2000-07-05July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 5,
2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Woody Baker, a member of the Albemarle County Farm Bureaus Board of Directors, thanked
=
the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Foley and Mr. Davis for working with the Farm Bureau on an
amendment to the policy concerning burning permits. He said this shows County government at its best
when the concerns of citizens are heard and action then taken on those concerns.
__________
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said he wished to address a Moormans River issue. He
=
read from writings of Edgar Allan Poe and said the Ragged Mountains are much the same as when Poe
walked those mountains. In 1885, a reservoir was built. Around 1900 a second reservoir was built
proximate to the first. Then, in 1925, a pipeline was run from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir down to the
reservoirs to fill them. That pipeline ran to what is called the gear box, which is located in a very remote
area, which is a non-mechanical device. When the water comes down the pipeline, if the valve at the
Observatory Treatment Plant is closed, the water pressure comes up and automatically backs the water up
through the gear box and it overflows into a diversion channel. He had some photographs which he passed
around to the Board members. He said there has been no change in that in 75 years. It is not addressed in
the water supply projects. It is related to the whole antiquity of the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain system
which needs to be addressed. If Ragged Mountain Reservoir is full at the time the automatic discharges
occur, Sugar Hollow and Moormans River water is wasted. He understands that during the summer, the
=
Ragged Mountain reservoirs are not full. These discharges cannot be controlled, there is no modern valve
there. This is just another indication of how this whole Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain system needs to be
modernized. A new valve needs to be installed there.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Police Department Accreditation. This item had been removed from todays
=
agenda.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation: Cow Branch Stream at Monticello High School.
Ms. Ashley Young said she and another student, Jessica Matthews, are working with other science
students from the ninth grade at Monticello High School on protecting the environment. When Mr. Dorrier
approached their teacher, Ms. Andrea Trank, and asked about testing the stream (Cow Branch Stream)
next to the High School, they took it on as an in-class project. Several students took samples from the
stream using the Izaak Walton Leagues Save Our Streams method of testing taught by John Hermsmeier.
=
They determined that the water quality in the stream is good except for downstream of a culvert on Mill
Creek Road. They believe that if the Board allows construction of a housing development, then the quality
of the stream will drop. Ms. Young said their unit has determined that Cow Branch Stream is an excellent
site for these science classes to use to meet the requirements of the SOLs. The stream has huge
educational value. They are present to request that it be created as a park or sanctuary and used for
educational purposes. She said a buffer zone is an area with a large amount of vegetation which can catch
the runoff into the local watershed. This is the last buffer for the watershed area (she had aerial pictures to
show). Creation of a housing development in the area would be detrimental to this stream by allowing
runoff into the stream. They understand there is a process to allow development on the site. They would
like to know how to stop it.
Ms. Jessica Matthews asked if they can have a copy of any detailed plans. They ask the Boards
=
position on the state of the property. She asked if there have been any previous cases in which developers
chose to protect their land instead of developing it. She asked if there are any laws already in place that
could help protect this property. Other than what they have provided, what data would be necessary to
protect the stream? How much will the students and faculties feelings affect the final decision? Of the
factors presented, which is the most important to the Board in its decision-making?
Ms. Andrea Trank said this is a well-used site by the school community. They have heard that the
property is being considered for development by its current owner. They wonder what, if anything, can be
done. One of the students went up in a plane with his father and took the aerial photos. They show one
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
little green strip in the middle of development, but that little green strip provides quite a bit of protection from
the high school and the surrounding development. They are not sure anything can be done, but they did
take this on as a school project.
Mr. Dorrier asked where the stream runs in relation to the high school. Ms. Young said it runs
parallel to Route 20.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Planning Department can be requested to provide some information on this
matter. Mr. Tucker said Planning and the Watershed Manager will provide comments. Mr. Cilimberg said
an application has been filed with the County for a rezoning of a good portion of that property. He thinks the
best place for this question is with the reviewers.
Mr. Bowerman asked the proposed zoning of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said the request is for R-
15. He said the questions raised would best be handled during the review process rather than waiting until
later.
Ms. Humphris asked the current zoning on the property. Mr. Cilimberg said he only knows it is the
part of the property left after the County purchased property for the high school. He does not know the
zoning category. Mr. Davis said he believes it is R-4.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. Trank and her students for bringing this matter to the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 7.1 through 7.15 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda
for information (Conversation concerning individual items will be found with that item.). 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 7.1. Appropriation: Education, $23,772.32 (Form #99082).
It was noted in the executive summary that the Department of Education has requested
appropriations of the following funds:
Donation - Murray Elementary School: Murray received anonymous donations in the amount of
$170.00. These donations will be used to purchase books for the literacy program, instructional materials,
books and subscriptions and staff development for the school.
Title II Eisenhower Grant: The 1998-99 Title II Eisenhower Grant was not fully expended in the
1998-99 fiscal year. It is requested that the grant carryover amount of $17,457.55 be appropriated for the
1999-2000 fiscal year. These funds will be used to provide professional development activities in
mathematics and reading.
7-Eleven, Inc. Grant - Woodbrook Elementary School: Woodbrook received three grant awards in
the amount of $250.00 each from 7-Eleven, Inc. The grants, entitled People Who Read Achieve, will fund
A@
programs that will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehen-sion
skills.
Textbook Fund: The Textbook Fund collected $3,965.57 from the schools for textbooks that were
lost, damaged or sold. It is requested that this money be appropriated to the 1999-00 fiscal year to
purchase replacement textbooks.
Donation - Book Blast: The Albemarle Education Association for the last several years has worked
with Barnes and Noble to sponsor the Book Blast, a fundraiser for the local school libraries. As a result of
this year's event, the AEA was able to donate $1,429.20 to be shared equally by each Albemarle County
School. The funds are intended to help libraries in the schools purchase additional books for use by the
students.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99082
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS AND GRANTS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies$110.00
1 2215 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions10.00
1 2215 61411 580500 Staff Dev50.00
1 3203 61311 580500 Staff Dev17,457.55
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies750.00
1 2114 61101 602000 Textbooks3,965.57
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2202 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2213 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2214 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2216 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2253 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2254 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2303 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies59.55
TOTAL$23,772.32
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations$170.00
2 3203 33000 330200 Title II-Eisenhower Grant17,457.55
2 3104 18100 181243 7-Eleven Grant750.00
2 2000 19000 190214 Textbook Fund3,965.58
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations1,429.20
TOTAL$23,772.33
__________
Item 7.2. Appropriation: Education, $45,561 (Form #99083).
It was noted in the executive summary that the Education Department had requested appropriation
of the following funds:
Donation - Murray Elementary School: Murray received anonymous donations in the amount of
$460.00 to be used to purchase music stands for the After- School Band Program and instructional
materials for the school.
Donation - Rotary Club of Charlottesville Foundation: The Department of Instruction received a
donation from the Rotary Club of Charlottesville in the amount of $1,000.00. This donation will help to
implement the Character Counts Project. Eleven Albemarle County Schools are utilizing this program
(which is based on the premise that the development of young people is a process shared by schools,
parents and the community) within their instructional programs.
Grant - 7-Eleven, Inc.: Red Hill Elementary School received a grant award in the amount of
$500.00 from 7-Eleven, Inc. The grant, entitled People Who Read Achieve, will fund programs that help
A@
motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension skills.
Donations - Various: Donations were received from the Earlysville Family Health Center in the
amount of $100.00, Dominion Digital, Inc. in the amount of $500.00, and the Earlysville Animal Hospital in
the amount of $100.00. These donations are for the Gifted Program. Donations were received from Ralph
& Marcia Rowley for $20.00, Nancy Takahashi for $50.00, John & Renee Grisham for $500.00, Judith Gray
for $25.00, and Williams Gas Line for $1,000.00. These funds are for the Strings for Students Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: The Schools are a partner in Virginia's four-year old PreSchool
Initiative, Bright Stars. As part of the partnership, the Schools provide transportation and meals (breakfast,
lunch, dinner) to participating children through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Child Care and
Adult Day Care Program. The program reimburses the School Division for meals based
on the student's participation and qualification for free or reduced price meals. The amount of
reimbursement from the Federal Government is $25,700.00.
Adult Basic Education: Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized
needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement the
Countys existing classes. Revenues were received in the amount of $600.00 from the International Cold
=
Storage Company for the English as a Second Language class.
Education Technology Grant: Chapter 935, 1999 Virginia Acts of Assembly (the 1998-2000
Appropriation Act), authorizes the Virginia Public School Authority to conduct an education technology grant
program in the spring of the year 2000. Its primary purpose is to provide for replacement of hardware
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
related to administrative and student management and information systems. Albemarle County meets or
exceeds the minimum requirements necessary to receive these funds. At its March, 2000 meeting, the
School Board received the grant in the amount of $63,330.00. Through further communications with the
Virginia Department of Education, Albemarle County Schools will receive additional funding in the amount
of $15,006.00. These funds will be used for reimbursement of computer technology equipment.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99083
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS AND GRANTS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $100.00
1 2215 61101 800200 Furniture/Fixtures 360.00
1 2111 61311 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,000.00
1 3104 60207 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 500.00
1 2111 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 700.00
1 3143 61101 540410 Rental-Instruments 1,595.00
1 3307 61129 600200 Food Supplies 25,700.00
1 3116 63348 132100 Teacher-Wages557.36
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA 42.64
1 9000 62190 800707 Tech Grant-Equip15,006.00
TOTAL$45,561.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations$2,160.00
2 3104 18000 181244 7-Eleven Grant 500.00
2 3143 18100 181241 Strings Program 1,595.00
2 3307 33000 330610 USDA Reimbursement 25,700.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed 600.00
2 9000 24000 240265 Technology Grant 15,006.00
TOTAL$45,561.00
__________
Item 7.3. Appropriation: General Fund (Purchase of Consoles at Emergency Communications
Center), $169,040 (Form #20001).
It was noted in the executive summary that in March, 2000, the Emergency Communications
Center (ECC) released an RFP for the purchase of console furniture for the new Center. The successful
bidder is Dispatch Products of Angola, Indiana. This modular console furniture will be designed into 15
dispatch/operator stations and will be used in a 24-hour setting to handle the call-taking and dispatch
functions for police, fire and EMS services. These console stations are designed to house telephone, radio
and computer dispatch equipment. They will also house all electronic equipment, including wiring. The
total cost of the consoles is $169,040. The City's share is $81,004 (47.92%), the County's share is $73,177
(43.29%) and the University's share is $14,859 (8.79%.) Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form
#20001 in the amount of $169,040.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20001
FUND: ECC
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR NEW DISPATCH CONSOLE
FURNITURE
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 4100 31041 800200 Dispatch Console Furniture$169,040.00
TOTAL$169,040.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 4100 16000 160518 City-Capital$81,004.00
2 4100 16000 160519 County-Capital73,177.00
2 4100 16000 160530 UVA-Capital14,859.00
TOTAL$169,040.00
TRANSFERS
1 1000 31040 700011 911-Capital73,177.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Fund Balance73,177.00
__________
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Item 7.4. Lake Albemarle Road (Route 675) "Children at Play" sign.
It was noted in the executive summary that the residents living along Lake Albemarle Road have
requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to install a "Child at Play" sign on Lake Albemarle
Road (State Route 675) near Garth Road. This request requires a resolution of support from the Board of
Supervisors. On March 3, 1999, the Board endorsed new guidelines for the installation of these signs.
Staff used these guidelines to review this request and does recommend that the Board adopt a resolution
supporting the request.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Lake Albemarle Road are concerned about traffic in
their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play
near the road; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a "Children At Play" sign would help
alleviate some of their concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Children
At Play" sign(s) on Lake Albemarle Rd (SR 675).
__________
Item 7.5. Lake Reynovia Subdivision "Children at Play" signs.
It was noted in the executive summary that the Lake Reynovia Owners Association has requested
the Virginia Department of Transportation to install four "Children at Play" signs on various roads in the
subdivision. These roads include Reynovia Drive (SR 1086), Larkspur Way (SR 1089), Blackthorn Lane
(SR 1091), and Starcrest Road (SR 1194). This request requires a resolution of support from the Board of
Supervisors. On March 3, 1999, the Board endorsed new guidelines for the installation of "Child at Play"
signs. Staff used these new guidelines to review this request and recommends that the Board endorse a
resolution of support.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Lake Reynovia are concerned about speeding traffic
in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that
play near the road; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that four (4) "Children at Play" signs would help
alleviate some of their concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Children
At Play" sign(s) in the Lake Reynovia subdivision.
__________
Item 7.6. Woods Edge Road Speed Limit Signs and "Children at Play" signs.
It was noted in the executive summary that the residents of Woods Edge Road have requested the
Virginia Department of Transportation to install two, 25 mile per hour speed limit signs and three "Children
at Play" signs on Woods Edge Road. VDOT will install the speed limit signs. On March 3, 1999, the Board
endorsed new guidelines for the installation of "Child at Play" signs. Staff used these new guidelines to
review this request, and recommends that the Board endorse a resolution supporting the speed limit and
"Watch for Children" signs along Woods Edge Road.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Woods Edge Road are concerned about traffic in
their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play
in or near the road; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that speed limit and "Children at Play" signs
would help alleviate some of their concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install two (2) 25
mph speed limit signs, and three (3) "Children at Play" signs on Woods Edge Road.
__________
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Item 7.7. Renewal of Contracts for Health and Dental Insurance Benefits.
It was noted in the executive summary that the County Health Care Executive Committee has
provided recommended plans and insurance premiums to the County Executive and Superintendent. The
procurement process this year focused on a renewal with both of the current insurance providers,
QualChoice and Delta Dental. The purpose of the renewal was to develop a competitive employee benefit
design based on the marketplace while providing quality programs. In the analysis of the renewal
proposals the insurance premiums paid to Delta Dental will increase. The County (employer) contribution
for dental will increase from $84 to $97 for FY 2000-2001. The cost to maintain the current medical benefit
is projected to rise 10.8 percent. The County (employer) contribution for medical will increase from $2,608
to $2,735 per employee. The insurance rates for employees are proposed to remain the same as this
recent year.
For dental, the Committee recommends that the FY 2000-2001 dental plan contract be renewed
with Delta Dental of Virginia to retain a fully-insured plan. No changes in the dental benefit are
recommended. The Board of Supervisors’ contribution for the dental plan is budgeted at $97 annually for
all full-time employees.
For medical, the current QualChoice medical plan is considered better than what is offered in the
marketplace. As medical costs, and particularly prescription costs, are projected to rise over ten percent
each year, the Committee recommends a change in the employee benefit design. These changes will
provide a plan more in line with the marketplace while providing a comprehensive benefit. There are three
changes recommended: (1) add oral contraceptives as a covered benefit; (2) increase the office visit
co-pay from $10 to $15; and, (3) change the two-tier prescription benefit to a three-tier benefit ($8 generic,
$18 moderate-cost name brand, and $33 high-cost name brand). The Committee has recommended that
the health care contract for FY 2000-2001 be renewed with QualChoice of Virginia with no change in the
rates to be paid by the employee. This recommendation includes a provision to continue the QC II and QC
III plans only for current employees. This recommendation contemplates a Board of Supervisors
=
contribution of $2,735 per full-time employee.
(Ms. Thomas said the insurance rates for employees are to remain the same, but the co-pay
increased. She does support including oral contraceptives. She said if the co-payment were not increased,
it would add about $144,000 to the cost. She cannot correlate that to the amount of money that was
budgeted, and whether that puts this item over the budgeted amount.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said the options are to increase the budgeted
amount, or to use some Reserve funds. A decision had been made not to use any Reserve funds.
Ms. Humphris said the last time the Board had this discussion, it was right on the edge of increasing
the co-payment, and that was avoided at that time. She was not surprised that the increase could not be
avoided. Ms. White said they have always tried to keep the co-pay an equal amount for the employee.
They tried to keep some of the costs the same for the family coverage and the family co-pay is not
increasing.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the staffs recommendation that
==
the FY 2000-01 dental plan contract be renewed with Delta Dental of Virginia with no changes in
dental benefits; that the health care contract for FY 2000-01 be renewed with QualChoice of Virginia
with no change in rates paid by employees, with the three items set out in the staffs report being
==
added to the contract.
