She is involving the Board in her agony now
because she assumes the other Board members would not want other Board members to move ahead with
a policy and a process that they could not live with.
Mr. Tucker said staff had hoped the Board would debate this issue. He believes staff can now
develop a policy with a lot of caveats so the Board can determine whether or not to invoke the criteria of 75
percent. There may be situations where the Board does not want to do that. There may be sections of
roads that need to be paved for the Countys good as a whole. Unless there are other things the Board
=
would like to add, he believes staff has enough information to develop some criteria with caveats. Ms.
Humphris said safety issues should be a criteria.
Mr. Martin asked Ms. Tucker if the Board decided not to go forward with a project, what would
happen to the right-of-way. Ms. Tucker said part of the problem has arisen because part of the right-of-way
was obtained a long time ago. There have been a lot of changes in property owners over the years.
Currently, on the Six-Year Plan, there are six years worth of gravel road improvements. Unfortunately, there
are several at the end of the Six-year Plan which do not have the necessary right-of-way. She is not sure the
problem is as large as some think it is. She thinks it is very specific. The situation with Catterton Lane is not
yet finalized. But, VDOT still has to pursue the full dedication of right-of-way on some of the gravel roads on
the Six-Year Plan. As VDOT does that, if the current property owners are not willing to dedicate, the project
goes no further. There are eight to ten projects with fully dedicated right-of-way at this time. These projects
will be built between now and the year 2004.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board just leave things as they are, but recommend to Ms. Thomas
who is dealing with one particular issue, that she put emphasis on all the things which have been said today,
including having a good majority of people in opposition to the project.
Mr. Bowerman said he might find another wrinkle with this when the Board gets to the Secondary
Road List which is not dissimilar to this, but it is a different pot of money. He can agree with Mr. Martin at this
time.
Ms. Thomas said what she finds interesting is that there are no roads scheduled beyond this six-year
period. One reason the roads which have been discussed are problems is that the rights-of-way have been
in place for over 15 years in the Wyant Road case and probably that long in the Catterton Road case. Ms.
Tucker said that is six years away from construction. That does not mean that some of the dedicated rights-
of-way were not obtained several years ago. If the Board considers a process, it seems to her that the time
to meet with communities would be before trying to secure rights-of-way, thus keeping the right-of-way
projects to a six-year program. Also, when right-of-way is given it should be specified that it is for future
improvements to the road. Then, when property changes hands, the buyer can beware without a lot of
understanding of the Six-Year Plan public hearings and County processes. They would know from looking
at the deed and plat at the time of purchase of the property that the road project is contemplated.
Mr. Perkins said another concern that has not been mentioned is the environmental issue. There is
substantially more erosion and sediment moving off of graveled roads, so where those roads cross creeks
and branches that lead into a watershed, that situation can be improved by paving those roads.
Mr. Martin said the Board has a choice. It can suggest to Mr. Cilimberg that he take the comments
made today and bring back a policy, or the Board can simply do nothing and see whether or not this
develops into something that is enough of a problem to even have a policy.
Ms. Humphris said she knows of only two situations that the Board will be faced with, Wyant Lane
and Catterton Road. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board will refer to Attachment D in the materials furnished
today, on the third page at Project 29, it shows six projects where the right-of-way is available now, and then
two projects where full right-of-way is not yet available. The remaining projects listed have no right-of-way
available at this time. Ms. Thomas said she would like to point out that Grassmere Road does have full right-
of-way available. Every year she points this out, and yet every year the list is reprinted saying it is not
available. Mr. Cilimberg said staff cannot predict if any one of the seven projects which have right-of-way
available might turn out to be like the case Ms. Thomas is dealing with.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like for the Board to retain some flexibility on this issue because there may
be different reasons for people changing their minds.
Mr. Martin asked for a motion at this time.
Ms. Thomas said she believes the Board has a suggestion that staff work out some criteria, and a
suggestion that staff hold a meeting in the neighborhood. Such a meeting could be held soon regarding
Wyant Lane because VDOT has its system on hold. It is not willing to do that much longer.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with the Chairman that the Board should just continue with the current
policy and as things develop, get feedback from individual situations, and deal with those issues on a case-
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
by-case basis. The flexibility is in there, the public interest is in there, the public discussion is in there, and yet
it does not lock the Board into anything.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman agrees with the staffs two proposed steps. Mr. Martin said
=
what Mr. Bowerman said is to just leave the policy alone. It does not look like it is a problem, so dont make
=
it a problem that requires a policy. If it then becomes a problem, a policy can be developed. Mr. Tucker said
that does not prohibit the meeting with the community. Ms. Thomas said she will take staff and VDOT up on
their offer of holding a meeting, and it will be done soon.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to leave the Unpaved Road
Policy as it is currently written. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
__________
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Cilimberg had mentioned having to move the Route 601 project down on the
list and put four other priorities in its place because staff and VDOT are uncertain how to proceed due to the
railroad underpass. She said the railroad underpass will always be there. Does this mean that this road can
never be built or widened? Mr. Cilimberg said every time staff looks at that situation it comes up with the
same result, no alternative can be identified. Staff has discussed having the road relocated to intersect with
Route 250 West in a location that does not involve going under the railroad. It has talked about continuing
the road parallel to the railroad and connecting into Alderman Road on the north side of the railroad, which is
on University property. They have discussed taking the road out and bringing it in between the bridge
abutments at an angle that would allow room to get the necessary lanes. Everyone of those suggestions
seem to be impossible. The University is not interested in having the road come into its property based on
the study done under the Area B Study. A good location for relocation of the road cannot be identified.
Swinging the road out involves some property effects because of the grading needed.
Ms. Humphris said that brings to her mind two questions. Is that road actually going to built or
should the Board do something that lets everyone know it cannot be built? What affect would that have on
the Countys Comprehensive planning for the area served by that road? Ms. Tucker said finding a solution to
=
improving that road hinges on cost. The rail line has to be kept in service at all times. VDOT has talked to
the railroad people and the line has a volume and service such that it cannot be adjusted. To detour a rail
during reconstruction is difficult. Both locations are challenging. At this time, as far as the road and the
grade of the railroad, there is not a lot of room to lower roads or raise the railroad or anywhere in between at
either end of Route 601. No one wants an at-grade railroad crossing back to Route 250. The question is
cost. If the railroad is detoured, it will be very expensive. A temporary structure for the railroad can be built.
Maintaining traffic is not a problem because Route 601 connects to Route 250 in two locations. It is keeping
the rail traffic moving during construction that is the problem.
Mr. Perkins asked if VDOT has the right of eminent domain over other State lands. Ms. Tucker said
they do under certain guidelines. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that during this next year, and before the priority
list is presented to the Board again, staff make a decision as to whether or not this project should stay in the
Six-Year Plan based on all alternatives they can identify. Ms. Tucker said she does not think a years time
=
will be any problem since this is the end of the current Six-Year Plan. Mr. Benish said that in terms of the
Comprehensive Plan, that area is subject to redevelopment. There is one tract of land that is subject to a
proffer that limits its development until Route 601 is upgraded. So, the future of that one piece of land
hinges on this decision as to its overall density. He said the road needs upgrading even if it is not a widening
project due to its condition and drainage and the existing density in the area with the apartment complexes.
Mr. Cilimberg said the land use aspects must be addressed also. One other wildcard is the Route 29
A@
Bypass project. It will have an impact on some of the undeveloped land in the area, and there is also
proposed a ramp system that will give a new local access with the North Grounds Connector without actually
getting onto the Bypass.
Ms. Thomas urged staff to look at alternatives in terms of buses, pedestrianways, bicycles, etc. She
said there is a mix of population ages living in the area. A lot of them are young University-bound people. If
there are other ways to get where they are going other than by motor vehicle, they will use it. She suggested
staff make it a multi-modal approach.
__________
Mr. Martin asked if there were other questions. Ms. Thomas said she has several. Regarding the
West Leigh Drive project, she was surprised to see it so high up on the list, although its construction date is
not until 2002. She asked where the $500,000 comes from. Ms. Tucker said the Rural Addition money
comes out of the funding for the entire Six-Year Plan. The Rural Addition money cannot exceed five percent
of the annual budget. Ms. Thomas said it was important to get the project on the list, or otherwise, the
railroad was going to close the crossing into West Leigh, but it is not important to get anything done to the
road immediately. She does want it to move any other project off of the list. Old Lynchburg Road is in the
same position. Most of that road is not in a designated growth area, but mainly serves the rural area.
Ms. Thomas said she is also curious as to why Dick Woods Road has been delayed. It is No. 29 on
the list and the new estimate is for April, 2001 when it was to happen in December, 1999. Ms. Tucker said
VDOT has just completed the additional right-of-way to make that connection to Route 645 (Miller School
Road). VDOT is going to advertise that project this coming Summer.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Thomas said staff suggested putting Dry Bridge Road (Route 708) in as No. 32 or No. 33. She
did not know if it would go on the list ahead of Grassmere Road or behind that project. The problem is that
school buses cannot legally use that road. Mr. Benish said it should be listed below that project.
__________
Ms. Humphris referred to the increased cost (about $6.5 million) of the Meadow Creek Parkway,
Phase I, project. She said the construction cost of Georgetown Road increased (about $1.1 million) also.
She wants to know, in general, why those construction costs have increased so much. Ms. Tucker said she
is familiar with the details on Georgetown Road. When that project was initially scoped, a cost estimate was
pulled out of the air. What has happened with the Meadow Creek project, is that the design construction
A@
costs have increased, although that does not account for the total increase. Mr. Bowerman said he believes
part of the increase is due to the fact that the project has been on the list for a very long time. Ms. Tucker
said the new figure is supposed to be an accurate figure, and it was mentioned at the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris said she has heard that the cost of a road in the planning stages increases about 2.7
percent a year. She thinks it is interesting to note that VDOT has not updated the cost of the proposed
Western Route 29 Bypass since 1997, which means that when the next Primary Road Plan is received, the
Board should see a much larger number than has been put forth to the public so far.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg said in answer to Ms. Thomas question about the Dry Bridge Road bridge overpass, it
=
is listed as No. 32 on Attachment D on the Countys list. It is not listed on VDOTs funding priorities because
==
it is below the last project that could be funded that was not an unpaved road project. VDOT could only fund
through Project No. 29 on the list.
