1999-06-09June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 9,
1999, at 7:00 p.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 7:00 p.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.
Mr. Jim Bennett spoke on behalf of his wife and several friends. He recalled that on March 3,
1999, the Board of Supervisors discussed problems involving the Moorman's River and putting water
back into it during the summer months. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board of Supervisors
requested the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to develop proposals to solve the problem and to
analyze the solutions. It is now three months later, and he is curious about Rivanna's proposals, and he
would like to request this Board to query Rivanna as to its solutions to these problems.
Over the years, residents of that area have been told that additional water supply would be
necessary, and he believes an additional water supply can be provided almost immediately through more
effective water conservation in the community. His group will soon be starting an educational effort to
increase people's awareness in the community about water usage and conservation issues to educate the
public. This effort will be modeled after the United Way type of drive with a barometer showing how much
water is saved every month, etc. The idea is that water conserved by the public will be targeted
specifically for natural resources such as the Moorman's River and Chris Greene Lake. He is confident
once the community understands this issue better, the people will respond enthusiastically.
This morning he met with Mr. Bill Brent, the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority and presented this plan. Mr. Brent was interested and supportive and offered Service Authority
resources to begin this effort. He will meet soon with Ms. Judith Mueller, the Charlottesville Service
Authority Director, to enlist her support. He feels strongly that this is a win/win situation for everybody
since such a conservation plan, once it is implemented, will substantially assist the Board of Supervisors
as a body of administrators and protectors of the Moorman's River in carrying out this particular
responsibility. He will keep this Board informed of the group's plans and progress and will welcome any
thoughts and suggestions Board members may have.
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Bennett for his comments and inquired if there was anyone else who
would like to speak.
No one else came forward.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.1a, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1. Resolution in Support of the Thomas Jefferson Venture Regional
Competitiveness Act Submission for Certification.
Action Requested: Passage of Resolution in Support of the Thomas Jefferson Venture request
for certification under the Regional Competitiveness Act.
Background. Under the sponsorship of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, the regional
localities contributed appointees to a group to develop a proposal to become certified under this
state program and receive funding for projects aimed at being a competitive region. Work started
three years ago, with a series of weekly facilitated meetings out of which grew a strategic plan and
the group named itself the Thomas Jefferson Venture. Some of you participated in the
development of the plan. Twice we have submitted the plan and twice been denied. The
Commission and the Venture have decided to make a third try and, to that end, have met with the
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meetingi
(Page 2)
O00 G
funding agency, received facd~ta[~on assistance from the agency staff, and honed down the
proposal to four initiatives: Workforce development, a regional network of industrial parks and
development of a regional employment complex at Zion Crossroads, affordable housing and
heritage tourism. A summary of the programs is attached (on file). Based on the initial local
government resolutions creating and supporting the TJ Venture, localities are asked to approve
the Strategic Plan by adoption of a resolution. The resolution is attached for your consideration.
The Thomas Jefferson Venture believes these strategies build on the strengths of the region,
beauty and education. The strategies also speak to weaknesses in the area: sprawl, insufficient
affordable housing, mismatch of workforce skills and job market requirements. The strategies
build a stronger region through cooperative efforts to expand opportunities for regional residents
and through expansion of programs which are working.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
IN SUPPORT OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON VENTURE
REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT SUBMISSION FOR CERTIFICATION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has supported the creation of the Thomas Jefferson Venture through
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and through Board representation; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has committed staff time and effort to developing the Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, a proposal to assist and concentrate rural industrial development in locally-designated growth
areas is consistent with Albemarle County's policies of guiding development and infrastructure to
diminish the negative effects of sprawl; and
WHEREAS, a proposal to create a Virtual Academy for Information Technology will unite under one academic
umbrella the scattered technology course offerings in the region through distance learning, mentodng,
and apprenticeships, to ensure local job seekers will be equipped with skills needed for positions such
as those recently filled by one of Albemarle County's major employers, GE Fanuc; and
WHEREAS, the Heritage Tourism Program is consistent with efforts underway in the County to preserve and
protect historic areas such as the Southwest Mountains, to which the County has committed funds
for preservation planning; and
WHEREAS, a proposal to strengthen the regional approach to tourism, as such efforts can lengthen tourists'
visits, is consistent with Albemarle County's support of $709,720 in the 1999-2000 budget for tourism
efforts; and
WHEREAS, the creation of the regional housing fund will leverage the effect of Albemarle County's $35,000
budgeted to the Regional Fund Development; and
WHEREAS, a proposal to regionally expand the successful role of the Charlottesville Albemarle School
Business Alliance can multiply the support that Albemarle County provides to that program, which
links K-12 students with the real world of employment in all fields; and
WHEREAS, a proposal to utilize the Piedmont Virginia Community College for workforce training opportunities,
tailoring training opportunities to our workforce employment opportunities, is consistent with Albemarle
County's Comprehensive Plan's economic development section and with Albemarle County'
contribution of $10,250 to PVCC in 1999-2000;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby
endorse the Thomas Jefferson Venture Strategic Plan and commits itself to continue the cooperative
relationships formed under this unique collaborative;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development to confer certification on the Thomas Jefferson Venture.
Item No. 5.1a. Authorize County Executive to sign Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention
Commission Service Agreement. (Deferred from June 2, 1999.)
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute
the following Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission Service Agreement:
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT (the "AGREEMENT")is made as of July 1, 1999, by and among
the BLUE RIDGE JUVENILE DETENTION COMMISSION (the "Commission"), the CITY OF
Charlottesville and the COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE, FLUVANNA and GREENE (collectively the "Member
00028;3
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night
(Page 3)
Jurisdictions"), each of Which is a poht~cal su~lws~on of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Commission previously has been created by the governing bodies of the Member
Jurisdictions, to enhance public safety within the region by financing, constructing, equipping, maintaining
and operating a regional juvenile detention facility (the "Detention Center"); and
WHEREAS, the Commission has conducted an assessment of the present and future needs of
the Member Jurisdictions for space to house juvenile offenders in secure detention, which needs
assessment has been reviewed and approved by the state Board for Juvenile Justice; and
WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions agree that to fulfill their collective needs so identified for 40
detention beds, the Commission should design, finance, construct and operate a new detention facility;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission will need to use its statutory powers to incur debt obligations and
secure partial state reimbursement to finance the construction of that new facility;
WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions want to detail their understanding and agreement with each
other and with the Commission governing the parties' respective obligations concerning the design,
financing, construction and operation of such new facility.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
Definitions
The capitalized terms in this Agreement have the meanings set forth below unless the context
otherwise requires.
"Annual Budget" has the meaning given to that term in Section 3.7.
"Applicable Law" means all applicable laws, ordinances, judgments, decrees, injunctions, writs
and orders of any court, arbitrator or governmental agency or authority and all rules, regulations, orders,
interpretations, licenses and permits of any federal, state, county, municipal, regional, or other
governmental body, instrumentality, agency or authority.
"Bonds" means revenue bonds issued by the Commission to obtain funding for the design,
construction and other costs of the Detention Center.
"Capital Member Percentage" means the percentage of the Commission's Expenses for debt
service and related capital costs allocable to each Member Jurisdiction based on usage, (provided that
the Capital Member Percentages for Albemarle and Charlottesville respectively shall be one half of their
combined Capital Member Percentage), calculated as described in Section 4. l(b).
"Commission" means the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission.
"Commission Default" has the meaning given to that term in Section 8.1.
"Detainee(s)" means juvenile offenders committed to the custody of the Detention Center by the
appropriate authorities in the Member Jurisdictions or of other jurisdictiOns for whom the Commission
agrees to hold juvenile offenders for consideration when space is available to do so.
"Detention Center" means the facility to be designed, financed, constructed and operated by the
Commission, together with any future additiOns or improvements thereto.