__________
Item 7.8. Authorize County Executive to sign Declaration of Covenants and Deed of Easement at
Rosewood Village, adjacent to Branchlands Pond.
It was noted in the executive summary that the County accepted ownership of the Branchlands
Pond and Wetland (corner of Greenbrier and Hillsdale Drives) in 1998 as a regional stormwater facility.
The pond was completely dredged and cleaned out in 1999 as a condition of the County accepting
ownership from private interests. The pond is a significant facility as an aesthetic and recreational presence
in the Branchlands and Brookmill communities, and as part of an integrated approach to protect Meadow
Creek which is only a few hundred feet downstream from the pond. Private property immediately to the
west of the pond, owned by Ms. Virginia Tahboub, has an approved site plan to develop a retirement facility
(Rosewood Village). During the development review process, staff was concerned about protection of a
buffer zone between the development and the pond. The buffer zone was seen as important to protect the
pond's water quality functions and as an aesthetic buffer around the pond. Accordingly, staff worked with
the owner to designate a voluntary buffer adjacent to the pond as part of the site's stormwater management
plan. The owner agreed to provide this buffer and to dedicate an easement to the County.
The Declaration of Covenants and Deed of Easement, developed by the owner's attorney and
reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, restricts the owner from disturbing the buffer except for specific
items associated with the approved site plan. The Covenants and Deed also convey to the County an
access easement for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing the buffer and preserving its water quality
function. As such, the buffer area can be incorporated into the County's maintenance regime for the pond,
which is currently handled through contract by the Public Works staff. It should be understood that certain
disturbances will occur in a section of the buffer during construction of the Rosewood Village site. These
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
include construction of a bio-filter to treat the site's runoff, regrading of the slope between the bio-filter and
the pond, and the replacement of invasive vines with new, native landscaping. Existing large trees within the
buffer will not be disturbed. Staff believes that the disturbances will, in the end, produce a functional and
more aesthetically pleasing buffer area than the current condition. Staff recommends that the County
Executive be authorized to sign the Declaration of Covenants and Deed of Easement so the instrument can
be recorded.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign the
Declaration of Covenants and Deed of Easement dated May 22, 2000, between Rosewood Village,
and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DECLARATION AND DEED OF EASEMENT made and entered into this
22nd day of May, 2000, by and between ROSEWOOD VILLAGE, L.C., hereinafter called
the Landowner, the Grantor, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
A@
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the County, the Grantee, whose address is 401
A@
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Landowner is the owner of certain real property (hereafter
referred to as the Property) described as Tax Map Sheet 61-W, Parcel 02-1 on the
A@
Albemarle County Tax Map and also described in a deed recorded in the Clerks Office of
=
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1775, Page 520, as follows:
All that certain tract or parcel of land situated on the eastern corner of
Westfield Road and Greenbrier Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District of Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 90,000 square feet as
shown and described on plat of B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, Ltd.
dated August 9, 1984, recorded in the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of
=
Albemarle County in Deed Book 816, page 499.
WHEREAS, the Landowner is proceeding to build on and develop the Property;
WHEREAS, the Landowner is exempted from the requirements of 17-314 of the
'
Albemarle County Code pursuant to 17-314F6 provided that the Landowner agrees to
'
provide a stream buffer; and
WHEREAS, the County desires an easement of access in order to maintain the
stream buffer zone on the Property because it abuts a stormwater detention facility
managed and maintained by the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual
covenants contained herein, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. The Property shall be subject to a buffer zone running from the broken line
showing the limits of stream buffer to the southeast boundary line of the Property as
A@
shown on the two page sketch attached hereto and made a part hereof (herein referred to
as the stream buffer zone).
A@
2. Within the limits of the stream buffer zone the Landowner shall not construct
any structures or excavate or fill the land except that the parking lot and bio filter as shown
on the site plan approved by the County on May 5, 2000 (SDP98-106) can be constructed
in the stream buffer zone, and such excavation, fill, grading and construction for the
parking lot, bio filter, related landscaping and erosion control measures as shown on the
approved site plan may take place within the stream buffer zone insofar as may be
necessary for their construction. Such construction activities shall be conducted in such a
manner so as to encroach as little as reasonably necessary in the stream buffer zone.
3. The Landowner, its successors and assigns, shall adequately maintain the
parking lot so as not to cause any erosion or degradation of the stream buffer zone beyond
the confines of the parking lot. The Landowner, its successors and assigns, shall maintain
the bio filter in accordance with the recorded stormwater facilities/BMP maintenance
agreement entered into by and between the parties on January 25, 2000, and in a manner
that does not cause erosion or degradation within the stream buffer zone.
4. The Landowner, its successors and assigns shall leave the stream buffer zone
in a natural state (except for the parking lot and bio filter encroachment and such activities
necessary for proper maintenance of the bio filter). This restriction includes, but is not
limited to, not removing or cutting any trees or other vegetation or engaging in any land
disturbing activities within the stream buffer zone without the prior written consent of the
County Department of Engineering and Public Works.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
5. The Landlord GRANTS AND CONVEYS, and DEDICATES to PUBLIC USE
with GENERAL WARRANTY of TITLE to the County an easement of access in the stream
buffer zone.
6. This Declaration and Deed of Easement shall be recorded among the land
records of Albemarle County, Virginia, and shall constitute a covenant running with the
land, and shall be binding on the Landowner, its successors and assigns, and the County.
7. The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the conveyance of interest
in real estate made by this Declaration and Deed of Easement.
__________
Item 7.9. Adopt resolution approving the issuance of up to $5,250,000 of revenue bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County to finance the Woods Edge Apartment complex for
the elderly; and support grant of up to $320,000 to JABA.
It was noted in the executive summary that for over a year, Fore Property Company and the
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) has sought approval from the Virginia Department of Housing
Development Administration (VHDA) for Federal tax credits to build a 96-unit apartment complex for the
elderly called Woods Edge Apartments. The proposed project, in one three-story elevated building, will be
located near Mallside Forest, a project also developed by the Fore Property Company. Woods Edge's
common areas will include community/meeting/ activities rooms, a residents' garden area and landscaped
grounds. The community will be designed for seniors, with senior services and activities available, including
those provided by JABA.
In March, 1999, Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P., a limited partnership, working with JABA as the
minority general partner, submitted a proposal to VHDA but the project did not obtain the needed points to
qualify for VHDA financing. In March, 2000, this partnership submitted a second proposal to VHDA for tax
credits for this proposed 96-apartment complex. In order to obtain beneficial points on the VHDA
application, the County passed a resolution on March 15, 2000, committing $320,000 to the project which
would be paid out in eight annual installments beginning in FY 2002. While Fore Woods Edge anticipated
that this proposal would be strengthened significantly by the County's grant, the proposal did not attain the
point distribution that was needed to qualify for VHDA financing. This was primarily due to recent VHDA
changes in its internal scoring system and selection process which reflect its staffs preference for
=
rehabilitation projects over new construction and elderly developments.
To move the project forward, Fore Woods Edge has decided to pursue an alternative funding
option. The partnership has determined that there is a reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary
financing by seeking an allocation of bond authority from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County. Accordingly, Fore Woods Edge requested an Inducement
Resolution for bond authority funding from the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority (IDA). In
addition, Fore Woods Edge requests that the $320,000 grant for this project approved by the Board on
March 15, 2000, now be made available to the project to increase the affordability of Woods Edge
Apartments for a number of elderly households.
After a public hearing on June 29, 2000, the IDA adopted the Inducement Resolution to approve
the proposed issuance of the tax-exempt bonds. If the Commonwealth of Virginia allocates the requested
bond authority to the IDA, this action should automatically qualify the Woods Edge project for tax credits,
but these credits will have a lesser value than those which would have been provided under VHDA approval
of the recent application. Under this new funding scenario, the project would have an increased debt to
equity ratio. This will require a higher income stream to service the debt, thus, causing monthly rents to
increase by about $100 to $125 per month over the rents that were previously projected for the VHDA
approach. The apartments will now be available to elderly households whose incomes are 60 percent,
rather than 50 percent, of area median income or lower. Because of this, continuation of the grant funding
in the amount of $320,000 from the County is even more important to the affordability of these units. The
grant funds would be used by Woods Edge to reduce the rent directly paid by elderly residents whose
household income is at 50 percent or lower of the area median income for 30 of the development's 96
resident apartments for a period of eight years. Property rent (which includes all gas heat, water, sewer
and trash collection expenses) would currently be from the low $600's for one-bedroom units to the low
$700's for two-bedroom units. The grant would reduce the amount paid directly by the 30 eligible
households from $107 to $127 per month.
JABA believes there are large numbers of local lower income elderly who need and can afford
these apartments. Given the new construction, amenities and services provided, JABA thinks Woods Edge
will offer significant rent values. The grant would make the complex a more valuable asset for Albemarle
County. The grant, comprising eight consecutive installments of $40,000, would be subject to the County's
annual appropriation process and payments would begin in FY 2002. The grant is contingent upon Fore
Woods Edge receiving an allocation of bond authority for Woods Edge Apartments through the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County and the accompanying allocation of housing tax credits prior to
February 1, 2001. Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P., the majority and managing partner, has committed to sell
the development to JABA at the end of the 15-year tax credit pursuant to an option or right of first refusal.
The price will not exceed the outstanding debt and exit taxes of the for-profit entity at the time of the sale.
Staff continues to support the proposed project as it will help meet the housing needs and priorities of
Albemarle County by providing new affordable housing and important related services for elderly residents.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution approving the issuance of up to $5,250,000 of
revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County to finance the Woods Edge
apartment complex for the elderly; and, support a grant of up to $320,000 over an eight-year period to
JABA to be used exclusively to support the affordability of Woods Edge Apartments by reducing the amount
of rent paid by 30 elderly households whose incomes are 50 percent below median income. The funding is
subject to a separate agreement with JABA which assures that the funding is used for the program outlined
in this report.
(Ms. Thomas said she would like some assurance that there is as great of a need at the sixty
percent median income level as with the median income level being at fifty percent. She just wants to be
sure this is where the County should be putting its money, especially since Whitewood Village wants some
money and there is a similar low-income situation.
Mr. Tucker said it is the financing that has changed slightly. The request for $320,000 over eight
years is $40,000 a year starting in 2002 and it simply maintains some subsidy for the elderly units. That was
the reason this Board and staff felt there was a difference in this proposal, because it focuses on low- and
moderate-income elderly. In addition to the financing now going through the Industrial Development
Authority, JABA is a part of this and there is a provision that JABA will have to provide a separate agreement
with the County to insure the funds will be used for the elderly.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much the $40,000 a year subsidy from the County affects this proposal.
Mr. Tucker said it would reduce the household monthly payment. Without that, there would be no subsidy.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure the County is meeting a substantial need because this will
reduce the number of people who are eligible. Mr. Tucker said from staffs review, it makes a difference.
=
He said the subsidy will go to people in a certain level of income that could not be met otherwise.
Ms. Humphris said on Page 3 of the Fore Property letter is a paragraph which addresses this
increase to 60 percent of median income. The last two sentences obviously, we would pursue alternatives
A
that would allow us to serve at lower levels of income and rents. We could approach Albemarle County for
a renewal of its grant commitment, some property tax relief, other loan and grant moneys, or tap fee
waivers. Although the Board does many good things, people do come back with requests to change the
@
original proposal.
Mr. Bowerman said if they make nine and one-half units available free, then they meet other tests.
There are different ways to look at the proposal. Ms. Humphris said she wants to be sure the Board is
serving the people it intends to serve, and also be aware of what might be requested in the future. Mr.
Tucker said some of the things mentioned cannot be approved by this Board.
Mr. Bowerman said with assisted-living and certain other provisions, they could meet a standard set
by the Board and provide totally free indigent care too. He said it is a subtle change by getting local IDA
dollars rather than a Federal tax subsidy. Ms. Thomas said with the assurance the Board has received, it
certainly is a good thing to be providing these units for the elderly less able to pay. She is not opposed to
this item on the agenda, but wanted to recognize that there had been a change. She wanted to be sure the
Board members are still supportive of the proposal because it is a substantial investment the Board has
promised. Unfortunately, someone did not take the Board at its word that the money was promised, so they
did not receive points for that. Ms. Humphris said she thinks this is the same VHDA that sponsored a
NASCAR race at great expense recently. Mr. Tucker said that is what he heard.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many jurisdictions can authorize future payments by boards which have
not been elected. Mr. Davis said counties cannot. A city could incur debt into the future by entering into a
binding agreement.
Mr. Martin said if there were no more comments on this item, it would be left on the agenda for
approval.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution approving the issuance of up
to $5,250,000 of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County to
finance the Woods Edge apartment complex for the elderly was adopted; and, the Board gave its
support to a grant of up to $320,000 over an eight-year period to JABA to be used exclusively to
support the affordability of Woods Edge Apartments by reducing the amount of rent paid by 30
elderly households whose incomes are 50 percent below median income, this funding being subject
to a separate agreement with JABA to assure that the funding is used for the program outlined in
the staffs report dated July 5, 2000.
==
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
("Authority"), has considered the application of Fore Woods Edge, L.L.L.P., a Virginia
registered limited liability limited partnership ("Borrower") requesting the issuance of the
Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,250,000 ("Bonds") to assist in
the financing of the Borrower's acquisition, construction and equipping of a rental housing
development for the elderly consisting of approximately 74,600 square feet ("Project") to
be located adjacent to and north of Mallside Forest Apartments, whose address is
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mallside Forest Court, in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and has held a public hearing
on June 29, 2000;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the "Code"), 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;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia ("County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the
issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, 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, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit
of the Borrower, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to assist in
the financing of the Project.
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
Project or the Borrower.
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. The Board directs the County Executive to request an allocation of the State
Ceiling (as defined in Section 15.2-5000 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended) in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
and any regulations or executive orders issued thereunder.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 7.10. Authorize Chairman to sign Resolution in support of AHIP grant for Home Emergency
Program.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) is a
=
private, non-profit organization that provides a comprehensive range of housing programs for low and
moderate income residents. AHIP has received a $6,844 grant from the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development to provide emergency home repair services to address emergency home
repairs of low-income residents of Albemarle County. The grant requires a dollar for dollar match which
was approved in the budget, and will be provided by AHIP. This grant and other funding sources enables
AHIP to assist over 50 low- to moderate-income county households each year.
The grant program requires a resolution from the Board of Supervisors which authorizes AHIP to
accept and enter into a grant agreement with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the resolution which
authorizes Jane Andrews, Associate Director of AHIP, to accept and enter into a Grant Agreement with the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for an Emergency Home Repair Program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing
Jane Andrews, Associate Director of AHIP, to accept and enter into a Grant Agreement with the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for an Emergency Home Repair
Program.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Housing and
Community Development has issued an application to provide services under the
EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR PROGRAM; and
WHEREAS, assistance is needed to effectively and adequately address the
emergency home repair needs of low-income persons to be served by the Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) in the County of Albemarle, Virginia; and
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
WHEREAS, an application under this program has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, AHIP agrees to provide emergency home repair services to those in
need in conformance with the regulations and guidelines of this State program; and
WHEREAS, Jane Andrews can act on behalf of AHIP and will sign all necessary
documents required to complete the grant transaction; and
WHEREAS, a local dollar for dollar match is required under the program and will
be provided by AHIP;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes Jane Andrews, on behalf of AHIP, to accept the grant and
enter into a Grant Agreement with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development and undertake any and all actions and responsibilities in relation to such
Agreement.
__________
Item 7.11. Installation of pedestrian/security lighting at the intersection of Ricky Road and
Middlesex Drive, and at the intersection of Northfields Road and Rolling Road.
It was noted in the staffs report that the 1983 Board of Supervisors Roadway Lighting Policy offers
=
Board members, individuals and groups, the opportunity to request new lighting. Ms. Francis Bibb, who
lives at 1504 Ricky Road, requested the lighting project at Ricky Road. The Rio District Supervisor initiated
the Northfields Road lighting project. All affected parties received a letter dated April 28, 2000, containing a
map illustrating each proposed lighting project. The original Ricky Road lighting plan proposed the
installation of two new lights and poles near the intersection of Ricky and Middlesex Roads. Two affected
parties expressed opposition to the plan. However, each of these parties was agreeable to installation of
only one light at the intersection. There were no responses to the letter regarding the Northfields Road
lighting project.