Ms. Thomas said in relation to the Dry Bridge Road bridge, is it the Countys intent that VDOT do to
=
that bridge what was done to the bridge on Route 633 at Covesville some years ago? In that case, the
railroad was responsible for the bridge, but did not use the bridge, instead going another way. VDOT agreed
to improve the bridge with a share of Six-Year Plan money and railroad money, and then VDOT maintains
the bridge forever after. She asked if that is the intent on the Route 708 bridge, because it is the railroads
=
responsibility to maintain that bridge. Mr. Benish said there is to be a meeting in mid-January with people
representing the railroad to decide what the best approach is for upgrading that bridge. Because the project
is not prioritized on the list, it gives staff a year to decide about funding.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Southern Parkway which is listed as No. 24 in the Countys ranking, but
=
is not on the VDOT list. During the election campaign, when he met with residents from the Mill Creek/Lake
Reynovia area, they expressed concern as to whether or not it would be built, and if it would be limited-
access, etc. Since he is new on the Board, he is not sure where that project fits into the overall process.
Mr. Bowerman said it is a very expensive road, but one he feels is critical to public safety and access
needs. Fifth Street should be connected with Avon Street for vehicular traffic, as well as for emergency, fire,
police, etc. He does not know about the design, but knows that it does cross a deep ravine which would
require construction of a major bridge. Mr. Cilimberg said the road is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as
one of several projects that are not eligible for State Secondary Road funding. To be built, it will have to be
done through the Countys Capital Improvement Program, or through developer construction. Some of the
=
road has already been built by developers. No plans have been developed for the road beyond where it
ends today. It will involve a significant crossing of Biscuit Run.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be accurate to say that the road will be somewhat of a bypass from
Avon Street to Fifth Street, a limited-access road. That is what the residents are concerned about. They do
not want their neighborhood to become a through-way for traffic coming from the south over to the
University. Mr. Cilimberg said it would continue to Fifth Street with the same kind of access that it has now in
the section that goes from Avon Street to the west side of Mill Creek. Realistically, because of the long
crossing of Biscuit Run, there will be little access to that road until one gets close to Fifth Street. Mr. Benish
said the concept is for more of a neighborhood-type of collector road that can accommodate some through
movement. It is not designed to be a high speed roadway. It is possible that within that design there can be
traffic management techniques used at the appropriate intersections to keep the impact of the road more in
keeping with the neighborhood setting. Mr. Bowerman said it has critical public safety response times.
__________
Mr. Martin asked if there were further questions. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board agrees to the
February 16 date for a public hearing. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to set the public hearing on the Six-Year Road Plan for February 16, 2000. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________
Agenda Item No. 14b. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Tucker referred to her letter of December 29, 1999 (set out as Item 12.16 on the Consent
Agenda), which provided a follow-up on items discussed at several previous Board meetings. She said a
meeting has been scheduled with the Georgetown Road Task Force on January 19 at 3:30 p.m. in the
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
VDOT offices. Also VDOT will conduct a speed study on Route 680 between Route 240 and Route 810 at
Mr. Perkins request.
=
Ms. Tucker said she furnished the Board some information about traffic calming measures. Mr.
Bowerman said he did not think all of the projects listed have been done. He said Old Brook Road and part
of Westmoreland Road have not been completed. Mr. Cilimberg said that Hollymead Drive and Powell
Creek Drive have not been done.
Mr. Bowerman said he appreciates VDOTs consideration of the temporary accommodation for Still
=
Meadows and the residents of Carrsbrook. He said they can live with the situation as it currently exists, but
ultimately it has to be somewhat different.
Ms. Tucker mentioned the public hearing concerning the Fontaine Avenue and Jefferson Park
Avenue improvements project in the City of Charlottesville (Project 7029-104-V03,PE101,RW201,C501,
B607; Federal Project STP-5104,STP-037-2[128] from 0.07 miles west of WCL City of Charlottesville to
Jefferson Park Avenue; Project U000-104-V09,PE101,RW201,C501; Federal Project STP-
5104(124),BR/STP-5104, bridge and approaches over Norfolk Southern Railroad) will be held on Thursday,
January 27, 2000, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Johnson Elementary School.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said some of his constituents have been present since nine oclock this morning and
=
he would like to bring up a subject which the Board has heard before because it did appropriate some
money at his request. It concerns a County-funded project, and not a Secondary Road Project. The history
of the road (Wakefield Road) spoken to by Ms. Stacey under Other Matters goes back to a time before
A@
Albemarle County had a Zoning Ordinance, back to 1960 when Northfield Subdivision was platted. The City
Planning Commission also approved, at that time, subdivisions in the County. Wakefield Road was a series
of different designs which ultimately ended up with what is there currently. There is a Wakefield Road from
Huntington Road to Rio Road which this Board has, by past actions, terminated any connection to the
Wakefield talked about today. There is one other parcel that can be developed on that road at the curve
which this Board says has to access off of that portion of Wakefield and no other road. There is another
Wakefield Road on the other side of Rio Road which is in a self-contained neighborhood.
Mr. Bowerman said Juandiego Wade in the Planning Department researched all of the different
plats filed by the developer to try and figure out the status of the road. In 1960, when the road was platted,
Wakefield Road was dedicated to public use with a 50-foot right-of-way. That 50-foot right-of-way does exist
on the section in question. He said Ms. Stacey contacted him over six months ago with a 9-1-1 problem. He
looked into the situation and had a meeting with the people in the neighborhood. They talked about different
alternatives for the road. He thought the consensus was that the County would spend the money to bring the
road up to State standards for acceptance by the Highway Department because it has never had snow
removal or maintenance.
Mr. Bowerman read into the record a memorandum dated January 4, 2000, from Mr. Bill Mawyer,
Director of Engineering. The project does not have a subdivision road bond. The plat was approved in
A
1960. With Dave Bowermans support, a year-end reappropriation of $25,000 was approved to complete
=
the work necessary to have the road accepted by VDOT (this is the 600-foot section). We also talked about
having to do another portion of a couple hundred feet to pick up four additional lots. We currently have a
contract for $22,000 with a contractor to do the work. The planning has been done. The contractor never
started the work due to the concerns of several residents. Some of Glenn Brooks comments in November
=
describing the concerns of the residents are noted below. The improvements and easements necessary to
build a public road are not acceptable to the residents as easement for drainage is required. Mr. X and Mrs.
Y both refused to grant easements for drainage. Filling of right-of-way is required. Mr. Z and Mr. T both
strongly object to the clearing of trees and bushes in the right-of-way. Mr. A, B and C and the Ts and Mr. G
=
have all complained of drainage problems which they want fixed if the County is doing any work. VDOT will
not accept the road without the appropriate drainage system and drainage easements. The plat shows a 50-
foot right-of-way for construction of the road. Larry (Davis) and I agree that the road is a public road
controlled by the County. We felt we could condemn the easements necessary to provide an adequate
drainage system. These are the easements out of the VDOT right-of-way which would carry the water in a
safe way to an ultimate drainage way to get it to wherever it needs to go. This would complete the road
improvements and then we would request VDOT to accept the road into the Secondary System. While this
option will be unpopular with some of the residents, it would bring the road into compliance with the original
plat, at least in part. It shows Wakefield extending from Huntington to Northfields.
@
Mr. Bowerman said that is ancient history because the Board has already taken action to get rid of a
part of that. There is a portion that must be vacated. Wakefield Road does not extend all the way to
A
Huntington Road, and it never will. The proposed improvements would address only the existing length of
road and would not extend to Huntington. Completing the work required to make this a public road would
bring closure to this issue on which the residents disagree with each other. Another alternative is to vacate
the public right-of-way, approve a private road, and leave the maintenance to the residents.
@
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that would be an impossible task. He said that when all of these
issues came up, he was involved with the fire agreement and other things, and he didnt bring this issue back
=
to the Board.
Mr. Martin said to summarize what Mr. Bowerman has said, basically there are a group of people
living along the road who want the road paved, the right-of-way necessary to have the road paved exists, and
there are people living along the road who do not want the road paved. Mr. Bowerman said they really want
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
the County to pay for drainage improvements which is implicit in the staffs memo. There are plantings within
=
VDOTs right-of-way which cause problems. He is suggesting that the County move forward with the project
=
with this Boards blessing. This is a wide enough issue that he did not want to tell staff to go ahead and do it,
=
even though the Board has already appropriated the money. He wanted to bring this to the Boards attention
=
first. Mr. Bowerman said he will not make friends in that area, but in the public interest, the road has never
been cleared of snow, it has never been completely paved, it is in an urban infill area, there is a possibility of
up to six additional homes being built there. Some of the lots do not currently have access except to
Northfield Subdivision and that would have to be by additional easements granted by property owners to
access Northfields Road. He thinks this is a project whose time has come. It has been 30 years and he
would recommend that staff go forward with the issuance of a contract, do the work, do the proper
engineering, and have VDOT accept the road. He said the road has been renamed as Sun Ridge Road so
there will be no more 9-1-1 problems, and this will bring closure to an issue which should have been closed
20 years ago.
Mr. Martin said if the Board is going to do anything, he thinks the information should be written down
on a piece of paper and show the costs and what needs to be done. Then, place the matter on a Consent
Agenda in the near future for action. Mr. Bowerman asked that staff put the information together for next
weeks meeting. He said the information is readily available. He had hoped that the residents would be able
=
to come to some agreement, but it appears that they cannot. In the public interest, and in the Countys
=
interest, this needs to be done. If someone has to decide that it needs to be done, he is happy to do so and
take the heat.
A@
Mr. Davis said if the County cannot obtain voluntarily the drainage easements, the County will have
to initiate condemnation procedures. That is something this Board has never done lightly, but would be
necessary in this case.
Ms. Humphris said she agrees that the Board needs an executive summary on the Consent Agenda
which concludes with the Boards agreement to use eminent domain if necessary.
=
__________
Ms. Thomas provided to staff a petition signed by residents on the eastern end of Morgantown Road
requesting that the road become a cul-de-sac. By this action, they are saying they do not want to go through
all of the intermediate steps that they do not feel are effective. She said VDOT does have a process that can
be followed, but she wanted to turn these petitions over to staff and get some advice from VDOT and staff as
to how to proceed with a rather unusual request. She thinks it is tied into the Route 250 West consultants
=
report, because almost everyone on both ends of Morgantown Road say that very little should be done until
the Tilman Road intersection is improved.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be possible to pave the road between Route 795 and Route 712 at
Keene (he thinks it is Route 713) which goes by Pine Knott, the hunting home of Teddy Roosevelt. He said
Pine Knott has been renovated and is becoming more of a tourist spot. It is a Secondary Road, unpaved,
about one mile in length.