"Expenses" means all expenses which may reasonably be determined by the Commission to be
attributable directly or indirectly to the ownership or operation of the Detention Center, and payable as
operating expenses in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall also include
debt service payments and other capital costs related to the Detention Center, required payments to the
Operating Reserve Fund established in Section 4:3, required payments to any debt service reserve
established in connection with any Bonds and other reasonable or necessary payments required to
comply with debt service coverage requirements imposed in connection with any Bonds.
"Fiscal Yea¢' means the annual accounting period from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the
following year.
"Member Jurisdictions" means the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna
and Greene, each a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and any other political
subdivision hereafter joining the Commission, but excluding any political subdivision that may have
withdrawn from the Commission, as provided in Sections 5.7 and 5.8.
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meetin~i '
(Page 4)
"Member Jurisdiction Defad t ~§ tl~ rtlean ng g~ven io such term in Section 8.2.
"Net Expenses" means Expenses reduced by an amount equal to revenue from (i) non-member
jurisdictions (including the federal government), (ii) expenses of the Commission reimbursed by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, (iii) interest income on Commission reserve funds and (iv) all other non-
member revenue.
"Notes" means revenue anticipation notes issued by the Commission.
"Obligations" means the Notes or Bonds issued by the Commission.
"Operating Member Percentage(s)" means the percentage allocable to each Member Jurisdiction
for prepayment of the Operating Component, as set forth in Section 4.1.
"Operating Reserve Fund" means the reserve fund established in Section 4.3.
"Per Diem Charge" means the charge to Member Jurisdictions for each Detainee held in the
Detention Center, as set forth in Section 3.7, which shall consist of an "Operating Component" and a "Debt
Service Component."
"Placed in Service" means the first day on which the Detention Center has been certified by the
Department of Juvenile Justice of the Commonwealth to accept Detainees.
ARTICLE II
Construction and Financing
Section 2.1 Construction of Detention Center. The Commission agrees to construct and
equip the Detention Center, designed to initially hold a rated capacity of 40 beds, located at such site as
the Commission may determine. The initial construction of the Detention Center shall include core facilities
to accommodate the construction of at least 40 additional beds. At such time as the Commission
determines that the construction of such additional beds is necessary, the Commission shall proceed with
such additional construction, subject to the requirements of Section 3.10, and provided that funds for debt
service on any Obligations attributable to the construction of such additional beds shall be collected
through a separately calculated component of the Per Diem Charge that shall only be allocated among
and payable by those Member Jurisdictions that have approved in writing the Commission's undertaking to
construct and finance such additional beds.
Section 2.2 Permits. The Commission shall construct the Detention Center in accordance with
the requirements of all Applicable Laws. The Member Jurisdictions agree to provide reasonable
assistance to the Commission in complying with any such requirements, and shall provide the
Commission with any and all information that may be necessary in this regard.
Section 2.3 Agreement to Finance. A portion of the eligible construction cost of the
Detention Center is expected to be funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to Section 16.1-
309.5 of the Code of Virginia. The Commission agrees to pursue all state reimbursement which may be
available for construction. In the event the Department of Juvenile Justice does not approve funding of its
share of the eligible construction cost at the rate then prevailing, or the General Assembly does not
indicate its intent to appropriate the necessary funding for such reimbursement, the Commission shall not
proceed to construct the Detention Center unless approval is received from the governing body of each of
the Member Jurisdictions. The Commission may, however, subject to Section 4.1, proceed to obtain
either short term or permanent financing prior to construction, and may proceed with design and
preliminary site work. The Commission agrees to finance the cost of constructing and equipping the
Detention Center, including expenses associated with the financing, through the issuance of revenue
bonds. In addition, the Commission may issue Bonds or Notes or other short-term obligations for this
purpose.
ARTICLE III
Provision of Services, Operation and Maintenance
Section 3.1 AcCeptance of Detainees.
Immediately after the Detention Center is Placed in Service, the Commission shall be responsible
for accepting and housing all juvenile Detainees committed to it by the appropriate authorities in each
Member Jurisdiction. To minimize the cost of operations and debt service to the Member Jurisdictions, the
Commission shall exercise its best efforts to keep the Detention Center full of Detainees at all times. To
accomplish this, the Commission shall seek and may accept Detainees for consideration from other
jurisdictions, including the federal government and its agencies, at such rates and upon such terms as the
Commission may deem advisable, to fill space not being used by the Member Jurisdictions. When space
is limited, however, Detainees of Member Jurisdictions shall be given a preference over those of non-
members. In the event the Detention Center cannot house any additional Detainees, and it is necessary
for a Member Jurisdiction to commit a Detainee to the Commission, the Commission shall accept the
Detainee and secure space in some other appropriate facility. The cost of such other placement shall be a
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
000 85
Commission Expense, and the committing Member Jurisdiction shall be responsible only for paying the
Commission its then-current Per Diem Charge for such Detainee housed in the other facility.
Section 3.2 Commitment of Detainees. Each Member Jurisdiction agrees to commit all of its
juvenile offenders requiring confinement to the custody of the Commission, and the Commission agrees to
accept such juvenile offenders.
Section 3.3 Transportation of Detainees. Each Member Jurisdiction shall be responsible
for the initial transportation of Detainees from such Jurisdiction to the Detention Center for processing into
the Detention Center population. Thereafter the Member Jurisdiction shall continue to be responsible for
any further transportation of Detainees to and from court appearances, or to other detention facilities. The
Detention Center shall be responsible for transportation of Detainees for medical care and other personal
needs that arise during detention. To minimize the need for transportation to court appearances, the
Commission shall use its best efforts to include appropriate video and telecommunications equipment in
the Detention Center and to assist the Member Jurisdictions in securing such equipment for their
respective juvenile court facilities. ~
Section 3.4 Operation and Maintenance. The Commission shall operate and maintain the
Detention Center in accordance with all Applicable Laws. The Commission shall be an equal opportunity
employer.
Section 3.5 Insurance. The Commission shall maintain hazard, liability or such other
insurance as may be required by Applicable Law, or that the Commission may deem prudent and
advisable.
Section 3.6. Annual Report. The Commission shall provide to each Member Jurisdiction on
or before each October 1 a report showing the activities and the revenues, expenditures, and employee
compensation schedules and other similar data of the Commission for the preceding Fiscal Year.
Section 3.7 Annual Budget. On or before each December 1, the Commission shall provide
to each Member Jurisdiction the Commission's Annual Budget for the next Fiscal Year, including any
proposed capital projects. For each Fiscal Year in which the Detention Center will be in operation, or in
which Obligations will be outstanding, such Annual Budget shall set forth the Per Diem Charge, including
Operating and Debt Service Components, for each Detainee committed to the Commission by the
Member Jurisdictions as well as the projected number of Detainees from each Member Jurisdiction. The
Commission agrees to set, and revise at least quarterly, a uniform Operating Component of the Per Diem
Charge that is sufficient to generate revenue adequate to pay Net Expenses (exclusive of debt service)
and to fund any required reserves attributable to the care, maintenance and subsistence of Detainees.
The Commission also agrees to set, and to revise immediately as necessary to reflect any failure of a
Member Jurisdiction to pay in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.1, a Debt Service Component of
the Per Diem Charge that will generate adequate revenue to pay debt service on the Commission's
outstanding Obligations and to fund any required debt service reserves therefor.
Within ten days of any revision to the Per Diem Charge the Commission shall notify each Member
Jurisdiction of such revision. Any such revision to the Per Diem Charge will be based on factors affecting
the Detention Center's revenues or expenditures, including but not limited to changes in assumed or
actual occupancy levels, operating expenses, State operating or capital cost reimbursement, and any
nonpayment of Per Diem Charges by any Member Jurisdiction or other jurisdiction housing Detainees at
the Detention Center. The Commission shall promptly provide copies of any amendments to its Annual
Budget to each Member Jurisdiction.