According to the Boards Policy, the applicant is responsible for 50 percent of the proposed
=
installation costs unless the costs represent a financial hardship to the applicant and the system is of such
value as to warrant the cost to the County. The County would be responsible for all future operating costs.
Funds are budgeted for operation of the lighting projects. Both lighting projects serve public pedestrian
pathways, are located along State-maintained roadways, and are of value to the County's alternative
transportation initiatives. All of the light fixtures to be installed will be fully shielded in compliance with the
Lighting Ordinance.
The following projects are proposed: one light at the intersection of Ricky Road and Middlesex
Drive at a cost to the County of $500.00, and, one light at the intersection of Northfields and Rolling Roads
at a cost to the County of 500.00. The estimated annual operating cost of these lights is $200.00. The
Public Works Department recommends that the lighting projects be approved and funded by the Street
Lighting CIP Program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved installation of the two street lights
as recommended by the Public Works Department
__________
Item 7.12. Purchase of Keene Landfill Buffer Property (2.9 acres, Mark Hanna Banks, et al).
It was noted in the executive summary that the Keene Landfill is an inactive municipal solid waste
landfill located on Route 704 in Southern Albemarle County. The property includes approximately 56
acres, 38 of which is filled with municipal, commercial and construction wastes. The landfill operated from
1968 until it officially ceased accepting waste in 1991. The County has purchased adjacent properties
under a program to buffer the closed landfill.
To advance the acquisition of property needed for buffering purposes, staff bid on Tax Map 121,
Parcel 57, at a public auction that was held on June 15, 2000. This property was being auctioned for
non-payment of taxes. The County was the high bidder at this auction with a bid of $6,500. The subject
property is undeveloped and located on the western boundary of the Landfill. Purchase of this property will
improve the Countys ability to maintain and protect the waste disposal areas of the landfill. The Public
=
Works Division recommends that the Board authorize the purchase of the 2.9-acre property for $6,500.00
using funds from the Keene Landfill Closure CIP Account and also authorize the County Executive to
execute the deed on behalf of the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the purchase of the 2.9 acre
property for $6,500 using funds from the Keene Landfill Closure Capital Improvement Plan account,
and also authorized the County Executive to execute the following deed on behalf of the County.
THIS SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS DEED made this 26th day of June, 2000, by
=
and between STEVEN L. RAYNOR, SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, Grantor, party of the
first part; and COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, Grantee, party of the second part, whose
address 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902; and MARK HANNA BANKS,
CLARA B. LOGAN, CORNELIUS BANKS, ROSETTA BANKS, JOHN H. BANKS, and
their heirs, assigns or successors in interest, if any, Respondents in the hereinafter
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
described lawsuit, parties of the third part.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, by Decree of Sale entered by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, on October 19, 1998, in the chancery cause of County of Albemarle v. Mark
Hanna Banks, Clara B. Logan, Cornelius Banks, Rosetta Banks, John H. Banks and their
heirs, assigns and successors in interest, if any, proceeded against herein as Parties
A
Unknown, Case No. CH98-10,762, Steven L. Raynor was appointed Special
@
Commissioner for the purpose of selling the real estate of the parties of the third part,
more particularly described in Schedule A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the sale of the real estate described in Schedule A attached hereto
to Alan D. the William Mawyer, Jr. was confirmed by Decree of Confirmation entered by
this Court in the above referenced cause on June 26, 2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of SIX THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($6,500.00), cash in hand paid, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part does hereby GRANT and
CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the County of Albemarle the right,
title and interest of the parties of the third part in and to the real estate described on
Schedule A attached hereto.
The property hereby conveyed is subject to any and all easements, restrictions,
reservations and conditions contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other
instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the above described
property, or which may be disclosed by a physical examination of the property, and
which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein and have not otherwise
become ineffective.
The form of this deed has been approved by the County Attorney for the County
of Albemarle and the County of Albemarle accepts this conveyance as evidenced by the
signature of its duly authorized agent affixed hereto.
SCHEDULE A
All that certain lot or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereto, located in Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 2.90 acres,
more or less, and more particularly described by metes and bounds of Lot #2 in the deed
dated December 1, 1912, and recorded in the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of
=
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 158, page 69, and being the same property
conveyed to Maggie L. Banks by deed of L. R. Stinson and Nannie D. Stinson, husband
and wife, dated July 16, 1919, recorded in the Clerks Office aforesaid in Deed Book 171,
=
page 173. Maggie L. Banks died intestate, as evidenced by the List of Heirs dated May 7,
1931, recorded in the Clerks Office aforesaid in Heir Book 34, page 598, and identified
=
the heirs of Maggie L. Banks as Mark Hanna Banks, Clara B. Logan, Cornelius Banks,
Rosetta Banks and John H. Banks.
__________
Item 7.13. Purchase of Keene Landfill Buffer Property (four acres from W. L. Ward and 7.129
acres from M. R. Van Clief Estate).
It was noted in the executive summary that the Keene Landfill is an inactive municipal solid waste
landfill located on Route 704 in Southern Albemarle County. The landfill operated until it officially ceased
accepting waste in 1991. The Board authorized negotiations with owners of Keene Landfill buffer
properties in February, 1999. The Public Works Division has successfully negotiated the purchase of four
acres of the W. L. Ward property, Tax Map 129-1, for a price of $6,000.00 and the purchase of 7.129 acres
of the Van Clief property, Tax Map 129-2, for a price of $10,693.50. The subject properties are located on
the western boundary of the Landfill. These are undeveloped, wooded properties. Purchase of these
properties will improve the Countys ability to maintain and protect the waste disposal areas of the landfill.
=
Staff recommends purchasing the properties as described above with the funds coming from the Keene
Landfill Closure Capital Improvement Plan account and adoption of a resolution.
(Mr. Davis noted that the staffs report noted that a resolution was attached, but it was not. The
=
motion on this item should be to authorize the County Executive to execute the purchase agreements and
deeds to purchase the property.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to purchase the
properties described above, and to execute a deed between Wardell Louis Ward and Derick Wardell
Ward dated May 22, 2000, and to execute a deed between Bank of America, formerly NationsBank,
N.A., Co-trustee under the Margaret R. Van Clief Revocable Trust, dated June 7, 1990, and D. G. Van
Clief, Co-trustee, Grantor, dated January 7, 2000, to effectuate these purchases.
THIS DEED is dated this 22nd day of May, 2000 by and between WARDELL
LOUIS WARD and DERICK WARDELL WARD, Grantors, and the COUNTY OF
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the total sum of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS
($6,000.00), and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with
GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the Grantee the
following described property:
All that certain real estate located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
and described as that portion of land containing 3.998 acres, more or less,
being a portion of Tax Map Parcel 129-1 located off State Route 704
south of Keene, as described further as Parcel "W" on the plat made by
Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc. dated August 23, 1999, revised
October 20, 1999 (the Plat), attached hereto and to be recorded
A@
herewith.
Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the land conveyed
hereby.
The Grantors hereby reserve onto themselves, their assigns and successors, a
nonexclusive easement for ingress to and egress from the 17.887 acre residue portion of
Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 129-1 out to State Route 704. The easement shall run
from said 17.887 acre tract over and along that entire 30' wide strip of land shown as "New
30' Right-of-Way" on the Plat and as "30' R. O. Way" on plat by R. O. Snow, C.L.S. dated
June 25, 1979, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of
Albemarle in Deed Book 698, page 192, and over and along the existing 30' right of way
out to State Route 704. Grantee, by its signature hereto, acknowledges that the Grantors,
their assigns and successors, have a nonexclusive easement for ingress to and egress
from the 17.887 acre residue portion of Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 129-1 out to
State Route 704, as set forth above.
***
THIS DEED is dated this 7th day of January, 2000 by and between BANK OF
AMERICA, formerly NATIONSBANK, N.A., CO-TRUSTEE UNDER THE MARGARET R.
VAN CLIEF REVOCABLE TRUST, dated June 7, 1990, and D. G. VAN CLIEF,
CO-TRUSTEE, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the total sum of TEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
NINETY THREE AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($10,693.50), and other good and valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT,
BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantee
the following described property:
All that certain real estate located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
and described as that portion of land containing 7.129 acres, more or less,
being downgradient of the Keene Sanitary Landfill and being a portion of
Tax Map Parcel 129-2 located off State Route 704 south of Keene, the
exact acreage and boundaries being identified and determined by survey
made by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc., titled Subdivision Plat
A
Showing Parcel V -- A Portion of Tax Map 129 Parcel 2 Hereby Added to
>=
and becoming a Portion of Tax Map 129 Parcel 2A Located off Old State
Route 6 Scottsville District Albemarle County, Virginia, dated August 23,
@
1999, attached hereto and to be recorded herewith.
Being a portion of the property conveyed to Margaret R. Van Clief, by
deed from Grant Baker and Pauline W. Baker, husband and wife, dated
January 4, 1960, recorded in the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of
=
Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 355, Page 433. Margaret R.
Van Clief died testate January 13, 1991, and by her will probated January
18, 1991 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerks Office in Will Book 71,
=
page 593, the subject property was devised to Sovran Bank, N.A., as
trustee under the Margaret R. Van Clief Revocable Trust.
Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the land conveyed
hereby.
This conveyance is made subject to all easements, reservations, restrictions and
conditions, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments
constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the above-described property which
have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have otherwise not become
ineffective.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
As evidenced by its acceptance and recordation of this deed, Grantee covenants
and agrees, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, that the property conveyed
hereby will not be used for the expansion of the landfilling operation at the Keene Sanitary
Landfill or as a new landfill; this covenant shall be deemed to run with the land and is for
the benefit of (and may be enforced by) the Grantor, its successors and assigns.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by
resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the
conveyance of the interest in real estate made by this Deed and on the terms, covenants
and conditions set forth herein.
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code
'
58.1-801, pursuant to Virginia Code 58.1-811(A)(3).
'
__________
Item 7.14. Approve amendment and authorize Chairman to sign revised Interlocal Agreement -
Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
It was noted in the executive summary that on March 20, 2000, the Board approved an Interlocal
Agreement to implement the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) which involves a consortium of the localities
that make up Planning Districts 9 and 10.
The revised agreement, which was forwarded for approval by the Board, proposes two changes.
The first change is found on page 1 at the end of paragraph 7. The words Prior to distribution of any funds
A
under the WIA, the TJPDC will obtain such liability insurance naming each of the local governments and
CLEOs forming the Consortium as additional insured. Coverage shall be no less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. A certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall be
distributed to each of the named CLEOs at the inception of this Agreement are added at the end of the
@
paragraph entitled Responsibility for use of funds and implementation of the WIA. This addition provides
A@
for liability insurance coverage for each local government and the chief local elected officials that form the
planning district consortium. TJPDC is working with the Virginia Municipal League (VML) insurance
program to acquire a liability insurance policy.
The second addition can be found on page 6 in the first paragraph which the City of Charlottesville,
as the fiscal agent, has requested. The addition is a paragraph entitled Shared Liability Among
A
Consortium Members reading: While the City of Charlottesville is the Grant Recipient under this WIA
@A
Program (the Program) for Planning Districts 9 and 10 as evidenced by the signatures below of their
A@
respective CLEOs all of the local governments named in this Agreement hereby agree to share equally any
and all liability resulting from implementation of the Program.
@
Staff recommends that the Board approve these changes and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Interlocal Agreement for implementation of the Workforce Investment Act, as amended.
By the recorded vote above, the Board approved the changes as set out above and
authorized the Chairman to sign the Interlocal Agreement for Implementation of the Workforce
Investment Act, as amended.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
to implement the
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
The purpose of this agreement is to create a Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials
(CLEOs) to set forth the process, procedures, and responsibilities for implementing the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of
Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Nelson, Orange,
and Rappahannock. The WIA requires Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEOs) to take
certain responsibilities and actions which are enumerated in this document and to form a
working relationship with the Workforce Investment Board.
Area covered: The localities named above have been grouped together and approved
as a WIA area by the Governor of Virginia.
Consortium of CLEOs formed: By this agreement, the Chief Local Elected Officials form
a consortium for the purpose of implementing the tasks and performing the continuous
oversight responsibilities set forth in the WIA.
Administration: The local governments have named the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC) as the administrator, working with the Rappahannock
Rapidan Regional Commission (RRRC).
Grant recipient: The City of Charlottesville will be the grant recipient.
Fiscal Agent: The Thomas Jefferson Planning District will be the Fiscal Agent for WIB
funds. The TJPDC will make monthly financial reports to the Consortium, in writing. The
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
audit will be conducted with the TJPDC audit, according to the requirements of all OMB
and Federal regulations.
Responsibility for use of funds and implementation of the WIA: Under the WIA the final
responsibility for use of the Federal WIA funds and for carrying out the tasks set forth in
the WIA rests with the CLEOs. The CLEOs, as a Consortium, shall enter into a contract
with the TJPDC to perform certain tasks on behalf of the Consortium. Liability insurance
for the CLEOs will be provided out of the administrative funds. Prior to distribution of any
funds under the WIA, the TJPDC will obtain such liability insurance naming each of the
local governments and CLEOs forming the Consortium as additional insured. Coverage
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. A
certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall be distributed to each of the named
CLEOs at the inception of this Agreement.
Task One: The first task of the Consortium of CLEOs is to create the Workforce
Investment Board.
Workforce Investment Board (WIB): The activities of the WIA are carried out by a WIB
appointed by the CLEOs. The composition of the WIB is mandated in the Act. The WIA
requires 51% of the appointees be from private sector business and industry. The
remaining 49% are mandated categories in the Act.
WIB Membership: The total board membership is to be shared by the two planning
districts on the basis of population. The population distribution in the two planning district
areas is 59% Thomas Jefferson Planning District and 41% Rappahannock Rapidan
Regional Commission. The attached chart illustrates the distribution of the membership.
If a planning district does not make all of its allocated appointments, those board
positions will revert to the other planning district for appointment.
WIB Appointment Process: The appointments to the WIB are to be made by the CLEOs
using the following process:
Business and Industry:
1.Letters will be sent to business and industry organizations soliciting
nominations to the Board. In TJPDC, this will be done by Piedmont
Virginia Community College; in RRRC, by the planning district. In the
future other business/industry organizations may be requested to assist
in generating nominations for the private for-profit sector.
2.An advertisement will be placed in a paper of general circulation in each
planning district by TJPDC. The notice will include a nomination form.
Persons may nominate themselves.
3.Nomination forms will be sent to TJPDC for distribution to the CLEOs.
By law, CLEOs must select from those nominated.
4.Each CLEO will select the number of business and industry
appointments based on the percentage of population in the respective
planning district. This results in the following distribution of
business/industry appointments by locality:
PD-10 1997 Population % % x 16 Proposed
Charlottesville 38,100 20.4% 3.27 3
Albemarle 79,200 42.4% 6.79 7
Fluvanna 17,700 9.5% 1.52 2
Greene 13,600 7.3% 1.17 1
Louisa 24,100 12.9% 2.07 2
Nelson 13,900 7.4% 1.19 1
59% 186,600 100.0% 16
PD-9 1997 Population % % x 11 Proposed
Culpeper 32,100 25.1% 2.76 3
Fauquier 52,000 40.6% 4.47 4
Madison 12,500 9.8% 1.07 1
Orange 24,500 19.1% 2.10 2
Rappahannock 7,000 5.5% 0.60 1
41% 128,100 100.0% 11
PD-9 and PD-10
Total 314,700 27
If a locality does not fill all its allocated business positions, the
Consortium will assign those positions to one or more other localities.
: The Act sets forth certain categories of representation, the One-Stop
One-Stop Partners
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Partners. To insure the correct distribution of categories and voting consistent with the
population distribution, the attached chart mentioned above also sets forth the planning
district origin for those categorical appointments. The following process will be used to
appoint persons who meet these requirements:
1.Nominations will be sought from categorical organizations, set forth in the Act, by
each planning district office.
2.Nomination forms will be received at the TJPDC office.
3.A committee of four CLEOs, two from each planning district, will meet to prepare
a slate of categorically mandated WIB members, distributed as set forth in the
Chart.
Full Board Appointments:
1.The full group of CLEOs will meet to affirm the categorical nominees and the
business and industry nominees.
2.The TJPDC will prepare the Certification Form and submit to the State for the
Governor's certification.
Vacancies: Vacancies will be filled using the same procedure in order to maintain the
correct geographic and categorical distribution of WIB members.