__________
Mr. Perkins said in Ms. Tuckers letter concerning the Route 240/250 connector, it says that a
=
primary or secondary six-year plan project is an option so long as any road project does not serve a
development interest. He said that any road, sooner or later, will serve somebodys interest, whether it is a
=
developer or not. He asked if there is anyway to allocate which portion of the road would be VDOTs
=
responsibility, and which portion would be the developers. In this case, traffic would be taken off of Route
=
240 coming out of Crozet. There would be traffic from about 250 houses coming out and not using Route
240 so the road would be serving VDOTs purpose, as well as the developers purpose. He asked if there is
==
some way to join moneys from the private sector and VDOT to get a road like this built. Ms. Tucker said
there may be. Most roads are built where the developer builds that portion of the road that serves his
development. In her letter she meant that if there is property to be developed and that development in turn
generates a certain amount of traffic and the need for access, then VDOT requires that the developer pay
for that access and the road to serve it. Many times it should be looked at as part of a bigger network.
Mr. Perkins said the developer might want to build the road only to a certain standard to suit his
purposes, while VDOT might says the road will eventually serve more than just the developers develop-
=
ment, and ask for different standards. He does not see that VDOT could force the developer to do that.
_________
Mr. Perkins mentioned that VDOT and the Board members will be getting a letter from the Minister
at the Paran United Methodist Church regarding Route 606, Dickerson Road. The Church is not asking that
the entire road be paved, only about two-tenths of a mile from its intersection with Route 29 up to the Church
entrance.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked that VDOT look at the passing zone on Route 20 South in the vicinity of the
Vintage Market. The Markets business has picked up, and now the passing zone conflicts with cars entering
=
and exiting their site. There have been a few accidents on that section of road.
__________
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Perkins said he believes there should be a traffic light in Pantops Shopping Center at the
Riverbend Drive intersection instead of the four-way stop signs. Ms. Tucker said that a signal is to be
installed later this year.
__________
Mr. Martin said the Board has been discussing Highway Matters for two hours and he believes it is
time for a recess. During that recess he will talk with staff about rearranging some of the remaining agenda
items.
(Note: At 10:50 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.)
________________
Agenda Item No. 15. Scottsville Streetscape Project, Presentation by Scottsville Town Council.
Mr. Christopher Long, Mayor of the town of Scottsville, was present. He introduced Mr. Wyatt
Shields, Town Administrator, and Councilman James Hogan, Vice-Mayor and Chairman of the Historic
Preservation Committee. He said they are present today to ask the Boards support for the Town. He said
=
the town is becoming increasingly recognized as a National treasure. This is central and important to the
cultural, historical and economic vitality of Albemarle County. Town Council hopes the Board will see the
importance of their request to obtain funding through the TEA-21 Transportation Enhancement Program to
carry out the vision in the Towns Five-Year Comprehensive Plan.
=
Mr. Hogan said the Scottsville Historic Streetscape Project is a major project to enhance the look of
the town, and more importantly, take away all of the obstructions that now exist. That is, all the utility poles
on Valley Street and Main Street. It will incorporate the right type of trees so the view can be opened up and
the buildings seen. Hopefully, it will create a calming influence for the people driving through the town.
There will be pedestrian crossings, and a town clock. In the Winter of 1998, Ian Robertson was hired to draft
a plan. They also consulted with Appalachian Power, Sprint and the Nelson County cable company about
the removal of overhead lines from these two streets. They talked with street light consultants because after
burying the lines, the town will be able to have period lighting along Valley and Main Streets. The Council
held public hearings and then voted in support of a resolution requesting TEA-21 Enhancement Funding for
this program.
Mr. Hogan said the project will cost approximately $1.1 million. Councils main effort for funding is to
=
VDOT for a grant within that enhancement program which is an 80/20 proposition. In January, 1999 the
application was submitted. They were not successful. The Town has committed $100,000 in its Capital
Improvement Plan for the project, and has raised over $53,000 in private funds during this past year. They
hope to raise $120,000 in private funds. Mr. Hogan said they probably did not get the funds because they
had just received $400,000 for the Canal Basin Square Park project, and also Monticello was a key factor
due to the funding they got for their walkways and other efforts. Town Council has made advancements in
terms of their own information and knowledge. They know Mr. Carter Myers now who is on the CTB, and
they will meet with him in February to discuss their private fund-raising efforts, and will meet with VDOT in
April before they make their final decisions.
Mr. Hogan said this plan has a lot of local support. The community was canvassed to see how they
felt about the project. There was overwhelming support. They feel it is time for the project since the levee is
in place and the fear of flooding has been alleviated. He said the level of financial contributions is somewhat
extraordinary. He then thanked the Board for allowing him to make the presentation this morning.
Mr. Long said this is the first time this Council has approached the Board of Supervisors. They are a
progressive council while being fiscally responsible. They are not looking for a hand-out, but rather a hand-
up in creative partnerships and support for projects like this one. He said Scottsville is the jewel of the
southern part of Albemarle County. He said when Mayor Raymon Thacker was able to obtain Federal
funding for the levee project, it enabled Scottsville to get a leg-up which has lead to a strong economic
A@
resurgence of the community. With this Boards support, the Town will continue this resurgence.
=
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to make a statement for the record. A business partner of Mr.
Bowerman (Mr. George Ray) was consulted by the town of Scottsville yesterday. He does not know the
nature of the meeting. Mr. Bowerman said he is also in the process of negotiating a fitness room for the
town of Scottsville which is being funded by a private individual. He does not see any conflict, but if Council
feels he should get a ruling from the Commonwealths Attorney, he will do so. Mr. Long said the meeting
=
yesterday was a cursory review about the possibilities in their Victory Hall which is a theatre project.
Mr. Martin asked if anyone wanted to make a motion that a resolution be drafted. Ms. Thomas had
a question first. She said this Board went through a lot trying to protect the dark skies in Albemarle County.
As an independent town, Council does not have to pay any attention to the Countys Dark Skies Ordinance.
=
Old-timey lights were mentioned and this causes her concern. She said the University Research Park at
North Fork had to go to a lot of expense to develop a light that met their architects desires to have an old-
timey light system, and yet met the Countys lighting ordinance. They have neighbors who are particularly
=
concerned about the lights. She has talked with the person in charge of the Real Estate Foundation, and he
would be willing to talk to Council about the lights they developed. She urged Council to meet the standards
set out in the Countys ordinance. She said that old-timey lights can sometimes end up simply being a glare
=
in the eyes, and not produce the effect desired.
Mr. Bowerman said the neighborhood he grew up in used their old street lights, and completely
rewired them and rebuilt them, and they have a high intensity light that is octagonal, and it is very intrusive.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
He does not believe they met their goal. Mr. Bowerman said the Real Estate Foundation has quite a bit of
clout with the manufacturer supplying their lights, and they are working very closely with the County in
developing a light that looks old-fashioned and meets lighting requirements.
Mr. Hogan said that Appalachian Power is very much concerned about the same issues as this
Board. They have to meet certain standards. It is his understanding from discussing this with their
representative that whatever Scottsville installs will have to meet their standards. They will meet with the
representative from UREF or anybody else this Board suggests.
Ms. Humphris said that in past years, the County has competed for these same funds. Will the
Board be receiving requests from other people for these TEA-21 funds? If so, how does the Board rank
them? Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has never had to put rankings on requests, but it has had multiple
applications in a given year. There will be another application presented for the Boards review on January
=
19 and that is for sidewalks on Route 20 North which has been a high priority sidewalk item.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it would be best to put this item on the Consent Agenda on January 19
instead of taking an action today. That will give staff time to write an executive summary and refine the
wording of the resolution.
Mr. Dorrier said that he and Mr. Forrest Marshall both support the Scottsville project. He disclosed
for the record that he is the Town Attorney for Scottsville. He has checked with Mr. Davis and the State Bar
Association and they both say he does not have a conflict of interest in this situation. If a conflict ever arises,
he will remove himself from the issue. In this case, he feels the project will be for the good of both
Scottsville and the County.
________________
Agenda Item No. 16. Region Ten, Capital Funding Request.
Mr. Tucker said the Region Ten Community Services Board has requested $250,000 from the
County to provide funding for three new capital facilities, Fourth Street Station, Meadowcreek Center and
Blue Ridge House. They are also requesting a similar contribution from the City. Mr. Jim Petersen,
Executive Director, has said that the majority of the required funding is already in place and plans for all
three facilities are moving forward. The Fourth Street Station has already been completed. Meadowcreek
Center is in the site development phase for completion in June, 2000, and construction on Blue Ridge House
is expected to begin in February.
Mr. Tucker said Region Ten has been looking at building options with developers and real estate
agents for several years. They have worked creatively to pull together a fully-funded financing package.
However, the County had not been aware of Region Tens capital facility needs until this time. Therefore,
=
these projects have not been discussed or prioritized by the CIP Technical Committee, and are not included
in the FY 2001-FY 2005 recommended CIP.
Mr. Tucker said staff does not recommend funding the request at this time. Although, the three
projects are certainly worthwhile and have substantial community value, this request should be evaluated in
conjunction with other unfunded capital projects which will be reviewed by this Board over the next three
months. Although Region Ten should be commended for their initiative in developing a financing package
which addresses their long-term needs, it has been outside of the Countys capital planning and financing
=
process, and at this point must compete with other unfunded County priorities. In that context, the Board
may want to hold this request until all of the unfunded capital projects have been thoroughly reviewed.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Petersen to speak. Mr. Petersen introduced Dr. Dwight Colley and Dr. Peter
Sheras, Albemarle County appointees to the Region Ten Board. He said the total development costs of
these three facilities is about $4.0 million. To date, Region Ten has raised $936,000 of local money, one-
half of that is private foundation money, and the other half is from local contributions. The Albemarle County
Industrial Development Authority participated in granting Region Ten $2.552 million in revenue bonds
through Wachovia Bank. Because Wachovia Bank researched Region Ten and researched the project,
Region Ten came in under their line of credit which means that their bonds are at the lowest interest rate in
the United States. However, the bonds will not cover about $500,000 in expenses they do not consider as a
capital project for their purposes. Region Ten is asking for five percent of the total development costs from
Albemarle County. One of the reasons this has not been in the Countys CIP is that all of the other pieces of
=
the financing were so much larger and more significant that they had to come first. First, Region Ten is
dealing only with acquisition of private lands which means that they are dealing with regular sellers. Their
self-imposed requirements on location are stringent in terms of the people they serve. They have been
looking for years for property and did not feel anything existed. When these things came together, they
moved as quickly as they could. They had interest from the private sector in terms of developers and sellers
who helped and saved them funds over many years.