Section 3.8 Books and Records. The Commission shall maintain proper books, records and
accounts in which proper entries shall be made in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles for governmental bodies, consistently applied, of all of its business and affairs related to the
Detention Center. The Commission shall also establish and maintain adequate financial policies and
procedures to ensure the safeguarding of Commission assets. All books, records, accounts and
documents in the Commission's possession relating to the Detention Center shall at all reasonable times
be open to inspection by such agents or employees of the Member Jurisdictions as they may designate.
Section 3.9 Preliminary Responsibilities. Before the Detention Center is Placed in Service,
the Commission shall be responsible for (i) the final design, construction and equipping of the Detention
Center, (ii) the employment or procurement of administrators and staff, (iii) the adoption of rules,
regulations, policies and guidelines for the operation and maintenance of the Detention Center, consistent
with standards of the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, and (iv) the arrangements for financing the
Detention Center.
Section 3.10 Majority Required for Commission Decisions. All actions of the Commission
may be taken by a majority of all the members, or their alternates voting in the absence of the principal
members. Each member of the Commission shall be entitled to one (1) vote on matters before the
Commission. In the event of a tie, however, the members representing Albemarle and Charlottesville, or
their alternates voting in the absence of their principal members, shall each have an additional vote. If
there is still a tie after the casting of such additional votes, the subject motion or proposal shall fail.
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
0002 6
ARTICLE IV
Funding Provisions
Section 4.1. Payments from Member Jurisdiction,~.
(a) The objective of this Agreement is to provide the Commission, in each Fiscal Year in which the
Detention Center is in operation, with sufficient revenues to fund fully the Commission's Expenses for
such year. The Member Jurisdictions have agreed that the operating cost portion of such Expenses will be
shared among them in proportion to their respective usage of the Detention Center, and to that end have
agreed to pay the Operating Component of the Per Diem Charge, as described in Section 4.1(c), for each
detainee they commit to the Commission's custody. The Member Jurisdictions have further agreed that
the debt service portion of the Commission's expenses will be allocated among the Member Jurisdictions
except Albemarle and Charlottesville by billing them for the Debt Service Component of the per Diem
Charge based on their respective usage. Albemarle and Charlottesville agree, however, that their share of
the debt service will be calculated by applying the Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge to
their combined usage and billing the resulting amount equally, 50% to Albemarle and 50% to
Charlottesville.
To facilitate issuance of the Commission's obligations at the most favorable interest rate,
Albemarle and Charlottesville have further agreed to prepay 100% of each Commission debt service
payment (divided equally between them) before it becomes due, and thereafter to receive credits, also
applied equally, for the Debt Service Components received from other Member Jurisdictions, all in the
manner described in Section 4.1(e) below. The net result shall be that Albemarle and Charlottesville each
shall pay 50% of the debt service on the Commission's obligations not paid by the other Member
Jurisdictions. This Agreement with respect to debt service allocation shall apply to all obligations issued to
fund pre-opening and financing expenses, capitalized interest, required initial reserves for operations and
debt service, land acquisition, design, construction and equipment of the Detention Center.
(b) The Commission shall establish in its Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year in which the Detention
Center will be Placed in Service and in each Fiscal Year thereafter, a Per Diem Charge for the care,
maintenance, transportation and subsistence of Detainees from Member Jurisdictions equal to the
Commission's Projected Net Expenses. The Per Diem Charge shall consist of an Operating Component,
and a Debt Service Component for each series of Obligations of the Commission. The Operating
Component shall be determined by multiplying Projected Net Expenses (excluding debt service and
related payments on Obligations, but including any required deposits to a repair or replacement reserve
fund related to such Obligations) for such Fiscal Year by the ratio of each Member Jurisdiction's Detainee
Days to the Commission's total Member Jurisdiction Detainee daYs during the preceding Fiscal Year (the
"Operating Member Percentage"). The Debt Service Component shall be determined by dividing the total
amount required to pay debt service, replenish reserve funds, pay credit enhancement fees and such
other expenses on or related to such Obligations during such Fiscal Year by the total number of Detainee
days anticipated during the subject Fiscal Year (the "Capital Member Percentage," provided that the
Capital Member Percentages for Albemarle and Charlottesville respectively shall be one half of their
combined Capital Member Percentage).
(c) The Operating Component of the Per Diem Charge shall be payable by all Member
Jurisdictions and shall be collected in advance for each quarter of each Fiscal Year, based on the
Operating Member Percentages established by the Member Jurisdictions' respective usage during the
preceding Fiscal Year. Such amounts shall be invoiced by the Commission to each Member Jurisdiction
by the first day of each quarter of each Fiscal Year and shall be payable no later than the last day of the
first month of each quarter. Such advance payments shall be subject to an annual adjustment based on
actual usage after the end of each Fiscal Year, as described in Section 4. l(e) below.
(d) The Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge shall be payable by all Member
Jurisdictions and shall be collected in advance for each quarter of each Fiscal Year, based upon the
Capital Member Percentages established by the Member Jurisdictions' anticipated usage for the Fiscal
Year. Such amounts shall be invoiced by the Commission to each Member Jurisdiction by the first day of
each quarter of each Fiscal Year and shall be payable no later than the last day of the first month of each
quarter. Such advance payments shall be subject to annual adjustments based upon actual usage after
the end of each Fiscal Year~, as described in Section 4.1(e) below.
Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, the prepayments due from Albemarle and
Charlottesville in each quarter shall be calculated to total in the aggregate 100% of one quarter of the
Commission's annual debt service, allocated 50% to Albemarle and 50% to Charlottesville. The quarterly
payments received by the Commission in each quarter from Fluvanna and Greene shall be applied equally
against the next quarterly payments due from Albemarle and Charlottesville.
(e) By October 1st, the Commission shall adjust the Per Diem Charges for each Member
Jurisdiction to reflect the amount each Member should have paid during the preceding Fiscal Year based
upon actual proportionate usage of the Detention Center and compare it to the amount paid by each
member, taking into account any future credits due. In making that adjustment for the Debt Service
Component, however, the usage of Albemarle and Charlottesville shall be combined, to the end that
Albemarle and Charlottesville each continue to have paid 50% of the debt service not paid by the other
jurisdictions. In the event that a Member Jurisdiction's actual usage has averaged less than two Detainees
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
OOO2G '2
for the Fiscal Year, such Member jurisdiciion%' adjustment to the Debt Service Component shall reflect a
minimum charge for two Detainees. Any Member Jurisdiction that has underpaid shall be billed by the
Commission for the amount of the shortfall, which shall be paid not later than October 31 st. Any Member
Jurisdiction that has overpaid shall be entitled to a refund or a credit, as such Member may elect, in the
amount of such overpayment to be applied against the Per Diem Charge due in October; provided,
however, that no Member shall be entitled to a refund or credit until such time as the Commission has
received payment of all underpaid amounts. In the event the Commission receives a portion but not all of
the payments due for underpaid bills, the Commission shall apply the amount received ratably as a partial
credit to Members that overpaid.
(f) Except for the payment of the Per Diem Charges attributable to the Detainees whom it has
actually committed to the Commission, the obligation of each Member Jurisdiction to pay the Per Diem
Charges shall be subject to and contingent upon appropriations being made for such purposes by the
governing body of such member. Those governing bodies hereby direct their respective chief executive
officers to include in their annual budget and appropriation requests to the governing bodies funds
sufficient to pay the both components of the Per Diem Charges expected to come due during the Fiscal
Year for which such budgets are applicable.