Organization of the WIB: It is the intent of the CLEOs to create the full WIB to cover all
the localities. It is the desire of the CLEOs that PDC-level regional committees be
formed by the WIB which will conduct planning and other activities to advise the WIB in
order that the distinct characteristics of each planning district area have an avenue for
in-depth focus.
Organization of the Consortium: The purpose of the Consortium is to maintain
communication with the WIB and perform oversight of certain WIB activities.
1.The Consortium shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from its members. One
officer shall be from each planning district. The Consortium may elect to elect
two Co-Chairs.
2.Two additional members, one from each planning district, will be chosen by the
Consortium to serve on an Executive Committee of the Consortium
3.The Consortium will meet, as a body, at least quarterly, beginning in March,
2000.
4.The Executive Committee will meet monthly or more frequently, as needed.
5.Minutes of the Executive Committee will be distributed to the full Consortium
membership and to the Chief Administrative Officers of each jurisdiction.
6.It will be the responsibility of the Chief Local Elected Official, acting with the Chief
Administrative Officer, to communicate the activities of the Consortium and the
WIB to their respective governing bodies.
7.Two members of the Consortium may, according to the By Laws of the WIB, sit
as non-voting members of the WIB.
Collaboration with the WIB
1.The Plan:
The WIB will submit the Plan to the Consortium for their concurrence.
Concurrence will be a simple majority of the Consortium present and voting.
2.Budget:
The WIB budget will be submitted to the Consortium for approval. Approval will
be a simple majority of the members of the Consortium present and voting.
3.Quarterly meetings:
The officers or Executive Committee of the WIB will meet with the CLEOs at the
quarterly meeting for the purpose of updating the CLEOs on the activities and to
seek advice from the CLEOs regarding the activities of the WIB.
4.One Stop Operator or System:
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
The WIB is charged with designating the One Stop operator or system, in
cooperation with the CLEOs.
A.The WIB shall submit the criteria for the One Stop to the CLEOs for
comment prior to selection of the One Stop operator.
B.The selection of the One Stop operator will be ratified by the CLEOs by a
simple majority of the CLEOs present and voting.
C.The Memorandum of Understanding establishing the One Stop will be
presented to the CLEOs for their concurrence.
D.Reports on the One Stop operation will be presented to the CLEOs on a
quarterly basis.
5.Youth Council:
The WIB is charged with appointing the Youth Council in cooperation with the
CLEOs.
A.The WIB shall present the names of the Youth Council membership to
the CLEOS for their concurrence prior to their actual appointment to the
Council. The Youth Council membership will reflect the population
distribution 59/41, PDC 10/9.
B. The Chair or designated alternate will meet with the CLEO Consortium
on a quarterly basis.
NOTES
Required One-Stop Partners not applicable
for this region:
Organization
Indian/Native American Programs
Demonstration projects
National Emergency Grant
VECX11Employment Service, Trade Adjustment
Assistance, Veterans Employment/
Training, Unemployment Insurance,
Migrant/Seasonal Farmworkers, NAFTA
Job CorpsX1
AAA AgencyX1Title V
CRHAX1HUD Training
CAAXX1Youth, Youth Opportunity Grants
Reg’l Econ DevX11
Voc RehabX2DRS and DVH
Welfare to WorkX11DSS, VIEW
LaborX11
Community CollegeXX21
School Board or
SuperintendentXX1Adult Education & Superintendents
Education11Local educational entities, including post-
secondary institutions
Community BasedX12
Organizations
OtherX3At the discretion of CLEOs
Total –8315
Non-business
Businessx1116Must be majority of board
Totals19331
53
Shared Liability Among Consortium Members:
While the City of Charlottesville is the Grant Recipient under this WIA Program
(the "Program") for Planning Districts 9 and 10 as evidenced by the signatures
below of their respective CLEOs all of the local governments named in this
Agreement hereby agree to share equally any and all liability resulting from
implementation of the Program.
Effective Dates of this Agreement:
This agreement shall take effect on the date of the last signature and shall
remain in effect until the WIA is no longer in effect.
Amendment of the Agreement:
A majority vote of CLEOs is required to amend this agreement.
__________
Item 7.15. Policy Amendment to Open Burning Permit Fees.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
It was noted in the executive summary that the Albemarle County Farm Bureau presented a
position statement to the Board in January, 2000 requesting relief from the open burning permit fee. The
current permit requirement is designed to help ensure that fire officials are aware of planned burning
activities and are able to conduct an inspection prior to burning to ensure fire safety. Since January's
meeting, staff has been working with the Farm Bureau to determine if an effective method could be
developed to ensure fire safety without the requirement for a permit fee. As a result of meetings with the
Farm Bureau, the Fire/Rescue Division has developed a Certified Open Burning Permit Program that will
improve fire safety through education and early burn site identification and inspection. Those who qualify
and attend a fire safety course will have the permit fee waived. Through the program, a completion card
and site specific burn permit will be issued for those who complete the course. The permit will be good for
two years and can be renewed upon recertification. While waiving the burning permit fee for those who
complete the course will reduce the revenue generated by the County, the program will also reduce staff
time and improve fire safety. The policy reads as follows:
General Outline of the
Certified Open Burn Permit Program
Purpose: The purpose of the Certified Open Burning Permit Program is to establish a
program to maintain a high level of fire safety without charging a burn permit fee for
property owners qualified under the program.
Eligibility: Any property owner or their employee(s) who wishes to burn on the property of
the owner shall be eligible for the program.
Program Outline:
To qualify for a waiver of the Open Burning Permit Fee, the person conducting
$
the open burning (property owner or employee) must attend a fire safety course
offered by Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division.
The fire safety course will be offered at no cost.
$
Upon completion of the course, a card of completion will be issued.
$
Cards of completion will be issued for a two-year period and may be renewed
$
upon recertification.
The Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division will offer fire safety courses at least
$
twice a year.
Requirements for Waiver of the Open Burning Permit Fee:
Any person conducting an open burn must hold a current card of completion.
$
The burn site must be inspected and pre-approved by the Fire/Rescue Division.
$
All site specific burn permits will be issued for a two-year period.
$
All open burning must be done in accordance with Albemarle County
$
regulations.
Revenue lost as a result of this program is expected to be minimal. In 1999, because of the efforts
of the Fire/Rescue Division to help landowners find alternatives to open burning, only 92 of 535 open burn
permits required payment of the $125 permit fee ($11,500). Staff developed this proposal in consultation
with the Farm Bureau and supports the program. Staff also recommends approval of a resolution allowing
for the waiver of the open burning permit fee.
(Mr. Perkins said the policy talks about the fire safety course which will be offered by the Fire &
Rescue Division. The Department of Forestry offers a Certified Burning Managers Program which is much
more intense than what the County is offering. He wondered if that program could be substituted for the
Countys program. Mr. Tucker said staff will look at that suggestion.
=
Mr. Mark Spicer said staff has discussed with the Department of Forestry working jointly to provide
this training. They are willing to do that.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution allowing for
the waiver of the open burning permit fee:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 27-97,
has adopted the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code as set forth in Section 6-200 of
the County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is authorized by Virginia Code Section
27-98 to establish such procedures or requirements as may be necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to County Code Sections 6-203
and 6-407, imposes fees to defray the cost of such administration, enforcement and
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds it is appropriate to amend the fee
relating to open burning permits.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the fee schedule administered by the County
Fire Official and his authorized assistants, as follows:
FEE SCHEDULE
FEESECTIONFIRE CODE REFERENCE #
$125.00Open BurningF-403.4
per job
For the burning of land clearing debris three (3) inches in diameter in
size or greater such as, brush, stumps, and other clean wood, to be
burned at the site at which it was generated. Permits are to be issued to
the contractor performing the work and shall include the name of the
contractor, the contractor's agent who will be responsible for the
operation, a day time, night time and an emergency phone number. The
permit shall be issued for a specific location at the job site and may be
moved at the direction of the Fire Prevention Office only. The duration of
the permit shall not exceed sixty (60) days. No fee shall be charged to a
property owner or property owner's employee qualified to burn on the
owner's property under the Certified Open Burn Permit Program.
__________
Item 7.16. Update on Release into the Moormans River at the Sugar Hollow Dam. The following
memorandum from Mr. Jack Marshall, Chair, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of
Directors, dated June 29, 2000, was received for information.
The possibility -- the desirability -- of changing the current pattern of releasing water into
A
the Moormans River has been an ongoing topic of discussion with the RWSA Board, staff
and consultants working on the water supply permitting process, as well as the regulatory
agencies involved in our search for a new water supply.
The RWSA Board genuinely wishes to redress the problem, inherited as a result of
decisions over many decades, that occasionally leaves the Moormans riverbed dry below
the Sugar Hollow dam so that human consumption demands can be met. We continue
to examine ways to adjust the present release pattern, and value the thoughtful and
creative proposals suggested by many who wish to help find a solution.
Put simply (though this is certainly not a simple situation), there are basically three
reasons the RWSA Board has not yet agreed to an increased release into the Moormans:
First, until new sources are available, the safe yield in our combined reservoir system will
just match our community demands for water. To ensure that the RWSA has enough
water in reserve (i.e., in the reservoirs) to meet city and county human consumption
needs during extended periods of drought, we believe we must -- in preparation for the
possibility of such dry months -- store every gallon somewhere in our system. Any
release of water under the current water supply situation increases the risk, if a drought
occurs, that water conservation measures would be instituted earlier (approximately 2 to
8 weeks sooner). For that reason, the Board has taken the conservative position that
water should not be released into the Moormans at the Sugar Hollow dam unless our
reservoir system is full.
Second, we do not know what impact various quantities of released water would have on
the Moormans riverbed ecology. It is not intuitively obvious, as some contend, that any
additional release is better than the current situation -- particularly if the release could not
assure a sustained flow in the river (i.e., if the riverbed would still be dry on occasion).
We would be more willing to assume the additional risk (outlined in the paragraph above)
if we knew that the increased water -- even if intermittent -- played a significant role in the
Moormans environmental health.
=
Third, we want to ensure that any immediate decision about releasing water at Sugar
Hollow does not jeopardize the ongoing effort to obtain permits for new water supply
alternatives. The regulators who have been reviewing the information on the permit
process have stated that the relationship between these two activities is likely to become
more apparent at the end of this current study phase in which the alternatives are being
evaluated. This study phase should be completed this fall, and the regulators suggest
that we should examine release into the Moormans at that time. It is projected that the
details (i.e., when a release occurs, how much flow it entails), if a release into the
Moormans becomes part of the permit process, will be determined at a later time (within
a year from this fall).
Given these issues, should we do anything now to get more water in the Moormans?
The RWSA Board and staff have recently discussed the possibility of a release of flow
from the reservoir separate from the permit process, an interim action that could be
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
started or stopped as the situation dictated (i.e., halted if our region is hit with a long
drought). We would be more inclined to agree to some sort of interim policy for a release
this summer if:
1.We understood better what benefits to the Moormans River ecology would occur
=
under various release scenarios. To this end, RWSA staff is contracting with an
environmental scientist to perform a preliminary analysis based on existing data.
It is hoped that the analysis can be done within 30 days and brought to the next
RWSA Board meeting (July 24).
2.The County Board of Supervisors and the City Council, representing the broad
community, were to support a decision to increase the release into the
Moormans River. With such a statement of support, the Supervisors and
Councilors would share with the RWSA Board the risk that voluntary and/or
mandatory conservation measures would be implemented earlier in the event of
a prolonged drought.
At the July 24 meeting of the RWSA Board we will assess the information from the
environmental scientist about the ecological impact of various release scenarios, and we
will revisit our current policy to see if any change is warranted. At that point I will let you
know our position, based on the new information, and may ask you to express your
support for an increased Moormans release with the understanding of the risk involved.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Art Petrini if you have any questions, or if you
would like to let us know your thoughts on this issue. We would value your input.
@
(Ms. Thomas said she often attends the meetings of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. A
recent discussion concerned whether City Council and this Board would be willing to share the blame if
A@
the RWSA makes a change that causes more water to go down the Moormans River, and then the
jurisdictions have to put in voluntary and then mandatory drought conservation restrictions earlier than might
have been done without this water going down the Moormans. At some point, that question will have to be
discussed by this Board. The Authority believes it is their job to utilize all of the storage built over the years,
and using all that storage means closing the dam and keeping water from going down the Moormans. That
water does eventually end up in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Since the water treatment plant is not
big enough to deal with all of the communitys needs now, that could be what some people call lost water.
=
That water treatment plant is being enlarged, and by next year it will be able to treat 12 million gallons per
day.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Tucker, on the Boards behalf, suggested an interim project which did not get
=
far with the Rivanna Board. There is a report due back to the Authority at its July 24 meeting. The people
who live along the Moormans said this will take the community pretty well through the summer, again
without a solution. She does not have an answer.
Mr. Bowerman said it is pretty clear from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it will become almost impossible to build a dam anywhere in
this country because of the growing concern over the damage that such structures cause. He believes the
word blame for water policy decisions which result in different types of water usage is a recognition that
A@
there are limits to resources.
Mr. Dorrier said he takes it that the Rivanna Board is looking into this question, and will continue to
do so. Mr. Tucker said the issue Ms. Thomas mentioned will be on the Boards agenda at a later time for
=
some type of action.)
__________
Item 7.17. Update - White Hall Post Office, was received for information.
Forwarded to the Board with the executive summary, were many documents outlining the current
status of this item. The Planning Commission determined last year that the facility complied with the
Comprehensive Plan as long as specified conditions were met on the site plan. A preliminary site plan was
approved with conditions and the final site plan can be approved when all of these conditions are satisfied.
There is no Board action necessary on this project.
(Ms. Thomas asked if there is any further action the Planning Commission or the Board of
Supervisors can take, as opposed to being required to take. She said this is a very divisive issue in a very
nice community, and she hates to wade in. Mr. Davis said the Post Office has voluntarily complied with
A@
the Countys Comprehensive Plan determination process and site plan process. To the extent that they
=
continue to follow those processes, there are actions which the County would take, as on every other site
plan. This site plan is in the final approval steps.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the citizens have any input in the process. Mr. Davis said Mr. Cilimberg has
tried to facilitate some meetings between Post Office officials and the community. To the extent that those
concerns are being heard by the Post Office, that is the extent of the input from the citizens.
Mr. Cilimberg said to this point, they have followed the process as laid out in the Zoning Ordinance
and Virginia law to the letter. They have not said they intend to do the project outside of the process. They
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
have received a finding for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan from the Planning Commission.
A@
They have a preliminary site plan approval with conditions. They are now submitting their tentative site
plans to try and meet those conditions. They have not met those conditions yet, but it is a completely
administrative process for the final site plan. He believes they have done everything that would be required
of any public project in the County. There are no additional avenues for Commission or Board review of the
project. Staff told citizens who called the office that they may need to deal with the Post Office through the
Federal process, including their Congressman.
Mr. Perkins said he understands the Post Office has submitted a new site plan for lighting and more
landscaping. Mr. Cilimberg said the last site plan he knows about is the one on Route 623. They have
been made aware of conditions which have not been met with that submittal.)
__________
Item 7.18. Notice of Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by members of the Virginia, Maryland &
Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, with the State
Corporation Commission, to clarify the nature of the Commission's jurisdiction over companies that may
own and operate electric systems located on military bases in Virginia that are being "privatized" under
Federal Defense Reform Initiatives (on file in the Clerk's office), was received as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: February 9, March 1, March 15(A), March 20(A), March
22(A), April 12, April 19 and May 3, 2000.
Ms. Thomas had read March 20 (A), 2000, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read February 9, 2000, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read May 3, 2000 (Page 22 to the end), and noted the following minute book
correction. On Page 39, on the vote for the Fire Contract, he had voted no. The vote should have read:
A@
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
A@
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes as
read noting the minute book correction. 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. Transportation Matters.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, noted two meeting dates. On July 19 from 5:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. is the Citizens Informational Meeting on the next phase of the Route 29 North Improvements.
The meeting will be held at the Double Tree Hotel. On July 25 in Culpeper at the VDOT Office at 9:00 a.m.
will be the rescheduled Preallocation Hearing on Primary Roads.