Mr. Peterson said one of the projects will be located across the street from the County Office
Building at the corner of Fourth Street and Preston Avenue. The building should be completed next week,
and they will move in on February 1. He said they did get, through an RFP, a Comdial Program for one of
the largest phone systems in the area, and now it will be three times larger by tieing all of these together.
Although they are coming to the Board at the eleventh hour asking for help, he hopes the Supervisors will
A@
agree that their costs for these projects are modest. They have not had cost and time overruns, and they
are not asking the local governments to provide major capital funding, but only to assist Region Ten with the
five percent of expenses that they cannot finance. He offered to answer questions.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Thomas said it seems that when these projects are finished, Region Ten will be saving money
by eliminating the need for leased facilities. Mr. Peterson said that is correct. Ms. Thomas asked if the
money saved will decrease any local government obligations to Region Ten. Mr. Peterson said yes and
A@
no. There will be a reduction in the current cash outlay for Region Ten, but one-half of that amount will be
A@
going toward principal payments. However, two of the current three facilities are totally inadequate so they
would be moving somewhere at a great expense as soon as possible. It turns out that at their West Main
Street facility, they cannot use the top floor to see clients because it does not meet licensing safety
standards. They have projected that they would be paying an additional $200,000 in rent over the next few
years just to have semi-adequate facilities for their other programs. Blue Ridge House has been located in
the old Better Living warehouse for the last fifteen years. It was the first such program and was so well
received that Region Ten received a grant to go around the State and show the program to other communi-
ties. There are now 44 of those programs in Virginia.
Mr. Bowerman asked what amortization assumptions Region Ten had made about payment of the
debt. Mr. Petersen said it is a twenty-year term at about three and one-half percent interest.
Mr. Martin asked if there would be a timing problem if the Board put this request into the budget
cycle. Mr. Petersen said there are a couple of things that Region Ten must do very soon. One has to do
with Meadowcreek on Michie Drive. That is a building where a lot of modular systems will be used, so they
can get a lot of programming in the building without a lot of permanent walls. Those systems need to be
ordered now in order to receive them by May. That is just one piece of what needs to be done. There are
many others.
Mr. Dorrier said he has confidence in Mr. Petersen and his forecast for funding needs. There is a
real overlap between the criminal justice system and the needs of the mentally ill and the mentally retarded.
Many of those people end up getting in trouble and going to jail. He sees this as a need that should be high
on the Countys priority list. As far as funding for the project, he would like to see the Board try to accommo-
=
date Region Ten, if possible. He knows they have put a lot of work into it, and they seem to have a good
working plan.
Mr. Bowerman said the Boards appointees to the Region Ten Board have made it very clear that
=
this is of the utmost importance to their work in the community.
Ms. Humphris suggested that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff. The Board does have a
difficult and complex capital planning and financing process that is just beginning today. She thinks that in all
fairness to the Board, the Board needs to compare and rank projects to see how this one could be
accomplished.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Petersen if Region Ten could borrow the funds they need immediately on
a short-term basis, and then pay those funds back over a period of three or four years. Mr. Petersen said
three years ago, Region Ten came to the Board to explain their serious budget situation, and the six
participating jurisdictions helped and Region Ten recovered from that deficit. Now, they have about
$100,000 in reserve, so they could essentially borrow from themselves for some of the things that cannot be
deferred. For other things, they will remount their fund-raising campaign based on specific equipment
needs. In terms of outright borrowing, he does not believe that would work. Mr. Bowerman said if this Board
committed funds over a three-year period, it would give the Board more flexibility. He recognizes that there
would be interest involved, but it would allow this Board flexibility while meeting Region Tens needs
=
immediately. Mr. Petersen said that borrowing against their own reserve, and expecting to expand that
amount in the future, is something they could do.
Ms. Humphris made a motion that the Board adopt the staff's recommendation to hold this request
and review this project with all of the other unfunded capital projects the Board will be reviewing in the CIP
Process.
Ms. Thomas said the Board is ordinarily told that it should not add anything in the first year of the CIP
Plan, but instead to add new items in the fifth year. Requiring this project to wait to the fifth year would be the
same as just denying the request. She is not in favor of putting it in a time crunch of that sort. Ms. Humphris
said the motion does not presuppose anything like that. She thinks the Board needs to remember that one-
quarter of a million dollars is a major new capital project. As Mr. Bowerman has suggested, it may be
possible to work something out to deal with it over a three-year period.
Mr. Bowerman said a lot of people have recently requested funds from the Board. Mr. Tucker said
there are a couple of other major requests that staff is expecting. He said the Paramount Theatre and the
Charlottesville Municipal Band will be making requests.
Mr. Martin said he looks at a request from Region Ten as something that requires more County
attention than the two projects just mentioned. He asked for a second to the motion. Mr. Dorrier said he will
support the motion if a contingency is added to develop a funding plan, loan program or some sort of a stop-
gap measure to help Region Ten in the interim period between now and when the Board finally adopts the
CIP budget. Mr. Tucker said staff can work with Mr. Petersen to see if there is any way to help with the
immediate needs. Mr. Dorrier asked if all of that is in the motion.
Ms. Humphris said no. The motion was to deal with the recommendation, put it in the CIP process
A@
that will be started later today by discussing unfunded items, of which this then becomes a part right away,
and it goes in to be considered with everything else, and that is where this Board has the responsibility of
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
prioritizing. Anything else would be committing this Board to something before the Board has had a
thorough discussion of the request. Her motion is that the Board adopt the staffs recommendation.
=
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Ms. Thomas and Mr. Martin about the differentiation between
other requests and Region Ten. He then seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Cost of Living Study, Presentation of. Mr. Martin said because this meeting is
running way behind schedule, he would suggest that this item be moved to the February day meeting. Mr.
Tucker said this item is for informational purposes only.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Five-Year Financial Condition Evaluation and Five-Year Financial Forecast
Report, Presentation of.
Mr. Tucker said because of the short time available to make this presentation before lunch, he
suggests that only the Five-Year Financial Condition Evaluation be presented at this time. The remainder of
the report can be given later today when discussing the Capital Improvement Program.
Ms. Ann Gulati, Budget Manager, said the Countys financial policies require the County to "develop
=
and annually update a financial trend monitoring system that will examine fiscal trends from the preceding
five years. Where possible, trend indicators will be developed and tracked for specific elements of the
County's fiscal policy."
Ms. Gulati said the County's overall financial position continues to be positive. As in the past, the
County enjoys a large, growing revenue base that has enabled it to provide services to citizens without
significantly increasing tax rates. She said that during staffs analysis, they looked at all revenues available
=
for operations. Excluded were revenues in the capital fund, as well as those revenues which are dedicated
to the Revenue-Sharing Agreement. Most of the growth in revenues has been due to property tax growth
increasing about 12 percent. Some other factors which led to the growing revenue base were additional
State lottery funds for School operations received over the past two years, the Meals Tax which came into
effect on January 1, 1998, as well as the increase in the Lodging Tax from two to five percent. The County
has a vibrant, growing community with a young and middle-aged population, rising personal incomes per
capita, a strong employment base and a robust business sector.
Ms. Gulati said a number of financial and demographic trends are placing stress on County
finances. Chief among these is the growing reliance on property taxes to finance operations. This is part of
another trend toward declining State and Federal revenues. The increasing reliance on property tax
revenues has left the County vulnerable to changing conditions, particularly those affecting property tax
revenues, such as declining reassessment increases, as well as factors which slow personal property tax
revenue growth, such as the decline in either the volume or the value of vehicles sold. The County has
stayed below its self-imposed debt ratios, but it is approaching those limits. Although the debt service has
stayed under ten percent of net General Fund revenues, it has actually ranged from a low of 7.6 percent to a
high of 9.6 percent due to increases in borrowing for the Sutherland Middle Schools and the Monticello High
School. The debt per capita increased from $623 to $850 in the current year but has remained under the
$1000 maximum. Staff projects continued strong population and enrollment growth. Historically, for the
study period, population growth has been at about 2.2 percent per year, and it is projected that that will
continue at about 2.0 percent per year over the next five years. Enrollment growth has been at about 2.3
percent per year. The School Division has projected that this will slow slightly over the next five years to
about 1.5 percent, but this may be a conservative estimate. She said that concludes a brief overview of the
Financial Condition Evaluation prepared by staff. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked about the population projection. She asked how often that figure is updated, or
is it based entirely on the Cooper Center estimates. Ms. Gulati said the Cooper Center does not see any
trends over the next five years which would significantly affect the projected population growth rate. The
Virginia Employment Commission actually projects population figures. They are projecting a growth rate of
about 1.7 percent, but that is based on state-wide evaluations. They have agreed with the Planning Office
that that may be too conservative of an estimate for Albemarle.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the declining state and Federal revenues for schools. He said the State is
mandating Standards of Learning and increased responsibilities at the local level, so he does not understand
why the state revenues should be going down when there are more requirements. Ms. Gulati said the State
revenues themselves are going up, but as a percentage of the Countys total revenues, they are going down.
=
That is to say that the Countys growth in State revenues has not been as fast as it once was. There have
=
been changes in the Composite Index.
Ms. Thomas said the last time the Composite Index changed, it was because Northern Virginia was
having a down turn in its real estate values. She asked if it is the assumption that the Countys Composite
=
Index will take a hit again this year. She had thought that it would not because things are back on track in
A@
Northern Virginia. Ms. Gulati said she will have to ask Mr. Jackson Zimmerman that question.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Ms. Thomas said she was intrigued by the fact to which Mr. Dorrier referred, that the County is
relying more and more on its real estate tax, and not just on local sources. She was interested in what the
State has done to the different revenue sources. BPOL was tackled by the General Assembly, and the
County was limited somewhat as to what it can do with BPOL. The car tax rate cannot be raised. The
County began taxing cellular phones long before others in the State did, but then the General Assembly
made a change by putting a cap on the amount of the tax. The food sales tax is probably okay, but VACO
and VML are constantly working to be sure that in their eagerness to reduce the Food Sales Tax they do not
include local government. There is a proposal that the E-911 Tax be cut in a significant way. On the Meals
Tax, if the General Assembly does not revise legislation that was passed last year, then there will be a
significant cut on Meals Tax collections. The Legislatures favorite thing is to either give away or reduce local
=
revenue sources and the County is getting stuck more and more with putting everything on its only source of
local revenue, the real estate tax rate. That is not very good because it responds more to what is happening
in your neighborhood than to what is happening to the individual person.
There was no further discussion of this item at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Closed Session.
At 12:08 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go
into closed session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider
appointments to boards and commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for
school sites; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation
relating to the Ivy Landfill and relating to the constitutionality of a criminal statute; and to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding probable litigation relating to a proposed site plan.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Certify Closed Session.