(g) The Commission shall notify all Member Jurisdictions not later than 30 days after any payment
due date if a Member Jurisdiction fails to pay any charge when due, and shall pursue with diligence the
collection of such past due amount. If not paid when due, the charge shall bear interest at a rate
determined by the Commission until paid; however, that this provision shall not apply in instances where
Applicable Law prescribes some other due date or late payment charge. The notice shall include a
statement of the Commission's intention to adjust the remaining payments due during the Fiscal Year (and
thereafter if such default is not cured) from all non-defaulting Members and shall state the amount of the
adjusted charge. The adjustment shall be based upon a reallocation of Capital Member Percentages and
Operating Member Percentages to all non-defaulting Members. Upon payment in full of the amount in
arrears by the defaulting Member Jurisdiction, the Commission shall readjust Member charges to pre-
default levels and credit all non-defaulting Members in the appropriate amount for any excess payments
previously made at the default adjusted rate. The Commission shall make other adjustments as may be
necessary to the Per Diem Charges during the Fiscal Year to meet Expenses and to comply with any
covenants entered into in connection with any Obligations.
Section 4.2 Payments from Other Jurisdictions. Within the limits allowed by law, the
Commission shall establish a per diem charge or charges as it may deem advisable for the care,
maintenance and subsistence of Detainees from non-member jurisdictions, including from the state,
federal government, and other states or localities. Such charges shall be due and payable to the
Commission from non-member jurisdictions having Detainees in the Detention Center no later than 30
days from receipt of the charges and if not paid when due shall bear interest until paid, at such rate as the
Commission shall establish; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply in instances where
Applicable Law prescribes some other due date or late payment charge. Revenue received from all
sources other than the Member Jurisdictions shall be used to reduce Net Expenses.
Section 4.30loeratino Reserve Fund. The Commission agrees to provide for an Operating
Reserve Fund in each of its Annual Budgets in an amount equal to not less than 90 days of its projected
Annual Budget for each year less debt service. The Operating Reserve Fund shall be established as a
separate account and shall be used to cover periods of revenue shortfall when the Commission's
revenues are not sufficient to cover its Net Expenses associated with the operating of the Detention
Center (non-debt charges). The initial Operating Reserve may be funded with the proceeds of Obligations;
however, annual additions to the Operating Reserve shall be treated as an operating Expense.
Section 4.4 Commonwealth Reimbursement Grant-~, Any funds that the Commission receives
from the Commonwealth of Virginia as reimbursement for the cost of constructing, equipping or operating
the Detention Center shall be paid into the general fund account of the Commission and become part of its
funds, subject to the provisions of any bond indenture or other financing document requiring a specific
application of such funds.
Section 4.5 Limitation of Liability. The only obligation of the Member Jurisdictions to pay for
the establishment, operation or maintenance of the Detention Center arises out of this Agreement. No
such payment responsibility shall constitute a debt of any Member Jurisdiction within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation.
ARTICLE V
Additional Agreements
Section 5.1 Sale or Other Conveyance. The Commission will not sell, lease (except in the
ordinary course of business), sublease, assign, convey or otherwise voluntarily dispose of the Detention
Center unless the Notes, Bonds and any other debt incurred by the Commission have been or will be paid,
or deemed defeased, in accordance with the agreements pursuant to which they were issued.
Section 5.1.1 Future Disposition of Commission Property In the event the Authority is
dissolved or its powers and responsibilities are transferred by operation of law to some successor public
entity, the Commission shall, subject to the provisions of Section 5.1, convey all its real and personal
0002 3
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
property to such other entity for a consideration of One Dollar. In the event the Commission determines
that the real estate and improvements comprising the Detention Center are no longer needed for the
Commission's purposes, the Commission shall reconvey the same to Member Jurisdictions as ioint
tenants, in shares that are, as nearly as can then be determined, directly proportional to their respective
accumulated net payments of the Debt Service Component of the Per Diem Charge.
Section 5.2 Further Documents and Data. The parties to this Agreement will execute and
deliver all documents and perform ali further acts that may be reasonably necessary to perform the
obligations and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
Section 5.3 Right to Access. Each Member Jurisdiction will have reasonable access to the
Detention Center in order to monitor the Commission's compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
Section 5.4 Confidentiality. The Commission will maintain all records and files on the
Detainees on a confidential basis in accordance with all Applicable Laws.
Section 5.5 Notification. The Commission will promptly furnish to each Member Jurisdiction
a copy of any notice or order of any governmental Commission asserting that the Commission or the
Detention Center is not in compliance in any material respect with any Applicable Law.
Section 5.6 Tax-Exemption Covenant.
(a) The Commission intends to issue the Notes and Bonds in a manner such that their interest is
excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes under Section 103(a) and related
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable rules and regulations. The
Commission and each Member Jurisdiction agree that after the Notes and Bonds have been issued they
will not take any action or omit to take any action which would adversely affect such exclusion.
(b) Pursuant to Section 15c2-12(b) of regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Commission and the Member Jurisdictions may be required to agree with the owners of
the Bonds, for as long as the Bonds are outstanding, to supply certain national securities information
repositories (1) annually, certain financial and statistical information, and (2) periodically, notification of
certain specified material events affecting the Commission, the Member Jurisdictions and the Bonds. The
particulars of this ongoing disclosure requirement will be set forth in the indenture or loan agreement for
the Bonds and in a continuing disclosure agreement for the Bonds. Each Member Jurisdiction agrees to
execute and deliver a continuing disclosure agreement and to cooperate with the Commission in fulfilling
this requirement, including providing the Commission with timely notice of the occurrence of any of the
specified events that are material to its operations.
Section 5.7 Additional Members. Any city or county in Virginia may, with the approval of its
governing bodyand with the consent of all of the Member Jurisdictions, join and participate in the
Commission under such additional terms and conditions for membership as may be prescribed by the
Commission.
Section 5.8 Withdrawal of Membership. Any Member Jurisdiction may withdraw from
membership in the Commission by resolution or ordinance of its governing body; however, no Member
Jurisdiction shall be permitted to withdraw from the Commission while any Obligation is outstanding
except by unanimous approval of all Member Jurisdictions, which approval shall not be granted unless the
remaining Member Jurisdictions agree to assume the payment and other obligations of the departing
Jurisdiction under this Agreement.
ARTICLE VI
Representations, Warranties and Covenants of Commission
In addition to the covenants in other Articles of this Agreement, the Commission represents,
warrants and covenants as follows:
Section 6.1 Organization, Authorization and Validity. The Commission is a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth and has duly authorized, executed and delivered this Agreement.
Section 6.2 Authority. The Commission has all requisite authority under Applicable Law to
execute and deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement and is not a party to any indenture,
contract or other agreement or arrangement, the performance of which by the Commission would prevent
or materially and adversely affect the Commission's ability to perform the terms of this Agreement.
Section 6.3 Non-Contravention. The execution and delivery of this Agreement by the
Commission and the consummation of the transactions contemplated in it will not conflict with or result in a
breach of or constitute a default under or violate any of the terms, conditions or provisions of Applicable
Law, the bylaws of the Commission or any material indenture, contract or other agreement or arrangement
to which the Commission is a party or by which any of its properties are bound.
Section 6.4 Litigation. The Commission is not a partY to any legal, administrative, arbitration
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
or other proceeding or controversy pending, or, to the best of the Commission's knowledge, threatened,
which would materially adversely affect the Commission's ability to perform under this Agreement.
Section $.5 Approvals. Except for approvals that may be required by the Virginia
Department of Juvenile Justice, and as otherwise stated herein, the Commission does not require the
consent or approval of any governmental body to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
ARTICLE VII
Representations, Warranties and Covenants
of Member JurisdictiOns
Each Member Jurisdiction represents, warrants and covenants for itself as follows:
Section 7.1 Organization, Authorization and Validity. Each Member Jurisdiction is a
political subdivision of the COmmonwealth duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth, and each has duly authorized, executed and delivered this Agreement.
Section 7.2 Authority. Each Member Jurisdiction has all requisite authority to execute and
deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement and is not a party to any indenture, contract or
other agreement or arrangement, the performance of which by it would prevent or materially and
adversely affect its individual performance under this Agreement.