__________
Ms. Humphris said the advertisement in the newspaper yesterday for the July 17 meeting was
confusing to her. She does not believe any citizen will know what is being proposed. This is the widening
that was to be six lanes from the South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. She asked if that project is now
in the Six-Year Plan as six-lanes with continuous right-turn lanes, making eight lanes. Ms. Tucker said the
current tentative Six-Year Plan only indicates a widening to six lanes. She will look at last years plan and
=
compare it to the section which has recently been completed which was defined as six-lanes with right turn
lanes giving eight lanes. The next set of proposed improvements is working with a controlled access design
where there will be access to the reverse frontage roads by way of South Forest Lakes, Hollymead and
North Forest Lakes. She thinks there will be right turn lanes at those intersections in addition to three lanes
in each direction on Route 29.
Ms. Humphris said she has talked to Mr. Don Askew about this type of thing, several times. People
have no way of knowing what VDOT is planning when an advertisement is placed in the newspaper that
says no more than this current ad does. She would like to discuss later the implications of this proposal on
the reverse frontage roads and the potential this has for turning Route 29 into a limited access highway.
That is something Albemarle County does not want. However, it might become possible by going along
with the frontage road concept which she understands VDOT wants to make four-lane roads instead of the
two-lane roads which suit the Countys neighborhood planning.
=
Ms. Tucker said she is aware of Albemarle Countys view on limited access on Route 29 North or
=
South, and the sensitivity that the current project brings. Part of VDOTs concern in the next phase of
=
widening the Route 29 corridor has to do with the proposed Western Route 29 Bypass, and the proposed
Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II touching down just north of the River and maintaining the capacity and
efficiency of the corridor north to Airport Road. It was thought that because of all of the development on
both sides of Route 29, it could best be served by the reverse frontage roads. VDOT has proposed two-
lane frontage roads unless development dictates otherwise. At that time, developers would be building
additional turn lanes on the frontage roads as needed. VDOT will be prepared to share this design
description at the Information and Public Hearing. She said formal comments will not be taken at the
Citizens meeting. VDOT will be trying to answer questions.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Martin asked how the meeting on July 17 will be set up. There will be hundreds there and most
will be angry and upset. Ms. Tucker said it will be similar to the public hearing forum in the past. A citizen
may come in at his leisure between the times periods published, and there will be several displays around
the room, and there will be people present to answer questions about the design, impacts to property,
environmental issues, etc. Mr. Martin asked if people will be able to get answers to questions. Ms. Tucker
said it is hoped that there will be enough staff people there to answer all questions asked. If all questions
cannot be answered, there should be answers at the official podium-style public hearing later.
Ms. Humphris said she recently saw some minutes from a Planning Commission meeting where
they discussed the town center” proposal. In rereading these minutes, she found that they discussed the
A
idea of frontage roads (parallel roads), and someone commented that if the town center is what the County
wants, then parallel road is not the designation that will help the County. Another comment was made
A@
that the parallel road is ... clearly a part of the strategy to make Route 29 a surrogate interstate. It is not a
A
model for a good urban street section, and if we are going to build a town, we may not want to build it on the
bones of what VDOT wants to give us in the way of these through roads. If you design this area (talking
@A
about this town center) based upon an assumption that VDOT is going to build a four-lane, high-traffic,
high-speed road through that area, then that is what you will get. When VDOT pursued the 29 North
Corridor Study, the consultant recommended that 29 North be turned into a limited-access facility between
Charlottesville and Culpeper, which was opposed by every community along the way, including an
unanimous vote by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors to oppose the concept. What is being looked at
now is land use redesignation, and it is being done with respect to achieving a result for VDOT that this
community is clearly opposed to. What I am suspicious of is where they connect up and the degree to
@A
which they are through roads. I think that should be pursued from the perspective of what is most
advantageous to the County, not what the current State scheme for moving traffic through this corridor is.
@
If the Comprehensive Plan is approached with the assumption that the road will be a divided four-lane,
A
high-speed road moving lots of traffic, then one kind of community will end up there. When VDOT gets to
the public hearing stage regarding road placement and design, they will point to anything in our
Comprehensive Plan that supports their case. I think the ultimate plan that VDOT will go forward with for
this road will be significantly influenced by the communitys designation in this area.
=@
Ms. Humphris said she is concerned. She wonders if the Boards statement for the July 25 meeting
=
in Culpeper is worded strongly enough in opposition to the limited-access idea. It should be more strongly
worded in favor of access management. The Board does not want any plan to be implemented that will just
pull the rug out from under all the work of the DISC Committee and all of the labor and thought that is
A@
going into how Albemarle County wants its community to look. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has not updated that
statement yet. Staff found out only last week that the Preallocation Meeting had been rescheduled.
Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Tucker if VDOTs proposal is something that will come through the
=
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which the
MPO has to approve. Ms. Tucker said she does not know if that has been decided yet. Ms. Humphris said
if it is Federal funding, it has to come through the MPO. Ms. Tucker said she does not know if the type of
funding has been established; there are no right-of-way or construction funds for this project yet. She is
aware of the comments just read from the Planning Commission, and the decision not to go with limited-
access improvements along the corridor. Bringing the project forward at this time was an attempt to be
helpful because the corridor is rapidly developing. VDOT felt it would be good to have these improvements
on paper prior to UREF going into the northwest quadrant of Routes 29/649, as well as some very high
traffic-generating development on the southwest quadrant. VDOT is trying to stay ahead of the game. She
does not know if this project at this time will allow them to do that.
Ms. Humphris said the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) did not act on Phase I of the
Route 29 Corridor Study when the recommendation from the Advisory Committee was not to have limited-
access, but to have access management. The fact that that is still sitting there, and other things are taking
place, makes many people who follow these things think this is simply another step in VDOTs making it an
=
interstate-like highway all the way through Virginia, particularly through Albemarle County. She thinks this
Board needs to be updated again about what this project is going to be. The VDOT meeting is only 12 days
away. One of the things she has always found wrong with VDOT meetings is that the people who are there
to answer questions, frequently cannot answer questions. Then VDOT will be moving swiftly to the Location
and Design Public Hearing and somehow this Board has to be engaged in this process and make
comments at the appropriate place. The Board has been treated as any person without clout would be
treated. She thinks it is important that Albemarle County work hard on this. It is as crucial to the future of
this County as the whole DISC idea.
Mr. Martin said people are focusing on the east side of Route 29. Ms. Humphris said she
understands VDOT had not decided how they would get through the east side because of the cemetery.
Ms. Thomas said the people coming to the meeting will be concerned about that site. She appreciates the
idea that there is a need to plan ahead of, and with the County for, these roads. From that point of view,
she appreciates VDOT working on this and knows that they have worked with the Countys Planning staff.
=
She said this idea is going to be such a crucial part of development that she is nervous about it. The usual
process of highway planning does not fit well with the process of land use planning. It would be nice if this
were the exception. She just spent three days at a session put on about public involvement in
transportation planning. She was impressed that the County and VDOT do as well as they do in that area.
Mr. Martin said it has been over six weeks since he last looked at these plans, but it was his
impression that the landowners on the west side were working together. He said his only concern has been
on the east side. He asked if this was wrong. Mr. Cilimberg said the west side is in its infancy in terms of
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
what will happen there. Staff has stressed with VDOT the need for the parallel roads to be integrated into
the communities they are in, and not to be through roads to get past parts of Route 29. Because the
County does not have many parallel roads, that becomes an issue. Also, when you talk about connecting
areas, people living on the east side visualize traffic in their neighborhood that they dont have right now.
=
The parallel road system on the west side is more about being part of development, and is not a driver of
development. That is what staff has been telling VDOT from the early stages. The first letter staff sent to
VDOT was about making the parallel road system, the urban street system, pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
and that it needed to be integrated into the neighborhoods and communities in existence or which will be
developed. It was not about putting a four-lane road on either side of Route 29. VDOT has an interest in
moving traffic, and staff has said to them that the County does not want the mainline facility to be limited
access because that would not be in keeping with the Countys ideas for Route 29. Right now they are
=
working from controlled access and signals. Staff has suggested some intermediate access points
between the signals to provide for access along lands that are not developed, but which may develop in the
future. He said the work on the west side is a work in progress. The County does not want the road plans
to drive what ends up happening with the town center concept, or whatever concept comes forth from the
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission had a public hearing last week, but is not ready to make
a recommendation. They looked at the idea on the west side of having multiple parallel roads which
actually created a street system, and not just one road on that side. VDOT probably wont build all of those.
=
That will probably be the responsibility of the County and the developers. That message has been clear to
VDOT all along. He said this informational meeting will probably garner a lot of comments which are not
about parallel roads.
__________
Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Tucker if she had an updated report on the Advance Mills bridge. Ms.
Tucker said they are in the process of getting a contract for painting that bridge, to give it a few more years
of life. That work will probably take place next Spring.
Mr. Perkins said he was told there had been some damage to one of the abutments. Ms. Tucker
said they will handle that between now and when the painting begins.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any plans for Route 20 at its intersection with Independence
Boulevard. Ms. Tucker said they have a very preliminary four-lane alignment. It shows nothing but the
alignment from Route 53 to the High School road.
Mr. Dorrier asked if future development on that corner is being considered in the four-laning. Ms.
Tucker said nothing has been coordinated in detail at this time.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Rivanna Trails Foundation is aware that some of the old metal truss bridges,
when they are taken down by VDOT, are possibly available to be turned into pedestrian bridges. They were
not sure who to contact with that question.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned a letter received from a citizen who resides on the unpaved section of Dick
Woods Road between Miller School Road and the Material Utilization Center. They are concerned that
when it is paved, it will still have joggers and bicyclists because it is part of a bicycle loop for recreational
bicycling. She thinks the project is about to be let for paving, and wondered if that included paved
shoulders. Ms. Tucker said the plans do not call for paved shoulders, but she can check to see what
additional expense that would cause, and how that could be added to the contract. They might be able to
take what are to be three to four-foot shoulders and pave a section of those. She will check on this.
__________
Ms. Humphris noted a letter written by Mr. Tucker in February, 2000 to Senator Emily Couric about
the Senate Finance Committees Transportation Funding Program which proposed to infuse an additional
=
$19.268 million into the Western Bypass project in years 2003 and 2004. It was noted that this Board does
not support the additional funding. She asked if anyone knew what happened to that money. Mr. Tucker
said Dave Blount (Legislative Liaison) was present and asked him what happened. Mr. Blount said it was
not included in the Senates budget.
=
__________
Mr. Bowerman mentioned the intersections of Old Brook Road, Northfields Road and Hillsdale
Drive on Rio Road. He explained in detail how the lights work and explained to Ms. Tucker a circumstance
that is very dangerous. He requested that VDOT make a change in the way the lights operate.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he had heard that the contract was being let on Grassmere Road. He said the
Board usually received an update of projects, and contracts which had been let, but he does not think
anything has been received recently. Ms. Tucker said she has not sent that information, but will soon.
Ms. Thomas said she noticed that because one member of the Grassmere Community has been
sending Ms. Tucker E-mails, she has been keeping that person updated. She asked that Westvaco be
added to her E-mailings.
__________
Ms. Tucker said if Mr. Martin does not object, she will forward him, by E-mail, letters which she has
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
received from residents in North and South Forest Lakes and Hollymead regarding the Route 29
improvements.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Martin asked staff to investigate the possibility of moving the pull-down movie
screen from behind the Chairmans chair to the corner of the room. He finds it hard to chair the meeting
=
when he has to move to the side of the room. The other Board members agreed that this was a good idea.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Update: "Living with Water Program".
Mr. Stephen Bowler was present to make a report on the Living with Water Program. It was noted
in the staffs report that vegetated waterway buffers can help filter runoff and reduce stream bank erosion.
=
Such buffers contribute to protection of drinking water, local stream health and the Chesapeake Bay. Most
education efforts regarding waterway buffers are directed toward farmers with fewer efforts directed to
other landowners. However, in Albemarle County, non-agricultural and residential landowners account for
many miles of streams, ponds and reservoirs. In the spring of 1999, the Countys Department of
=
Engineering and Public Works received an Urban and Community Assistance Grant of the U.S. Forestry
Service. The purpose of the grant was to educate residential landowners about the importance of waterway
buffers and techniques for establishing such buffers. In September, 1999, while allocating the funds to
create a cost-center for the grant, the Board requested a follow-up report describing the outcome of the
program.
Mr. Bowler said the area is blessed in most years with about 46 inches of rain. There is also a very
large area draining into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR), but the area does have erodible soils.
That same large watershed, on this same day last year, allowed the reservoir to fill in one day but the area
also delivered a large amount of sediment to the reservoir as well. This is the problem with the 13 million
gallons of lost capacity in the reservoir each year. He said that when water is impounded, sediment is also
impounded. If the sediment came in an even amount each day, it would be 18 dump truck loads per day
being poured into the reservoir. A big part of reducing that amount of sediment is the activities of private
landowners. All of that sediment has to be removed, but that is costly for the Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority (RWSA).
In the Living with Water Program, waterway buffer zones are emphasized. Those are a mixture of
trees, shrubs, grasses along waterways to provide filtering of sediment and other pollutants before they
reach the water. Even if the full sediment benefit hoped for is not achieved, they still reduce other
pollutants, provide habitat for wildlife, provide corridors to connect wood lots for animals to move, provide
the leaves and the twigs, provide the food base for most streams.
He said that in this program, they did three buffer plantings as demonstrations for the community,
one at the Rivanna River Festival carried out by students from Monticello High School coordinated by John
Miller from the Department of Forestry Department. There were two other plantings at the Magruder Dent
Rowing Center on the SFRR. They also developed a new brochure on waterway buffers which will be
mailed to 400 landowners with large stretches of streams in the Ivy Creek and Mechum River watersheds
on their property. On June 10, 2000, they put on an educational event at the Rowing Center concerning
demonstration plantings. A set of workshops on strategies homeowners can use to protect water resources
was presented to interested citizens (free of charge) on that same day.
Mr. Bowler said the goal for the Chesapeake Bay Program is to have 2010 miles of buffers added
to the watershed by the year 2010, with Virginias goal being 610 miles. Also, being developed at this time
=
is the James River Tributary Strategy. The Central Piedmont region of the James River Basin has been
identified as a high sediment source. Some of this is attributable to geology, but it does give this area a
special obligation. The Countys Water Protection Ordinance contains language about buffers and
=
requirements which are referred to in the brochure and as part of the graphic art work done. They are in
the process of having a sign developed which can be used on public land and even as part of the mitigation
process in some cases.
Mr. Bowler said there is a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program which will spend over
$90.0 million in Virginia in the agriculture setting to improve buffers. Farmers can join the program
voluntarily. Landowners, who are not farmers, can do their part by restoring their own riparian waterway
lands. He said that in the ACE ordinance (which is on the agenda for adoption later today) there are points
in the point system for people who put riparian easements to protect the waterway zones. He offered to
answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked what happens to the suspended solids removed at the water treatment plant.
Mr. Perkins said at the Crozet Plant the filters are back flushed, and there are two holding tanks right
beside Route 240 and that sediment is allowed to settle out before the water is discharged back into the
creek.
Mr. Bowerman said there are a lot of solids removed. He would like to know if they are discharged
downstream or trucked away. Mr. Bowler said there are two approaches to dredging; removing as much
sediment as possible at one time, or trying the maintenance approach and doing something continuously.
The consultants for VHD are looking into the question of dredging because of advancing technology.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Thomas said she went to the meeting held on June 10, 2000. She was impressed with the
advice being given to homeowners and how user-friendly it was. Mr. Bowler said they hope that with press
A@
coverage, they reached more than just the 80 people who attended that day.
_______________
(Note: Since the Board was behind schedule, Items 11 and 12 were skipped, and will be taken up
later in the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 13. School Board Presentation.
Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Vice-Chair, Albemarle County School Board, was present to make their
monthly report of activities. He said that last month, about 750 seniors graduated from the four high
schools. The School Board received a report on Student Driver Education Safety and intends to focus on
this program in the future. Also, land was purchased for the next Northern Elementary School site. The
school should open in 2002. The School Board approved the 2000-05 Capital Improvements Program. In
that program, the School Board will study options for Burley Middle School, whether it be an addition or a
renovation. The firm of Bond Comet Westmoreland & Hiner has been authorized to proceed with
programming and limited schematic design.