At 3:48 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board
members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements
=
of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were
heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments.
Mr. Perkins recommended the reappointment of Mr. Albert O. Humbertson, Jr. as the White Hall
District representative on the Equalization Board for a new term to expire on December 31, 2000, and to
appoint Mr. Harry Levins as the White Hall District representative on the Board of Social Services with a term
to end on December 31, 2003 (Mr. Levins replaces Ms. Martha Harris).
Mr. Dorrier recommended the reappointment of Ms. Donna Marshall as the Scottsville District
representative on the Board of Social Services with her new term to expire on December 31, 2003; to
reappoint Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. as the Scottsville District representative on the Industrial Development
Authority with the new term to expire on January 20, 2004; and to appoint Mr. William "Petie" Craddock as
the Scottsville District representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission with a term to expire on
December 31, 2003 (Mr. Craddock replaces Mr. William Nitchmann).
Mr. Martin recommended the appointment of Ms. Tracey C. Hopper as the Rivanna District
representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission with a term to expire on December 31, 2003
(Ms. Hopper replaces Ms. Hilda Washington-Lee).
Mr. Bowerman seconded all of the above motions for district appointments. Roll was called and the
motions carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Humphris recommended the reappointment of Mr. Eric J. Strucko, Ms. Jenny Greenwood, Mr.
Peter G. Hallock and Mr. Ronald N. Whitener to the Housing Committee for terms to expire on December
31, 2003. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Perkins.
__________
Ms. Humphris recommended the appointment of Mr. Paul J. Grady, Jr. to the Advisory Committee
for the Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative with a term to expire on December 31, 2001; the
reappointment of Ms. Lois B. Rochester, Mr. John E. Hermsmeier and Mr. Frank A. Kessler to the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority Citizens Advisory Committee with new terms to expire on March 31, 2002. Ms.
Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Thomas made the following nominations for Board member appointments:
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee: Walter F. Perkins
Annual Oversight Committee for Children and Youth Commission: Charles S. Martin
Audit Committee: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. and Walter F. Perkins
Building Committee: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. and Walter F. Perkins
Charlottesville/Albemarle/University of Virginia, Planning and Coordination Council (PACC):
Charles S. Martin and Charlotte Y. Humphris
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee: David F. Bowerman and Charles S. Martin
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC): David F. Bowerman & Charles S. Martin
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: Charlotte Y. Humphris
Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee: David F. Bowerman
Historic Preservation Committee Liaison: Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jail Authority: Charlotte Y. Humphris
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Committee: Charlotte Y. Humphris and
Sally H. Thomas
Mountain Protection Plan Committee: Sally H. Thomas
Piedmont Job Training Policy Board: Charles S. Martin and Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Purchase of Development Rights Committee (PDR): Walter F. Perkins
Route 250 West Corridor Study Citizens' Advisory Board: Walter F. Perkins and Sally H. Thomas
Shenandoah National Park Advisory Committee: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. and Walter F. Perkins
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (PDC): Walter F. Perkins and Sally H. Thomas
VIEW Welfare Reform Steering Committee: Charlotte Y. Humphris
Mr. Bowerman seconded all of the nominations. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Mr. Martin said the Board will return to and finish the mornings agenda at this time.
=
Agenda Item No. 18. Five-Year Financial Condition Evaluation and Five-Year Financial Forecast
Report, Presentation of (continuation of report).
Ms. Gulati said she will continue by giving the Forecast Report. She said the Countys financial
=
policies also require the County to "develop and annually update a long-range (three to five-year) financial
forecasting system, which includes projections of revenues and expenditures, as well as future costs and
financing of capital improvements and other projects that are included in the capital budget." The purpose of
these requirements is to gain a better understanding of the County's long-range financial picture; to identify
projected revenue and expenditure trends that could adversely affect the locality; to project future financial
strengths and weaknesses; to incorporate long-range considerations into the budget process; and, to identify
any potential difficulties in adhering to established financial policies.
Ms. Gulati said the updated long-range Financial Forecast contains three possible scenarios of
revenues and expenditures for the next five years. The first scenario assumes that operational expenditures
grow at the combined rate of growth and inflation. In this scenario, total County revenues are projected to
exceed expenditures by $3.6 million over the five-year period, with the highest surplus being $1.7 million in
FY 01. A second scenario adds to that the additional operating costs associated with previously-approved
>
capital projects and projects a cumulative operating budget shortfall of $8.8 million. The third and final
scenario shows what the overall imbalance would be based on the FY 2001-05 Recommended Capital
Improvement Program (CIP.) In this scenario, the shortfall increases by approximately $2.3 million to $11.0
million overall. In all of these scenarios, the effect of increasing County revenues to fund the debt service on
a General Obligation debt currently proposed in the CIP would be to reduce projected deficits by
approximately $2.9 million over the five-year period.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Ms. Gulati said the operating budget shortfalls projected by the last two scenarios reflect the impact
of funding the additional operating expenses associated with planned capital projects on the County's budget
over the next five years. General Government accounts for the majority of these projected deficits. This is
due to the operational costs associated with the expansion of the Regional Jail and a new juvenile detention
facility, as well as the cost of staffing a new fire/rescue station projected for Southern Albemarle, and
maintaining and upgrading park facilities. The School Division shortfall generally represents the impact of
opening two new elementary schools within the next five years.
Ms. Gulati said several mechanisms to address these operating budget shortfalls are to reduce
expenditure growth rates by funding operations at something less than the combined rates of inflation and
growth, to defer or eliminate planned capital projects, thereby limiting growth in Debt Service costs and/or in
the amount of General Fund revenues transferred to the Capital Improvement Program, and to limit growth
in capital associated operating costs by deferring or spreading out large capital projects, such as new
schools.
Ms. Gulati said revenue enhancement strategies to expand fee revenues are to increase the
percentage of operational expenditures directly offset by fee revenues, to actively pursue other revenue
sources including public and private grants to provide expanded services, and to increase the real property
tax rate.
Ms. Gulati said the projected imbalances do not mean that future County budgets will be unbal-
anced. Not only do State laws require the Board to adopt a balanced budget annually, but the budget
process also demands an annual compromise of revenue enhancements and expenditure reductions to
achieve a balanced budget. Additionally, revenue and expenditure projections may change over time,
depending on enrollment and population growth, State mandates, reassessment estimates, revenue
decisions at both the State and local levels and the local economy.
Ms. Gulati said the projected shortfalls do indicate that identified levels of service and infrastructure
improvements may not be affordable within existing resources and current financial policies. The Board will
need to make some difficult choices as it goes about balancing its budget over the next five years.
Additionally, none of the aforementioned scenarios address the large number of General Government and
School Division projects that are not funded in either the current or recommended CIP's, including additional
fire/rescue stations, expanded urban infrastructure improvements, public safety equipment and technology,
road projects, library facilities, park and recreational facilities, and future school needs. How, or whether, to
fund these projects in the future will need to be addressed.
A slide presentation was then made, followed by a question and answer session between Board
members and staff. For greater details, please see staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office with the
==
permanent records of the Board. No action was taken on this report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 2000-01 through FY 2004-05,
Work Session on recommended program.
Ms. Thomas said before the presentation begins she would like to ask a question about the
statement in the staffs report reading: The Technical Committee did not recommend changes to School
=A
Division projects, but only recommended a funding level for Debt Service around which the School Division
can build its CIP budget. She asked how a decision is made on a debt service funding level for the School
@
Division.
Ms. Ann Gulati said the recommended funding level for the Schools is based on a continuation of
what is in the current CIP. She then gave a slide presentation. She said this work session is to provide an
overview of the recommended capital projects for the next five years for both General Government and the
School Division. A public hearing on the CIP is tentatively scheduled for February 9, with approval of the
Five-year CIP Plan and final adoption of the FY 2000-01 Capital Budget scheduled for April 12 in conjunction
with approval of the FY 2000-01 County Operating Budget.
Ms. Gulati said the recommended FY 2001-05 Capital Improvements Program totals $84.2 million.
It consists of $34.1 million in proposed General Government projects ($16.3 million for the City/County
courthouse expansion, a public safety facility and an urban gym is proposed to be funded by General
Obligation bond debt at the approval of the Countys voters), $0.6 million in Tourism Fund capital improve-
=
ments, $0.8 million in Stormwater Control projects, and $48.6 million in recommended School projects.
Ms. Gulati said this CIP continues to advance the capital projects and priorities that were approved in
the current five-year plan and it is balanced within available revenues, i.e., General Fund Transfers and Debt
Service levels that were approved in the FY 2000-04 CIP. However, approximately $25.5 million in
requested capital projects could not be funded within the available revenues: $8.7 million in requested
General Government projects, $1.9 million in Stormwater projects, and $14.9 million in new or expanded
School projects. Additionally, $16.3 million in general obligation debt is assumed for the three General
Government projects mentioned above.
Ms. Gulati said she does not intend to give details today on projects which are continuations of
projects in the current CIP. Instead, she will mention only projects which are new or which have changed
significantly in scope or cost over the five-year period.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Administration and Courts projects total $14.5 million, and reflect on-going computer and mainte-
nance projects which have not changed significantly. Additionally, the Courthouse renovation and expansion
project is in the recommended CIP and Phase I of that project is expected to cost $10.3 million in the first five
years. It is assumed to be funded with General Obligation bond debt. The design specifics of the project are
still being worked out, and the public will have the opportunity for input into the design process, with a
presentation of the final design being made to the Board and City Council in June.
Unfunded General Government projects total approximately $355,000 and include $250,000 in
County Office Building maintenance and repair costs, including $100,000 to remove a pedestrian island in
the parking lot and $150,000 for exterior painting and waterproofing. It also includes $105,000 in annual
maintenance projects at Court Square.
Public Safety funded projects total $11.2 million and include: a new project to fund capital projects
at the Emergency Communications Center (E-911). This will transfer funds currently funded in the operating
budget to the capital budget. Expanded funds for fire/rescue stations and equipment are included in the CIP.
It will add $1.8 million in borrowed funds in FY 02 to construct the new southern area fire and rescue station
>
due to the urgent need for that facility. The annual debt service on that project of $240,000 a year would be
funded by an increase in the transfer from the General Fund.