Section 7.3 Non-Contravention. The execution and delivery of this Agreement by each
Member Jurisdiction and the consummation of the transactions contemplated in it will not conflict with or
result in a breach of or constitute a default under or violate any of the terms, conditions or provisions of
any charter, resolution or ordinance, any material indenture, contract or agreement or arrangement to
which it is a party or by which any of its properties are bound, or any Applicable Law by which it is bound.
Section 7.4 Litigation. No Member Jurisdiction is a party to any legal, administrative,
arbitration, or other proceeding or controversy pending, or, to the best of its knowledge, threatened, which
would materially and adversely affect its ability to perform under this Agreement.
ARTICLE VIII
Defaults and Remedies
Section 8.1 Default by Commission. The occurrence of any one or more of the following
events will constitute an "Event of Default" by the Commission ("Commission Default"):
(i) if the Commission fails to pay principal of or interest when due on any Notes, Bonds or other
temporary or permanent financing for the Detention Center issued or obtained by the Commission
pursuant to this Agreement;
(ii) if the Commission is for any reason rendered incapable of performing any of its material
obligations under this Agreement;
(iii) if the Commission makes an assignment of all or a portion of its obligations under this
Agreement without the prior consent of all the Member Jurisdictions;
(iv) if the Commission defaults on any of its material obligations under any agreement pursuant to
which any Note, Bonds or other temporary or permanent financing for the Detention Center is
issued or obtained by the Commission pursuant to this Agreement and such default is not cured
within the applicable cure period;
(v) if any proceeding is instituted, with the consent or acquiescence of the Commission, for the
purpose of effecting a composition between the Commission and its creditors or for the purpose of
adjusting the claims of such creditors pursuant to any federal or state statute now or hereafter
enacted, if the claims of such creditors are under any circumstances payable from the funds of the
Commission; or
(vi) if the Commission defaults in the due and punctual performance of any other of the covenants,
conditions, agreements and provisions contained in this Agreement, and the default continues for
thirty days after written notice specifying the default and requiring it to be remedied has been
given to the Commission by any Member Jurisdiction.
Section 8.2 Default by Member Jurisdictions. The occurrence of any one or more of the
following events will constitute an "Event of Default" by any Member Jurisdiction ("Member Jurisdiction
Default"):
(i) if any Member Jurisdiction fails to make payments of Per Diem Charges when due;
(ii) if any Member Jurisdiction shall for any reason be rendered incapable of fulfilling its obligations
under this Agreement; or
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
00024:0
(iii) if any proceeding is instituted, with the consent or acquiescence of any Member Jurisdiction,
for the purpose of effecting a composition between such Member Jurisdiction and its creditors or
for the purpose of adjusting the claims of such creditors pursuant to any federal or state statute
now or hereafter enacted, if the claims of such creditors are under any circumstances payable
from the funds of such Member Jurisdiction; or
(iv) if any Member Jurisdiction defaults in the due and punctual performance of any of the other
covenants, conditions, agreements and provisions contained in this Agreement, when such
default continues for thirty days after written notice specifying the default and requiring it to be
remedied has been given to such Member Jurisdiction by the Commission.
Section 8.3 Remedies of Member Jurisdiction-~. Upon the occurrence of an Commission
Default, any Member Jurisdiction, after giving notice of such Commission Default to all parties, may bring
suit by mandamus or other appropriate proceeding to require the Commission to perform its duties under
Applicable Law or this Agreement or to enjoin any acts in violation of Applicable Law or this Agreement.
Section 8.4 Remedies of Commission. Upon the occurrence of a Member Jurisdiction
Default, the Commission, after giving reasonable notice of such Member Jurisdiction Default to all parties,
may bring suit by mandamus or other appropriate proceeding to require the Member Jurisdiction to
perform its duties under the Act and this Agreement or to enjoin any acts in violation of Applicable Law or
this Agreement.
Section 8.5 Remedies Not Exclusive. No remedy in this Agreement conferred upon or
reserved to the parties is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, and each remedy is cumulative
and in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law, in
equity or by statute.
ARTICLE IX
Miscellaneous
Section 9.1 Severability of Invalid Provisions. If any clause, provision or section of this
Agreement is held to be illegal or invalid by any court, the invalidity of the clause, provision or section will
not affect any of the remaining clauses, provisions or sections, and this Agreement will be construed and
enforced as if the illegal or invalid clause, provision or section has not been contained in it.
Section 9.2 Notices. Any notice or other communication under or in connection with this
Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be effective when delivered in person or sent in the United States
mail, postage prepaid, to the following persons and addresses or to such other persons and
addresses as any of such persons may from time to time specify in writing.
If to the Commission:
To the then-incumbent Chairman,
at his or her regular business address.
If to the City of Charlottesville:
City Manager
City of Charlottesville
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
If to Albemarle County:
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
If to Fluvanna County:
County Administrator
County of Fluvanna
P.O. Box 299
Palmyra, VA 22963
If to Greene County:
County Administrator
County of Greene
P.O. Box 358
Stanardsville, VA 22973
Section 9.3 Execution of Aqreement. Each party shall authorize its chief executive officer
or other appropriate official to execute the original of this Agreement on its behalf, and the Commission
shall thereafter distribute a certified copy to each signatory.
Section 9.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and
00024
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
enforced in accordance with, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 9.5 Amendments. This Agreement may be changed or amended only with the
consent of the Commission and each Member Jurisdiction. No such change or amendment may be made
which will affect adversely the prompt payment when due of all moneys required to be paid by the Member
Jurisdictions under the terms of this Agreement, and no such change or amendment shall be effective
which would cause a violation of any provision of any resolution, indenture or agreement pursuant to
which any Notes, Bonds or other temporary or permanent financing for the Detention Center is issued or
obtained by the Commission.
Section 9.6 Effective Date of Aqreement. This Agreement will be effective from the date of
its approval by all of the parties.
Section 9.7 Waiver. Any waiver by any party of its rights under this Agreement must be in
writing, and will not be deemed a waiver with respect to any matter not specifically covered. Nothing in
this Agreement authorizes the waiver of any Member Jurisdiction's obligation to make payments when due
of all monies required to be paid by the Member Jurisdictions under the terms of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date
above written, by their duly authorized officers and pursuant to the approval of their respective governing
bodies.
BLUE RIDGE JUVENILE DETENTION COMMISSION
By:
Chairman
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By:
City Manager
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By:
County Executive
COUNTY OF FLUVANNA
By:
County Administrator
COUNTY OF GREENE
By:
County Administrator
Item No. 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 4, 1999, was received for
information.
Item No. 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for April 15, 1999, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. REQUEST by the City of Charlottesville that the County grant to the City a
permanent natural gas line easement across property jointly owned by the County and City and identified
as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 007 and Parcel 008 located within the Ivy Creek Natural Area (Defer to
July 14, '1999).
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer this request until
July 14, 1999. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-09. Arrowhead CV'152 (Sign #33). PUBLIC HEARING on a request
to allow personal wireless service fac in accord w/§10,2.2.6 of Zoning Ord which allows for radio-wave
transmission & relay towers. Loc on 71.34 acs on E side of Rt 29S (Monacan Dr) S of Rt 745 (Arrowhead
Valley Rd). Znd RA&EC.TM88, P26. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and
May 31, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board originally deferred SP-98~09 in August, 1998, and it was re-
submitted to the Planning Commission with some modifications. The applicant has stated that alternative
relocations have been investigated, but relative to the location of Other approved and/or proposed sites
along the Route 29 South corridor, the Arrowhead site continues to be desirable.
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
000242,
Mr. Cilimberg then pointed out two changes in the reactivated application. First, the tower height
above the trees is a six foot height to accommodate two panel antennae mounted flush against the top of
the pole opposite each other. Secondly, there is a letter from the property owner who has stated he has
no plans for tree removal on the property. Language was originally included in condition #8 of the staff's
recommendations, but the Commission revised it to become part of condition #7. This condition
essentially indicates that there will be no removal of trees nor harvesting of trees other than those required
for installation of the tower within 1,000 feet of the tower without prior approval of the Director of Planning.