The School Board is looking at its Teacher & Administrator Evaluation System. This system was
used as a pilot in a few schools this past year, and it will be extended down into a division-wide pilot next
year. Improving the teacher evaluation system into a true coaching model so it will help all teachers get
better will have a true impact on the division. He said the School Board is accepting applications for the
Health Advisory System. Starting with their June retreat and for the next two months, the School Board will
be working on the 2000-01 Board/Superintendent Priorities. This is one of the most important documents
put together as a School Board because it truly sets the course for the division.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has approved spending part of the two-percent salary pool for
classified and administrative employees. Positions affected include the Office Associate series, the
Bookkeeper series, Custodial, Bus Drivers and other transportation positions because of the Divisions
=
inability to attract people to apply for these positions. He said not all of the money in that pool was
expended because they still have to study other positions where salaries may need to be adjusted.
Mr. Koleszar said that thanks to the Board of Supervisors approving a Special Use Permit in
December, 1999, the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) is currently renting
Monticello High School (June 12 to July 21, 2000) to grade approximately 26,000 financial analyst exams.
The Division expects to receive approximately $400,000 in gross rental fees. Funds earned after expenses
will be used to support instructional initiatives.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board is reviewing its policy on the redistricting process,
Facilities
There is a long-range planning committee in place, and rather than creating a new committee
Planning.
each time there is a redistricting, they would like to use the same committee as the core committee, adding
certain other representatives from the affected schools.
The School Board has received a report from the Equity and Diversity Committee. They have
recommended that the School Board members go through diversity training, and that recommendation will
probably be implemented.
The School Board is looking to change its policy concerning foreign exchange students to make it
an easier process for people to participate in. The Board will be looking at its policy on
Community Use of
There are inconsistencies in that policy that need to be clarified. Currently they receive
School Facilities.
about $44,000 in income from building rentals. Ms. Thomas said the Board, as the people who have
directed the process by which the taxpayers have paid for those buildings, might like some input into
whether adult groups are as valuable as childrens groups in the use of those buildings. She said a Russian
=
woman spent some time here a couple of years ago, and she was amazed at the public meeting rooms.
She noted that a problem of the old Socialist regime was that there were no public meeting rooms. Ms.
Thomas said communities thrive on places where they can get together, whether it is planning for a bake-
sale, etc., those are valuable community resources. Mr. Koleszar said since the custodial staff works at
night on their normal schedule, there is no additional cost just to have the building open. Mr. Bowerman
suggested that this discussion be added to the agenda for the next Supervisors/School Board joint meeting.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Virtual Governors School, and why the School Board decided not to
=
join. He asked if there is any plan to come in at a future time. Mr. Koleszar said yes. The main reason
A@
the School Board did not join was a feeling that the preparatory work had not been done to make it a
success the first year.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Ward had asked that a member of the School Board be added to the Budget
Audit Committee. He thinks it is a good idea, but does not know how the other Board members feel about
that request. Mr. Tucker said staff has suggested that the Board discuss that during the Closed Session
today while discussing appointments to boards and commissions.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board is involved in Long-Range Planning for compensation. When
that report is completed, he knows there will be some hard decisions to make. Ms. Thomas asked if the
committee is also looking at methods of retention, things which may not involve salary. Mr. Koleszar said
yes.
A@
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Thomas said there have been lots of studies done about what makes employees satisfied with
their jobs, and other studies about what makes teachers satisfied with their positions. Given that one of the
major outcomes has to do with the relationship with the University (when one is available), she hopes they
will look at how to retain teachers by taking advantage of community resources. Dr. Castner said there is to
be a conference at the University tomorrow with over 250 people attending and they will be discussing
teacher retention and administration retention. They are bringing in people from all across the State to look
at how this will be addressed. Mr. Koleszar said there is a dramatic increase in teacher retirements and
with people leaving the system. Retention has been very poor so far this year.
__________
(Note: At 10:49 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:06 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Compensation of Boards and Commissions/Equalization of Pay Ordinance,
Discussion of.
It was noted in the staffs report that the County Code sets compensation for members of County
=
boards and commissions where authorized by State statute. County Code 2-401 sets an annual salary of
'
$3,300 for all members of the Planning Commission (except for the non-voting representative of the
University of Virginia), and authorizes an additional stipend of $1,200 per year for its chairman. Additionally,
the "Equalization of Pay" ordinance ( 2-1105 of the County Code) specifies that all members of the
'
following citizen appeal boards receive $35 for each regularly scheduled meeting attended: the Board of
Zoning Appeals, the Building Code Board of Appeals, the Board of Equalization, the Fire Prevention Code
Board of Appeals and the Land Use Tax Advisory Board. School Board salaries are set by State Code (
'
22.1-32) at $3,300 per year for each member. The School Board chairman also receives an additional
$1,100 per year, the maximum allowed by the State Code. There have been no changes to the
compensation rates for Planning Commissioners, School Board members, or the other boards and
commissions listed since 1990.
Since compensation rates for boards and commissions members has not been increased since
1990, staff is requesting a cost-of-living adjustment to current compensation rates for members of the
Planning Commission and the boards and commissions covered by the County's Equalization of Pay
ordinance. As before, this cost-of-living increase would be based on the cumulative percentage increase in
the Board of Supervisors salary, which have grown by 24 percent since 1990 (from $8,688 in FY 90-91 to
=
$10,777 in FY 00-01). Based on this cost-of-living adjustment, Planning Commissioner salaries would
increase from $3,300 to $4,100 per year, and the Planning Commission chairman's stipend would increase
from $1,200 to $1,500. Similarly, the per meeting rate set by the Equalization of Pay Ordinance would
increase from $35 to $45. Staff also recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) be added to
the citizen board list identified in the Ordinance. Staff further recommends that should the Board approve
these recommendations, a public hearing be set on two ordinance amendments to the County Code. The
first ordinance amendment would amend 2-401 of the County Code to increase the salary of Planning
'
Commission members. The second ordinance amendment would amend 2-1105 of the County Code to
'
increase the per meeting compensation set out in the ordinance. The earliest possible date for this public
hearing would be August 2, 2000. Finally, staff supports and recommends that the School Board consider
initiating a request to the 2001 General Assembly to increase the School Boards salary.
=
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to set a public hearing for August
2, 2000, on an amendment to the County Code to effectuate the staffs recommendation. 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. 12. Tax Relief for Elderly and Disabled Maximum Eligibility Limits, Discussion of.
Ms. Roxanne White said State Code 58.1-3210 to 58.1-3218 authorize localities to provide real
''
estate and mobile home exemptions for taxpayers who qualify under age, financial or medical guidelines.
To be eligible for the program, taxpayers must own their own home or mobile home and meet all of the
necessary criteria.
Albemarle County provides tax relief under reduced financial eligibility requirements: the total
combined income of the household must be $22,000 or less and the total combined net worth (excluding
house and one acre of land) must be $75,000 or less. The State maximums are $30,000 in income and
$100,000 in net worth.
Ms. White said staff looked at three different options:
Option 1: Adjusting the relief plan to offer all current participants 100 percent relief within
the current eligibility requirements.
Option 2: Increasing the County's eligibility requirements to the average of $25,000 in
combined income and $80,000 in combined net worth. These levels were determined by
looking at other Virginia localities whose requirements are equal to or greater than the
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
County's.
Option 3: Raising the eligibility requirements to the maximum allowable by the State
($30,000 income/$100,000 net worth).
Ms. White brought the Boards attention to a chart on Page 2 of the Executive Summary which
=
showed the different options, the cost of each option for the current and two future years, the number of
parcels that would be involved, and the additional cost to the County of each option. She said it is hard to
estimate the costs because there is no way to know the participation rate.
Ms. Thomas asked what participation rate was assumed in arriving at the figures shown. Ms. White
said the participation rate is based on a five-year historical average of participation in the County's current
program. However, the number of participants (parcels) cannot be reliably predicted and can vary from
year to year.
Ms. White said that for all three options, an equity issue arises. As more tax relief is offered to the
elderly and disabled, the burden is transferred to the rest of the taxpaying population. As the maximum
eligible income levels rise in Options 2 and 3, a greater percentage of working households will bear a
greater proportion of the tax burden although many may have the same household incomes as program
participants. In the 1990 Census, 29.4 percent of households under the age of 65 in Albemarle County had
combined incomes of $30,000 or less compared to 22.7 percent with incomes of $25,000 or less, and 19.0
percent with incomes at or below $22,000. When the Board discussed this program in previous years, the
maximum eligibility requirements remained unchanged due to these equity concerns.
Mr. Martin asked for comments from Board members.
Mr. Bowerman said he tends to favor Option 2, look at the new census data and discuss this
ordinance again next year.
Ms. Thomas said that is also her opinion. She looked at how a person at the $21,000 income level
would be affected, and they would get major relief from this change.
Mr. Bowerman said since the house on the property is exempt, the $80,000 is a fairly liquid figure in
total assets.
Ms. Humphris said she also favors Option 2 as being the most fair.
Mr. Martin said he tended to choose Option 3 with a smaller net worth than $100,000.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board can use any combination of income and net worth. Ms. White said
yes and it also has the ability to set the levels.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said he supports Option 2.
Mr. Perkins said Option 2 is fine with him, and he thinks that with the new census data, the County
should be striving to reach the State maximum. Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Ms. White said this program could be implemented January 1, 2001, and then bring the matter
back to discuss increasing it to a higher level when the census data is received.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Martin that people who are not disabled or elderly have the
capacity to work and increase their income, so that is part of the equity issue for him. The other
classifications do not necessarily have that option.
Mr. Martin asked for a motion. Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board approve Option 2 and set the
ordinance for a public hearing. Mr. Davis said he wanted to be sure that Option 2 has a graduated scale. It
was agreed that that was true.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. 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. Humphris asked the date of the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said he would prefer that it be
at a night meeting in September, so that the most people would be available to attend.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Acquisition of Conservation Easement Program (ACE) Ordinance, Discussion
of (deferred from June 14, 2000).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Board conducted a public hearing on the ACE ordinance at
=
its June 14, 2000, meeting and directed staff to make certain revisions to the draft ordinance and to also
prepare a draft deed of easement. Based on the comments made by Board members at that meeting and
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
additional discussions, staff has revised the draft ordinance, and prepared a sample deed of easement that
is consistent with the current draft of the ordinance.
The key revisions to the ACE ordinance are:
1. The full name of the ordinance has been changed from the Conservation Easement Acquisition
A
Program to Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, thereby matching the "ACE" acronym.
@A@
2. The ordinance would become an appendix to the Albemarle County Code and be adopted as
Appendix A.1, rather than Chapter 5.1.
3. The voluntary nature of the ACE program has been emphasized. Both sections A.1-101
(Purpose), A.1-102 (Applicability), and the definition of "conservation easement" in A.1-103 (Definitions and
construction) have been revised to expressly state that an easement acquired by the ACE program must be
voluntarily offered by the owner.
4. The restriction on division of the property subject to the easement in section A.1-109.A has been
clarified so that a parcel of 200 acres or larger may be divided into as many lots so as to maintain an
average lot size of at least 100 acres, plus one additional lot for any acres remaining above the required
minimum average lot size.
5. The list of other restrictions set forth in section A.1-109.D has been clarified to state that these
restrictions are standard restrictions contained in conservation easements and that these restrictions will be
delineated in the deed of easement.
6. The application materials to be provided to an owner are delineated. A new section A.1-110.A
has been added requiring that the application provided to an owner include a standard application form, a
sample deed of easement and information about the ACE program.
7. Key dates in the application process have been changed. The dates by which certain stages of
the application process are to be completed, beginning with the date by which the program administrator
submits the list of ranked parcels to the ACE committee (Section A.1-110.E) and ending with the date each
appraisal is to be completed (Section A.1-110.H), have been changed from deadlines to target dates.
8. A basis for determining the average annual gross income of an entity has been added. Section
A.1-111.A has been revised to add the basis for determining the average annual gross income of an entity,
which is an element of the equation to calculate the purchase price of the easement. If the parcel is owned
by an entity such as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or estate, the average annual
gross income of the owner will be based on the aggregate annual adjusted gross incomes of the
shareholders, partners, members, grantor, beneficiaries or decedent, as the case may be.
Staff prepared a sample deed of easement that will be finalized after additional review by the ACE
Committee appointed by the Board upon the adoption of the ordinance. The sample deed is organized into
five sections, as follows:
1. This section which effectuates the conveyance of the
Grant and conveyance of easement.
easement in perpetuity, would include a description of the property subject to the easement, and states that
the property subject to the easement is considered to be one parcel for the purposes of the deed of
easement.
2. This section delineates the uses that may be made of the property
The use of the property.
under the easement, in addition to the rights to divide and develop the property as set forth in sections 3 and
4. Property subject to an easement may be used for single-family residential, agricultural, horticultural,
forestal, silvicultural, open space and recreational purposes. Property subject to an easement is also
subject to restrictions and regulations pertaining to the accumulation of waste material; the types and size
of signs and other advertisements on the property; commercial and industrial uses; the construction and
location of structures; grading, blasting, earth removal and mining; and the management of forest
resources.
3. . Applying the formula set forth in section A.1-109.A of the ACE
Division of the property
ordinance, this section establishes the number of lots that may be created on the property by division and
assures that the County and the other easement holder will have the opportunity to determine whether the
division complies with the easement.
4. . This section allows lots to be developed, but requires that the structures
Development of lots
be located on a building site shown on a plat or a site plan, delineates the types of structures permitted (i.e.,
a single-family dwelling; guest houses, servant's quarters and non-residential outbuildings; and farm
buildings or structures), and places a limitation on a structure's footprint, though that limitation may be
waived by the County and the other easement holder.
5. . The key provisions in this section include the right of the County or
Miscellaneous provisions
the other easement holder to enforce the terms of the easement and a provision stating that the grantor will
not have the option to reacquire the rights relinquished by the deed of easement.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
If the Board adopts the ordinance on July 5, the Department of Planning and Community
Development will immediately begin seeking temporary/part-time assistance to startup the program. This
assistance and its related costs will be paid out of budgeted ACE Program funds. Program startup will
include development of application materials, development of intake and review procedures and
development of marketing materials and a marketing plan. It is recommended that the Board appoint the
ACE committee at a meeting in August to assist staff with program startup. Working with the ACE
committee, it is anticipated that staff will complete the marketing materials and plan in September and
undertake marketing of the program for the initial applications between September and November. The
anticipated initial application deadline is December 1, 2000, with the review process leading to
recommendations from the Appraisal Review Committee to the Board on April 1, 2001. It is recommended
that the Board appoint the Appraisal Review Committee by December, 2000. After completion of program
startup and processing of the initial applications, staff will be better able to assess on-going staffing and
other program needs for the FY 2001-02 budget.
Mr. Davis said staff made clarifications to the ACE Ordinance since the last time it was on the
agenda. He believes that the issues which troubled the Board and public have been dealt with. The
Ordinance is on the agenda today with a recommendation from staff that it be adopted as amended. He
offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said there was a subcommittee which worked on the clarifications. She was not able
to be at the second meeting, and she does not believe the issues with the actual deed document have been
straightened out. She is very eager to get this program under way, so she does not want to spend time
hashing it out now. She thinks the ordinance can be adopted. She is concerned about a new committee
A@
with different members because they may want to reshape the whole program by way of the easement
document. She said there has to be an easement document that the Virginia Outdoors Foundation can
agree to because that will be a major source of funding, and bring in State funding in possibly much larger
amounts than the County got in the present year. She said there is increasing interest at the State level in
getting funding for this kind of program. Fortunately, the Speaker of the House is a leader in wanting that
funded. The chances of that happening are very good. She said the County has to have its document fit
together with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation easement, and the Countys document is still quite different.
=
Mr. Bowerman asked if VOF has specific objections. Ms. Thomas said they do. She was not at
that last meeting, so she does not know how it was handled.
Mr. Perkins said he feels the County needs to get on with this Program. Changes may need to be
made as the program progresses, but the County needs to proceed. As far as the committee is concerned,
there are people who were on the original committee who have expressed an interest in being appointed.
He supports that, but said a little new blood might not hurt either.
A@
Mr. Martin asked Ms. Sherry Buttrick to comment. Ms. Buttrick said at the first meeting of the
committee they discussed the ordinance itself, and at the second meeting, the easement deed. She thinks
the ordinance is fine. She thinks it was Mr. Davis intent that although the ordinance is ready for adoption
=
today, the deed of easement is still a work in progress. There are some things in that document which may
need to be changed to make it acceptable to the Assistant Attorney General who represents the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation. She is willing to continue working with the County Attorney.