Ms. Gulati said one project has been reduced in scope, and that is the Police Firing Range Training
Facility project. The current CIP envisioned this as a regional facility. At this time, the City and the University
have elected not to participate in this cost due to different funding priorities. The $1.2 million total cost of this
project in the current CIP has been reduced to a County-only share of approximately $400,000. Ms. Thomas
asked if this could be a revenue-making project. She was given a tour of another communitys police firing
=
range which was joint with a community college. It was actually making money for the locality that had built
it. She asked if this is possible in Albemarle. Ms. Gulati said staff is currently looking at working with the
existing private facility, and possibly entering into a partnership with that organization. Mr. Bowerman said
that private facility is now being upgraded by its membership to accommodate more of the police activities. It
is his observation that they are willing to accommodate additional usage as long as they can provide safety in
the use of the facility.
Chief John Miller said the Police Department would like to pursue a more formal working
relationship with the Rivanna Gun Club. He believes that if a formal contract can be obtained with them, that
will be the best thing to do. The City has followed Albemarles lead and they are also training at the Rivanna
=
Gun Club. He believes the University is also looking at that facility for their needs. A regional setting may be
obtained with the Club.
Ms. Gulati said Public Safety projects also includes the Public Safety Facility Project, as well as a
new EMS fire training center (which is a new request). Their training space has been reduced substantially
by the Jail expansion project and the juvenile detention home construction. Also included is revision to the
Mobile Command Center project which is a project to replace the Countys current Center used for disaster
=
scenes, missing person searches, traffic and DUI checkpoints, with a new state-of-the-art vehicle. The
scope of the project has been changed to remove the City and University contributions. Both of those
entities have indicated that they are not interested in participating. The $150,000 total cost of this project will
be borne by the County alone.
Ms. Gulati said Unfunded Safety projects include about $4.0 million for two additional fire stations in
the northern and western parts of the County, as well as about $1.4 million to outfit patrol vehicles with lap-
top computers and mobile data terminal technology. Officers would have direct access to motor vehicle
licenses and criminal history information while they are in the field, and they could also complete their
reports in the field and receive voiceless dispatches from E-911. Also unfunded was a $300,000 project to
install video cameras with remote microphones in marked police cars which are used at traffic stops.
Ms. Gulati said Highway and Transportation projects include expanded funding for Neighborhood
Improvements such as sidewalks, street lights and walkways identified in specific neighborhood plans. This
request is only for the Pantops and Crozet plans. Requested for this project was $2.1 million over the five-
year period, which is a $2.0 million increase over the previous plan. The Technical Committee was able to
recommend funding of only $440,000. Also requested was $810,000 for sidewalks and pedestrian
improvements which could not be funded under Neighborhood Improvements. Only $200,000 is recom-
mended for funding. The Street Lamp Program is new in the CIP and was requested at $213,000. This is a
project to install street lamps along the sidewalks constructed as part of the sidewalk program. Only
$50,000 is recommended for funding with available revenues. The Unfunded Projects are requests for
funds for Neighborhood Improvements at $1.7 million, $200,000 for traffic calming, $590,000 for sidewalk
construction and $163,000 for street lamp installations.
Ms. Gulati said Library Projects include one new project which would be $20,000 in planning money
in the first year of the CIP for possible construction of new library facilities in the northwest and southern
areas of the County. The Library Building Assessment Committee has indicated the need for about 34,000
square feet of space in the northern part of the County, about 12,000 square feet in the western part of the
County, and about 4500 square feet of space in the southern part of the County. The $10.0 million cost of
constructing some of these facilities is in the out-year of the CIP since none of the construction would
probably begin before FY 06. Actual costs will be developed later depending on project specifications.
>
Parks and Recreation Projects include reduced funding for athletic field development by $304,000
from the current CIP. This removes the Towe Park softball field lighting project which was eliminated last
year at the Boards direction. Also removed was the Western Albemarle baseball field lighting project in FY
=
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
05. This project was determined to be an urgent school need, so has been funded by the School Division.
>
Funding for the Urban Gym is assumed to be funded by General Obligation bond debt. Changed in scope is
the funding for the Scottsville Community Center Improvements. The project has been expanded to add
$62,000 in new funds for air-conditioning. An additional $57,000 has been requested in the out-year for a
new picnic shelter.
Ms. Gulati said the Keene Landfill Closure remains a project of the CIP and $20,000 of the amount
could not be funded due to revenue constraints.
Ms. Gulati said the revenue summary for General Government projects includes $15.4 million in the
General Fund Transfer, $1.8 million in lease/purchase funds for the new fire/rescue station in FY 02, $16.3
>
million in General Obligation bonds and other miscellaneous revenues for a total of $34.1 million over the
five-year period. Tourism Fund revenues fund four capital projects of which three are continued from the
current CIP, the Ivy Road bike lane, the Rivanna Greenway and the River Access Improvement project. The
only new project in this five-year period is the Ivy Road landscaping project which will fund railroad
embankment landscaping along the Ivy Road corridor from the City limits to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This
project was previously an out-year project awaiting funding so it could be coordinated with improvements to
Route 250 West and completed concurrently with the City project.
Ms. Gulati said Stormwater projects have been expanded from the $110,000 currently budgeted for
drainage and erosion control, to approximately $823,000 over the five-year period. This is to provide on-
going funding to purchase land and to construct and repair permanent stormwater and drainage control
facilities. She said the request for these projects was $2.75 million over the five-year period and represents
a shift in County policy from a limited responsibility for stormwater and drainage control to County-owned
and operated facilities. The recommendation is for $250,000 for the Birnam regional detention basin,
$50,000 for Westmoreland Court stormwater pipe replacement, $40,000 for Ricky Road drainage repairs,
and on-going funding for basin repairs and basin water quality retro-fits. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board will
learn more about the stormwater control situation at a subsequent meeting. Ms. Gulati said one of the items
to be discussed in the long-range capital needs report is stormwater control needs and the Countys options.
=
Mr. Tucker said that discussion will be on the agenda of February 2, 2000.
Ms. Gulati said requested School projects total $63.45 million of which $48.56 million could be
funded based on a continuation of approved funding from the current CIP, resulting in an unfunded amount
of $14.9 million. The School CIP shows a shortfall because the role of the Technical Committee is to
recommend a funding level for School projects, and then the School Board can prioritize their individual
projects. The Northern Elementary School project has been deferred to FY 02 due to delays in acquiring
>
the desired site for the project. She said the $14.9 million shortfall can be attributed to the following
increases over the current CIP: approximately $4.9 million in additional funding related to differentiated
staffing and capacity changes in the schools, an additional $3.1 million due to growth needs, and $6.8 million
in other projects including maintenance.
Ms. Gulati said the next step in the CIP process is the work sessions which are scheduled to discuss
long-range capital needs, one of which will immediately follow this work session. A second one will be held
on February 2 and another on March 1. The public hearing on the CIP is scheduled for February 9.
Depending on the Boards recommendation for a funding level for School projects, the School Board will be
=
requested to defer or eliminate unfunded requests. Approval of the Five-Year Plan is scheduled for
April 12.
There was no further discussion or questions by Board members.
(Note: At 4:58 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 5:05 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Long-Range Capital Needs, Work Session on.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said for the past several years, a significant number
of Capital Improvement Program projects have been identified which cannot be funded within the limited
revenues available for capital improvements. In the current CIP, there is $16.3 million which is unfunded
because it would create the need for General Obligation bonds. The FY 2000-01/FY 2004-05
recommended CIP continues this trend, identifying more than $25.5 million in unfunded capital needs.
A@
That is a total of $41.8 million in unfunded requests. This does not mean there is a shortfall in revenues of
$41.8 million, but it means the County will have to consider deferring and/or eliminating projects or looking
for additional revenues. The General Fund transfer of current revenues to the CIP (the principal source of
funding for General Government capital projects totaling $2.2 million in FY 2000), represents two percent of
the General Fund. Forty-five percent of that is already allocated to on-going maintenance, repair and
technology projects. That leaves only about fifty-five percent each year to fund new projects, between $1.0
and $2.0 million a year. In FY 01 that totals $1.0 million for new projects, and the transfer is being increased
>
to about $2.0 million by FY 05. The operating budget cannot absorb substantial increases in the level of
>
capital outlay or debt service.
At the same time, the County will face significant capital project needs over the next ten years,
outside of those projects currently funded in the CIP. These needs include mandated projects, such as the
second and third phases of the City/County courthouse expansion, as well as capital facilities projected by
the County's own Community Facilities Plan. Some of these facilities include additional fire/rescue stations
in the northern and western portions of the County, new library facilities, park facilities and athletic fields,
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
government administrative space and new schools in the northern urban area (including a new elementary
and middle school, and possibly a high school). Additionally, County policy priorities relating to rural area
conservation and infill development in the growth areas will require additional resources for the acquisition of
conservation easements, stormwater control, and urban infrastructure improvements (such as roads,
sidewalks, street lights, pedestrian/bike paths, park and ride facilities, and traffic calming).
In light of current revenue limitations within the CIP, and given the significant long-range capital
needs facing the County, staff has identified the need to develop a Ten-Year Capital Needs Assessment and
a Financing Plan to go with that. As staff looked at a bond referendum and at putting projects together for a
bond referendum, it was understood that a Ten-Year plan was needed rather than just a Five-Year plan.
Toward this end, staff will present a Draft Strategy Plan to the Board in April. That plan will
combine, after discussion with the Board, a list of recommended projects and how they might be funded over
a ten-year period. The work session for the next four months is to begin today with a look at several
categories. On February 2, the agenda will be for a discussion of long-term needs by functional area, to
review any approved facility standards that may exist related to those needs, to assess where the County is
currently relative to those standards, to identify what facilities may be needed over the next ten years (and
what the projected cost could be). The School Division projects will be included on this date. On March 1,
the financial advisor will be present to discuss financing options for capital projects. On April 5, there should
be a draft of the Ten-Year Financing Plan for the Board to review.
Ms. White said she would like to begin with Administration and Courts. The first project has to do
with expansion of the Courthouse, administrative space and then Building Maintenance. Courthouse
expansion includes the Juvenile Court, Court Services, General District Courts, Circuit Courts, Common-
wealths Attorney and the Sheriff. Since the meeting in June, the Committee has been reorganized and
=
Albemarle County representatives (Jared Loewenstein, Albemarle County Planning Commission, Marcia
Joseph Architectural Review Board; and Katie Hobbs, Neighborhood Association) added. A final alternative
report is to be presented to the Board and City Council in June after receiving public input, and having the
consultant develop several scenarios.
Ms. Thomas said she was struck by comments made by Judge Hogshire at the meeting in June. He
said that if the Courtroom had petitions added making it two rooms that would suffice for his needs. Ms.
White said that possibility will be studied. She said the whole Committee toured all of the existing facilities.
They looked at the potential of sharing spaces since some of the facilities are large. After talking to the
Commonwealths Attorney and some of the judges, there may be the possibility of having smaller court-
=
rooms which might solve some of the problems.