Staff recommended approval of the application at the Planning Commission meeting with the modification
of condition #7, as well as the removal of condition #8 to address the removal of trees.
Since the Planning Commission's May 4 action, at the request by the owners of the adjacent
Arrowhead property, the applicant has agreed to move the proposed site 35.5 feet further to the northeast
and away from the shared property line. The owners of the Arrowhead property have dedicated a
conservation easement on the property. Although the staff's opinion is that negative impacts to the
easement from the location originally proposed would have been minor, establishing a greater setback
between the tower site and the shared property line further mitigates potential impacts and is a positive
feature.
Mr. Cilimberg next pointed out a change to condition #3(a) which notes the new location reflected
by a plan entitled "Survey of a Lease and Ingress Egress Easement for CFW Wireless on the Land of T.
E. Wood, May 14, 1999" and initialed SET, 5/17/99Parcel. Mr. Cilimberg said this application is before the
Board with a recommendation for approval.
There were no questions from Board members for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Martin asked if the
applicant would like to speak to this application
Mr. Tom Whitaker, representing CFW Wireless, said he would speak to the main issues discussed
in the Planning Commission public hearing, one of which is location. His company is not interested in the
Gleco Mills property on the northbound side of Route 29, since this property is much lower compared to
the surrounding property. He also mentioned serious concerns which came out during the public hearing
about tree clearing. The first letter from the property owner was nebulous about how many trees could be
cleared, but the current communications from the landowner indicate that no trees will be cleared on more
than 1,000 feet of the proposed site. There is very little tree clearing involved, and the adjacent
landowners' concerns have been slightly mitigated. He will let the landowner speak to how he feels about
the modest setback of 35.5 feet. He remarked that there is a relatively good road to the site which will
minimize the amount of improvement that would have to be made to cut a road into the site. The road
already there just needs modest improvement with some crusher run that will allow vehicles to get to the
site. For a lot of reasons this is a good site, and he thinks there are more favorable reasons to move
ahead with this location versus any other site in the area which has been considered.
He then provided aerial photographs to the Supervisors and indicated their locations. These
photographs give a good indication of the elevations throughout the Gleco Mills site which are fairly
descriptive. He also noted that there are color enhanced photographs depicting the lowest property
elevations, as well as the highest.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it seems co-location does not make much sense on telephone poles,
but it is possible for the same panel to be used by more than one company as a type of co-location with
the signals divided. However, it would require an extra piece of equipment at the base of the tower, and
she wondered if this is a possibility in this situation. If so, she would like to propose in the condition
relating to co-location that the permitee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate
or utilize antennas on the tower and equipment on the site. This opens the possibility of doing so, but it is
not a requirement.
Mr. Whitaker replied that he knows of no other carriers who use the same type of antenna
configurations, but when his company expands and needs more capacity, a new frequency and additional
cells are installed at the base of the same site. This allows two different frequencies and two different
carriers to use the same antenna. However, there could be a problem with mixing his company's interface
standards with those of another company. Ms. Thomas said she will stick to her proposal as a way to
open the door for such a situation and perhaps eliminate more of these applications.
Mr. Bowerman asked the difference between other technologies and CFW's. Mr. Whitaker
answered that AT&T uses time division multiplexing which means that people can carry on a conversation
only at their predetermined moment in time. He explained that their voice conversations are assigned a
time slot, and that is the only time the audio signal passes. Every other time, the conversation stops as far
as data packets are concerned. The CFW system uses a masked code which rides over the voice
conversation. The only person who can talk to a user is someone who knows how to unmask the other
code. One is a coding cryptic technology, and the other is a timing cryptic technology.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about the SunCom Company. He wondered if it is an analog system as
far as partnering is concerned. Mr. Whitaker answered affirmatively. SunCom is a dual mode company.
He further explained that AT&T bought all of the Cellular One systems throughout the country. If people
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
00024.3
use the AT&T company, they can use a Cellular One system throughout the country, but they are going
back and forth between the analog system and the digital system.
There were no other questions from Board members, so Mr. Martin asked if members of the
public would like to speak.
Mr. David Van Roijen recalled that he has been before this Board many times to speak about
cellular towers, particularly in this location. He said everybody has learned a lot by denying some of these
applications, and things have improved. Lights and towers have decreased in size, and cellular company
representatives are required to explain and show what they consider to be the best locations. The
proposed location is probably the best place for the CFW tower, but in light of previous approvals, this
company has a system of towers whereby each one defines the location of the next one. This concerns
him. When he first came before the Supervisors about this proposal, he came with a petition from all the
neighbors. They didn't want to see a lot of towers, and they knew there were six or seven cellular
companies interested in putting cellular transmission on Route 29 South. So far there is cellular capability
without any additional towers, but more are being requested. He has asked CFW representatives about
other towers being installed on this parcel, and they indicate that the site defines where the tower has to
be located, and it has to be put in a particular place. He is concerned about other cellular tower
representatives indicating their desire to be in the same location. Soon there will be mini cellular tower
farms, and this is not what the community really wants. His community is not as intensive as Bellair, but
the residents like the pristine nature of the area and would like to limit cellular activity. He emphasized
that the residents are not trying to deny it, but they would like for the Supervisors to indicate tonight in their
comments that they really don't believe they should consider additional towers on this parcel. He
suggested that a good concept for the Board of Supervisors to consider overall would be a limit of one
tower per parcel. This makes perfect sense to him, although there could be a reason why it should not be
considered. He also mentioned in the Planning Commission meeting the fact that he believes an
application for a cellular tower should be considered a development right, since it is a building and a
structure.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas stated that the reason people aren't speaking up at this public hearing is because
they met at the site this afternoon. They asked a lot of questions, and a lot of their questions were
answered. There was discussion as far as whether it makes more sense to have a metal sectional pole
instead of a wooden pole. A wooden pole is preferred since it has a limit to the height. Sectional poles
would take up less land disturbance in order to assemble and mount them on site, but there is some
question as to whether or not such poles are available. There are a lot of tall trees around this location.
She pointed out that there is not a condition about varying the utilities, but it is something this
company has done at some of its sites. She emphasized that it is not actually a condition of approval, but
she would like to add it. In some of the other applications comments were made that the color of panels
have to match the color of the pole, but in this particular application, it was not mentioned. She would like
to add this as part of condition #4(a) which would state that: "Antennae shall be limited to two (2) panel
type metal antennae mounted to the wooden pole such that they do not extend above it, and the color of
the antennae shall match the color of the pole." She would like to add the words, "or utilize" to condition
#5(a) which would read, "The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate
or utilize antennas on the tower and equipment on the site... "She explained that this will address the
neighborhood's concern about the proliferation of poles, and it is addressed also by indicating that the
has to offer co-location. She noted, though, that with a telephone pole, co-lOcation is not going to
happen. However, there is the ability to utilize the antennae recognizing that it might not work, but it will
help to assure there will not be a proliferation of poles when there are panels with unused capability.
Ms. Thomas next mentioned the issue of one pole per parcel. The Supervisors do not want the
impact of the towers to be something that is noticeable for neighbors or by people on the road. Some of
the parcels are very big and a better site may be found on a parcel that is already utilized, although she is
unsure if something of this nature could be included in the conditions. It would probably be misleading if
this is stated as the Board's intention because it might not always happen if the criteria for the best site is
always met.
Mr. Davis remarked that because each pole would require a special use permit, future members
of the Board of Supervisors could change the condition to allow another pole if they felt it was a proper
decision. He said adding this as a condition has no practical effect because any future pole would be
considered by the Board of Supervisors and any future Board of Supervisors could amend the special use
The situation will always be considered on a case by case basis. Ms. Thomas commented that
she has a distaste for anything that resembles hypocrisy and adding such a condition could be a type of
hypocrisy, since there is no way it could be guaranteed.
Mr. Tucker wondered if such a condition could be added as an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Davis responded that he would have to consider this very carefully before he could give a
definite opinion. He explained that it might have the effect of discriminating against a carrier, and he
suggested that it might be an issue on which the County's consultant could comment.
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
000 44
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved approval of SP-98-09, Arrowhead CV152, in its most recent
version and location with slight rewording in condition/fA(a) relating to the color of the antennae matching
the pole, and in condition #5(a) adding the words, "or utilize," as well as cOndition #18 which will indicate
that the utilities going to the pole will be underground. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins called attention to condition #7 involving removal of trees. He said one place
indicates that neither the permitee nor the owner shall remove existing trees within 1,000 feet of the tower,
but in another place it indicates that they cannot be removed within 200 feet of the tower. He asked which
one is correct. Ms. Thomas responded that the most recent conditions indicate that trees shall not be
removed within 1,000 feet of the tower, equipment building nor the vehicular or utility access.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed six (6) feet above the elevation of the top of
the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet downslope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a
certified statement on the elevation of the tallest tree. A lightning rod may extend two (2) feet
above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed one (1)
inch in diameter;
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
ao
The tower shall be wood;
Guy wires shall not be permitted;
The tower shall have no lighting; and
The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color;
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Survey of a
Lease Parcel & Ingress Egress Easement for CFWWireless on the Land of T. E. Wood,
May 14, 1999" and initialed SET, 5/17/99. The tower shall be located on the site as
follows:
The tower shall be located so that, in the event of structural failure, the tower and
all of its components will remain within the parcel containing the lease area;
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
Antenna shall be limited to two (2) panel type metal antenna mounted to the wooden pole
such that they do not extend above the pole, and such antenna shall match the color of
the pole; and
Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited;
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless
telecommunications providers, as follows:
The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize
the antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions:
(1)
(2)
Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan
requirement, the permit'tee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a
good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such
other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; and
The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it
has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good
faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal
rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within
Albemarle County;
[The use of this facility by additional telecommunications providers will require amendment of this
special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of
additional uses for this facility or this property.]
Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding feature. For purposes of
this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with
the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000; 45
lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance;
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation
of access for vehicles or utilities, the owner or the permittee shall obtain authorization from the
Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify
which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, neither the permittee nor the owner shall remove
existing trees within one thousand (1000) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the
vehicular or utility access;
The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
area shall not be required;
Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading
necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the
tower require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or
reduced after installation is completed;
10. The access road shall be gated;
11.
The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as
necessary for repair and restoration of service;
12.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued;
13.
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user and shall identify each user that is a
wireless telecommunications service provider;
14.
Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be forty (40)
feet;
15.
16.
17.
18.
No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created
that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization
measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter;
The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section; and
The utilities going to the pole shall be underground.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-15. CV'113 Red Hill (Signs #50&53). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow for personal wireless service fac in accord w/§10.2.2.6 of Zoning Ord which allows for
radio-wave transmission & relay towers. Loc on 1.357 acs at inter of Rt 29S (Monacan Dr) & Rt 710
(Taylor's Gap Rd). Znd RA&ECOD. TM87B,P4. Samuel Miller Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 24 and May 31, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is to allow installation of a self supporting wooden pole
approximately ten feet above tree height to provide improved wireless service for the Route 29 South
corridor. Access to this site will come through the parking area of the existing Sarge's Trading Post Store.
The closest dwelling is the residence on the same parcel, and approximately 36 residences are located
within 2,000 feet of the tower. The existing driveway and electrical service to the property owner's
residence will be used for the purpose of the proposed tower. In its original location, the tower was
considered by staff to be visible in several locations along the Route 29 South southbound lanes which is
an entrance corridor, and this was noted as an unfavorable aspect of the proposal. As a favorable aspect,
it was noted that access to the tower would come from the existing driveway. The staff originally
recommended denial due to the impact to the entrance corridor, and the Commission deferred this request
to allow consideration for a change in the location of the tower.
Following the May 4, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission there was an on site meeting
which the adjacent property owner, Mr. Sprouse, attended and the proposed tower location was moved
approximately 15 feet west to allow the placement of the wooden pole between two large trees. The staff
feels the new location reduces the visibility of the telecommunications facility from Route 29 South. The
adjacent property owner also reacted positively to the new location, because it increased the setback from
his access easement, which is the existing driveway. The Commission recommended approval at its
second meeting regarding this project with a change to a third condition under (a) to note the new location
which had been determined since the first hearing held by the Commission. The application is
recommended for the Supervisors' approval with 15 conditions.
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Board members had no questions for Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like to
speak.
Mr. Whitaker, representing CFW, noted that there was some screening and landscaping
suggested around the base of the equipment and pole. This will be done to distinguish the viewshed from
the access easement. He also has some photographs to show Board members. One picture shows a
crane extended to the tower height, and there is an aerial photograph indicating the approximate location
of the site relative to Route 29.
There were no questions from Board members for Mr. Whitaker, so Mr. Martin opened the public
hearing.
No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas asked why the other application was for a tower six feet above the tree line, and this
one is for a tower ten feet above the height of a large oak tree. Mr. Whitaker said this is a typographical
error. This application should be consistent with all the other applications, and unless there is something
he does not know, the tower height will be six feet.
Mr. Marshall inquired about the two foot lightning rod. Ms. Thomas replied that the lightning rod is
described as being two feet above the tower. Mr. Whitaker clarified that the lightning rod is 5/8 of an inch
in size.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she met with some of the neighbors on the site and talked about
where the pole actually would be located in the ten foot area. They do not want the trees destroyed, and
they can be used for screening. Ms. Thomas then moved approval of SP-99-15, with the following
changes: condition #1 should indicate that the height of the tower shall not exceed six feet above the
height of the large oak tree, etc.; wording should be added to condition ~4(a) about the color of the panels
matching the color of the pole; wording should be included in condition #5(a) to indicate that the permittee
is to allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize antennas onthe tower; a
condition #16 should be added indicating that the permittee shall landscape base equipment to shield it
from the residence and neighbors; as well as a condition #17 to state that to further reduce the visibility of
the pole, the existing dawn to dusk light beside the pole location will be removed and replaced with a full
cut-off luminaire or a minimum light needed to provide stored yard security. She explained that everything
is being done to try to make the pole so it is not visible, but at this site, there is a dawn to dusk light that is
very bright beside the pole. The pole will look as if it has a spotlight on it. She thinks its purpose is for
storage yard security, and the applicant has volunteered that he is willing to assume the cost of replacing
the dawn to dusk light as well as install a full cut-off luminare or a light that would be necessary for
security.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that she and the neighbors were told that this tower would complete
CFW's network in that vicinity, and she asked if Mr. Whitaker would make such a statement to the Board.
Mr. Whitaker indicated he did not want to make such a statement to the Board at this time.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
The height of the tower shall not exceed six (6) feet above the height of the large oak tree located
west of the proposed lease site. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of
this tree. A lightning rod approximately one (1) inch in thickness may extend two (2) feet above
the height of the tower;
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower Shall be wood;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting; and
d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color;
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled
"Survey of a Lease Parcel & Ingress Egress Easement for CFW Wireless on the
Land of J & F Ekman, Inc." dated May 14, 1999 and initialed "SET, 5/17/99;" and
The lease area shall not be fenced;
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
o
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
0002,4'7
Antenna shall be limited to two (2) panel antenna not to exceed six (6) feet in
height, mounted flush against the wooden pole and not to extend above the top of
the pole; and such antenna shall match the color of the pole; and
Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited;
15.
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless
telecommunications providers, as follows:
ao
The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize
the antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions;
(1)
(2)
Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan
requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a
good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such
other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site; and
The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that
it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a
good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has
offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for
reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider
within Albemarle County;
[The use of this facility by additional telecommunications providers will require amendment
of this special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of
additional uses for this facility or this property.]
Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding feature. For purposes of
this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with
the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the
lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance;
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation
of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of
Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees
may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly
authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access;
The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
area shall not be required;
Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading
necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the
tower require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or
reduced after installation is completed;
The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as
necessary for repair and restoration of' service;
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued;
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that
is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed;
The permittee shall landscape the base equipment to shield it from the residents and the
neighbors; and
To further reduce the visibility of the pole, the existing dawn-to-dust light beside the pole location
shall be removed and replaced with full cut off luminaire or the minimum light needed to provide
store yard security.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-99-07. Riverbend Limited Partnership (Signs #73,89&90) PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow expansion of existing SP in accordance w/§5.1.11 of the Zoning Ord
which allows for commercial kennel, veterinary, animal hospital. Applicant proposes to expand existing
business in Pantops Shopping Ctr (PSC) into adjacent space. Loc on 12.072 acs on Richmond Rd (Rt
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
250), in the PSC. TM78,P17D. Znd PD-SC. Rivanna Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24
and May 31, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that SP-99-07 would allow for the expansion of an existing veterinary
center located in the Pantops Shopping Center to an adjacent space. This will add 1,600 square feet of
space bringing the total square footage of the veterinary center to 3,200 square feet. There is no
substantial detriment to adjacent property expected, and this use has been located in the shopping center
since 1993. As part of this expansion, a concrete block wall will be in place between the veterinary center
and the next business which should help with any additional noise. He added that no change in the
character of the district is seen, and the Planning Commission, as well as staff, have recommended
approval with five conditions.
There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg by Board members. Mr. Martin inquired if the applicant
would like to speak to this application.
Mr. Steve Hopkins, representing Great Eastern Management at the Pantops Shopping Center,
stated that several years ago he was told the Pantops area was going to be one of the fastest growing
areas in Albemarle County. These growth predictions will come true only with the businesses that are
within Pantops Shopping Center. Food Lion has expanded twice and increased its original size by 66
percent. The Hallmark store has relocated and increased its size by 73 percent. Pantops Hardware has
relocated and increased its size by 100 percent, and Floral Images has relocated and increased its size by
25 percent. He would like to make a similar request to accommodate growth for the Animal Medical
Center of Charlottesville, which is an existing tenant, and he requested approval from the Board of
Supervisors to expand the veterinary practice into the adjacent space. He added that by doing so, it is
believed this space will become better regarding noise level because of the block wall. He explained that
before there were two businesses divided by a four inch metal stud gypsum wall. The Animal Medical
Center's plans are to increase the reception area to include a large receptionist counter, waiting areas, a
new lounge for the staff, a doctor's office, a large isolation room and a large boarding area for those
animals that need hospitalization. This added space will definitely meet the Center's business needs for
its customers and staff. The Animal Medical Center of Charlottesville has earned a good reputation in the
community, and it is a great service for the eastern side of the County. He then solicited the Board of
Supervisors' support for its expansion needs.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing, since there were no questions for Mr. Hopkins.
No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP~99-07, subject to five
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Marshall said he cannot express to this Board the significance of having to expand a business
to meet the needs of its customers in order to survive in today's market.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
2.
3.
4.
5.
There shall be no outside exercise area;
Use shall be limited to 384 and 388 Pantops Shopping Center;
No animals are to be confined outside;
No overnight boarding except for medical treatment; and
Noise generated from the veterinary office shall not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels in the adjoining
commercial space.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-99-17. Free Bridge Office BId.q CSi_~ns #36,37,42&43) PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to improve existing access to serve proposed office bldg, in accord w/§30.3.05.2.2
of Zoning Ord, which allows for landfill w/in the floodway fringe. Loc on NE corner of Rt 250 (Richmond
Rd) & Rt 1421 (Free Bridge Ln). Znd C1. TM78,Ps2A,2B&2C. Rivanna Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 24 and May 31, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg discussed SP-99-17 which is a request in assOciation with a preliminary site plan
application to improve an existing assess to a proposed office building on property located at the northeast
corner of Route 250 East and Route 1421 (Free Bridge Lane). The existing access lies within the flood
plain of the Rivanna River so the disturbance related to improving the access requires a special use
permit. This access change will improve circulation on site, and grading activity required to improve the
existing entrance will be limited to this purpose only. He emphasized that no adverse impacts to the flood
plain are anticipated, and the staff and Planning Commission have recommended approval of this request.
He next showed the Board members a plan showing the office building and the area of disturbance, as
well as the flood plain.
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
OOO249
Ms. Thomas asked about the location of the existing building that will remain. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that this building is on the corner close to Route 250, and he pointed out an existing two story
building which will be moved on the property to this location.
Mr. Martin asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Frank Ballard stated that he is representing the applicant. He said Katurah Roell usually does
this job, but he was unable to be here tonight. The existing entrance is on the edge of the flood plain, and
staff members have stated that they don't expect any adverse effects by improving the existing access.
The site plan preserves the existing brick building which is located on Route 250, and the other building
will be moved and combined with the brick building. He stated that Mr. Roell has met with the
Architectural Review Board members, and they were excited abOut the concept. He would be glad to
answer questions.
Ms. Thomas wondered if it was possible to move such an old building. Mr. Ballard responded
affirmatively. The old brick building is on land that used to belong to George Cason. The two buildings
will be connected, and nice landscaping and walkways will be provided.
At this time, Mr. Martin inquired if anyone from the public would like to speak to this issue. No one
came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-99-07.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: 360 Communications Appeal.
Mr. Davis said that on September 16, 1998 the Board of Supervisors denied an application by the
360 Communications Company for SP-98-03 to erect a 100 foot tower on the ridge line of Dudley
Mountain. The 360 Communications Company then filed an action in the United States District Court
alleging that the denial of the special use permit by the Board violated the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for two reasons. First, the 360 Communications Company indicated that it was not supported by
substantial evidence; and secondly, it had the effect of prohibiting personal wireless service in the County
at that location. On May 19, 1999, the Federal District Court found that the Board of Supervisors had
substantial evidence to deny the application. However, it felt that the application of the guidelines in the
Comprehensive Plan relating to the Mountain Section had the effect of prohibiting personal wireless
service in the Dudley Mountain area. The Court, as a remedy, directed that the Board of Supervisors
approve a special use permit authorizing the tower within 45 days. Mr. Davis said the staff has analyzed
this decision and with all respect to the Federal District Court, it is felt that the Court erred in this decision
in finding that the denial had the effect of prohibiting service in Albemarle County. He then recommended
to the Board members that an appeal be lodged challenging the decision of the Federal District Court. He
explained that the appeal would lie in the United States Court of Appeals, and it must be filed within the
next couple of weeks. If the Board agrees with this recommendation, a motion is necessary directing staff
to file the appeal with the Court of Appeals.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis has particular wording to be included in the motion. Mr. Davis
said a simple motion is all that is needed directing that the decision of the Federal District Court regarding
SP-98-03 be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ms. Thomas offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, directing that the decision of the
Federal District Court regarding SP-98-03 be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 17, April 7, April 14 and April 21, 1999.
Mr. Marshall said he had read the minutes of March 17, 1999, and to the best of his knowledge,
they are correct.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes as
read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
June 9, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
0002 0
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Marshall stated that because of business reasons, he will not be able to attend the meeting on
Wednesday, June 16, 1999. He does not know of anything to be discussed from his distriCt. However, if
anything is mentioned, he asked that it be deferred, if possible.
At 7:55 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into executive session pursuant to Section
2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement and regarding probable litigation relating
to a zoning decision. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
At 8:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was immediately adjourned.
Chairman
Approved
Date ~-/'
Initials