Mr. Dorrier said the deed of easement will not be needed until December when properties are
chosen by the Board for this program. Ms. Buttrick said anyone who is a prospective participant in the
program will want to look at the sample document as to restrictions. The easement needs to be finalized
as soon as possible so that people who are thinking about applying for the program would be able to look
at the easement ahead of time. She said the Outdoors Foundation needs to work with the County
Attorneys Office to get something that both can use. Mr. Davis said staff is looking forward to working with
=
the Attorney Generals Office. The document needs improvement, as does the document of the Outdoors
=
Foundation. It should not be a difficult thing to do. The document VOF has used in the past had little
definition, and the committee and people speaking at the public hearing indicated they wanted definitions in
the document so they will know exactly what the restrictions will be. Staff attempted to do that by defining
some terms, and that troubled Ms. Buttrick.
Mr. Dorrier said his point was that there will be no delay if the Board passes the ordinance now, and
the deed of easement is not ready until December.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Davis had a time expectation as to when there might be agreement
among the parties. Mr. Davis said staff has not received any comments from the Attorney Generals Office.
=
The only document they saw was a very early draft. Ms. Buttrick said the quickest way to get a response is
just to ask for one.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that if the Board adopts the ordinance and tells staff the program
needs to move expeditiously, that is enough.
Ms. Humphris said she would move that the Board adopt An Ordinance to Amend the Code of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by Adding Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements
Program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas said she had a further question about the statement that administrative costs would be
paid from the money appropriated for the program. She asked if that is what the Board members expected
to happen, or did they think the whole $1.0 million would be used to purchase easements. Mr. Bowerman
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
said he thinks the cost should be in the Planning Departments budget. Mr. Tucker said this expense had
=
not been budgeted, but staff will estimate a cost for administration, and place on a future agenda an
appropriation for this expense.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wished to have staff advertise for a committee, with this to be
discussed at the August day meeting. That was the consensus.
At this time, 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 Ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. A.1-00(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, BY ADDING APPENDIX A.1, ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS PROGRAM
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, is hereby
added to the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. A.1-100. Short title.
Sec. A.1-101. Purpose.
Sec. A.1-102. Applicability.
Sec. A.1-103. Definitions and construction.
Sec. A.1-104. Designation of program administrator; powers and duties.
Sec. A.1-105. ACE committee established; powers and duties.
Sec. A.1-106. Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties.
Sec. A.1-107. Eligibility criteria.
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
Sec. A.1-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Sec. A.1-110. Application and evaluation procedure.
Sec. A.1-111. Purchase of conservation easement.
Sec. A.1-112. Program funding.
Sec. A.1-113. Program non-exclusivity.
Appendix A.1. Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
Sec. A.1-100. Short title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "acquisition of conservation
easements ("ACE") program."
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-101. Purpose.
The board of supervisors finds that between 1974 and 1992, twenty-five
thousand (25,000) acres of farmland in the county were lost to development; that at
present, almost one-third of the acres of forest land in the county is considered by the
Virginia Department of Forestry to be too densely populated for timber production; that
regulatory land-use planning tools acceptable to date have not been able to stem the
conversion of farm and forest land to other uses; and that farm and forest land, clean
water and airsheds, biological diversity, scenic vistas and rural character have a public
value as well as a private value. Therefore, the specific purposes of this chapter include,
but are not limited to:
1.Establishing a program by which the county can acquire conservation
easements voluntarily offered by owners to serve as one means of assuring that the
county's resources are protected and efficiently used;
2.Establishing and preserving open-space and preserving the rural
character of Albemarle County;
3.Preserving farm and forest lands;
4.Conserving and protecting water resources and environmentally
sensitive lands, waters and other natural resources;
5.Conserving and protecting biodiversity and wildlife and aquatic habitat;
6.Assisting in shaping the character and direction of the development of
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
the community;
7.Improving the quality of life for the inhabitants of the county; and
8.Promoting tourism through the preservation of scenic resources.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
State law reference - Va. Code 10.1-1700 et seq.
'
Sec. A.1-102. Applicability.
The ACE program shall be available for all lands in the county, except those
lands under the ownership or control of the United States of America, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, or an agency or instrumentality thereof. Any conservation
easement acquired pursuant to this chapter shall be voluntarily offered by the owner.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-103. Definitions and construction.
A.The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and
implementation of this chapter:
(1). The term "conservation easement"
Conservation easement
means a non-possessory interest in one or more parcels of one or more qualified
easement holders under section A.1-109(E) acquired under the Open-Space Land Act
(Virginia Code 10.1-1700 et seq.), whether the easement is appurtenant or in gross,
'
voluntarily offered by an owner and acquired by purchase pursuant to the ACE program,
imposing limitations or affirmative obligations for the purpose of retaining or protecting
natural or open-space values of the parcel or parcels, assuring availability for agricultural,
forestal, recreational or open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or
enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural or archaeological
aspects of the parcel or parcels.
(2). The term "development right" means a right
Development right
to divide a parcel within the rural areas zoning district conferred on the parcel by Chapter
18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning), including the right to create a parcel
twenty-one (21) acres or greater.
(3). The term "forced sale" means a sale of a parcel
Forced sale
with unused development rights in a manner prescribed by law that is conducted under a
judgment, order or the supervision of a court of competent jurisdiction, other than a sale
arising from a partition action; a sale resulting from foreclosure under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia; or, a sale that is not the voluntary act of the owner but is
compelled in order to satisfy a debt evidenced by a mortgage, judgment, or a tax lien.
(4). The term "hardship" means an economic hardship,
Hardship
other than a circumstance causing a forced sale, experienced by the owner of the parcel
so as to compel him to place a parcel with unused development rights for sale or to use
such development rights.
(5). The term "immediate family" means an
Immediate family
owner's spouse and his or her offspring residing in the same household as the owner.
(6). The term "owner" means the owner or owners of the
Owner
freehold interest of the parcel.
(7). The term "program administrator"
Program administrator
means the director of the department of planning and community development.
(8). The term "parcel" means a lot or tract of land, lawfully
Parcel
recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the County of Albemarle.
B.. Because a conservation easement may contain one or
Construction
more parcels, for purposes of this chapter the term "parcel" shall include all parcels
covered by, or proposed to be covered by, the conservation easement.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-104. Designation of program administrator; powers and duties.
A.. The director of the department of planning and community
Designation
development is hereby designated as the program administrator.
B.. The program administrator, or his designee, shall
Powers and duties
administer the ACE program and shall have the powers and duties to:
1.Establish reasonable and standard procedures and forms
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
consistent with this chapter for the administration and implementation of the program.
2.Promote the program, in cooperation with the ACE committee,
by providing educational materials to the public and conducting informational meetings.
3.Investigate and pursue, in conjunction with the county executive,
state, federal and other programs available to provide additional public and private
resources to fund the program and to maximize private participation.
4. Evaluate all applications to determine their eligibility and their
ranking score, rank applications based on their ranking score, and make
recommendations thereon to the ACE committee.
5.Determine the number of usable development rights existing on
each parcel subject to an application, after obtaining the number of theoretical
development rights from the zoning administrator.
6.Coordinate the preparation of appraisals.
7.Provide staff support to the appraisal review committee, the ACE
committee and the board of supervisors.
8.Provide educational materials regarding other land protection
programs to the public.
9.For each easement, assure that the terms and conditions of the
easement are monitored and complied with by coordinating a monitoring program with
each easement holder, and if the other easement holders are either unable or unwilling
to do so, monitor and assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the easement.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-105. ACE committee established; powers and duties.
A.. The ACE committee is hereby established, as provided
Establishment
herein:
1.The committee shall consist of ten (10) members appointed by
the board of supervisors. Each member shall be a resident of Albemarle County. The
committee should, but is not required to, be comprised of members who are
knowledgeable in the fields of conservation, conservation biology, real estate and/or rural
land appraisal, farming and forestry and may also include members of conservation
easement holding agencies and conservation organizations.
2.The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of
the board of supervisors. The initial term of three (3) members shall be for one (1) year.
The initial term of three (3) members shall be for two (2) years. The initial term for four
(4) members shall be for three (3) years. Each term after the initial term shall be for (3)
years.
3.The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the
board of supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member for actual and
necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
4.The committee shall elect a chairman, vice-chairman and
secretary at its first meeting each calendar year. The secretary need not be a member of
the committee.
B.. The ACE committee shall have the powers and
Powers and duties
duties to:
1.Promote the program, in cooperation with the program
administrator, by providing educational materials to the public and conducting
informational meetings.
2.Review the ranking of applications recommended by the
program administrator, and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors as to
which conservation easements should be purchased.
3.Annually review the program's eligibility and ranking criteria and
recommend to the board of supervisors any changes needed to maintain the program's
consistency with the comprehensive plan, or to improve the administration,
implementation and effectiveness of the program.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-106. Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
A.. The appraisal review committee is hereby established,
Establishment
as provided herein:
1.The committee shall consist of five (5) members appointed by
the board of supervisors. The committee shall be comprised of three (3) real estate
professionals, the county assessor, and a member of the ACE committee.
2.The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of
the board of supervisors. Each member, other than the county assessor, shall serve a
one (1) year term. The county assessor shall be a permanent member of the committee.
3.The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the
board of supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member other than the county
assessor for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
4.The county assessor shall be the chairman of the committee.
B.. The appraisal review committee shall have the power
Power and duty
and duty to review appraisals to assure they are consistent with appropriate appraisal
guidelines and practices, and to make recommendations thereon to the board of
supervisors.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-107. Eligibility criteria.
In order for a parcel to be eligible for a conservation easement, it must meet the
following criteria: (i) the use of the parcel subject to the conservation easement must be
consistent with the comprehensive plan; (ii) the proposed terms of the conservation
easement must be consistent with the minimum conservation easement terms and
conditions set forth in section A.1-109; and (iii) the parcel shall obtain at least fifteen (15)
points under the ranking criteria set forth in section A.1-108.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, parcels for which conservation
easement applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and
the point values assigned thereto as set forth herein. Points shall be rounded to the first
decimal.
A.
Open-space resources.
1.The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation
easement, a national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space:
one (1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary.
2.Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B.
Threat of conversion to developed use.
1.The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2.The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3.The number of usable development rights on the parcel:
one-half (1/2) point for each usable development right to be eliminated, which shall be
determined by subtracting the number of usable development rights to be retained from
the total number of usable development rights.
C.
Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1.Mountain protection: one (1) point for each one thousand
(1000) feet of mountain ridge, as shown on county mountain overlay maps.
2.Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least
one family member's principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or
foresting the parcel; three (3) points if at least one family member produces farm
products derived from the parcel.
3.The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic
highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage;
or the parcel adjoins a public road: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
road frontage.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
4.The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is
within a national or state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement
protecting a historic resource; two (2) points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello
viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in the possession of
the county.
5.The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural
heritage inventory: five (5) points.
6.The parcel contains class I, II or III soils, based on federal
natural resources conservation service classifications: one (1) point for each fifty (50)
acres containing such soils, for up to a total of five (5) points.
7.The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Watershed or the Totier Creek Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy
Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Rivanna River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Jacob's Run, or the
Hardware River: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8.The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic
river: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
9.The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary
purpose is to establish or maintain vegetative buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent
streams, as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one
(1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and
one hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer
that is greater than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his
application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement, then the
above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10.The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area
identified in a county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
D.. State, Federal or private funding identified to
County fund leveraging
leverage the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10)
percent of the purchase price for which those funds can be applied.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the
Open-Space Land Act of 1966 (Virginia Code 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this chapter.
'
The deed of easement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney, and shall
contain, at a minimum, the following provisions:
A.. The parcel shall be restricted from division as
Restriction on division
follows: (I) if the parcel is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be divided; (ii) if
the parcel is one hundred (100) acres or larger but less than two hundred (200) acres, it
may be divided into two (2) lots; (iii) if the parcel is two hundred (200) acres or larger, it
may be divided into as many lots so as to maintain an average lot size of at least one
hundred (100) acres, plus one additional lot for any acres remaining above the required
minimum average lot size (e.g., an eight hundred fifty (850) acre parcel may be divided
into as many as nine (9) parcels, eight (8) of which maintain an average lot size of at
least one hundred (100) acres, and the ninth of which consists of the remaining acres).
B.. If the owner voluntarily requested in
Protection of mountain resources
his application that the parcel be awarded points during the evaluation process pursuant
to section A.1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement shall assure that
the parcel is used and maintained in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan.
C.. The owner shall not have the option to reacquire
No buy-back option
any property rights relinquished under the conservation easement.
D.. In addition to the foregoing, the parcel shall be
Other restrictions
subject to standard restrictions contained in conservation easements pertaining to uses
and activities allowed on the parcel. These standard restrictions shall be delineated in
the deed of easement and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, restrictions
pertaining to: (I) the accumulation of trash and junk; (ii) the display of billboards, signs
and advertisements; (iii) the management of forest resources; (iv) grading, blasting or
earth removal; (v) the number and size of residential outbuildings and farm buildings or
structures; (vi) the conduct of industrial or commercial activities on the parcel; and (vii)
monitoring of the easement.
E.. The county and one or more other
Designation of easement holders
public bodies, as defined in Virginia Code 10.1-1700, and designated by the board of
'
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
supervisors shall be the easement holders of each easement. The public body or bodies
who may be designated by the board shall include, but not be limited to, the Albemarle
County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-110. Application and evaluation procedure.
Each application for a conservation easement shall be processed as follows:
A. The application materials
Application materials to be provided to owner.
provided by the program administrator to an owner shall include, at a minimum, a
standard application form, a sample deed of easement, and information about the ACE
program.
B.. Each application shall be submitted on a standard
Application form
form prepared by the program administrator. The application form shall require, at a
minimum, that the owner: (I) provide the name of all owners of the parcel, the address of
each owner, the acreage of the parcel, the Albemarle County tax map and parcel
number, the zoning designation of the parcel, and permission for the program
administrator to enter the property after reasonable notice to the owner to evaluate the
parcel and for the county assessor or an independent appraiser to appraise the property;
and (ii) state his adjusted gross income for the three (3) prior tax years, as explained in
section A.1-111(B). The application form shall also include a space for an owner to
indicate that he volunteers to have his parcel be subject to greater restrictions than those
contained in the standard sample deed of easement, and to delineate those voluntary,
additional restrictions.
C.
Additional application information required by program administrator.
The program administrator may require an owner to provide additional information
deemed necessary to determine: (I) whether the proposed easement is eligible for
purchase; and (ii) the purchase price of such easement.
D. Applications shall be submitted to the office of
Submittal of application.
the program administrator. An application may be submitted at any time. However,
applications received after July 1 shall be evaluated in the following year.
E. The program administrator shall
Evaluation by program administrator.
evaluate each application received and determine within fifteen (15) days whether the
application is complete. If the application is incomplete, the program administrator shall
inform the owner in writing of the information that must be submitted in order for the
application to be deemed complete. When an application is deemed complete, the
program administrator shall determine whether the parcel satisfies the eligibility criteria
set forth in section A.1-107 and, if it does, shall determine the number of points to be
attributed to the parcel by applying the criteria set forth in section A.1-108. The program
administrator shall then rank each parcel scoring at least fifteen (15) points under the
criteria set forth in section A.1-108, with the parcel scoring the most points being the
highest ranked and descending therefrom. The program administrator should submit the
list of ranked parcels to the ACE committee by August 1.
F. The ACE committee shall
Evaluation and ranking by ACE committee.
review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the program administrator and shall rank
the parcels in the order of priority it recommends the easements shall be purchased.
The committee should forward to the board of supervisors by September 1 its
recommendation of which conservation easements should be purchased.
G. The board of
Evaluation and ranking by board of supervisors.
supervisors shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE committee and
identify on which parcels it desires conservation easements. The board shall then rank
those parcels on which it will seek to purchase conservation easements that year.
Nothing in this chapter shall obligate the board to purchase a conservation easement on
any property that meets the minimum number of qualifying points.