Ms. Thomas said there has been a mention of the importance of the Court facilities to the economy
of Charlottesville. Ms. White said the Committee is considering the economic vitality of the area and keeping
the courts in the downtown area is a major concern of the Citys. Keeping the courts together in the
=
downtown area is being discussed.
Ms. Thomas asked if use of the NGIC Building has been investigated. Ms. White said retaining
certain sites in the private sector is an issue with the City because of their tax base. One of the next steps in
the process is to look at sites that will become available. Ms. Thomas said the consultant also looked at
parking. She asked if the new studies will consider sites where parking is possible. Ms. White said on-site
and off-site parking is an issue that will be studied. At this time, the City is doing a parking study of the whole
downtown area. The results of that study will not be available until the end of March. The Committee has
put off making any decision about parking until that study is completed. Ms. Thomas said one thing that
impressed her when she was in Portland, Oregon, is that they talk about access and not parking. Access
A@A@
is what is needed. Parking is a means to that access, but there are other means. Ms. White said that will be
a major issue of debate since some feel the parking must be on-site, and others who find no problem with
walking several blocks to find a parking space. The other issue has to do with historical preservation and
whether or not the Old County Jail will be saved. Tearing down the current Juvenile & Domestics Court
building has been mentioned, then replacing it with a new building.
Mr. Dorrier said it will be difficult to please everybody. He thinks somebody has to take the
leadership and make the decision after receiving public input. He wondered whether the Board of
Supervisors will have input. Ms. White said the Committee is taking input during its next three sessions. The
consultant will work with the Committee and with the publics comments. She thinks the Committee will
=
present three options to the County and the City.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the major decision to keep the courts in the downtown area has already been
made. Ms. White said that is what the Committee is working toward. Some people feel that in the event
parking is not available, or if it is too expensive to keep the courts in the downtown area, or if the facilities
cannot be kept together, the County facilities should be moved out into the County. The Committee will look
at the cost of moving facilities into the County.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Committee had looked at other localities like Winchester which has built a
huge court complex in its downtown area, and Chesterfield County which built its court complex out of town,
and Richmond which built its court complex downtown. He said there are some good models around the
State. Ms. White said the architect that the Committee is working with has actually been involved with some
of those projects. He will look at building facilities in areas where historic preservation is also an issue. It is
difficult to maintain the neighborhood, keep the courts downtown, have the economic vitality, and also be
able to provide the additional space the facilities will need over the next twenty years. Mr. Bowerman said
that is the reason this study is so critical to the decision-making in the next 24 months.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Martin said the Board will have a lot of time to talk about the Courthouse in the next months. He
suggested that the Board discuss the next project.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said for Administrative Space, there is a standard in the
Community Facilities Plan of the Comprehensive Plan of 250 square feet per employee. During the last
year, staff studied the needs of the County Office Building using the Commonwealth of Virginias Space
=
Guidelines for State Building because it is a more sophisticated standard. Staff then reduced that standard
by ten percent for use as an Albemarle County standard. The greatest current need is in the Police
Department. The total need for all departments in the building is 38,000 square feet.
Ms. Thomas asked how this study affected the Planning Department. Mr. Foley said Planning
needs are less than the five departments listed, and the Board needs to make a decision first concerning
staffing, and about new or expanded programs. At this time, there is a space needs study going on for
Public Safety and other departments. That will be brought to the Board at a later date. There is no space
available in the building at this time for the departments in the building.
Mr. Foley said there would be an impact on the Operating Budget through debt service costs for new
or renovated space. Short-term solutions would create the need for rental or lease costs. Any new space
would cost $7.00 per square foot to operate, maintain and repair, depending on the age and condition of the
space. Issues to consider regarding the space shortage are: renovation vs. new construction; short-term
rental/lease; the impact of growth and Board priorities on staffing levels; use of modified State space
standards; and, use of technology to reduce future space needs. Staff recommends that space studies be
continued to define future space needs and cost alternatives, and also to pursue additional space
immediately to relieve overcrowded, inadequate conditions. The most acute needs are in the Police,
Education, Social Services, Finance Administration, and Fire/Rescue departments.
Mr. Foley said as to Building Maintenance/Upkeep, there is about 200,000 square feet currently in
six buildings. Maintenance of existing facilities takes about 26 percent of CIP funding. There are joint
maintenance arrangements on other buildings such as the Crozet Waldorf School, the Juvenile & Domestic
Relations Court, the Albemarle/Charlottesville Visitors Center, and the Regional Health Department. He
=
said increased funding would be needed for any new or renovated facilities. There is a higher cost to
maintain older facilities.
Mr. Foley said as to Fire/Rescue Stations, the Board saw some of this information while discussing
the fire services contract with the City. There are standards in place which call for five-minute fire response
goals in development areas; four-minute EMS response goals in development areas; and 13-minute fire and
EMS response goals in the rural areas. He said there will be a dramatic cost increase in the proposed City
Fire Contract over the next ten years unless new County stations are built to reduce the Citys call load. That
=
assumes that the same growth in calls will continue over the next few years. He said the Citys response is
=
not an option if the County is to achieve its response goals in its development and rural areas simply
because of where stations are located.
Mr. Foley said the Southern Development Area is currently underserved. A new station is planned in
the Mill Creek area as there is limited City coverage within the five-minute response goal. The Northern
Development Area is also underserved. There is limited volunteer/career coverage within the five-minute
response goal. The Route 250 West/Ivy Area is underserved. It has the highest rural population density in
the County, and there is limited City coverage within the five-minute response goal.
Mr. Foley said if new stations are put into place it will have a definite impact on the Countys
=
Operating Budget. There is an ongoing study with an architect to design the Southern Station. Debt Service
of new stations is estimated between $1.5 and $2.0 million per station and then there is the normal operating
costs of a station. How much career staffing is appropriate to achieve the Countys goals? That is the key
=
assumption to all of the goals which have been established. Supplementing volunteer efforts will be needed
if the goals are to be achieved and adequate service provided since there is currently a problem with
volunteers being able to respond in the daytime.
Mr. Foley said station locations have been discussed and staff feels that construction within the
development areas is critical for adequate service. The Southern Station is to be located at Mill Creek on a
County site. It will be able to provide service to the area south of Mill Creek. The Northern Station is to be
located at UREF property on a proffered site. It is recommended that a station be located in the Route 250
West/Ivy Area west of the City. It is also recommended that consideration be given to this being a joint
County/City station for both fire and EMS.
Mr. Foley said the next item is the Public Safety Facility which is from the Community Facilities Plan.
Cost of it could be covered by a General Obligation bond after voter approval. There are some existing
standards in place for the service level provided in terms of fire and rescue, but for police the standard is 1.5
police officers per 1000 residents. The average response time is 10 minutes throughout the County. The
Modified State Space Standards were used to estimate the 10,000 square feet shortfall currently in the
Police Department. Also to be considered are the unique needs that fire, rescue and the police have in
terms of training, records storage, evidence storage, etc. There is a detailed space study funded in the
current fiscal year to evaluate administrative and space needs for this public safety facility.
Mr. Foley said an issue for consideration is the use of substations throughout the County. The
location of Police Administration relative to other County departments is an issue to be discussed. At this
time, the Police are going through a police accreditation process, and when it is completed, there may be
some suggestions that will have an impact on space needs. At this time, it is known that the evidence room
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
is not adequate. They have found some more adequate space in the basement of the County Office
Building by rearranging things. The expanded role of fire and rescue is an issue that will need to be
considered. Any potential joint public safety operation and training facilities might be done jointly with the
City and the University.
Mr. Foley said he would mention the Technology Needs for public safety. The Board recently got a
review of the 800 MHZ Radio System which is critical to basic emergency communications throughout the
County. The Countys share of the $13.0 million project is about $6.5 million of which a portion is currently
=
funded and a contract is being prepared. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) is a basic component of the new
E-911 Center. It is a joint project. The Countys share is $900,000 of the $2.0 million project. A portion of
=
that project is currently funded and a contract is being prepared. An unfunded project which Chief Miller feel
strongly about is the use of Mobile Data Technology. It would improve communications and officer safety
response times. That is a $1.44 million project over a three-year period of time.
Mr. Dorrier said he had two things he wanted to mention. One is the use of DNA and forensic
laboratory and evidence collection. These are very important. He thinks the County needs to develop a first
rate DNA testing and forensic area. Chief Miller said his department uses the State Lab for DNA testing.
Mr. Dorrier said his second issue is whether the volunteer fire departments have any input into the
placement of new stations. Mr. Foley said all of this information was reviewed by volunteer chiefs and
captains at a meeting last Summer. The maps were reviewed with them. While in the process of developing
a City Fire Contract, this information was looked at. The location of the Southern Station is on the agenda
for the next meeting of the chiefs and captains. Mr. Bowerman asked if all of them agree with the study. Mr.
Foley said no.
A@
Mr. Martin said he understands there are two more presentations that can be done this afternoon, or
put off until another meeting. He said at least one member had mentioned that they needed to be out of this
meeting around five oclock. Mr. Dorrier said he would prefer to put it off. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Martin
=
said this would end this subject this afternoon.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters not listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Perkins said the owners of Braeburn Farm have a horse training facility between Routes 20 and
810 near Crozet. They also have a large number of development rights. They may be considering using the
Rural Preservation Development technique for development. The Crozet Sewer Interceptor line runs
through the property, as well as it being served by water. The property is to the west and north of ConAgra.
He feels the Comprehensive Plan could be amended to expand the service area boundaries for water and
sewer to allow them to develop in a more concentrated fashion. He suggested that staff look at the
possibility of doing that to see what impacts such a change might have since it would certainly save a lot of
rural land.
Mr. Cilimberg said he could respond to that now based on the Boards current policies. Mr. Perkins
=
said everybody knows what those policies are, but they would have to be looked at to see if changing those
policies would make sense. Is it worthwhile to change a policy in order to save 300+ acres of open land?
Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know the concentration of lots under a Rural Preservation Development, but if
a special use permit were approved to allow all the 21-acre lots, plus their development right lots, to be
concentrated, they could do all of those in two-acre lots, and they would not require water and sewer to do
that. It would require that the Board approve the development as a special permit use. Mr. Cilimberg said
that over the next year, staff will be studying how to deal with rural area development.
Mr. Perkins said the difference in this case is that the water and sewer lines are already on the
property. Mr. Cilimberg said that same thing occurs on a lot of properties in the rural areas, particularly on
lands on the western side of the City. It is a fundamental question to the Board as to whether this is an area
it is looking to change in utility provisions to rural development. If that is something the Board wants to look
at through amendment to the Plan, staff will need a resolution of intent to start the amendment process. Mr.
