1999-03-03 0003
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
$, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., 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, 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 from the Public.
Ms. Ann Neumark said she lives in Mill Creek South, and she thanked the Supervisors for the time
and effort they give to the community. She particularly wanted to thank Mr. Marshall, since he serves her
district. Yesterday morning as she left her development, she encountered Snow's Garden Center, at the
top of the hill. Mr. Snow is in the business of beautification, and she finds it quite a paradox that what he
presents to the residents of Mill Creek as they leave their development, is anything but beautification. As
she went about her errands yesterday she continued to be agitated, and she felt it was time to share her
feelings. She came to the County Executive's office and a lady listened to her complaint. When she
asked what she Could do, the lady replied that she should put her feelings in writing. She did this and now
each Board member has received a copy of her memo.
She then read her memo to the Board of Supervisors, dated March 2, 1999, which indicated the
Mill Creek South residents' concern about the debris around Snow's Nursery. The memo informed the
Board members that the residents and the Homeowners Association have contacted Mr. Snow, and he
has rudely ignored pleas to clean up his property. The memo further indicated that homeowners are not
concerned about the materials associated with a nursery, and their only complaint is about the "landfill"
portion of Snow's operation. She has lived here for seven years, and she patronizes most of the nurseries
in Albemarle County, as well as some in Greene and Nelson Counties. She pointed out that not one of
them operates offensively to the public as Mr. Snow has 'chosen to do, so it is apparent that it is not
necessary to operate in such a fashion to do good business. Currently a Food Lion is being built on Avon
Street, Extended. Throughout the building of this store at no time has she observed the debris and
ugliness that Mr. Snow has chosen to present to the residents every time they leave or return to their
homes, as well as other people who use Avon Extended. He has chosen not to be a good neighbor, and it
is hurtful to the residents. Whatever the Supervisors can do either legally or as a courtesy to the Mill
Creek South residents would be most appreciated. There are three more neighbors present at this
meeting who have brief comments if the Board members have time to listen to them.
Ms. Thomas wondered if the Homeowners Association is aware of the work the Architectural
Review Board is doing with this particular property at the present time. The ARB seems to be the place to
send this complaint, since it is an ongoing issue. Ms. Neumark replied that the residents are aware of this
situation to a certain degree.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Board will receive a special use permit in a couple of weeks for
outdoor storage and display which went through the ARB. He is uncertain if this addresses all of the
concerns, but it will address some of them. He suggested that Ms. Amelia McCulley, the Zoning
Administrator, could indicate whether or not there has been any violation involved. Ms. Thomas said the
matter has been deferred, so it is obvious that ongoing work is being done. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that
the Planning Commission heard the special use permit last night and recommended its approval to this
Board.
Mr. Marshall inquired if there is industrial zoning for that area. He mentioned that Mr. Snow has
been in that location for a long time. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively that the area is zoned for
industrial use. He also indicated that the matter will be on the Board's March 17 agenda. Mr. Marshall
said he will talk to Duane Snow about the situation, although he does not know if anything legally can be
done.
Mr. Martin suggested that the residents come back to the meeting on March 17, 1999. In the
meantime they can keep in touch with Mr. Marshall. Ms. Neumark explained that Mr. Snow is planting
trees to the right of his establishment where a new building is being constructed. However, the area to
which she is referring is to the left.
Mr. Marshall said his concern is that the residents are referring to another matter which is not
actually before the ARB. He explained that Duane and Bobby Snow are brothers, and when their father
died, the property was split between the two of them. He believes the situation before the ARB involves
000337
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Bobby Snow's plans for the other end of the property. The residents' complaints involve Duane Snow's
property which has been an existing use for some time, and he is unsure what can be done about the
problem.
Mr. Martin noted that Ms. McCulley would like to make a few remarks. He also suggested that the
residents of Mill Creek South work with Mr. Marshall to find the best way to approach the situation.
Ms. McCulley concurred with Mr. Marshall's statement that there are two parcels, and the parcel
owned by Duane Snow is not subject to the special use permit. Duane Snow received permission to fill
the lot many years ago, but recently the County was made aware of the fact that he has been putting
brush and trash of different kinds on the property. The staff met with him on site on February 10, 1999
and told him that he has to take the trash to the landfill. He was also told that he would need a permit, if
there were things he could lawfully burn on site. It sounds as though the staff members need to follow up
on the matter, and she will report back to the Supervisors after they have done so. Mr. Martin asked if Ms.
McCulley and her staff will also work with the homeowners. Ms. McCulley responded affirmatively.
No one else came forward to speak.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
At this time, Ms. Humphris made a motion to approve Item 5.4 on the Consent Agenda, a
proclamation recognizing 1999 as the year to celebrate the life of George Washington. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin read the following Proclamation and presented it to Mr. Steve Bredin.
BICENTENNIAL COMMEMORATION OF THE
LIFE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON
WHEREAS,
the Year 1999 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of America's Founding
Father, George Washington; and
WHEREA S,
George Washington was the indispensable figure in the creation of the United
States of America, and served our nation as its first Commander in Chief
and President with unparalleled distinction; and
WHEREAS,
Americans from sea to shining sea will pause on the brink of a new century to
reflect on George Washington's contributions to self-government; and
WHEREA S,
George Washington, in the first presidential inaugural address, challenged all
Americans with the task of preserving -- for all ages - "the sacred fire of
liberty";
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
the Year 1999
George Washington Year
to celebrate the life and legacies of George Washington: First in
War, First in Peace, and First in the Hearts of His Countrymen.
Signed and sealed this 3rd day of March, 1999.
Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Bredin for bringing the matter to the Board's attention. When she was
a student at Venable Elementary School in Charlottesville, every classroom in the public school system
had a portrait of George Washington in the front of the room, and his many accomplishments were called
to the children's attention all the time. Somehow this has faded away over the years, and she thinks it is
excellent that this is being brought back to everybody's attention. Mr. Bredin said this:is a nationwide
effort, and he appreciates the Supervisors' support. Ms. Humphris pointed that George Washington led a
revolution and then became first president of a country that didn't even have a constitution.
Mr. Martin noted a survey done within the last couple of weeks where George Washington was
still chosen as the number one president of this country. The same survey mentioned that because he
was the only president who actually did not seek to hold this position, his presidency reflected the fact that
he did what he thought was best for the country, and there were no politics involved.
Mr. Bowerman commented that in the establishment of this country and the fact that citizens
possess an uncommon amount of freedom and liberty to lead their lives as they see fit, the people came
000335
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
together as a society realizing that rules had to be established to create order for public safety and public
defense, etc. The citizens agreed to certain rules of behavior which allowed them the freedom to exercise
their own free will in almost every part of their lives by giving up something for the good of the whole
country so a common set of guidelines and principles could be established. He thinks this is the truly
remarkable thing about the United States. The United States' initiation of democracy througho0t the world
is that concept of agreeing to certain principles in exchange for greater rights for individuals.
Mr. Perkins stated that people should also remember what George Washington did no._~t do,
because he could have become a monarch or a dictator. He did not do these things, even though he was
encouraged to do so.
Mr. Bredin remarked that the Supervisors run the County of Albemarle in a very fine manner, and
he thanked them for the opportunity to receive the Proclamation. He would publicize the Proclamation as
much as possible.
Ms. Humphris thanked all the other people for coming who were present at the meeting in support
of the Proclamation.
Item No. 5.1. Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan - Final Statement for
1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in Culpeper.
The executive summary states that on February 3, 1999, staff presented the Board of Supervisors
with recommendations for primary road improvements to be presented at the VDOT pre-allocation public
hearing. The hearing will be held at the Culpeper District Offices March 15, 1999. Attached (on file) is a
revised draft of the County's list of recommendations based on the Board's prior review and comments.
Also attached (on file) is a draft speech for presentation at the pre-allocation hearing. This is provided for
the Board's review and approval.
Ms. Humphris said she has sent in a few suggested changes to Mr. Cilimberg's office, since
everyone who has delivered this presentation has run over time and the Commonwealth Transportation
Board members get impatient. She took out a few small phrases to shorten the statement, although the
meaning is still there. In the body of the report which will be left with the CTB, she had some concerns.
She called attention to Number Eight on Page Three which referred to finishing the VDoT Corridor Study
of Route 240 in Crozet and improving Route 240, although the wording seems more appropriate now. Ms.
Thomas stated that this sentence was worded awkwardly at first, but it has been changed.
Next Ms. Humphris called attention to Number Three on Page Five of the statement which
indicated that improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy would be done in
accordance with the ultimate recommendations of the Route 250 West Corridor Study currently underway.
She questioned this statement because it is not known what the recommendations will be nor if the Board
of Supervisors will approve them. She stated that Mr. Cilimberg suggested the language be changed to
indicate that recommendations would be approved by the Board of Supervisors. She also made some
suggestions about a few minor things which she felt needed clarification.
Ms. Humphris noted that there is a budget work session the same day as the Pre-Allocation
Hearing. Mr. Tucker responded that the budget work session is being re-scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on that
day in the hope that people can get back in time for it.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she will also be reading a statement for the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) at this hearing. The MPO has discussed a situation about Phase I of the Meadow
Creek Parkway, but she cannot recall this Board ever discussing it. When Phase I of the Meadow Creek
Parkway, which goes through Mclntire Park, is constructed, there are portions of land actually in the
County that are going to be cut off by the County's portion of the road, and these ought to be added to the
Parkway in some way. This will require a request by local governments. If this is not something that
seems self evident, then it needs to be discussed some other time. However, if the other Supervisors think
it is a good idea, then it should be mentioned in the written portion of the report to the CTB.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Ms. Thomas is asking for a consensus of the Board relating to this
matter. Ms. Thomas answered affirmatively. The remaining Board members concurred that this issue
should be mentioned in the written portion of the report to the CTB. Mr. Perkins remarked that some of
this land may best be used for something else. Ms. Thomas said she understands there will be some land
that will be landlocked, and this would be a natural continuation of the current trails where people are
walking. Mr. Bowerman mentioned the possibility of the trails continuing all the way to the river.
Mr. Cilimberg then called attention to Page Five under the "Enhancement Projects" section. The
statement did not put any special emphasis on the Enhancement Grant Application that the staff made for
walkways and sidewalks, and he wondered if the Board wanted to put emphasis on that particular project.
The grant is a big one in terms of what was requested, and it may provide the opportunity to do some of
the sidewalk programs that the CIP cannot fully fund. He stated that some language could be added if the
Board wishes to emphasize pedestrian walkways in development areas, since the grant application has
already been made.
000339
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4) ....... ~
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the Statement of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors for presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, Pre-allocation
Hearing on Interstate and Primary Systems, Culpeper District. (A full copy of the statement is on
file in the Clerk's office.)
Item No. 5.2. Guidelines for "Watch for Children" signs.
Currently the County has no official guidelines for the Board of Supervisors approval of "Watch
for Children" signs. Staff reviews requests from the public and presents those to the Board. The Board
endorses a resolution for VDOT to install the signs.
Staff has drafted guidelines for the Board of Supervisors review-and input (Attachment A). VDOT's
current policy on "Watch for Children" signs can be found in Attachment B. Staffs recommended
guidelines do not conflict with VDOT's existing policy. The proposed County guidelines will give staff the
opportunity to recommend approval or denial of "Watch for Children" signs in an objective manner. The
following explains the reason for each proposed guideline:
"Watch for Children" signs shall only be considered on secondary roads.
Reason: VDOT will not allow the signs on primary roads and the County doe's not want to encourag(
children playing on primary roads, which typically have higher vehicle counts.
The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. If no Homeowner's
Association is present, County staff will determine the degree of support (Example: Staff can
a mail survey with residents on the block.)
Reason: This guideline will prevent an individual from requesting a sign without the support of the
neighbors.
There must be a child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered (such as a basketball
court, park, playing fields, etc.) or there must be an observed or documented need for the sign.
(Example: Staff can conduct a field survey during peak time, such as after school.)
Reason: This will allow staff to determine if there is a real need for a sign. The field survey will be
done at least twice.
The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices.
Reason: This guideline will prevent confusion, which can make the road even more hazardous for
pedestrians and motorists.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the "Child at Play" guidelines to take effect
immediately.
(Ms. Thomas thanked the staff for these guidelines, and said she believes they would have been
really useful in a recent accident in the County.)
By the above shown vote, the Board endorsed the following guidelines for "Watch for
Children" signs to take effect immediately:
1. "Watch for Children" signs shall only be considered on secondary roads.
The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. If no
Homeowner's Association is present, County staff will determine the degree of support
(Example: Staff can conduct a mail survey with residents on the block.)
There must be a child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered (such as a
basketball court, park, playing fields, etc.) or there must be an observed or documented
for the sign. (Example: Staff can conduct a field survey during peak time, such as after
school.)
The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices.
Item No. 5.3. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 6, Nonconformities, of the Zoning Ordinance.
The current version of Section 6.0 is neither well-organized nor clearly written. In addition,
Subsection 6.4.2, which pertains to the setback regulations applicable to enlarged or extended
nonconforming structures, has been the subject of recurring variance requests to the Board of Zoning
Appeals in recent years.
The current version of Section 6.0 uses terms that are not defined, uses inconsistent language,
and is organized in such a way that makes the section difficult to understand, particularly for the general
public. An amended Section 6.0 would eliminate these deficiencies by defining key terms, reorganizing
the section to consolidate all of the regulations pertaining to nonconforming uses, structures and lots in
their own separate sections, and revising the language so that it is simpler and consistent with other
provisions of the County Code and the Code of Virginia. Other revisions would be made to promote good
zoning practices.
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000340
Subsection 6.4.2 would be amended to provide a general regulation applicable to the enlargement
or extension of nonconforming residential structures where the nonconformity is limited to noncompliance
with the front yard setback. The proposed regulation would address a matter that has been the subject of
recurring variance applications to the Board of Zoning Appeals in recent years - variances from the front
yard setback regulations where the nonconforming structure is within the setback, and the proposed
extension or enlargement is farther from the front boundary (and is less an intrusion into the setback) than
the existing structure. The consideration of a general regulation is appropriate because of the. recurring
nature of this issue (Code of Virginia § 15.2-2309), and the Board of Zoning Appeals supports addressing
this issue by general regulation. The proposed amendment would include restrictions, including a
minimum setback that would apply in all cases.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to amend Section 6.0,
Nonconformities, of the Zoning Ordinance.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent to amend
Section 6.0, Nonconformities, of the Zoning Ordinance:
WHEREAS, Section 6.0, Nonconformities, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the
regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures and lots; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 6.0 by reorganizing and clarifying the section,
establishing regulations pertaining to extending or enlarging nonconforming residential structures
where the only nonconformity is the structures' noncompliance with the applicable front yard
setback, and making other changes to promote good zoning practices;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 6.0, Nonconformities, of the
Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing
on this resolution of intent, and return its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the
earliest possible date.
Item No. 5.4. Proclamation recognizing the Year 1999 as the year to celebrate the life of George
Washington.
(Separate vote and discussion at the beginning of the consent agenda.)
Item No. 5.5. Support for Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's Eastern Planning
Initiative.
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is requesting funding from the Federal
Highway Administration for transportation planning funds that will study the transportation needs in the
eastern area of the Planning District. This includes 29 North into Greene County, the City of
Charlottesville, the eastern half of Albemarle County and the Counties of Fluvanna and Louisa. No local
funding is required only an indication of our support and willingness to participate in the study process
should the proposal be funded.
Staff recommends your support of this request and Planning staff has indicated they intend to
participate in the study process. The MPO and PDC have already endorsed this proposal and with your
approval, the Clerk of the Board will so notify the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
By the above shown vote, the Board supported the Planning District Commission's
Eastern Planning Initiative and Planning staff's participation in the study process, if the proposal
is funded.
Item No. 5.6 Early Retirement Requests for FY 1999-2000.
Albemarle County Personnel Policy P-63 provides for voluntary early retirement for county
employees who have been employed by the county for ten of the last thirteen years and who are at least
50 years of age and currently employed. Staff has received additional requests from employees who have
been employed with the county for the prerequisite minimum number of years and have indicated their
intention to retire within the next fiscal year. The associated employee costs will be built into the FY 1999-
2000 budget.
County policy requires the Board of Supervisors to approve all early retirement applications upon
recommendation of the County Executive. Staff recommends that these requests be so approved with the
budgetary implications absorbed within the appropriate departmental FY 1999-2000 budget.
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000341
By the above shown vote, the Board approved additional voluntary early retirement
requests received from employees, with the budgetary implications absorbed within the
appropriate departmental FY 1999-2000 budgets.
Item No. 5.7. Boudreau's Inc., Request for dance hall permit.
The attached application (Attachment A) was received requesting a dance hall permit for a
restaurant. The Albemarle County Code requires an applicant to obtain a dance hall permit from the
Board of Supervisors before commencing operation of any dance hall. A dance hall is defined as "any
place open to the general public where dancing is permitted". The County Zoning Ordinance stipulates
that "dancing by patrons shall be considered as entertainment accessory to an eating establishment,
provided the space made available for such dancing shall not be more than one-eighth (1/8) of that part of
the floor area available for dining" (Attachment B)
Applications for dance hall permits must contain certification from the Fire Marshal and Building
Official that the dance hall is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention Code and the
Virginia Statewide Building Code. Dance'halls also are subject to all requirements of the County Zoning
Ordinance.
Attachment C is the certification from the Fire/Rescue Department demonstrating the applicant's
compliance with the Fire Prevention Code. As you will notice, there are still some minor issues to resolve,
which the Fire Marshal's Office is scheduled to re-inspect. Based on the nature of the concerns, the Fire
Marshal indicated that the dance hall permit application could move forward subject to re-inspection.
Attachment D is from the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services stipulating that the front
portion of the building is in compliance with the Virginia Statewide Building Code and the County Zoning
Ordinance as a by right accessory use to a restaurant. When the back portion of the building, currently
under renovation, is ready for its certificate of occupancy from the Building Official, Zoning will inspect the
size of the dance floor and the parking for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Since the applicant has received the necessary tentative approvals to operate a dance hall by
right as defined above, staff recommends approving the dance hall permit subject to 1) the Fire Marshal's
certification of compliance following re-inspection 2) additional permit review after the renovation of the
back portion of the facility (the back area will be reviewed separately for compliance with the 1/8 dance
floor space requirement) and 3) at no time shall the space made available for dancing exceed the 1/8
dance floor space requirement.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved a dance hall permit for Boudreau's Inc.,
located at 1525 East Rio Road, subject to the following conditions:
1) the Fire Marshal's certification of compliance with the Uniform Statewide Fire Code following
re-inspection;
2) Zoning certification after the renovation of the back portion of the facility to assure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance; and
3) at no time shall the space made available for dancing exceed the one-eighth of the area
available for dining in either the front or the back area of the building. When the back area of
the building, currently under renovation, is ready for its certificate of occupancy from the
Building Official, Zoning will re-inspect it separately for compliance with the one-eighth dance
floor space requirement, and the parking for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Item No. 5.8. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Program Projects - Storm Drainage, $162,075
(Form #98056).
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) required all underground fuel storage tanks
(USTs) greater than 5,000 gallons to be upgraded (or to be under contract to be upgraded) with protective
spill, overfill and cathodic protection measures by December 22, 1998. The County Office Building has two
USTs which need these upgrades. One 10,000 gallon heating oil UST, which serves as a backup fuel
source for our heating water boilers (natural gas is the primary fuel source), is located near the Visitors
Entrance. A second 10,000 gasoline UST is located in the rear of the building to serve police and other
county vehicles. Both tanks are 20 years old and require replacement. The original CIP construction cost
estimate for the work was $85,000. During the design of the project, the scope of work was expanded to
provide a weather protective canopy over the gasoline pump and an inventory control "key reader" system
to monitor and collect billing data for the gasoline system. The Iow competitive bid for the project was
$145,325 when bids were opened in December. A contract was awarded to the Iow bidder on December
22, 1998 to comply with the DEQ deadline and complete the work this spring. The additional funds
required for the UST replacement contract are available from the Peyton Basin CIP account.
The Peyton Basin ClP project will replace an outfall pipe in the existing stormwater detention
basin located near the intersection of Commonwealth and Greenbrier Drives. Construction bids for this
work have been opened (the Iow bid was $66,650) and a project balance of $80,000 is anticipated after all
work is completed this spring. A transfer of $80,000 from the Peyton Basin project to the UST project will
provide adequate funding to complete the UST project.
000342
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
The Windham/Jarman Gap CIP stormwater project originated in the late 1980's as the result of
flooding problems experienced by residents of Jarmans Gap Road. Corrective measures have been
completed, and based on our recent evaluation of the site and interviews with local residents, we believe
this project is no longer required. Stormwater drainage improvements will be made by VDOT in
conjunction with a road widening project. In order to fund additional costs at the Old Crozet School
(Crossroads Waldorf) roof project resulting from structural deficiencies uncovered during construction, it is
requested that $82,075 be transferred from Windham/Jarman Gap to the Old Crozet School Roof project.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the transfer of funds, totaling $162,075.00,
as detailed on Appropriation #98056.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998199
NUMBER: 98056
FUND: CIP/STORM DRAINAGE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM STORM DRAINAGE TO C.I.P.
PROJECTS FOR OLD CROZET SCHOOL AND STORAGE TANKS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9010 43100 950042
1 9010 43100 950103
1 9100 41053 800975
1 9100 41050 800975
CODE
COB UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
OLD CROZET SCHOOL-ROOF
$80,000.00
82,075.00
PEYTON BASIN (80,000.00)
WINDHAM/JARMAN GAP (82,075.00)
TOTAL $ 0.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $ 0.00
TRANSFERS AMOUNT
2 9010 51000 512009
2 9100 51000 510100
TRANSFER FROM STORMWATER
STORM DRAINAGE FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$162,075.00
(162,075.00)
$ 0.00
Item No. 5.9. Appropriation: Education, $1,000 (Form #98058).
At its meeting on January 25, 1999, the School Board approved an appropriation of $1,000.00 for
Monticello High School. Monticello High School received a donation from Humagen Fertility Diagnostics,
Inc., in the amount of $1,000.00. Humagen made the donation in the name of Linda Sawyer and
requested the funds be used for the baseball program at Monticello.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation, totaling $1,000.00, as
detailed on form #98058.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98058
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
MONTICELLO HIGH BASEBALL PROGRAM.
DONATION FROM HUMAGEN FERTILITY DIAGNOSTICS FOR
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1 2304 61105 580000
MISC. EXPENSE $1,000.00
TOTAL $1,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109
DONATION $1,000.00
TOTAL $1,000.00
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000343
Item No. 5.10. Appropriation: Northern Elementary School- Site Acquisition Costs, $393,496
(Form #98059).
At its meeting of September 2, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved the use of FY 1999
school construction funds in the amount of $393,496 for site acquisition costs for the Northern Elementary
SchOok In 0rder to proCeed with engineering services required for site acquisition, these funds need to be
appropriated to the Northern Elementary School expenditure account
(1-9000-60217-312350).
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #98059 in the amount of $393,496 appropriation to
the Northern Elementary School account.
(Mr. Perkins asked for more information on this item. Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Perkins that this
matter will be discussed in executive session today.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER 98059
FUND: SCHOOL CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ENGINEERING AND ACQUISITION COST OF
NORTHERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9000 60217 312350
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
TOTAL
$393,496:O0
$393,496.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900024000240350 STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANT
TOTAL
$393,496.00
$393,496.00
Item No. 5.11. Appropriation: Education, $91,021 (Forms #98060, 98061).
At its meeting on February 8, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Appropriation of $88,170.00 for SOL Training Initiative. The Virginia General Assembly
appropriated $25.1 million in its biennial budget for 1998-2000 to support teachers, principals,
superintendents and other administrators in the implementation of the Standards of Learning (SOL) in the
four content areas - Mathematics, Science, English and History. The funds have been allocated for the
implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive teacher training program to be conducted within the
school division in the core content areas and leadership training for administrative staff implementing the
SOL. The allocation for Albemarle County Public Schools for FY 98/99 is $88,170.00.
Appropriation of $25,233.17 for the Family Literacy 2000 Adult Basic Education Family Literacy
Grant. Family Literacy 2000 is an Adult Basic Education Family Literacy Grant deSigned to raise literacy,
English language ability, parenting, and pre-school readiness skills of the clients enrolled in the project.
Families with "at risk" young children who are currently enrolled in Head Start or Bright Star programs will
be targeted. The program will be a collaborative effort among Albemarle Bright Star, Migrant and Adult
Education Programs, and the Shenandoah and MACAA Head Start Programs. Sites of service will include
Albemarle High, Greet and Stone Robinson Elementary, and St. John's Community Center. The services
will be integrated with existing Adult Basic Education and English as a Second Language classes currently
being offered.
Appropriation of $2,651.00 for V. L. Murray Elementary School. V. L. Murray Elementary School
received anonymous donations in the amount of $2,651.00. These donations will be used for
miscellaneous supplies, instructional supplies, data processing supplies, books and subscriptions, and
staff development.
Appropriation of $200.00 from the Sycamore House Studio Art Shop. The Sycamore House
Studio Art Shop donated $200.00 to help defray the cost of the Fine Arts Festival.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $91,021.00, as
detailed on forms #98060 and #98061.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of Appropriation:
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98060
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
CONTRIBUTIONS.
CODE
000344
FUNDING FOR SOL TRAINING INITIATIVE AND VARIOUS
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTIQN
AMOUNT
1 2114 61311 160300
1 2114 61311 152100
1 2114 61311 210000
1 2114 61311 312500
1 2114 61311 440010
1 2114 61311 550400
1 2114 61311 580100
1 2114 61311 601300
1 2114 61311 800710
1 2215 61411 580000
1 2215 61411 580500
I 2215 61411 601200
I 2215 61411 601300
1 2215 61411 601600
1 2111 61311 580000
CODE
STIPENDS-STAFF DEV'L
SUB. WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
PROF. SVCS.-INST.
PRINTING
TRAVEL-EDUC.
DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
ED/REC SUPPLIES
COMPUTER SOFTWARE
MISC. EXPENSE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTONS
ED/REC-SUPPLIES
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
MISC. EXPENSES
TOTAL
$91,021.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
$30,000.00
3,276.00
2,546.00
7,434:00
3,067.00
908.00
6,000.00
24,939.00
10,000.00
1,201.00
100.00
83.00
1,142.00
125.00
200.00
AMOUNT
2 2000 24000 240603
2 2000 18100 181109
2 2000 18100 181109
SOL TRAINING
DONATIONS
DONATIONS
TOTAL
$88,170.00
2,651.00
200.00
$91,021.00
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98061
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
CONTRIBUTIONS.
CODE
FUNDING FOR SOL TRAINING INITIATIVE AND VARIOUS
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1 3117 63325 132100
1 3117 63325 210000
1 3117 63325 312700
1 3117 63325 550100
1 3117 63325 580500
1 3117 63325 600200
I 3117 63325 601300
1 3117 63325 601700
1 3117 63325 800100
1 3117 63325 800710
SALARIES-TEACHER
FICA
CONTRACTED SERVICES
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
PROF. DEV'L.
FOOD SUPPLIES
ED/REC SUPPLIES
PRINTING
MANCHINER/EQUIP.
DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE
TOTAL
$14,368.94
1,099.23
500.00
500.00
100.00
650.00
4,165.00
750.00
2,600.00
500.00
$25,233.17
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 311724000240500 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE
TOTAL
$25,233.17
$25,233.17
Item No. 5.12. Appropriation: Education, $91,147.01 (Forms #98053, 98054, 98055 ).
At its meeting on January 11, 1999, the School Board approved several appropriations.
Appropriation of $23,145.00 for Albemarle County Schools. The State has provided to school
divisions, on an incentive basis, funds for an early intervention reading initiative. The purpose of this
initiative is to reduce, by the end of first grade, the number of children with reading problems through early
diagnosis and correction of research-identified-reading readiness. The initiative funds a statewide
diagnostic literacy assessment, the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS), that will identify
children in either kindergarten or first grade who do not have the literacy skills necessary for success in
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
OOO345
learning to read. Albemarle County serves students with these funds in kindergarten. Funds for the
initiative have been allocated to the school division based on the number of children deemed at-risk using
the division's free lunch count and the division's composite index with a local match being required.
Albemarle County Public Schools' allocation is $23,145.00 for the 1998 school year, with its ALPS
allocation being the local match. Funds are in turn allocated to the elementary schools on a per public
allocation of students identified by the PALS reading diagnostic test to provide additional reading
instruction with a student ratio not to exceed 5 to 1. Originally these funds were anticipated to be used in
Summer School, however, as the development of the program continued, it was determined that this
initiative should be done during the regular school year.
Appropriation of $8,013.05 for Albemarle County Schools. In 1997, the Virginia Odyssey of the
Mind (OM) State Board created a new OM region to serve our county and surrounding school districts.
Jefferson Region OM is responsible for providing a regional level OM competition, which will serve these
students. Our regional tournament will be on March 27, at Western Albemarle High School. About 80
teams of students will participate; 52 of these teams will be from Albemarle County. Team contributions
from corporate sponsor solicitation will cover some of these expenses. In addition, Jefferson Region OM
has a carryover fund balance of $2,553.05. Jefferson Region OM requests that Albemarle County
continue as fiscal agent for our region.
Appropriation of $59,988.96 for Albemarle County Schools. A consortium of school systems
(Nelson, Albemarle, and Charlottesville) has formed to address the educational, social, and emotional
needs of students who require an alternative education program. Students will be eligible for RETURN II if
they are of school age and have violated School Board policies; have been expelled or suspended for an
entire semester; have two or more long-term suspensions in one school year; have been released from a
youth learning center and reside within the counties/city of the consortium; or if the School Board
recommends them for placement. Albemarle County Public Schools, acting as fiscal agent for the
consortium, has been awarded a grant from the Virginia Department of Education in the amount of
$36,053. In addition to the grant, Nelson County will contribute $5,400 and Charlottesville City Schools
$6,120. Albemarle County Schools included in the 1998-99 School Budget an amount of $6,869 for the
transfer to this program. In addition, there is a fund balance of $5,546.96 from the 1997-98 fiscal year
grant budget to reappropriate, giving a grand total of $59,988.96 for the Project RETURN II program.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations as detailed on
Appropriation #98053, #98054, and #98055.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98053
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ODDSSEY OF THE MIND.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1 3129 61104
1 3129 61104
1 3129 61104
1 3129 61104
1 3129 611O4
1 3129 61104
113000 SALARIES-PROFESSIONAL-OTHER
120310 OVERTIME/SPECIAL EVENTS
210000 FICA
520100 POSTAL SERVICES
580000 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
601300 EDUC. & RECREATION SUP.
TOTAL
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION
$3,000.00
1,550.05
363.00
100.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
$8,013.05
AMOUNT
2 3129 16OO0
2 3129 18100
2 3129 18000
2 3129 51000
161260 VA OM REGISTRATION FEE
181109 CONTRIBUTIONS
189918 PROCEEDS-SALE
510100 FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98054
FUND: PROJECT RETURN
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PROJECT RETURN II.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
$2,000.00
300.00
3,162.03
2,551.02
$8,013.05
AMOUNT
1 3122 63349
1 3122 63349
1 3122 63349
112100 SALARI ES-TEACH ER
210000 FICA
221000 VRS
$38,120.00
2,916.18
4,015.40
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
1 3122 63349
I 3122 63349
I 3122 63349
1 3122 63349
1 3122 63349
I 3122 63349
231000 HEALTH INSURANCE
312500 PROF. SER. INSTRUCTIONAL
520100 POSTAL SERVICES
520301 TELEPHONE-LOCAL
550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE
601300 EDUC. & RECREATION SUP.
TOTAL
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION
$59,988.96
000346
1,874.42
4,0O0.00
200.00
500.00
3,000.00
5,362.96
AMOUNT
2 3122 18000
2 3122 24000
2 3122 51000
2 3122 51000
189900 MISC REVENUES
240500 GRANT REVENUE-STATE
510100 FUND BALANCE
512001 TRANSFER-FROM SCHOOL FUND
TOTAL
$11,523.13
36,053.00
5,543.83
6,869.00
$59,988.96
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98055
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR THE PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS LITERACY
SCREENING. (PALS)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2216 61141 132100
1 2216 61141 134100
1 2216 61141 160300
1 2216 61141 210000
1 2216 61141 601300
1 2201 61141 132100
1 2201 61141 134100
1 2201 61141 160300
1 2201 61141 210000
1 2201 61141 601300
1 2202 61141 132100
1 2202 61141 210000
1 2214 61141 132100
1 2214 61141 134100
1 2214 61141 160300
1 2214 61141 210000
1 2214 61141 601300
1 2203 61141 132100
1 2203 61141 134100
1 2203 61141 160300
1 2203 61141 210000
1 2203 61141 601300
1 2204 61141 132100
1 2204 61141 134100
1 2204 61141 160300
1 2204 61141 210000
I 2204 61141 601300
I 2205 61141 132100
1 2205 61141 210000
1 2205 61141 601300
1 2215 61141 132100
1 2215 61141 210000
1 2215 61141 601300
1 2207 61141 132100
1 2207 61141 210000
I 2207 61141 601300
1 2209 61141 132100
1 2209 61141 134100
1 2209 61141 160300
1 2209 61141 210000
1 2209 61141 601300
1 2210 61141 132100
1 2210 61141 134100
1 2210 61141 160300
1 2210 61141 210000
1 2210 61141 601300
1 2211 61141 132100
1 2211 61141 210000
1 2211 61141 601300
PIT WAG ES-TEACH ER
PIT WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAG ES-TEAC H E R
P/T WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
PFF WAG ES-TEAC H E R
FICA
P/T WAG ES-TEAC H E R
P/T WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAGES-TEACHER
P/T WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAGES-TEACHER
P/T WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAG ES-TEAC H E R
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
PIT WAGES-TEACH ER
P/T WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAGES-TEACHER
P/T WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
P/T WAG ES-TEACH ER
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
$2,046.00
400.00
100.00
194.77
50.23
975.00
250.00
100.00
101.36
50.64
304.69
23.31
2,907.OO
300.00
100.00
252.99
51.01
2,6O3.00
300.00
100.00
229.73
50.27
1,380.00
300.00
100.00
136.17
53.83
750.00
57.38
13.62
450.00
34.43
7.57
600.00
45.90
11.10
925.0O
300.00
100.00
101.36
50.64
2,45O.OO
300.00
100.00
218.03
50.97
865.00
66.17
53.83
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
1 2212 61141 132100
1 2212 61141 210000
1 2212 61141 601300
1 2213 61141 132100
1 2213 61141 134100
1 2213 61141 160300
1 2213 61141 210000
1 2213 61141 601300
P/T WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
PIT WAGES-TEACHER
P/T WAGES-TEACHER AIDE
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURR. DEV
FICA
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
TOTAL
865.00
66.17
53.83
670.00
250.00
100.00
78.O3
50.97
$23,145.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
000347
2 2000 24000 240220 REMEDIAL EDUCATION
TOTAL
$23,145.00
$23,145.00
Item No. 5.13. December, 1998 Financial Report, was received for information.
The report indicates that General Fund revenue projections were revised as part of the 1999/2000
budget process. Local revenues are projected to exceed previous estimates by $785,600 primarily due to
the greater than anticipated January 1, 1999 real estate reassessment rate, new construction, a slight
increase in new vehicle purchases, additional meals tax revenues, and monthly collection of the transient
occupancy tax. State and federal revenues are projected to exceed previous estimates by $465,322
primarily due to additional social services revenues.
Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5 percent operating holdback, net compensation
adjustment. The January financial report will reflect the release of 3.5 percent of the holdback on January
11, 1999.
Item No. 5.14. Monthly Bond and Progress Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road
Apts.) for the month of January, 1999, was received for information.
Item No. 5.15. Second Quarter report for JAUNT services in Albemarle County for FY 1999, was
received for information.
Item No. 5.16. Monthly update on the FY 1998/99 Project Schedule for the Department of
Engineering & Public Works as of February 23, 1999, was received for information.
Item No. 5.17. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 16, 1999, was received for
information.
Item No. 5.18. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors
meeting of January 25, 1999, was received for information.
Ms. Humphris said these minutes mentioned a request from VDoT, to which the RWSA has
responded, relating to the purchase of some land for the construction of the proposed bypass, from
RWSA. RWSA's response was that it would deal with this matter when VDoT had answered all the
questions about the proposed bypass in the letter sent by RWSA on June 9, 1998 which VDoT never
answered. She then mentioned information received in the mail from a VDoT environmental planner
about the property behind Jack Jouett and Greer Schools where there are some County trails. The staff is
examining this situation now, but she wanted to call it to the Board's attention. She emphasized that the
VDoT letter indicates that the trail behind Jouett was recently brought to the attention of the Federal
Highway Administration after years of coordination and environmental and design work. There are trails
on both the Jouett and Greer property, but the reference is made only to the Jouett School property. All of
this had gone through VDoT's Environmental Impact Statement but the statement was flawed. The
statement indicated that the design did not pass through any agricultural/forestal district nor (4)f property
which it does. She is working on some details as a follow-up to everything that is happening as best she
can, but the situation is not right. It sounds as though VDoT may try to take some of the County's school
and recreational property at Greer and Jouett Schools, as well as to go through the Ivy Creek
Agricultural/Forestal District. This situation has occurred because VDoT representatives were careless
and didn't do their background work properly when they were making decisions about the road that this
community does not even want. More information will be coming to the Supervisors about this matter.
There is no way to tell from the letter about the process to be followed as far as the response or timing
pertaining to this issue. It is also unclear as far as what happens when the County gives its evaluation
comments, and she wondered who makes the decision. The letter does not give all of this information.
000348
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Item No. 5.19. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors for the Albemarle County Service
Authority meeting for January 28, 1999, was received for information.
Ms. Thomas referred to Page Four of the minutes and asked Mr. Davis to explain what is referred
to as the Water and Waste Authority's Act that didn't allow the Farmington property owners to have a rate
surcharge. She said Mr. Davis may want to describe the situation to her at a later time. This situation
came as a surprise to her, and it would impede a system currently being considered for that area.
Item No. 5.20. Letter dated February 23, 1999, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, Chairman,
from Louise Finger, Environmental Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality, re: Reissuance of
VPDES Permit No. VA0025488, Camelot STP, was received for information.
Mr. Martin asked for a summary of this item. Mr. Tucker said this is an update to an existing
permit at the Camelot treatment plant. He explained that periodically the staff reviews this permit at the
request of Camelot representatives, as well as the state, and Mr. Hirschman is in the process of doing so.
He will make sure Mr. Martin gets a copy. of the staffs report which will be submitted to the state and
Camelot.
Item No. 5.21. Notice of joint petition of Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc.,
Continental Communications Corp. Of Virginia and MediaOne of Virginia for approval to merge into, and
transfer assets, including partnership interests, to Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, LLC, Case
No. PUA990002, was received for information.
NonAgenda. Next, Ms. Thomas referred to a document written by staff in response to this
Board's request for a resolution to be shared with the Governor requesting a veto of House Bill 2324
which impacts on the County's ability to zone and regulate land use. This request is being made in order
to preserve the full authority of local governments to utilize special use permits in their efforts to
responsibly manage the impacts and costs of high growth. She then moved approval of this resolution.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
REQUEST FOR VETO OF HOUSE BILL 2324
WHEREAS, one of local government's most essential functions is the exercise of the authority to zone
and regulate land use; and
WHEREAS, such land use regulation is particularly critical to the ability of high growth localities to
maintain their quality of life and to minimize the need for higher taxes necessitated by the costs of growth; and
WHEREAS, the public is demanding that high growth localities exercise all reasonable authority to
responsibly manage high growth; and
WHEREAS, special use permits are a key element to providing flexible review of land uses which
may, in spite of potential negative impacts, be acceptable if developed under specific terms and conditions
which address otherwise unacceptable impacts of such development; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 2324 limits the authority of local governments to responsibly regulate land use
by narrowing the authority to control certain uses by special use permit; and
WHEREAS, such authority and decision making should remain in the hands of local government
officials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby
respectfully requests that the Honorable Governor James S. Gilmore, III veto House Bill 2324 to preserve the
full authority of local governments to utilize special use permits in their efforts to responsibly manage the
impacts and costs of high growth.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of MinUtes: March 18, August 5, August 19, November 4 and
December 7 (A), 1998; January 13, January 20 (A) and January 20 (N), 1999.
Ms. Thomas reported that she has read the minutes of March 18, 1998 and August 5, 1998, as
well as the night meeting of January 20, 1999, and found them to be in order except for some small
typographical errors.
Maroh 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Perkins stated that he has read Pages One through Item 12 of Page 27 of the November 4,
1998 minutes and found them to be in order. There were a couple of typographical corrections which he
will give to the Clerk.
Mr. Bowerman said he has read the minutes of the afternoon meetings of December 7 and
January 20, 1998 and found them to be in order except for one correction which he will give to the Clerk.
Mr. Marshall stated that he has read the minutes of January 13, 1999, and found them to be in
order except for one correction which he will give to the Clerk.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve the minutes as read.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Other TranSportation Matters.
Ms. Angela Tucker stated that there was no written information this month to which she can refer.
However, she has an update on three items, and the others are outstanding and forthcoming. VDoT has
completed its review for signing on 1-64 and Route 637 to recommend that truckers not use Route 637 to
Route 250. These are black and yellow signs that will basically greet truckers that Route 637 to Route
250 is not a recommended route. She will forward the signing diagram for the Supervisors' information.
Ms. Thomas thanked Ms. Tucker for taking care of this problem.
Ms. Tucker next announced that the right-of-way on Route 743 is complete for the installation of
fencing by the owner. She and the Zoning staff are working on this matter.
Ms. Tucker then mentioned that Grassmere Drive is not eligible for a pave in place project. VDoT
has received all the necessary dedicated rights-of-way for this project, and the ultimate road improvement
will not be much greater than the pave in place limit. Temporary easements are necessary to tie in
slopes, and VDoT is proceeding outside of the pave in place guidelines for that project. She also
announced that VDoT now has all of the Westvaco easements. She is prepared to take any additional
transportation concerns.
Mr. Marshall inquired if anything has been done about reducing the speed on Porter's Road. Ms.
Tucker replied that the field review for this project has not yet been done. She will let Mr. Marshall know
when the review is finished.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the 52 foot trailer that overturned on Park Street was leaving his
store and going to 250 West. He then asked if VDoT's repaving schedule is flexible enough to delay
paving at Woodbrook Subdivision while continuing ongoing negotiations with the installation of gas lines
there. He went on to say there could be significant cost saving on the part of the City Gas Department if
VDoT allows some flexibility. Ms. Tucker answered that this flexibility would be worthwhile for VDoT as
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Benish would be talking to her about the improvements being done to
Georgetown Road. She said when she examined the Six Year Secondary schedule and the CIP, she saw
the Six Year schedule indicates that this work should be completed in the year 2000. However, Mr. Benish
informed her that the design has not yet been done. The sidewalks in the CIP have been scheduled for
2003 or 2004, and all this work was supposed to be done at the same time. She would think it would be
better to have all of the work done now, instead of in a piecemeal fashion.
Ms. Tucker agreed that this would make more sense. It appears the County's CIP schedule is a
lot more realistic than the current Six Year Plan which will need to be revised. She said a scoping meeting
is planned for this project in the next couple of months, and VDoT is generally looking at two to three
years for construction to begin. This puts VDoT's plans similar to the CIP schedule. Ms. Humphris
concurred that this schedule seems to be a lot more realistic.
Mr. Martin noted that there is a private road in Forest Lakes South called Ashland Drive. He
explained that it is a half circle coming off of Ashwood Boulevard and then re-connecting back to Ashwood
Boulevard. The people in that community would like to have the police patrol this private road. In order
for this to happen, though, the Supervisors have to agree to ask the County Executive to go through a
process and bring back information to them as to whether or not it is a good idea. He pointed out that the
police routinely patrol Ashwood Boulevard, but they cannot go onto Ashland Drive, because it is a private
road.
OOO3 O
March :3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Tuoker stated that this is similar to the prooe$$ followed with West Leigh Drive. He said for
police patrol the road has to connect one state road to another, and Ashland Drive fits the description,
since it is a loop road. He stated that the road is examined from an engineering standpoint, and there is a
provision in the Code which allows the Board of Supervisors to authorize polioe patrol. He will bring back
information to the Supervisors possibly within the next month.
Mr. Msrtin pointed out that the police will not be asked to increase patrol in that area. He said it
would just allow them to go onto the private road. He then inquired if any of the other Board members
disagree with this process, $inoe there needs to be a consensus of the Boarcl. Ms. Thomas noted that no
one is objecting as far as asking the staff to go through the process. However, she believes a formal vote
will eventually be necessary.
Mr. Davis commented that the Code will have to be amendecl to in¢iucle Ashland Drive as one of
the private roads. Mr. Bowerman wondered if a Resolution of Intent will need to be drafted.
Mr. Davis answered that only the authorization by this Board is needed to advertise the adjustment to the
ordinance once the final analysis has been ¢ompletecl.
Ms. Humphris referred to a letter in the Board members' packet of information from the Chair of
the Route 250 West Corridor Study Committee. This letter reported on a meeting of the group, and a
statement was attached. The letter indicates that the majority of the 15 member Committee supports the
statement, particularly the opposition to four laning or six laning Route 250 West. The information also
indicated that the Committee had requested the public meeting with VDoT, which had so many people in
attendance, be interactive. This means that VDoT would make a formal presentation, and there would be
the opportunity for public comment at a microphone in the presence of all in attendance. The request was
rejected by VDoT. She believes VDoT's public information meetings are not really how they are
presented, unless the public is allowed to speak. VDoT representatives should also speak and be heard
and members of the public should be allowed to respond.
Agenda Item No. 8. Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Presentation by Bryan Elliott.
Mr. Martin announced that Mr. Bryan Elliott, Executive Director of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport, would give a report on the status of the Airport.
Mr. Elliott said he appreciated the opportunity to update the Board members on several projects
and initiatives of the Airport Authority. He stated that the Airport is in the midst of a 300 space expansion
of its parking facilities along with new ticketing booths and a credit card lane which should be completed
by midyear. The Airport is currently in a winter shut down, but most of the material needed to be brought
in for the additional spaces has been placed, and he expects these spaces to be brought on line later this
summer. In respect to ground transportation, he mentioned that Ms. Thomas has worked with Airport
representatives on the Van-on-the-Go initiative, and traffic mitigation is being considered to and from the
Airport for reducing the flow of traffic. He is pleased to announce that the Van-on-the-Go proposal will
move forward some time this month, and the Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles is scheduled
to issue the permit within the next week. He commented that it is hoped effective ground transportation
will help the Airport Authority alleviate or mitigate the need for future capital investment. This issue has
been studied, and it will take another $7,000,000 investment to get the Airport to the next level of parking
sometime in the year 2005. If effective ground transportation can be achieved, it will be very prudent for
ev/eryone.
He then reported that the Route 649 and Route 606 project is moving rapidly toward 70 percent
completion of the plans which means a design public hearing will be held later this spring. Prior to that
public hearing, another session with the property owners on these routes will be held. He noted that such
a session was held in December, and it was a good exchange of information and a good opportunity for
the property owners to become educated about the plans. The plans are to four lane Route 649, relocate
Route 606 to the east and utilize the existing Route 606 alignment as an internal Airport access. It is
possible the Route 606 improvements will be constructed ahead of the Route 649 project. The schedule
for Route 649 is to hold the public hearing this spring, receive Commonwealth Transportation Board
approval this summer and begin the rights-of-way acquisition process which is programmed to occur in
approximately one year. Then the utility relocation can move forward and ultimately construction can
begin sometime in the year 2001. There is a different set of funds involved for Route 606, which makes
this project operate on a different time schedule. These funds relate to the Virginia Department of Aviation
as well as the Airport Authority's passenger charge program, and it will probably be the year 2000 before
construction of that phase is initiated. Other important elements of the project are the bike lanes and
sidewalks along Route 649 particularly to link the University Research Park and other residential areas as
part of the program. He said partial funding has been received, and an application has been made for the
remaining funds this year through the Enhancement Program. Last year a 20 year study in the future was
done on the terminal, itself. The size of the building was being considered, and the final scenario showed
that 40,000 square feet more will be needed in the future. He pointed out on a diagram that the building
will be expanded to the north and south for future needs which will require the relocation of the Air Traffic
Control Tower. He emphasized, though, that it will be 2010 or 2015 before the program actually gets
underway. However, at the current time, there is no additional space for more than one airline so if
additional service is required, another program will have to be considered to provide additional amenities
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16) ·
00035&
for the other airlines. In addition to the air carrier and ground access situation, studies have been done on
additional capacity projects for general aviation.
Mr. Elliott recalled several years ago that this Board was interested as far as what was being done
in terms of private aviation. Last year, construction was completed on a 14 unit individualized hangar for
smaller aircraft, and of those 14 units, approximately 10 are occupied. There is now a space which has
been constructed that could accommodate additional such hangars as demand warrants. He next
mentioned that all of the Airport's pavement has been rehabilitated, some of which was over 40 years old,
and this process should be complete by the end of the year. Over the next two to three years, Mr. EIliott
reported that the Airport Authority will be undertaking a project mandated by the Federal Aviation
Administration to expand the runway safety area or the grassy area off the south end of the runway which
will require the relocation of Route 606. This project is under an environmental review at this time, and
probably the design will begin in a year and construction in two more years. He also repOrted that the
Airport Authority is moving forward with a minor refurbishment project for the terminal building. The
terminal is approximately eight years old, and there are some finishings and electrical systems in need of
updating. He stated that this project will move forward later this summer. In terms of passenger numbers,
1998 has proven to be a record year for the Airport because there were over 167,000 boardings for the
year which was an increase of approximately five percent over 1997. The Airport Authority continues to
attract and retain the highest possible level of air service for this region to help the flow of passengers in
and out of this area. It is becoming more and more of a challenge for smaller airports to compete with the
larger airports such as Washington-Dulles and Richmond, etc. Despite the increased competition of the
larger airports, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport continues to grow. In the general aviation area, there
were approximately 69 based aircraft ranging from multi-million personal or corporate jets to the two or
three seat aircraft last year, so a broad range of aviation interests are served in the area. He would be
happy to answer questions about any of the Airport's programs, and he invited Board members to the
Airport to see firsthand some of the things that are being done. He appreciates the Board's support.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she was glad to hear about the credit card lane improvement. She
said probably a lot of people in the community will also be happy about it. Mr. Elliott responded that there
will be a dedicated lane for credit card users, and the equipment involved will be similar to an ATM
machine.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to how much space is currently under roof at the Airport. Mr. Elliott
answered that currently the Airport has a 58,000 square foot building, and this buildout represents 40,000
square feet.
(At 9:55 a.m., Mr. Martin suggested Mr. Tucker discuss the Y2K Contingency Plan, since it was
not yet time to have the 10:00 a.m., public hearing.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Y2K Contingency Plan.
Mr. Tucker stated that the County staff has been working for some time on responding to
challenges that may be presented by the Year 2000 transition. Internal areas of critical need are being
identified and responded to in a comprehensive and systematic fashion. However, the impacts of Y2K
may be felt in disruption to infrastructure systems that could affect the entire community. Given the
unknown nature of exactly what will occur, it seems prudent and reasonable to have a Contingency Plan
in place to help anticipate and respond to those types of infrastructure failures. Another critical area of
focus involves preparing the community at large for potential situations ahead of time in a planned, rational
public information/education campaign to avoid any type of panic or overreaction that could cause its own
serious consequences.
A draft Contingency Plan has been developed by the area's Emergency Services Director, and it
outlines preparation and responses similar to what would be put in place in the event of a weather
emergency or natural disaster. The basic elements of this plan are outlined in an attached document for
the Boards' review. Also, the County's Community Resource Office is working with the Red Cross and
local media to plan an educational campaign to distribute appropriate information to the public to help
them feel confident and prepared for possible Y2K scenarios. Mr. Tucker said within the County Office
Building, itselfl the staff members have been working through a process with all of the computers, and
they are in 100 percent compliance. However, some of the schools are going to need additional work. He
explained that the schools are now at 80 percent compliance, but they are waiting for summer break in
order to complete their work.
Individual department staffs are working in areas dealing with elevators and other equipment. He
remarked that the attached Contingency Plan was developed by Kaye Harden, the Emergency Services
Coordinator, along with Tom Hansen, Director of the Emergency Communication Center, for the
Supervisors' review. It is a City, County and University Contingency Plan because in the event of a
natural disaster or a weather event, these are the entities with the ECC Board that take charge of these
kinds of events. In addition, Lee Catlin and the Community Resource Office have prepared some
information for the Board members which is the basis of an education and information campaign to be
starting very soon for the County's citizens. A lot of these things will be up to an individual, because this
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
oooasZ
situation should be viewed as a weather storm, which is basically how the County participates if there are
problems and issues that would be similar in nature.
Mr. Tucker said the staff has prepared some of the Y2K websites for the Board's information as
well as how to prepare for Y2K. This is basic information about food, shelter, water, heat and flashlights
which are the common issues a person would deal with in a winter storm. There is a lot in the media
about this issue and what the Federal Government is doing about the problems. Many of the problems
are going to be in other countries although there are some areas within this country that will still need
some additional work. The staff feels fairly confident about handling the problems, at least in terms of the
actual equipment and the problems that the County has as an organization, because the County will very
soon be in compliance. The staff feels it is important to prepare the citizens to be ready in the event
something happens at midnight at the end of this year.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he read there were several other important dates to keep in mind
which may also cause problems, such as September 9, 1999, and the 99th day of this year. Mr. Tucker
agreed. These dates will give the County staff a good chance to test the system to see if the County is
prepared for Y2K. Mr. Bowerman stated that he has also read that the Federal Government is considering
changing the date of January 1 to December 28 to allow for the problems to fall on a weekend, instead of
during work hours. Mr. Tucker noted that January 1 is on a Saturday, anyway.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks the Y2K Contingency Plan is excellent, although he is
sure the County staff will update it as new information becomes available. In one way he thinks it is
overkill, but he also thinks it is smart planning. Mr. Tucker responded that the staff members' position is
that it may be overkill, but they really don't know. It is difficult to get vendors to put in writing that their
equipment is complying, because they are not sure whether or not it will comply. The staff is trying to deal
with this issue as if it were a potential event, and to calm fears. There are some websites that are
alarmists in nature and this bothers him. There are probably going to be a lot of people who are overly
concerned, and he wants to alleviate some of those fears.
Ms. Humphris said she would much rather be guilty of overkill than not doing enough. There are
some late night radio programs that are putting out frightening information. She then referred to the Y2K
Contingency Plan where the other dates of concern were listed. This is the first she has heard about
these dates, so it is interesting new information.
Ms. Thomas stated that she thinks the information is great, but there should be some sort of a link
to the County's websites. Mr. Tucker assured Ms. Thomas that all of the information being provided to
the public will also be on the County's website, as well as the Contingency Plan. Ms. Humphris said
people have to realize that it will all depend on everybody's common sense.
Mr. Martin stated that the most important thing about this document is that it encourages people to
make certain they have plenty of food and water and alternatives. These are the types of things people
should be aware of in December and January in the State of Virginia, anyway.
Mr. Marshall commented that people should get their prescriptions filled a month ahead. He ran a
test to make sure his drug stores would be able to take care of any Y2K problems, and he found that the
computer kept all of the new customers, but all of the old ones were lost. If single numbers are necessary
for people's birthdates, zeros have to be added, and this was not the case in the past. He is trying to re-
program all of his customers back into the computer one at a time, and it involves over 300,000 different
transactions. He had these problems, even though his equipment had already been upgraded.
Mr. Martin said a good addition to this information would be a reminder to have prescriptions filled
in advance. Mr. Marshall stated that this information is already included in the Contingency Plan. Mr.
Perkins suggested that the County should make a special effort to inform operators of central stores such
as gas stations and food stores that their cash registers may not be functional. Mr. Tucker responded that
state officials have indicated they may have a session for business owners, such as the one that was held
for local governments. He hopes this happens, because even though the business community is aware of
the situation, Federal Government officials have indicated they do not feel the Small Business Bureau is
as knowledgeable of these issues as they should be.
Mr. Marshall also pointed out that people need to be prepared to pay for their prescriptions out of
their pockets if they order them early, since insurance companies will most likely not pay for prescriptions
in advance.
Agenda Item No. 9. 10:00 a.m. - PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to extend water service to GOCO Oil (TM79, P18),
located on Route 250 East, at Shadwell. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 15 and February
22, 1999.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the applicant, GOCO Oil Company,
requests Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to the GOCO Oil gas station at Shadwell. The
one-acre parcel is located on the north side of Route 250, adjacent to the Norfolk Southern railroad, and is
designated as Rural Area in the Land Use Plan (Attachment A). The request for water service is due to
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
the contamination of the well serving this site with the gasoline additive Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
(Attachment B). The Board reviewed a request for water service on this site on March 3, 1993. Although
there was evidence of water quality problems at that time, the Board denied the request for water service
because an alternative site for a new well was available (prior staff report, Attachment C). The current
request was reviewed by the Board on January 6,1999 at which time it was decided to proceed to public
hearing once information was provided regarding the extent of current contamination on-site.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has confirmed the existence of petroleum within
the existing water supply. This is the second well at this facility to become impacted by the documented
petroleum release. A new petroleum release has not occurred on site, therefore, it is presumed that the
contamination of the second well is a result of a prior petroleum release that affected the first well.
Staff has discussed the extent of the contamination on-site with DEQ staff. DEQ believes that the
contamination is the result of leaks, spills and overfills that ocCurred in the past at the old loading racks on
site. DEQ believes that the contaminant plume is stable based on the test results from monitoring wells
(and stream) located on site, and tests of wells on adjacent properties. Due to its stable condition and
limited size, it does not pose a significant threat and clean-up measures are not required at this time. Mr.
Ronald Phillips Senior Hydrogeologist with the DEQ has provided additional information regarding history
of recorded petroleum contamination at this site (Attachment D). DEQ representatives are present at the
public hearing.
The Land Use Plan provides the following concerning sewer service to the Rural Area: "General
Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or extension of the public water or sewer into
the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health or safety are at issue.
Recommendation: Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in
cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safety is endangered."
An existing water line serving the Rivanna Village is located along Route 250 adjacent to this
property. This line was intended to serve the Rivanna Village and Stone Robinson Elementary School
only. The Land Use Plan recommends that the capacity of the line should be "reserved...for a potential
new school in the Village until such time it is determined that the school is not necessary (p. 99)." The
GOCO Oil station is a relatively Iow water user. Typically, there is only one employee at the site and
public use of water is not considered significant. Therefore, while not fully consistent with this Plan
recommendation, the level of water use at this site will not have a significant impact to the water line's
capacity. The issue of public health and safety is of higher priority in this case.
This request is being made under the recommendation noted above. Verification of endangerment
to public health or safety is provided in the attachments. Connection to the existing water line is the best
long-term solution for providing potable water to the site, according to DEQ. Drilling a new well or the
continued use of the existing well in combination with bottled water is not considered a viable long-term
option. The existing well could be mounted with a carbon filter system to treat the withdrawn water.
However, this option is cost prohibitive over the long-term and raises issues of long-term
management/maintenance. Continued use of a well on-site would also likely encourage migration of the
contaminant within the sub-surface hydrogeologic system and to the surface water system, if its release is
not adequately controlled. Ceasing use of the wells would better ensure that the plume remains stable.
Mr. Benish said based on information provided by DEQ, the request is consistent with the Land
Use Plan strategies for the provision of service outside the designated Development Area in order to
address public health or safety. Staff recommends including the property, described as Tax Map 79,
Parcel 18 (GOCO Oil), into the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water service only to existing structures (one
gas station sales building).
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like to speak.
Mr. Harry Montague, President of the GOCO Oil Company, stated that the staff report and the
letter from DEQ summarizes the problem at this site and why attaching to the water line is the best
solution. This is a small petroleum distributorship, and he explained that the original office was at
Shadwell starting in 1940. However, during the early 1960s, the main office was relocated to
Charlottesville. Since that time, Shadwell has operated as a bulk plant for delivery trucks, as well as a
retail service station. There is one employee on site, and the station is commonly referred to as a full
service station where the attendant pumps the gas, and checks the oil and tire pressures for those people
who like this service. Many customers have relied on this station for years. There are also farm accounts
involved, and people come from as far away as Cash Corner to fill up small canisters for diesel fuel and
gasoline to use on their farms because many of them have taken out their own tanks. He mentioned that
during the winter, there are customers who come there to get small quantities of kerosene and fuel oil for
use to heat their homes. This is not a high volume location, yet he is committed to it, and significant
investments have been made by replacing tanks and upgrading the site to protect the environment. He
grew up a half mile away from this location, and he appreciates the concerns of all those who are afraid
that by granting this connection, the character of the neighborhood will be changed. However, he
appealed to the Board to grant him a hardship waiver since the station fills the need in this community
today as it has for over 50 years. It fills the need even more so today because so many service stations
have been forced to close in that area. He is not asking for a waiver to open a new business. Instead, he
is asking the Board to allow an existing business, which is an old business, to stay open by connecting to
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) OOOG54
(Page 19)
the water line that currently runs through his property. He granted the Service Authority an easement to
go through his property. He would be happy to answer questions.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak to this
matter.
Ms. Kathy May asked if this connection will have any impact at all on the water supply for the
Stone-Robinson Elementary School. Mr. Martin answered, "no." Ms. Thomas mentioned that the staff
report indicates that the quantitY required for the GOCO business will not reduce the quantity in the public
water line significantly.
There were no further comments, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this approval will allow for an expansion of a different type of operation.
Often these days there are businesses which sell a lot of different merchandise, and a Hardee's will be
associated with them. A lot of water is used, and it presents a different character to the area. He asked if
the GOCO operation would continue at this location and no other business would locate there. Mr. Tucker
answered that GOCO is limited by the area of the site. Mr. Bowerman commented that more land could
be bought and added to the site.
Ms. Humphris read from the staffs recommendation that water service only will be made available
to existing structures (one gas station sales building). She suggested that perhaps language should be
included to emphasize that approval is for water only for the "existing one gas station sales building."
Mr. Bowerman said he would like for the applicant to be able to conduct his business operation
safely, but he does not want to jeopardize the policy the County has firmly in place. Mr. Benish stated that
he thinks this property is zoned RA, so any other use would be subject to a special permit where these
issues can be considered.
Ms. Humphris remarked that she would hate to think this is the beginning of expansion, etc. on the
property, because it is not what this Board is intending to happen. That is not what Mr. Montague intends,
either, but these types of things have a way of causing problems, if this Board is not specific in its
approval. The motion will need to be very specific that this is being done absolutely because of well
contamination which has caused a hardship, and the approval is just for the maintenance of this particular
small building on this particular parcel. Mr. Tucker agreed that this specificity would protect the County
against someone adding land to the parcel. It doesn't mean they can't do it, but they would have to come
back to this Board to gain approval.
Ms. Thomas referred to the first discussion of this matter about a nearby parcel of land that would
be turned into a residential development, and there was interest in putting this new development on public
water. She wanted to make sure there is nothing in this action to open the door to any new construction
or development. It has not yet been determined whether or not this plume has contaminated other land
and water. Mr. Benish answered that the understanding from DEQ representatives is that they have not
found this contamination to be significant enough to warrant remediation at this time.
Mr. Bowerman then made a motion to extend the jurisdictional area boundaries to include Tax
Map Number 79, Parcel 18 specifically for the GOCO Oil Company with staff's recommendation for water
service only to existing structures which is one existing gas station sales building. Mr. Marshall seconded
the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Ash Lawn-Highland Summer Festival, request for $5,000 grant.
Ms. Judith H. Walker, General Manager of the Summer Festival at Ash Lawn-Highland, stated that
Bob Stroud is in attendance with her, and he is the President of the Advisory Board for the Festival and
Managing Director of McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe. She is sure all Board members are familiar
with the Summer Festival, but she wanted to inform them about the activities taking place this summer.
She stated that "Marriage of Figaro," "The Wizard of Oz" and "Susannah" will all be presented at Ash
Lawn-Highland this summer, and she pointed out that the Metropolitan Opera will be presenting
"Susannah" for the first time this spring and the Washington Opera will be presenting it for the first time
this winter. She said a "Music at Twilight" series will also be presented this summer, which brings in a
variety of genres, and "Summer Saturdays" will be presented at 11:00 on Saturday mornings, which is
family entertainment. There is a $4.00 ticket price for general admission, which is cheaper than a movie,
and there is lots of family entertainment such as puppet shows. The families can picnic on the grounds
after the performance. She then mentioned that Ash Lawn-Highland has lots of outreach in the
community. There will be an Artist-In-Residence Program available for all the fourth graders, and the
letter has already gone out to teachers in the City, County and private school systems. There will also be
a teacher seminar training program every summer where teachers receive recertification credit. She
noted that there is no charge for any of this because of the desire to make the programs available to
everybody in any school who wants to participate: She then asked Bob Stroud to make some comments.
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Stroud mentioned that last year 17,000 tickets were sold for the Summer Festival, and the
tickets are priced competitively with other entertainment. He is pleased to announce that the tickets can
be provided to people at a reasonable price, and it can broaden the universe of people able to buy them
and enjoy the entertainment. He reported that last year, as well as each of the preceding years, ticket
sales brought about 50 percent of the revenues needed to hold the Festival. There are some in kind
contributions that contribute toward the remaining 50 percent of revenue that is needed, but contributions
from the community and grants from businesses are very necessary. Last year $115,000 was raised, and
getting these contributions is very important to the continuance of the programs. Of the 17,000 tickets
sold, based on VISA card addresses, 5,000 came from outside of the area. To arrive from other states
outside of Central Virginia, and buy these tickets certainly contributed to the economy in both the C'ity and
County, although it is not known if the people stayed at hotels or bought food in the area. He then referred
to Ms. Walker's comment that there is no charge for the school programs or teacher certification. These
are covered through contributions. He appreciates the Board's consideration for funding, and hopes they
will act favorably on the request.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to what the $5,000 requested from the Board of Supervisors would
represent as far as the total budget and contributions are concerned. Mr. Stroud answered that just under
$80,000 was raised from individuals and businesses last year through cash contributions by way of an
appeal letter and telephone calls. He mentioned that there are grants from various foundations of another
$11,000 and there were two fundraising events which generated another $25,000. These figures add up
to $115,000, so the $5,000 would be a little over four percent of the total contributions.
Mr. Martin asked about the ticket sales. Mr. Stroud replied that ticket sales last year came to
$206,000. Mr. Bowerman said it appears that $5,000 is not insignificant of the amount to be raised. Mr.
Stroud answered that this funding is very significant, and it would be quite meaningful to the Festival.
There were no further questions for Mr. Stroud.
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Stroud and Ms. Walker for their presentations and complimented the
packet of materials relating to the Summer Festival which was given to the Supervisors.
Mr. Tucker remarked that if the Board is supportive of this request, an action is needed to
authorize the funding of the $5,000 from the Tourism Fund.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to appropriate $5,000
to the Ash Lawn-Highland Summer Festival using proceeds from the Tourism Fund. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(At 10:25 a.m., the Board took a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:35 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Work Session: Sugar Hollow ReservoidMinimum in-stream flow for the
Moorman's River.
Mr. Tucker said at your meeting on February 3, 1999 you discussed the Sugar Hollow Reservoir
and the issue of minimum in-stream flow for the Moorman's River. Several questions were raised and Mr.
Petrini has responded to those questions for the Board's information and further discussion (see
Attachment 1). Since that meeting, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has received a report regarding
this matter from its consultants, VHB. An executive summary regarding this report is attached for your
information (see Attachment 2).
Also at a recent meeting of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, another option to address the
MIF in the Moorman's River was discussed. This option entails the reconstruction of a previously
abandoned pump station on the Mechum's River, which was used to pump water from the Mechum's
River to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir and Observatory Treatment Plant. Rivanna staff is currently
investigating the possibility of reactivating this pump station, which could replace any water discharged
from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir into the Moorman's River. In addition, Rivanna staff is also working on
an operational plan to minimize the withdrawals from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir and rely more on the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and Water Treatment Plant (VVTP). Mr. Petrini is present at this meeting
to answer questions of Board members or neighbors in the area.
Mr. Bowerman said he was confused as to the current capacity of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. Mr. Tucker replied that the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir has a current capacity of 9,000,000
gallons (mgd) of water a day. Mr. Bowerman asked when the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir will reach a
capacity of 12,000,000 gallons of water a day. Mr. Petrini answered that it will reach this capacity a year
from now.
Mr. Martin stated that he would like to get a lot accomplished during this work session, and he
wanted to make sure the Board hears from everyone who wishes to speak. This is a work session, and it
00035 3
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
is not a public hearing. However, he wants to hear from the public as well as staff, because he wants to
make sure the Board members have everybody's input. He implored the group not to repeat things that
have already been said. He would like for the Supervisors to receive as much information as possible
without redundancy. Mr. Bowerman noted that the Board members have all read the staff report, Mr.
F~etrini's letter and the response to Mr. Petrini's etter.
Mr. Martin asked how Board members would like to proceed with the work session. Mr.
Bowerman suggested that Mr. Petrini make his comments, and then members of the public can speak
next.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it is assumed all Board members have read all the information except
for what was just given to them. She then called attention to an item whereby the Rivanna staff is working
on an operational plan to minimize the withdrawals from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Petrini can speak to this matter first, and then if there are comments from
neighbors, they could be heard. Ms. Humphris stated that the Board needs to know if anything has been
updated since the information just received by this Board. Mr. Bowerman said he assumes there has
been a no flow period during the ten year time frame as far as the Mechum's River is concerned. Mr.
Tucker answered that this can be assumed, although he is not sure if this data is available yet. Mr.
Bowerman commented that if this option is considered, there will have to be more data collection. Mr.
Marshall recalled that in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Mechum's River was dry quite frequently.
Ms. Thomas remarked that there have been different amounts of water discussed as to what is
meant by minimum in-stream flow. She said some people are calculating a 2,000,000 gallon a day flow,
some people are considering a 1,000,000 gallon a day flow, and some people are using less than
1,000,000 gallons a day flow for their calculations. She said people are arriving at different figures. She
mentioned that if a 2,000,000 gallon a day flow is considered, it leads to terrible effects, whereas if
something less than 1,000,000 gallons a day is considered, it is not so bad. Yet, even that is dependent
on the in-flow. She emphasized that she would rather have the discussion proceed by assuming a lesser
amount than 2,000,000 gallons a day.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was going on the assumption that the natural system be used which
is the in-flow from the two tributaries that feed the Reservoir. He said suggestions along the line of
monitoring this natural system could be discussed and a certain percentage of that flow could be
determined as the minimum that's released.
Ms. Thomas agreed that it would help, if there is a consensus of the Board, to talk along these
lines. This would help make sure everyone is hearing reactions to the same proposals instead of hearing
reactions to several different proposals. Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman agreed that this is a reasonable
starting point.
Mr. Martin asked if Board members have any questions.
Ms. Thomas stated that she would like to know more about the other options, the Rivanna staff is
working on currently. Mr. Arthur Petrini, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
asked if Ms. Thomas is referring to the operational plan on minimizing the withdrawals from the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir. Mr. Tucker stated that he believes Ms. Thomas is referring to both options on which the
Rivanna staff is working. Mr. Petrini stated that he does not have an update on the Mechum's River
option, since the consultants are evaluating the Mechum's River Pump Station at this time. They will be
doing an analysis of the river flows as suggested, and then they will deliver a report. He stated that the
existing pump station is an abandoned shell, and there are no active pumps nor power to the facility.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is a dam there. Mr. Petrini answered affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman
asked why the existing pump station was abandoned. Mr. Petrini replied that it was an economic decision.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the decision was based on the fact that the pump needed to be replaced 20
years ago.
Mr. Gene Potter stated that there was a drought in the mid-fifties and officials became very
concerned about future water supply as an interim. There was a pump station placed on the Mechum's
River, and it became operational sometime after November, 1957. When the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir was placed into service in August, 1966, the Mechum's River Pump Station for all practical
purposes was abandoned. It was an interim intake to gap the design of construction of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir and Water Treatment Plant.
Mr. Petrini remarked that as far as the operational plan is concerned, historically the water was
used from Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain for the reservoir system as well as the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir to maximize production at the Observatory Water Treatment Plant and the South Fork Plant:
He said by doing so, it was a more economical operation, because generally it is less expensive to treat
the water from the Ragged Mountain/Sugar Hollow system. However, it was realized that this tradition did
not need to remain, because production can be increased at South Rivanna to its maximum which was ~ot
historically done. By doing this, reliance on the Observatory Plant is decreased, which decreases
withdrawals from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, and the level goes down slower. This can be done now to a
limited degree, but it cannot be offset entirely, since only 9,000,000 gallons a day can be produced from
the South Fork Plant, and the daily demand averages 11,000,000 to 12,000,000 gallons a day. He stated,
000357
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
though, that with the plant being upgraded in approximately a year or a year and a half, 12,000,000 can
now be Withdrawn from South Fork. Therefore, the plan is to further decrease the reliance on the South
Fork Plant, as well as decrease reliance on the Observatory Plant, which will further reduce the reduction
in volume at Sugar Hollow. He stated that it is only a plan being reviewed, and it is not official policy. It
will be reviewed by the Rivanna Board members and then implemented, if they concur. He added that
currently it is just a feasible suggestion.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is enough capacity to transmit additional gallons of water, if they are
needed, to the rest of the system. Mr. Petrini answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman noted that there is quite a long letter from John Martin in the Board members'
material, and he asked if Mr. Martin would summarize his comments.
Mr. John Martin stated that he received his first piece of information about this matter last Friday
at 4:00 p.m. On Monday, he talked to the Director of Water and Sewer for Harrisonburg,Virginia, and
yesterday he wrote the letter to which Mr. Bowerman referred. He remarked that what prompted the letter
was another letter that Rivanna authorities obtained from their attorneys in Richmond, specifically William
B. Ellis, dated February 17. The nature of the letter is that the attorneys can't do anything about anything,
and the letter was very negative. His letter responds to one point made in the attorneys' letter. One
option that can basically be followed in a situation such as this is to develop a new water source that
would allow more water to stay, for example, in the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. The point made in the Ellis
letter is that this is almost impossible to do because of all the studies, etc., that will need to be done and
none of the permitting agencies will approve it. He made a few phone calls, and he found out that
Harrisonburg is in this process. Harrisonburg officials have a similar situation with a reservoir, where
water flows naturally in stream beds and eventually into the North River. On the North River, there is a
Rawley Springs water intake and a lower one downstream named North River intake which draws
adequate water. The problem Harrisonburg officials have been experiencing is that the water naturally
flowing in the North River downstream from the two water intakes has been declining. He said people got
concerned, and an organization was started called, "The Friends of the North River." These people
expressed their problems to the water company. Water company representatives agreed that this was a
problem, and they mentioned the problem they had of ensuring a future water supply. They finally decided
to draw additional water from the Shenandoah River and put it into the system which would reduce the
reliance on the two water intakes on the North River. He commented that they applied for the permit
which is pending, and there are currently a set of conditions relating to the permit in draft form. A
condition put on the permit was that only 4,000,000 gallons of water per day can be withdrawn from the
Shenandoah River under normal circumstances. However, if the flow from the two intakes is 8,000,000
gallons a day or less, the Shenandoah flow can be increased up to 8,000,000. This gives a lot of flexibility
to serve the consumption needs of the City as well as adjust and monitor the flow of the river. He added
that everybody is happy with this arrangement, and even officials at the Game and Inland Fisheries in
Harrisonburg were supportive of the plan for their reasons. The main point of writing his letter was to say
where there is a will, there is a way. This can be done, and it is not necessarily an impossible task to
obtain the necessary permits
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he assumes Mr. Martin is addressing the issue of water withdrawal
from the Mechum's River being a potential solution to be examined without a lot of other environmental
issues that are associated with the structure of a dam. Mr. (John) Martin answered that this would seem
to be similar to what has been done in Harrisonburg.
Mr. Bowerman commented that there are certain things that had to be done, such as examining
the stream flow of the Shenandoah River to make certain that withdrawing water would not affect anything
downstream from it. However, this process is simpler than the ten years it takes to build a dam. Mr.
(John) Martin agreed. He is not suggesting that this process is easy, but it can be done. He reiterated
that he was responding to the negative tone of the Ellis letter.
Mr. Marshall inquired as to the flow in the Mechum's River and how dependable it is. He recalled
in the 1950s, he walked across this river when there wasn't any water in it, and he wondered if there is
another alternative. Mr. (Charles) Martin suggested that Mr. Marshall keep this question in mind. He then
asked if there were further inquiries for Mr. (John) Martin from Board members.
Ms. Thomas stated that the Ellis letter left her with the impression that nothing could be done until
a very thorough Environmental Impact Study was completed as far as what it would mean to the ecology
to have more water in the Moorman's River. There may be a lot of differences between Harrisonburg and
Albemarle County's situation, and she asked if Harrisonburg officials had to do this sort of impact study.
Mr. (John) Martin replied that they had done an earlier study relating to ground water, and he is informed
that this report was sent to DEQ for its review, and it was somewhat relevant. He said he does not know
the details. To get the draft permit, it took approximately two months. He reiterated that he doesn't have a
lot of detailed knowledge on the process, but from what he has seen it can be done, and it is not as
difficult as the Ellis letter would seem to suggest.
Ms. Thomas stated that she read the Ellis letter to mean that nothing could be folded in to the
study of the alternative source whether it is the Buck Mountain Reservoir or some other place, and any
other proposal had to be kept completely separate. She said even if the Mechum's River situation doesn't
work out, and another alternative is considered whether it is conservation, or the Buck Mountain Reservoir
00'035;8
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
or cutting down on the siltation of the Rivanna Reservoir, which is her own personal favorite, none of these
things could be done because the County is in a permitting process. She found it really interesting that
Harrisonburg officials were able to respond to an MIF situation without being caught with further studies.
Mr. (John) Martin remarked that he thinks it is worthy of further examination. He said when the
Ellis letter is read it indicates from beginning to end that nothing can be done. He would rather see the
Rivanna officials offer a specific proposal as to how the issue can be addressed, and after the plan has
been developed, then the cost of it will be assessed in terms of community cost.
Mr. (Charles) Martin said he would like to have an answer to Mr. Marshall's question. Mr.
Marshall stated that the flow of the Shenandoah River is tremendous compared to Mechum's River. He
asked Mr. Petrini if he knows the amount of flow of the Mechum's River as well as its dependability. Mr.
Petrini replied, "no."
Dr. Jim Bennett, said he is one of the riparian landowners mentioned in the Ellis letter, and there
are a number of issues he could talk about. However, since this is an educational process for everybody,
he would like to address only one of the issues which has caused a great deal of confusion. He then
referred to Ms. Thomas' comments about the numbers associated with MIF. He would like to talk about
this point and tell the Board how his proposal is actually quite different than what is uSually discussed.
MIF is a concept, and it is an attempt to provide water flow in a river to serve a specific task. He said it
can be estimated or calculated based on the task a person is trying to accomplish, but MIF is the law of
the land. It has been in place since 1989, and it is required of all dams. He explained that the only reason
Sugar Hollow doesn't have this requirement is because it was grandfathered and because the nature of
the present alterations are avoiding the type of federal permit that would put into place the MIF
requirements. MIF is fixed which means that once a certain number has been developed, a dam is
required to release that amount of water, irrespective of how much water is available. It is at this point that
the proposal he favors radically departs from the traditional MIF requirements. He would prefer to call it a
proportional release, because it is really an attempt to mimic what the river would be doing naturally. If the
flow truly drops to zero in the North and South Forks, and the minimum release is zero, then this plan
would call for a capped maximum release of 1,000,000 gallons of water per day. He arrived at this figure
based on the average in-flow during the 1953-54 drought which was 2,000,000 gallons a day. He is
taking half of that amount and releasing whatever portion of water that is incoming. He pointed out,
though, that in the 15 years he has been living in the area, such a situation has not been observed,
although it is a possibility. The maximum this proposal would require is 1,000,000 gallons of water a day,
and it would very likely be less, because the flow varies. This proposal involves releasing 50 percent of
the water coming in during a particular week. He explained that determining the amount is very simple to
do, and it is not technically difficult to make that measurement. He feels this method is the same as
Mother Nature would naturally be .doing in the river as opposed to the fixed rigid rate that would be
irrespective of whether nature is supplying any water to the reservoir or not. As a result, he does not feel
the traditional studies are necessary. He emphasized that as a matter of fact, the traditional studies would
have numbers much higher than this because the standard MIF number that is often discussed is 20 to 30
percent of mean annual flow which is normally approximately 6,000,000 gallons of water per day. The
study will develop much higher numbers, and this proposal resembles what the river would naturally do. If
the river goes dry, then it goes dry, and nothing gets released. He does not feel it is right to release any
water if people are not going to be penalized if they don't conserve. The proposal is rational and simple.
It will not have a big cost associated with it, and it will not threaten the water supply at all.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that different criteria can be used for establishing what is normally
considered as minimum flow, and he inquired as to what effect Dr. Bennett's proposal would have on the
section of the river that is dry some times of the year. He wondered if it would affect plant life or animal
life, and he asked what the proposal will add back to the portion of the river that is currently lost.
Dr. Bennett said he hopes, at the minimum, the aquatic and invertebrate life, which is the life form
of the May Fly lava, etc., would be preserved. They are the most extensively studied as far as what
drought does to rivers, and scientists can go up the food chain from this point to see what happens to
other species. When the water comes back in the winter, there will be a much faster recovery of
invertebrates. Mr. Bowerman commented that the invertebrates come over the dam and are available for
the fish, etc. to eat. Dr. Bennett concurred. He said literature shows that when there is drought, and
these populations are devastated, water is then put back and there is gradual recovery. However, it
doesn't come back to the same point for several years later depending on the species. His concern is that
with regular drought every year, the species are not being allowed to come back, although he cannot
prove this, yet. He reiterated that the proposal follows what the river would normally do, and if it goes dry,
then it goes dry. If the river has a Iow flow, then there is a Iow flow over that section. He mentioned that
further down stream there are other tributaries that reconstitute the water.
Ms. Thomas commented that if this proportional relief process is followed, it will probably extend
the period of time in which there is no water coming over the dam. She said water coming over the dam is
a natural part of the ecology there, and she would hate to accidentally cause damage as opposed to
helping the situation. She asked if in Dr. Bennett's opinion, a little bit of water for a long period of time is
more beneficial to invertebrates than totally going dry and then having a rush of water over the dam for six
or seven months out of the year. Dr. Bennett responded that it has been reported in other studies in other
areas that severe drought severely damages populations which eventually come back, but it takes them a
long time to recover. He explained that the inflow tends to be a certain amount of gallons per day and
000359
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
how much is taken out determines whether the water flows over the crest of the dam or not. The fact that
water is or is not cresting the dam is a function of water not coming in and the amount being withdrawn.
His personal opinion is that he does not believe any damage will be done, and he can only see
improvements. The opinion expressed in both federal and state law is that reducing flow in a river
amounts to pollution and to ask about the damage of putting water back into the river seems to be
somewhat illogical and not consistent with the law.
Mr. Bob Gilges, a member of the Friends of the Moorman's River organization, stated that he
must be the other riparian landowner mentioned in the Ellis letter. He said indications were 'that there
were two landowners causing trouble and that was why the report was done. He cannot be as reasonable
and rational as Mr. Bennett, because he tends to get emotional in these situations. He then referred to a
report he submitted to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority representatives with his idea of how this
problem could be solved by working together. He felt their reaction would be to discredit his idea, and
before the meeting with RWSA last week, he received a pleasant letter stating that nothing could be done
with his request. He had asked to speak at that particular meeting. He was told at this time there was a
consultant's report he had not been given ahead of time, although many other people had it. The
consultants were allowed to speak first with unlimited time, and then the Rivanna Board discussed their
comments. All this time he was waiting to address the two concerns about the quantity of water and the
impact of MIF. He had things he thought he could contribute to the discussion, but that was taken away
from him. He had three minutes to read very rapidly what he had hoped to say, and there was no
discussion of his remarks. There is quantity of water, and he mentioned that if management staff members
didn't know about the Mechum's River situation, then they should have, and if they knew about it, then
they covered it up for a long period of time. He was prepared to address the Mechum's River pump which
was finally found, and it was determined it had been functional at one point in time. It really is a wonderful
possible solution if 500,000 gallons per day are released. It could be restored from the Mechum's River
into the 18 inch pipe which goes to the Observatory, etc. He recalled that Mr. Brent was kind enough to
bring this up in the discussions. There could be 75,000,000 more gallons of storage in the Sugar Hollow
Reservoir than Was there prior to 1995, and there is 3,000,000 gallons of processing capability at the
South Fork processing plant. As of today, the RWSA representatives have never talked to him or anyone
else about alternatives. He wondered if the consultants have been asked to look at alternatives and
impacts as well as the risks of those impacts. They have not done so, and they gave RWSA a minimum
scope with a minimum number of issues with very limited possible responses. This is not an independent
consulting firm, and he feels he knows the answer to why these consultants were chosen. There is no
pump in the building at Mechum's River, and the dam is' in bad condition. He added that indications will be
that this proposal won't work because it will put dirty water from the Mechum's River in 12 1/2 percent of
the pipe. It will be pointed out that this will make muddy water, and the water will have to be processed
with more chemicals. This is a real possibility, and there are other possibilities. More than 20 years since
the Conservation Plan was first drafted there has been no need to do anything, and he wondered why a
little water cannot be given to the Moorman's River. The other percentage of time when there are
problems, there are ways to manage the situation, and when the river gets to certain levels, certain things
can be done. There may be a bad drought situation which would require some type of conservation, and
that is the time this process should be shut down, and the river will go dry. There are all kinds of
opportunities to work together to solve this problem, and only public benefits must be considered by doing
the right thing and not hurting anybody. He added that enough water, a Iow cost and a desire by the
community are all available, and to imply that there are only two landowners who want to put water in the
river is unprofessional and dishonest. He is so pleased the Board of Supervisors seems to be open about
the situation, and he asked the Supervisors to try to compromise and find a solution.
Mr. Martin inquired if there were any questions from Board members. Mr. Gilges responded that
he would love to answer questions. He thinks he can rebut almost any negative comment that comes
from the RWSA.
Board members had no questions, so Mr. Martin called for the next speaker.
Mr. Ken Lee, President of the Moorman's River Scenic Advisory Committee, suggested that the
Board consider the fact that the Commonwealth has declared the Moorman's River a scenic river. From
the gist of the conversation he has heard this morning, there seems to be a sense that something can be
done. Dr. Bennett's proposal is logical since the Moorman's River would be governed as closely as
possible to what nature would have done if the dam had not been there.
At this time, Mr, Martin asked for comments from the Board.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to suppose for now that there is sufficient water at various
places, and there is the possibility of changes in the flow of water and equipment, etc., to allow minimum
in-stream flow of some kind in the upper portion of the Moorman's River. However, she has not heard the
consequences of this addressed as far as the permitting process is concerned. It seems to her Mr. Ellis'
letter is legal as far as considering the permitting process for an additional alternative supplementary
water supply, such as the one that was planned for Buck Mountain Creek. Dr. Bennett's proposal sounds
as though it can easily be done, but other things have to be weighed and measured, and she wondered if
the potential problems in the permitting process can be solved while doing the right thing with MIF. This
has not been discussed much today, and she is not sure all the negatives brought out in the Ellis letter are
actually impediments as far as this proposal legally being done without damaging the future potential for a
water supply.
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
OOO360
Ms. Thomas stated that she attends the Board meetings of the RWSA and she has attended
some separate meetings with the consultants. MIF is a huge project, and this seems to be one more way
to make it an even bigger project. She would really like for the Rivanna Board members to indicate they
would like to examine the MIF issue and ask how it can be done, as opposed to giving all the reasons
why it is difficult, as well as having another year's worth of consulting fees in the process. She reminded
Board members that every riparian land owner signed a petition a few years ago to have the Moorman's
River designated as the highest possible tier available for scenic rivers, which is unique in the state. She
emphasized that there are landowners, long before this issue, who really cared about the river enough to
get into the process of a Tier Three Scenic River designation, and the state has never done anything with
it. She suggested that the Board of Supervisors ask the Rivanna Board to explain how MIF can be done,
rather than say it cannot be done, although it will involve a legal question. She appreciated Mr. Petrini's
suggestion that there is a way to deal with this issue in a four party agreement, instead of through the
permitting process. It looks as though it can only happen after the permitting process is finished, but it at
least opened the doors to finding another way. She thinks some legal advice is necessary on how this
issue can be handled. She would offer motion to that effect.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Ms. Thomas is referring to the permitting process for Buck Mountain.
Ms. Thomas answered affirmatively. She' said Mr. Ellis implied that once this process has begun, nothing
can be done to change the amount of water being consumed or part of the equation being considered will
change, and it will require mammoth changes.
Mr. Davis commented that a major component of getting a federal permit for Buck Mountain is
going to be an analysis for the need for water. The permit is based on the components of demand and
capacity. If the capacity component is not considered, it is going to change the alternatives that have to
be analyzed as part of the federal permitting process. He explained that the permitting process weighs
the need for water, as well as the amount of existing capacity and the amount of capacity that can be
created with a new water source, against environmental factors. If any part of the equation is changed,
the process has to start over.
Ms. Thomas stated that she would like some legal advice on how this can be done. Mr.
Bowerman asked if conservation measures are begun now, will that start the process over again.
Mr. Davis answered that conservation measures are part of the process already being analyzed.
Mr. Bowerman next inquired if the process would have to begin again if a plan was put in place now that
changed the equation in terms of demand. Mr. Davis stated that demand is the one variable that is more
easily dealt with because it is a projection.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that Tucson, Arizona officials found that conserving the water they were
drawing from the ground to protect their water supply actually increased their development because it was
possible for more people to come and live in Tucson: They further depleted their water supply by
conservation measures. If the situation in Arizona caused problems with the equation, then he thinks
approving three gallon flush toilets in the County's ordinance would start the whole process at Buck
Mountain all over again. Mr. Davis responded that the difference is not capacity. It is demand. In this
instance the County would be foregoing capacity which is a different issue.
Ms. Thomas noted that with the increasing demand, if five million gallons of water a day was used
instead of 4.1 million gallons, but nine-tenths of the water went down river instead of into the treatment
plant, it would seem to be a usage issue instead of a capacity issue.
Mr. Davis stated that he has not been directly involved in the permitting process, so he does not
know all the details. However, he knows Mr. Ellis who wrote the report. He has had a professional
relationship with Mr. Ellis in two different reservoir projects over the last ten years, and he highly values
his opinion. He is not a person who approaches things negatively, and he is a problem solver. Before any
significant action is taken on this project, he encouraged the County officials to consult with Mr. Ellis on
this issue and give him an opportunity to present a legal analysis. He emphasized that the issue is very
complicated, and he does not think a decision should be made lightly.
Mr. Martin said Ms. Thomas' suggestion represents the most appropriate thing he has heard,
which is that this Board recommend to the Rivanna Board members that they consider MIF in terms of
how it can be done and address the difficulties. This is the best the Board of Supervisors can do. Mr.
Bowerman stated that Mr. Ellis could be asked a series of questions.
Mr. Perkins commented that Mr. Gilges indicated in his statement that this is a public relations
gold mine for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority representatives, and they can become heroes or
villains. Mr. Perkins said he thinks Rivanna officials should consider this statement and see what can be
done. There was also a letter from the Isaac Walton League members, indicating their desire to have
water put in the river all the time to avoid the dry seasons. He thinks this is very important, because in a
dry year, things are lost that have taken years to build. He then mentioned a suggestion that the RWSA
drill a well in that vicinity and pump water from the well into the creek, and there are ways to keep some
water in the stream. The RWSA needs to examine not only the issue of providing water, but also
providing other resources for this community, as well as examining ways water is being withdrawn. If
water is drawn from the Rivanna Reservoir from different levels based on the best quality of water, then
the best quality of water can be released for the fish. He thinks this would be a real public relations
benefit, because 90 percent of the people in this community have indicated that they want the RWSA to
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000361
do more than just provide water. There are a lot of benefits that the RWSA can gain.
Mr. Bowerman suggested using the Rivanna Advisory Committee as a forum for discussion of
these options. He noted that the Committee is supposed to serve as a sounding board for the Rivanna
Board of Directors on water and waste water issues identified as existing or potential community concerns
or as assigned by the Board. The Advisory Board members have not discussed this matter at all, and he
wondered why they didn't hold work sessions such as this Board is doing, since this is an issue of public
concern.
Mr. Tucker agreed that the Committee could have held similar meetings, but the request through
VHB and others was initiated at the Rivanna Board level to try to find solutions. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Ellis
was trying to answer a specific question as it related to the alternative permitting process in which the
County is involved. Mr. Ellis did not review the issue of the abandoned pump station at Mechum's River.
Mr. Tucker added that this option is new, and he does not think there has been enough analysis done to
determine if it is a viable solution. From his perspective these are the types of solutions he thinks the
Board is requesting, and that is what is being considered now. He thinks enough ideas and thoughts have
been presented at this meeting by the Supervisors so that the matter can proceed in that vein.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it is the County officials' charge to incorporate these suggestions.
Mr. Tucker explained that the four party agreement will not accommodate a lot of the things the
Supervisors have indicated, because the charge is to provide potable water for the public. The Rivanna
Board will probably want to know if there is a significant cost involved in the pump station option or
retrofitting the in-stream dam, and if so, who should pay for it. The question is whether or not it should be
the responsibility of the County or Rivanna. The City members of the Rivanna Board will have to vote on
it, so he expects he knows the answer to that question. This is an issue which will probably come back to
this Board for consideration.
Mr. Martin reiterated that it seems everybody is asking for the same thing Ms. Thomas has
already proposed. He asked her to present this suggestion as a motion and include a request for an
update at the most opportune time.
Mr. Bowerman said all aspects of the situation, such as Rivanna's Charter, need to be addressed
in keeping with Ms. Thomas' original thought. Mr. Tucker stated that as the staff gets additional
information, it will be given to this Board.
Mr. David Hirschman remarked that there may be a technological solution to replacing the water
supply, as well as having a release, and the Rivanna Board will be considering such things. However, he
is concerned about not ever knowing the biological or ecological benefit of these releases. He has
always felt that what is being given up is a valuable commodity in terms of drinking water, and a valuable
commodity should be received through the release in terms of the ecosystem function or biological return
for that release. He commented that some type of proportional release, as Dr. Bennett has proposed,
might possibly be done in the short term, but he cautioned that the river should be protected. To do this
something has to be known about the ecosystem, and in the long term every stream that comes off the
eastern face of the Blue Ridge Mountains and goes through the Shenandoah National Park is like the
Moorman's River. There are biologists with the Park, as well as the State Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, and these resources have not been tapped. There are very similar ecosystems without
reservoirs on them that can serve as study places to learn the natural conditions. He stated that if this
analysis is not examined, at least in the long run, while a short term solution is implemented, the river will
not be served. He then recommended that a biological and hydrological study be implemented so some
science can be applied to this question.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. She thinks all the information that has been provided over
time, and especially most recently by the Bennetts, their Committee and Mr. Petrini, is really excellent.
She said it is a type of decision making material, and it appears the Supervisors have read it and.
understand the questions and problems, and they seem to have a consensus on what they would like to
see happen. She commented that so far this process has come a very long way from the days sometime
ago when some of the Board members did not know what minimum in-stream flow was. She said
particularly pertinent is an excellent editorial that was in the Daily Progress about the great conservation
effort the Real Estate Foundation is putting forth where the Research Park has saved well over 100
mature trees, and they are being used to line the entrance road. She then read from the editorial that the
Foundation may help effect a monumental change in society's effort, and it will save resources of all sorts
in all places. This idea applies just as much to the Moorman's River and to the water supply.
Ms. Thomas remarked that her motion essentially asked all good minds to figure out how there
can be some proportional release, and its impact implications both legally and on water quantity and
quality. This Board should receive a report on aspects that may need to be addressed as information is
available.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
000362
Mr. Martin thanked the members of the public for all of their input.
Mr. Boweman inquired if Ms. Thomas' motion took into account David Hirschman's comments.
Ms. Thomas answered affirmatively.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 11:35 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: CPA-98-04, Chapter Two, The Natural Environment of the
Comp Plan (deferred from February 3, 1999).
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, noted that the Board received a revised draft of "Chapter
Two, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets," dated March 3, 1999. She reminded the Supervisors that
this discussion was deferred from their last work session on February 3, 1999, and before that a public
hearing was held on January 13, 1999. The discussion was deferred so Board members could review the
actual revisions, and staff was asked to make recommendations on the revisions suggested at the public
hearing by the citizens. When she and David Hirschman made the revisions, their intent was to clarify and
strengthen the language of the chapter. All the changes are underlined, except for two. On Page 100
where it refers to wooded areas, she added "in development areas" to clarify that those were different from
forested areas in the rural area. She also called attention to Page 127 where a new strategy: "To seize
the opportunity for urban parks," was not underlined. In some cases she changed the order of
paragraphs, and she did not indicate this by underlining. She explained that if the wording stayed the
same, she did not underline it. The major changes were made to the "Water Resources" and
"Agricultural/Forestal Resources" sections. She referred to Page 10 where Mr. Hirschman added a list of
incentives for water quality and stream protection. On Page 23, language is added about maintenance of
stormwater facilities and on Page 36, there is a new paragraph about water conservation. The results of
the 1997 Agricultural Census have now been made available, and these figures have been added. These
will be talked about a lot more in the Rural Areas section under "Agricultural and Forestal Uses." She tried
to incorporate as many of the Farm Bureau comments as possible from its letter to this Board, and the
results of the recent Forest Resource Assessment, including, a map are now included in that section.
Page 69 is now Page 75, and it deals with the conflict between biological resources and agricultural
forestal resources. At the last meeting that she had added a statement about the importance of
responsibly using agricultural and forestry resources. However, there remains the conflict that to crop
these resources affects habitat. This conflict remains, and she does not think it will be resolved with
adoption of this chapter. Both resources are important and this fact is stated. She thinks more will be
known about this issue after the Biological Resources Inventory is complete. There is no change to the
"Biodiversity Section," but she has clarified some items in the "Greenways Plan" and the "Appendix."
Everything else is underlined, and perhaps the most efficient way to review the chapter is for her to
answer Board members' questions on any of the underlined parts.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that in the Farm Bureau letter there was a typo that had been pointed
out, but it is included on Page 72 of Chapter Two. Ms. Scala apologized for the error. Ms. Humphris
noted that Ms. Scala took care of a big list of items which was a complex and difficult task.
Mr. Marshall stated that one of the things the State Board of Health is worried about is
bioterrorism. He explained that the Middle East Terrorist Organizations are targeting war supplies in
various areas, and something needs to be set in place to protect the public. He does not know what to do
but there needs to be an awareness that bioterrorism exists, and it is a real problem.
Mr. Tucker remarked that it is a national problem, and it is frightening. He does not know what
can be done locally, though, because contingency plans have to be in place. This issue does not just
involve water. Various toxicants can be used in air as well as in other things within a community.
Mr. Marshall commented that he just wanted everybody to be aware that this problem exists and
plans need to be in place for it. He is not certain about how to proceed with the plans, because all of this
is uncertain even at the state level. Mr. Tucker explained that localities do not have the type of resources
to deal with this problem. However, he believes the federal government is realizing that there will have to
be some major changes made in how security in this country is handled due to the bioterrorism threat.
Ms. Thomas stated that Ms. Scala and Mr. Hirschman did a good job in gathering together the
comments people made, as well as the suggestions. She noticed one statement late last night that she
does not believe was included, but she didn't have time to alert the staff. She referred to the minutes of
the February 3, 1999 Board of Supervisors meeting where the League of Women Voters stated that to
protect the quality of water, the League urged strong measures to prevent pollution by reducing paved
over surfaces. She thought that reducing the quantity of paved over surfaces was an interesting issue
and appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan that deals with land use. She did not see this anywhere in
Chapter Two, and she asked if it was, in fact, included. Mr. Hirschman responded that this statement is in
the "Stormwater Management" section. Mr. Davis remarked that it is the last strategy on Page 24. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that it is also included in the Land Use Plan.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:46 a.m.)
Ms. Thomas called attention to Page 98 which relates to lighting. She would like to make sure
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
00036a
that a leadership role is taken by the County in developing exemplary lighting in the County's own
buildings partly for the sake of neighbors living next door to public facilities and partly because it is difficult
to require higher standards for private builders than the County would be requiring of itself.
At this time, Ms. Thomas presented a motion requesting that another strategy be added on Page
98 of Chapter Two, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, and she suggested that it be worded in this
fashion: "Albemarle County should take a leadership role in developing exemplary lighting in its public
building projects." Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like for the motion to speci~ that the lighting pertains to both the
inside as well as the outside of public building projects. He is considering playing fields and parking lots
being specifically a part of this strategy. He stated that it is important for the language in every case to
include this statement. Ms. Thomas agreed to amend her motion to include Mr. Bowerman's suggested
language. Ms. Humphris, as the seconder of the motion, concurred. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms.'Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas stated that Board members didn't have very much to say, at this time, about Chapter
Two, because Ms. Scala did a good job and really responded to comments made in public hearings and
private conversations. She appreciates her work, because revising is not an easy thing to do. Ms. Scala
took a good project, revised it, and made it better. Ms. Humphris agreed that Ms. Scala did an excellent
job on the revisions.
Next, motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt Chapter Two
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets as amended in the draft dated March 3, 1999. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. FY 1999-2000 Budget Briefing.
Mr. Tucker announced that Ms. White is distributing information on the County Executive's
Recommended Operating Budget, and he will briefly discuss it. He noted that the first public hearing on
this matter will be held on March 10 in the Auditorium of the County Office Building. This budget is
balanced with existing revenue, and it totals approximately $145,000,000 which is a 7.75 percent increase
over the current year. The staff was able to balance the budget primarily due to the significant increase in
state revenues of 13.6 percent over the current revenues. This corresponds very favorably since,
historically, state revenues have averaged about four percent during the last several years. There are
also very positive percentage increases in the local revenues which have increased approximately five
and one-half percent over the current year due in large part to the reassessment. Personal property taxes
have increased slightly, as well as the meals tax.
The Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City is funded, and it now stands at $5,850,000, which
is an increase of $267,000 over the current year. The School Debt Service stands at $8,450,000
currently, and the community agencies were funded with an average increase of about five percent. Last
year this Board directed that the compression salary pay problem for employees be addressed, and this is
the second year of a three year phase-in that has been funded. There is also a four percent performance
salary pool proposed for employees which compares favorably with what the state is doing for its
employees. He has placed $200,000 in a Board Contingency Fund to be used at the Supervisors'
discretion for various programs as work sessions are held. He has also created and placed an additional
$200,000 in a general government Debt Service reserve to help reduce the amount which may be needed
in any proposed bond projects that may be approved a year and a half from now. There are some
additional initiatives created this year which are not locally funded positions, and they have been
recommended basically in Public Safety, as well as the Planning, Engineering and Zoning offices.
Mr. Tucker said there are several additional staff members who have been regionally funded, and
the County is responsible for one part of this funding. Many of these are City, County and University
funded staff members, and some are state funded positions. Additional funding for vehicle maintenance
and fuel expenses has been added for the volunteer fire and rescue squads, as well as additional funding
for staffing at the Northside Library and the Central Library downtown. There are 15.2 growth teachers
who are included in this budget as well as two additional health clinicians and other staff members for a
base line increase in staffing for the school system. The Superintendent's recommended budget has
been funded, although the School Board has recommended a budget to this Board that exceeds available
revenue by approximately $980,000. He has provided for the opportunity to reappropriate about $150,000
which will be non-recurring funds to the School Board because of this mild winter, and the Supervisors can
always use the $200,000 in their reserve for the School Board at their discretion. He called attention to
the fact that five months ago everyone was very concerned as far as having enough revenues to meet the
critical needs of this community. However, the state has been very good to the localities this year and is
willing to share its revenues, which has made a major difference in this year's budget.
000 64
March 3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Tucker reiterated that the first public hearing on this budget will be held next Wednesday,
March 10, 1999, and the first work session is scheduled for March 15, 1999. This meeting will start
around 2:00 p.m. in order for Ms. Thomas to return from VDoT's Pre-Allocation Hearing in Culpeper. This
particular work session, an open view will be presented, as well as general government's critical issues.
The March 17, 1999 work session, will be devoted primarily to the school budget, and the March 22, 1999
meeting will deal with any other Board issues the Supervisors might have. The staff is anticipating that
everything will be finished by March 22, 1999, but an additional meeting on March 24, 1999 has been
provided, if it is needed. He stated that the last public hearing is scheduled for April 7, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Auditorium of the County Office Building where the Board of Supervisors' will present its proposed
budget and tax levy. The budget will be adopted on April 14, 1999.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the Board of Supervisors will be meeting all day on April 7, 1999. Mr.
Tucker answered affirmatively, The regular Board meeting will be held during the day on April 7, and then
the last public hearing on the budget is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. of that same day~ He explained that this is
how it has been done in the past, because an attempt is always made to get the budget adopted by April
15.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Ms. Humphris stated that the term used in the City budget to represent the $5,800,000 being
given to the City for revenue sharing is called "inter-governmental revenue." This funding, plus the fire
contract funding of approximately $600,000, makes a total of $6,300,000 which is almost ten percent of
the City's budget.
Ms. Thomas commented that the Coalition of High Growth Communities is continuing,
and there is going to be a meeting on March 18, 1999. She and Ms. Humphris have been the Board's
representatives, and she thinks they will both be able to attend the meeting on March 18. This will be a
debriefing type of meeting, and they will bring back anything they learn to the other Board members.
Ms. Thomas next talked about the Thomas Jefferson Venture. She has learned a lot
about some of the tourism activities taking place in the neighboring counties, and a presentation will be
made to the Tourism Council members next week urging that they think about whether this should be a
regional Council and if a regional approach to tourism should be considered. This will ultimately affect
Albemarle County, since County funds are put into tourism in a major way. The neighboring counties,
especially Nelson and Fluvanna, are doing some very interesting things.
Mr. Bowerman announced that he has received four letters from people living in Brookmill
Subdivision regarding erosion along Meadow Creek behind their homes. There have been some public
projects to make improvements relating to run-off damage. He has asked Mr. Tucker to look at this as a
potential County project, and the staff has been asked to investigate to see if there is any solution to the
problem, or whether this Board should be a part of any solution. He wanted the other Board members to
know about this situation. Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Bowerman that the Engineering staff is already
working on this matter.
Mr. Martin stated that the First Night Virginia Committee is having a community meeting
on March 9, 1999, and they want representatives from Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the
University to attend. He has never been to First Night Virginia, so he does not think he would make a
good representative. He assumes Lee Catlin is already going from the County, but he wanted to let the
other Board members know about the meeting. Other Supervisors informed Mr. Martin that they had
received the same notice. Ms. Thomas reported that she attends First Night Virginia every year, and she
has some opinions, so she will go to the meeting.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Supervisors need to make some reappointments to various committees
and councils. He suggested they do so at this time, so they would not have to make these appointments
at the end of their executive session.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments.
Ms. Thomas offered a motion to reappoint Mr. William B. Harvey and Mr. Edward L. Strickler, Jr.
to the Advisory Council on Aging with said terms to begin on June 1, 1999 and to expire on May 31,2001.
Ms. Thomas next made a motion for the appointment of William A. Finley, Jr., to the Purchase of
Development Rights Committee.
Ms. Humphris seconded both motions. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
Mar
(Pa!
AYE
NA~
cert
=,,, FIo(
He
the
will
344
und
sub
con
COL
cou
lane
con,
rec(
AYE
NA~
;
r Mol
cert
mat
and
exe,
AYE
NA~
was
)proved by B, ~ard
D~te '~,'~', ¢¢
Initials ~2x) 4~
3, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
e 30)
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel, Legal and Property Matters.
Mr. Martin stated that the executive session will probably take a couple of hours, so it will be
in the meeting room on the Fourth Floor. If people are interested, they should come to the Fourth
at approximately 2:00 p.m., and the doors will be opened, and the executive session will be certified.
does not think there will be any action taken by the Board at this time.
Mr. Tucker told the members of the press to call the Clerk or himself later in the afternoon, and if
Board took any action, it can be shared with them. However, he does not anticipate that any action
be taken.
At 12:05 p.m., Mr. Bowerman made a motion to go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-
of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions;
subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters relating to specific administrative employees; under
subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of three properties for public use and facilities; to consider the
continuation of the use of property for a public purpose under an existing lease; and to consider the use of
owned property for an alternative public purpose; under subsection (7) to consult with legal
and staff regarding two matters of pending litigation regarding a zoning case and regarding a
and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters
concerning an interjurisdictional service agreement.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Executive Session.
At 2:55 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session in the Fourth Floor Conference Room.
was was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board
by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business
lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the
executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
immediately adjourned.
~Ch'airman