H. Each conservation
Appraisal of conservation easement value.
easement identified by the board of supervisors to be purchased shall be appraised
either by the county assessor or by an independent qualified appraiser chosen by the
county. Each appraisal should be completed by October 1. Each completed appraisal
shall be submitted to the program administrator and the owner. The program
administrator shall forward each appraisal to the appraisal review committee, which shall
review each appraisal and make recommendations thereon to the board of supervisors
by November 1.
I. Any requirement or deadline set
Requirements and deadlines may be waived.
forth in this chapter may be waived by the board of supervisors if, for good cause, it is
shown that exigent circumstances exist that warrant consideration of an otherwise
untimely application, or it is shown that such requirements unreasonably restrict the
purchase of such easement. Under such circumstances, the board may purchase a
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
conservation easement at any time it deems necessary and subject to only such
requirements it deems appropriate.
J. An owner of a parcel not selected by the board of
Reapplication.
supervisors for purchase of a conservation easement may reapply in any future year.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-111. Purchase of conservation easement.
Each conservation easement shall be purchased as follows:
A. From the list of parcels received under
Identification of initial pool.
section A.1-110(D), the board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels
identified for conservation easements to be purchased. The purchase price may be
supplemented by non-county funding. The size of the pool shall be based upon the
funds available for easement purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price
of each conservation easement in the pool established under section A.1-111(B).
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
B. The purchase price of a conservation
Determining purchase price.
easement shall be calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable
percentage of appraised value set forth in the table below. The average annual adjusted
gross income shall be based on the aggregate of the annual adjusted gross income of
each owner of record and the members of his or her immediate family in each of the
three (3) most recent tax years. In the case of a parcel owned by an entity such as a
corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or estate, the average annual
adjusted gross income of the owner shall be based on the aggregate annual adjusted
gross incomes of the shareholders, partners, members, grantor, beneficiaries or
decedent, as the case may be.
Average Annual Adjusted GrossPercentage of Appraised Value
Income
$0 - $50,000100%
$50,001 - $60,000 94%
$60,001 - $70,000 88%
$70,001 - $80,000 82%
$80,001 - $90,000 76%
$90,001 - $100,000 70%
$100,001 - $110,000 64%
$110,001 - $120,000 58%
$120,001 - $130,000 52%
$130,001 - $140,000 46%
$140,001 - $150,000
40%
$150,001 - $160,000 34%
$160,001 - $170,000 28%
$170,001 - $180,000 22%
$180,001 - $190,000 16%
$190,001 - $200,000 10%
$200,001 or more 4%
C. The board shall invite the owner of each parcel
Invitation of offer to sell.
included in the initial pool of conservation easements to submit an offer to sell to the
county a conservation easement on that parcel for the purchase price, which price shall
not be subject to negotiation, and to donate to the county the balance of the fair market
value of the conservation easement, subject to the terms and conditions of a proposed
deed of easement. The invitation to sell shall be in writing and shall include the purchase
price, the proposed deed of easement, and the date by which a written offer must be
received by the program administrator in order to be considered. The invitation may
contain a form offer to be returned by the owner if the owner desires to offer to sell a
conservation easement.
D. Each owner who desires to sell and/or donate a
Offer to sell.
conservation easement shall submit a written offer that must be received by the program
administrator by the date contained in the invitation to offer to sell. The offer should
include a statement that substantially states the following: "(The owner) offers to sell
and/or donate a conservation easement to the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for the sum
of (purchase price), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of
easement enclosed with the invitation to offer." Nothing in this chapter shall compel an
owner to submit an offer to sell.
E. An offer to sell a conservation easement shall be accepted
Acceptance.
by the board of supervisors only in writing, and only following an action by the board
authorizing acceptance. An offer shall not be accepted by the board if a conservation
easement on the subject parcel is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
comprehensive plan at the time the offer is received. Nothing in this chapter requires the
board to accept an offer to sell a conservation easement.
F. A conservation easement shall be established
Easement established.
when the owner and an authorized representative of the holder of the easement have
each signed the deed of easement. The deed shall be recorded in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the County of Albemarle. A single conservation easement may be
established for more than one parcel under the same ownership.
G. If an
Offers not made; offers not accepted; invitation to other owners.
owner invited to submit an offer elects not to do so, or if his offer to sell is not accepted by
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
the board of supervisors, then the board shall send an invitation to offer to sell to the
owner of the next highest ranked parcel remaining on the list of parcels identified in
section A.1-110(E).
H. If the board of supervisors accepts an offer to sell a conservation
Costs.
easement, the county shall pay all costs, including environmental site assessments,
surveys, recording costs, grantor's tax, if any, and other charges associated with closing.
Provided, however, the county shall not pay fees incurred for independent appraisals or
legal, financial, or other advice, or fees in connection with the release and subordination
of liens to the easement purchased by the county.
I. An owner for whose parcel a conservation easement is
Reapplication.
not purchased may reapply in any future year.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-112. Program funding.
The ACE program may be funded annually by the board of supervisors in the
county budget or by special appropriation. The county shall endeavor to seek funds from
Federal, state and private sources to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
Sec. A.1-113. Program non-exclusivity.
The ACE program is a non-exclusive means by which the county may purchase
conservation easements or control land use and development, or by which landowners
may establish conservation easements and other self-imposed limitations on land use or
development. This chapter shall not be construed in any way as a limitation upon the
county's authority to acquire land for public purposes.
(Ord. A.1-00(1))
__________
Mr. Martin said he assumes the Board is doing this for a period of two to three years before letting
the voters decide if the program should continue. Ms. Thomas said she knows that has been Mr. Martins
=
assumption throughout these discussions, but the Board has not taken a vote on that assumption. She
does not necessarily agree, but she does wish to see how the program goes for a couple of years.
Mr. Martin said he thought the Board clearly discussed that it would put this question to the citizens
at the beginning, but it would be best to try to spend $1.0 million a year for a period of two to three years so
the Board could then present to the public how the program works. At that time, the Board would get more
information from the public as to how they feel about the program. He is still operating under that
assumption.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees that if in order for the program to be successful, it has to be scaled
up, then he would definitely want to see public input because it would be part of the Capital Improvement
Program. He thinks that should be part of the thinking.
Ms. Thomas said there are different kinds of public input. She does not, by her silence, want to
mislead anyone into believing she agrees this will all go to referendum in a couple of years.
Ms. Humphris said it was her understanding that the Board members had agreed that at the end of
two to three years, the public could have their say on the program. She does not remember the word
referendum being used.
A@
Mr. Davis said that under current law, there is no provision to have an advisory referendum. Any
referendum would have to be on whether or not to borrow money to fund the program. Ms. Thomas said
that would change the program somewhat, so it would be a serious discussion.
Mr. Dorrier said as a line item in the budget, it will be subjected to public hearing each year anyway.
Mr. Martin said he just wanted to make it clear that he is operating under that original assumption. He told
a lot of people he is supporting this program because the Board is doing it for two to three years to see how
it works, and it would be brought to the public at the end of that time period. That is still his intention.
Mr. Perkins said there is a need for State review of this entire program. The General Assembly
needs to look at the whole land use issue and find some new, fresh ideas that make it easier for the
counties, and maybe provide some funding. He thinks conservation easements could be leased for less
than what it costs to purchase those easements.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Year 2001 Legislative Proposals.
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) has requested that the County submit
its legislative proposals for VACo's 2001 Legislative Program so they can begin to develop their legislative
program. The following nine proposals are submitted for the Board's consideration. Most of these have
been discussed by the Board previously. He said Mr. Dave Blount, Legislative Liaison, was present to
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
answer questions.
State Funding for Education - Request legislation that will raise the Standards of Quality (SOQs)
and increase the percentage of State funding for programs to assist localities to successfully meet
the requirements of the Standards of Learning (SOLs).
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the State enhance CSA funding. (It has already
been determined by legislative staff that the State did not budget enough general fund dollars in the
coming biennium to support CSA, partly due to a delayed start in using Medicaid for certain
services.)
Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth
management tools and to provide statewide funding for the Purchase of Development Rights
program for localities that establish and locally fund such a program.
E-911 - Request that the State not erode localities' ability to levy a surcharge for emergency
telecommunication services.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement - Continue to request enabling legislation to provide
for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to
protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would
provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas
when the county or State makes land use decisions in designated areas.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) - Request that the State stabilize the VRS rates and reimburse
school systems for VRS-related costs for positions that exceed those required by the current SOQs'
regulations. (The 2000 General Assembly carried over most bills affecting retirement benefits.
VRS will be studying issues related to expanded benefits, purchase of service and compensation.)
Photo-red Traffic Light Program - Request that the State pass legislation to enable counties to
establish traffic light signal photo-monitoring programs.
Passenger Rail Service - The County supports and endorses the provision of passenger rail service
from Bristol, Virginia, to Richmond, Virginia, and the Washington, D.C., areas with links to
communities along the way.
Income Tax - The County supports legislative revisions which would require the State to return a
portion of the Virginia individual income taxes collected in each city and county in Virginia to the
locality.
Ms. Humphris said she understands the Commission on Tax Structure meets in Charlottesville this
coming Monday, July 10, at 9:00 a.m. at Alumni Hall. She asked if County staff was to gather information to
present to this commission. Mr. Tucker said there is nothing formal to develop for this meeting.
Ms. Humphris said the reason she was interested is because this is a very important commission to
the County. She does not know what the Board needs to do, but if there is an opportunity the Board can
take advantage of, it should.
Ms. Humphris said the Commission on Counties, Cities and Towns is having a regional meeting in
the Rockingham County area on July 21 concerning the growth issue. Mr. Blount said the meeting is
somewhere at James Madison University. There has been one meeting so far, and it was a working lunch
where they sat down with local officials and discussed issues. He said there is a comprehensive locality
profile which liaisons from high growth localities have worked on, and which can be submitted to this
committee. He believes this would be a good opportunity for representatives from the County to make a
presentation. Mr. Bowerman said he will be out of town from July 15 through July 22.
Mr. Blount said the Commission on Tax Structure has been meeting for almost one year. The
Senate Finance Committee has also set up a special subcommittee to look at tax policy and tax structure
issues. They will be meeting on July 19 in Richmond, beginning at 10:00 a.m., to discuss local tax issues.
Mr. Dorrier said in reference to staffs suggestions for growth management tools, he thinks there
=
should be something about VDOT and road policies. He said the Neighborhood Model the Board is
considering passage of calls for roads which are narrower than those proposed by VDOT. That is an
inherent conflict.
Mr. Bowerman said if VDOT would allow a new road classification (neighborhood street vs.
secondary road), the problems would be solved. Their inability to deal with neighborhood roads which
serve mainly neighborhoods and are not through streets, is part of the problem. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks
this is a vital area to focus on and have a discussion of. Ms. Thomas said the Board gets different
responses as to whether this is something that should be considered legislatively, or administratively. The
administrative side is being tackled because the MPO has sent the DISC recommendations to Mr. Ken
Lance, the person at VDOT who is presently looking at road standards. It has also been discussed by the
High Growth Coalition. Mr. Martin said it can be included as a topic. He said that when the Legislature has
done something in the Countys favor in this arena, VDOT has ignored them also. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks
=
the State Code does need to be amended. Mr. Tucker said staff can add some language regarding VDOT
road standards so that VACo will have something to look at.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with all nine suggestions made by staff.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wished to develop some language to be presented to the
Commission on Tax Structure. Ms. Thomas said that last year, staff did a survey of what other
southeastern counties were doing in the way of school construction. When she mentioned this to some
legislators, they had not heard about the study. She suggested that it be put in the package. There is also
a list of all local taxes which have either been capped, or which the County cannot access. The Board is
just getting backed into a corner of using just the real estate tax. Ms. Humphris said staff should have in
hand the presentation which have been made by the VACo/VML Advisory Committee to the Tax Structure
Commission. That committee has done a lot of research. Staff needs to be sure what their conclusions
were since they were an advisory committee.
Mr. Dorrier said the Dillon Rule should be repealed.
Mr. Tucker said if there were no further comments from the Board members, staff would send this
list of initiatives to VACo.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Ms. Humphris asked about a communication from VACo about a JLARC Education Funding study.
They asked for County participation. There will be a forum at the Charlottesville Performing Arts Center at
7:00 p.m. on July 24. It was noted that if no one could attend, it is important to submit written comments to
JLARC.
Ms. Thomas said that would be another opportunity to talk about school construction funding. Ms.
Humphris said she had made a list of things to be considered in any presentation by the Board. She said a
questionnaire was also sent about financial reporting information.
__________
Ms. Humphris asked about a letter the Board received from the Association for Retarded Citizens
of the Piedmont which is concerned about safety at the skate board park. She said from the beginning this
Board has been concerned about safety at any skate board park. They feel the need for the young people
using the park to have the appropriate safety gear, and they would like to have adult oversight of the youth
using the park.
Mr. Tucker said he had forwarded to the Board members an e-mail on this subject. There was a
person on site initially, and then they were removed, but the City is going to reconsider this.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board needs to proceed slowly. By definition, what they are doing is
what most adults consider fairly dangerous. Unless there is an adult monitoring the situation who also
participates in the situation, he does not believe they can say whether a situation is dangerous or not.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it boils down to using the appropriate safety equipment.
Mr. Martin said there is an argument for the other side. Once an adult is placed on site to be
responsible for what is going on, then you are making yourself more liable. He said the County should
proceed cautiously.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she attended a three-day meeting called Public Involvement in Transportation
A
Decision-Making. People were present from all over the southeastern United States. It brought out that if
@
you depend on one single method of obtaining citizen involvement, you are not usually getting the kind of
help that could be obtained from citizens. There were also some people from VDOT present.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Closed Session: Personnel and Property Matters.
At 12:08 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, 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, and under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of specific properties for
public use. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
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: Mr. Martin announced that the Board would reconvene in open session in the Conference
Room on the Fourth Floor.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Closed Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:55 p.m. in the Conference Room on the Fourth Floor
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
of the County Office Building. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a
recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully
=
exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in
the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier (Mr. Dorrier had left the meeting at 12:30 p.m.).
_______________
NOT DOCKETED: Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that the
Board authorize the acquisition of 27.482 acres of land located on the Polo Grounds Road, and authorized
the County Executive to enter into an agreement and to execute the documents necessary to close the sale.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
THIS DEED dated this 20th day of June, 2000, by and between TCA
TRUSTCORP AMERICA, TRUSTEE OF THE W. M. CURRIER FLIP CHARITABLE
REMAINDER UNITRUST, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10), cash in hand paid, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Grantor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with SPECIAL
WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, all that certain
parcel or tract of land located in Albemarle County, Virginia, and situated in the Rivanna
Magisterial District on VSH 643, also known as Polo Grounds Road, containing 27.482
acres, more or less, identified as Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 46-26, being the
residual of the parent parcel recorded in Deed Book 255, page 189, in the land records
of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and by plat recorded
in Deed Book 170, page 134, in said Clerk's Office, and being the same property
conveyed to TCA Trustcorp America, Trustee of the W. M. Currier Charitable Remainder
Unitrust by agreement dated April 14, 2000, by deed of William M. Currier, dated April 20,
2000, recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1911, page 627.
This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions,
rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other
instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the property conveyed
hereby, insofar as same affect said property, which have not expired by a time limitation
contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by
resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the
conveyance of the interest in real estate made by this Deed.
This Deed is exempt from recordation taxes pursuant to Virginia Code
'
58.1-811(A)(3).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris offered motion, which was seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to make the following
appointments:
Appoint to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors, Mr. Fred Copeland with a
term which will expire on June 30, 2004 (replaces Mr. Joseph T. Henley).
Appoint to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors, Mr. John E. Davidson with
a term which will expire on June 30, 2004 (replaces Mr. Philip L. Sparks).
Appoint to the Commission on Children and Families, Ms. Happy Darcus, for a term which will
expire on June 30, 2001 (replaces Mr. Bryson Grover).
Reappoint to the Albemarle County Service Authority as the Rivanna District representative, Mr.
William H. Bolton, with his new term to run from April 17, 2000 to April 16, 2004.
Reappoint Mr. A. Bruce Dotson and Mr. Peter G. Hallock to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
with new terms to expire on July 8, 2002.
July 5, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Charles Ward, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, has
requested that a member of the School Board be a representative on the Countys Audit Committee. He
=
will talk with Mr. Ward about this request.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 2:02 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date 9-13-2000
Initials EWC