Tucker said it might help if staff just looked at the property and identified what would have to be amended in
the Comprehensive Plan in order to accommodate their proposed plan.
Mr. Bowerman said that what is currently on the books and what Mr. Perkins is asking for are two
different things. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. The Board would be moving into a whole new area. It
would take the staff quite some time to formulate a report. The whole Rural Areas study is still waiting to
begin. Mr. Bowerman said the same thing is an issue on Jim Murrays farm. One of their options is the Rural
=
Preservation Development where all of the homes could be concentrated in a small area, and thousands of
acres saved. It would require approval of a special use permit by this Board, and the land does lie in a
watershed area. Mr. Cilimberg said Braeburn Farm is also a watershed property. Mr. Perkins said he
believes it would have less impact on the Crozet water supply to have the houses connected to water and
sewer rather than have all of them on drainfields. Ms. Humphris said that is the argument that is made when
someone wants public utilities. There have been many situations where people have asked that their
properties be allowed to connect to the water line and the sewer line because their property is right next to
the lines. These lines exist all through the western part of the County, and that is why the Board has a policy
in place to deal with these situations.
Mr. Perkins said the requests usually come one at a time, but in this case there may be 70+ houses
built. Ms. Humphris said the whole point of the policy is that the size of subdivisions in the rural areas is
fundamental to the whole Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not trying to make a value
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
judgment, but to get into this area will take a great deal of time and Planning Staff has a great deal of work
already scheduled. He said he needs the Board to say this would be a higher priority than the seven other
things which are already in the Work Plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked how long a report would take. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know. Staff would
have to look at how to deal differently with rural tracts of land that have the opportunity to have public water
and sewer. Mr. Bowerman said the Board just went through all of these issues when discussing response
times for fire/safety. Mr. Dorrier suggested the staff might be able to draft a short cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. Martin said he believes Mr. Perkins is suggesting that the Board change the way it decides on
service areas for water and sewer. Mr. Perkins said this particular area has a sewer line that runs right
through it. The property adjoins that of the new Crozet Elementary School, so it is not far removed from
Crozet. In fact, twenty years ago it was part of the Crozet Growth Area. Things have changed, and the
Board decided to put all of the growth area on the other side of the road, and now the owners of this farm
are saying they will develop their property in some manner. They think it would make more sense to use
only 40+ acres for that development, rather than the whole farm.
Mr. Martin said the choice would be to either change the way the Board decides on the service areas
for water and sewer, or to rezone. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board would need to change the Comprehensive
Plan and make the property part of the development area. It would be an expansion to the north. There was
a request for an expansion to the east that was denied. Mr. Bowerman said that property also had water and
sewer available. Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
Mr. Martin said gathering information in order to make an informed decision about changing the
Comprehensive Plan would be time-consuming and, therefore, staff wants to make sure the rest of the
Board members have some interest in doing that. Mr. Cilimberg said if it is a Comprehensive Plan
amendment consideration, there would need to be a Resolution of Intent adopted to either change the policy
for how water and sewer are provided to rural properties, or to change the growth area boundaries. Staff
can also take it up as part of the rural areas review, where staff will look at rural lands and the possibility of
having smaller sized lots clustered to save farmland. Staff can look at that wherever rural land has water
and sewer available.
Mr. Bowerman said if the houses are concentrated and there is a central well system, there could be
potential water supply problems. There could be septic problems. He understands Mr. Perkins trying to
=
protect land by doing this. Mr. Perkins said there is no comparison of this land to the request several years
ago which had only 57 acres and seven development rights, and they were asking for a rezoning for an
additional number of units. All these people are asking for is to use the development rights they have, about
79. He thinks they are going to use some of those development rights to build houses for their helpers at the
horse training center. Mr. Bowerman said this would be a major, total change in policy.
Mr. Martin said they cant do that without using two-acre lots, or hooking up to water. They would
=
have to ask that there be a change made to the Comprehensive Plan. He doubts seriously that this Board
would consider changing its way of deciding service area boundaries, or the other choice of waiting until the
Rural Areas Study is completed. Out of that may come some recommendations to change the way these
decisions concerning water and sewer in the rural areas are made.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if one of the possibilities of having both public water and sewer is that they
would use smaller than two-acre lots. Mr. Perkins said yes. Mr. Cilimberg said in that case the Board
A@
would have to rezone the property to accomplish that. It would have to be rezoned to an urban zoning
density outside of the development area. That would not require amending the Comprehensive Plan.
Basically, he thinks the Board is talking about whether or not to change the Crozet Community Plan growth
area boundary.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it would be worthwhile to save 400 acres of farmland keeping it as open
space. He said the Comprehensive Plan is just a guide, so it needs to be looked at in order to accommodate
things that make sense. He thinks this proposal makes sense.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board would need to change the boundary of the Crozet Community,
rezone the land, and change the Comprehensive Plan in relation to water and sewer service, and change
the service area boundaries in the watershed. Ms. Thomas said there is also the issue of stormwater. Mr.
Dorrier said there are a lot of issues here. It appears to him that if the Board does it for Crozet there might
be other such requests. Ms. Humphris said the consequence of such changes is the important consider-
ation. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Perkins dilemma is one the Board faces pragmatically. It is not one the
=
Board should just dismiss.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the Rural Areas consideration, staff can look at whether smaller lot sizes, or
not increasing development rights, might be permissible where water and sewer are accessible for the
purpose of clustering to save land. That is really what Mr. Perkins wants. That is something which is not
available now in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said the implications of that policy county-wide must
be looked at. Mr. Cilimberg said staff can look at that from a policy standpoint.
Mr. Dorrier said he and Ms. Thomas went to a seminar where this very thing was discussed. They
had an expert from Pennsylvania who talked, and he had some good plans on how to keep areas green and
cluster development. Ms. Thomas said the County does have clustered developments, but Mr. Perkins
=
point is that when there are 79 development rights, the concept has been blown into a different realm.
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Martin asked what Mr. Perkins wanted the Board to do. Mr. Perkins said he was asking staff to
meet with the owners of the property, and explain to them the process they would have to go through. What
they have been told is that there is no need to even think about what they would like to do because it aint
A=
gonna happen. Mr. Perkins said he thinks it can happen, and it should happen. If they would come in and
@
meet with staff, and staff could outline the process they would have to go through to achieve the higher
density. Mr. Cilimberg said the process staff would advise them of would be to make an application to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to expand the development area boundaries of Crozet. Their advise to
them, based on history, is that that is not a likely occurrence, but they could do that. The next application
date comes up in March.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Cilimberg had mentioned rural residential clustering. That interests him. Mr.
Cilimberg said that in the Rural Areas report, staff will be looking at all possibilities for rural area preserva-
tion, as well as the residential development that is already occurring in the rural area. That is one way to
look at possible clustering.
Mr. Martin said it will probably be two years before that study is complete. Mr. Bowerman said it is
an important concept to look at. Long-term implications may mean there is a density of population in
Albemarle County that is tied throughout the whole 740 square miles that is not the concept presently being
looked at. If there are 400,000 people living in Albemarle County and they are scattered all over the 740
square miles, then the battle has been lost regardless of how they are supplied with water and sewer. You
cant define schools, police, fire and all the energies needed unless you can pull them into a community with
=
a rational basis. Population should be concentrated where services can be provided. Then, let the people
make a choice between urban services at the price they can afford, or rural expectations which are entirely
different and preserve the countryside too. That is the issue that is in front of the Board. That is the issue of
the $140,000 million deficit facing the Board. It is all of that and not just 400 aces.
Mr. Cilimberg said staffs approach in this case would be to encourage these people to look at the
=
Rural Preservation Development approach, but not on public utilities because staff knows they would not be
able to go under two acres.
There was no further discussion of this matter.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned a discussion at the last MPO meeting requesting legislative action to allow
VDOT to buy land for parks when they have taken parkland for a road. This could be generically worded,
but it is referring to the Meadow Creek Parkway and taking land from McIntire Park. When VDOT was trying
to get the City to agree to this road, they made statements that they would be eager to buy parkland in and
along the road. It turns out that by law they cannot do this. This is a piece of legislation that would not be
impossible to pass in this Session of by General Assembly because it would not be making VDOT buy a lot
of land in a lot of generalized situations. It can be worded rather specific to the situation here. She asked
that the Board add this to its list of legislative requests. She said it goes along with conversations the Board
had with the City when discussing the Meadow Creek Parkway. It was the consensus of the Board to put this
request on the January 12 Consent Agenda for action.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned retaining a lobbyist for the High Growth Coalition. She said that she and Ms.
Humphris mentioned this about a month ago, and it was their advice that this seemed to be premature. But,
rationally they came to see that the Coalition would not be able to do much this Session if it did not have
someone coordinating what will happen. A flat fee of $20,000 has been proposed, to be shared by the 24
member localities. It has been suggested that the base contribution be $500, with the larger localities
sharing the burden for the remaining $8000. There was a subcommittee that recommended retaining the
lobbying team of Sands Anderson Marks & Miller. She said Albemarle was a very early member of this
Coalition.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Coalition is tied into the Planning District in terms of its organized effort.
Ms. Humphris said no. Mr. Bowerman asked if they could be. Ms. Thomas said they work with a lot of
A@
organizations and lobbyists. Mr. Dorrier said it has to be someone who is effective at the General Assembly.
He does not know these people. Ms. Thomas said the lobbyists are to be Jerry Kilgore, Ben Lacy,
Stephanie Hammett and Chris Nolen. Mr. Bowerman agreed that Ms. Nolen would be very effective.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to support this effort with $500. She said this is the item Mr.
Marshall said the Board should support. She had asked Mr. Davis for a legal way to do it.
Mr. Davis said he had discussed this with other attorneys yesterday, and they agreed that the legal
way to support the effort is for each locality to simply pay the law firm directly. The $20,000 fee would be
prorated by the Committee for the group, and each locality will simply pay that amount directly to Sands.
That way, there does not have to be a cooperative agreement among all of the localities. Mr. Dorrier asked
if the Board can request a report back on the benefits obtained from this support.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Tucker said if the amount is going to be prorated,
$500 will probably not be the amount the County will pay. It would be better to say $500, but not exceeding
$1000, as the Countys contribution toward the cost of a lobbyist for by 2000 Session of the General
=
Assembly.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Martin mentioned a letter from Ms. Gene Smith. Mr. Tucker said Ms. White is contacting the
County Attorney's office to decipher the issues.
________________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials