1999-07-21July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000;334
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on July 21, 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; and Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry Davis; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, County Planner.
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. Paul Grady, a resident of Crozet, distributed a map of the Charlottesville area, on which he
had drawn a proposed boundary adjustment between the City and the County. He said City residents
favor reversion, but the County does not, which is why there is a revenue sharing plan. He said
consolidation is in the area's best interest and asked the Board to consider his proposal.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve items 5.1 through 5.6,
and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Ms. Thomas.
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Comprehensive Community Corrections Act Grant, $501,711 (Form
#99003).
The executive summary states that the County of Albemarle serves as fiscal agent for the
Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB). In that capacity, the County receives and
appropriates funds awarded to the CCJB by the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). The
County contracts with community agencies to provide the services stipulated in the grant.
For FY 99/00, DCJS awarded $501,711.00 to the CCJB to be allocated as follows:
Offender Aid and Restoration for pretrial and community corrections services at the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and community corrections services
at the Central Virginia Regional Jail
$380,759.00
Central Virginia Regional Jail for pretrial services
33,066.00
Region Ten Community Services Board for substance abuse treatment
85,886.00
Community Criminal Justice Board for office expenses
2,000.00
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $501,711.00, as detailed on
form #99003.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
000885
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99003
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS GRANT (00-06348).
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1520 29406 566120 OAR $ 380,759.00
1 1520 29406 566140 CENTRAL VA. JAIL . 33,066.00
1 1520 29406 566150 REGION TEN 85,886.00
1 1520 29406 562500 TT PLANNING DISTRICT 2,000.00
TOTAL $ 501,711.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1520 24000 240440 COMP. COMM. CORRECTIONS GRANT $ 501,711.00
$ 501,711.00
TOTAL
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Criminal History Records Improvement Grant 98B9065CR96,
$176,850 (Form #99004).
The executive summary states that The Criminal History Records Improvement Grant was
originally approved November 1, 1995. It has been extended to September 30, 1999.
This grant is being used to establish an Automated Intake Center at the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail. It will include the installation of a local area network, the installation of a records
management system, and the installation of a document imaging system within the jail. This project is part
of the larger regional criminal justice system. The $235,800.00 records system will be funded by a
$176,850.00 federal pass-thru grant and a $58,950.00 local jail match. The local jail match was approved
by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority on December 11, 1997.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $176,850.00, as detailed on form
#99004.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99~00
NUMBER: 99004
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES GRANT (98-B9065).
CODE
1 1520 93010 930200
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TRANSFER TO REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY $ 176,850.00
TOTAL $ 176,850.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1520 33000 330402 FEDERAL GRANT $ 176,850.00
TOTAL $ 176,850.00
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant, $51,944 (Form #99005).
The executive summary states that this is the second renewal of the Victim Witness Grant. The
grant funds personnel to provide quality service to victims, particularly in the area of property crime. It
also assists with implementation of the Crime Victim Rights Act. The state grant totals $51,944.00. There
is no local match.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $51,944.00, as detailed on form
#99005.
July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99005
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VICTIM WITNESS GRANT FOR FY 99/00.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1225 31012 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $ 38,084.00
1 1225 31012 210000 FICA 2,913.00
1 1225 31012 221000 VRS 1,476.00
1 1225 31012 231000 HEALTH INS 2,716.00
1 1225 31012 232000 DENTAL INS 82.00
1 1225 31012 550000 TRAVEL 1,533.00
1 1225 31012 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 900.00
1 1225 31012 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 440.00
1 1225 31012 580100 DUES & MEMBERSHIPS 200.00
1 1225 31012 601400 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES 3,600.00
TOTAL $ 51,944.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1225 24000 240500 STATE GRANT REVENUE $ 51,944.00
TOTAL $ 51,944.00
Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Crime Prevention Coordinator Grant 00-C9783, $36,516 (Form
#99006).
The executive summary states that the Police Department has received a renewed grant from the
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to fund a full-time Crime Prevention Coordinator. This is
the third year of the grant. A civilian employee will fill this position. The employee will coordinate and
manage crime prevention initiatives within the department, as well as coordinate activities with the
community and neighborhood team. A $27,387.00 Department of Criminal Justice Service's grant and
$9,129.00 local match will fund the Crime Prevention Coordinator position. The local match is funded from
current operations.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $36,516.00, as detailed on form
#99006.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99006
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CRIME PREVENTION GRANT (00-C9783)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
1 1525 31011 110000 WAGES
1 1525 31011 210000 FICA
1 1525 31011 221000 VRS
1 1525 31011 231000 HEALTH INS
1 1525 31011 232000 DENTAL INS
1 1525 31011 550600 TRAVEL
1 1525 31011 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES
AMOUNT
$ 26,533.00
2,030.00
2,977.00
2,716.00
82.00
1,323.O0
855.00
TOTAL
$ 36,516.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
2 1525 33000 330001
2 1525 51000 512004
FEDERAL GRANT REVENUE
GENERALFUND TRANSFER
$ 27,387.00
9,129.00
00033?
TOTAL $ 36,516.00
Item No. 5.5. Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant, $7,330 (Form #99007).
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency
Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to assist with recruitment efforts. The mini-
grant is funded by a $7,330.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is no local match.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $7,330.00, aS detailed on form
#99007,
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99007
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EMERGENCY SERVICES RECRUITMENT GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1555 32011 300000 PURCHASED SERVICES $ 7,330.00
TOTAL $ 7,330.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1555 24000 240425 EMS GRANT $ 7,330.00
TOTAL $ 7,330.00
Item No. 5.6. Resolution Supporting Funding Acquisition of Conservation Land and Easements in
Virginia.
The executive summary states that last year during the 1999 legislative session, there was
growing support among several counties to request state funding for those localities that have an active
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. In pursuit of similar funding from the 2000 General
Assembly, a resolution has been proposed by the County's PDR Committee.
The resolution requests the Board's support for state funding for an Acquisition of Conservation
Land and Easements program in Virginia. It acknowledges that much of the County's farmland has been
lost, that forest land is too densely populated to be viable for long-term timber production, and that in
response to these conditions, the County has developed a PDR program and earmarked $1.0 million in
FY2000. It further states that the Board fully supports dedicated state funding for the Virginia
Conservation Foundation as a source of matching funds for localities for these programs.
If adopted by the Board, the resolution will be sent to the Governor with a request to include PDR
funding in his proposed budget.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution Supporting
Funding Acquisition of Conservation Land and Easements in Virginia:
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION
OF CONSERVATION LAND AND EASEMENTS IN VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Albemarle County desires to protect its farm and forest resource base, its open-space, its natural
resources including its drinking water supply watershed and natural habitat, and its rural historic
settings; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has lost 25,000 acres of farmland from 1974 to 1992 and 12,898 acres in the
decade from 1982 to 1992; and
WHEREAS, 31.7 percent of Albemarle's 283,652 acres of forest land is classified by the Department of
Forestry as too densely populated to be viable for long-term timber production; and
3uly 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has developed a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program to protect
open-space, and has earmarked $1.0 million for the program in FY 2000; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, recognizing that such a PDR program is a long term commitment requiring
a secure and reliable source of funding, desires a partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia
through a state matching fund for the purchase of easements and other conservation needs; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly created in its 1998-99 session the Virginia Land Conservation
Foundation, an act supported by resolution of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, that Foundation is empowered to provide matching funds to localities for purchase of
conservation easements and other conservation needs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors strongly supports
full and dedicated funding for the Virginia Conservation Foundation as a source of matching funds for
localities, and calls upon the Governor and the General Assembly to appropriate such funding
beginning in the year 2000.
Item No. 5.7. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for June 15, June 29 and July 6, 1999,
were received for information.
Item No. 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board
meeting of May 13, 1999, was received for information.
Item No. 5.9. County of Albemarle 1998 Development Activity Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information.
Item No. 5.10. May 1999 Financial Report, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-99-13. Guaranty Bank at Forest Lakes (Signs #79&80). Public hearing
on a request to allow drive-in windows for new bank in accord w/Sec 24.2.2 of the Zoning Ord which
allows for drive-in windows assoc w/permitted use. TM46B4, PID contains approx 1 ac. Located on
Fortune Park Lane approx 1/5 mi from the intersect of Worth Crossing & Seminole Trail (Rt 29). Znd HC.
(The Comp Plan designates this property as community (commercial) service in the Hollymead
Development Area.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5 and 12, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the proposed special use permit with two conditions. At
its meeting on July 6, 1999, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
request with two conditions.
The applicant's architect, Mr. Henry Brown, said he had no comments to make, but asked that the
application be approved.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-99-13 with the two
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas.
Conditions are as follow:
Drive-in windows will be limited to four (4) [three (3) traditional teller operated windows
and one (1) ATM station]; and
ARB approval of the preliminary site plan including the location of drive-in windows.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-27. Rug Depot (Sign #45). Public hearing on a request to allow
outdoor display of merchandise in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ord which allows for outdoor
display in the EC. TM45bl, Sec5, Block A, P14, contains less than 1 ac. Located on E sd of Seminole
July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Trail (Rt 29N) just S of Hilton Heights Rd.
Community Service in Neighborhood 2.)
12, 1999.)
Znd HC & EC. (The Comp Plan designates this property for
Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5 and
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the proposed special use permit with five conditions. At
its meeting on June 15, 1999, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
request with five conditions.
Ms. Humphris asked if the applicant has continued to violate the Zoning Ordinance after being
notified by Zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know.
Mr. Mahmood Pashazadeh, the applicant, complained about having to go to several meetings in
order to receive approval to display his rugs. He said his is a small business that is struggling to survive,
while large businesses prosper. He said he is using only the equivalent of one car parking space for his
displays, as well as one-fourth of the building that used to be occupied by Sofas Plus. He added that he
has seen other rug merchants displaying their rugs.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said he has never seen rugs on display before, and questioned whether such
display is necessary. However, he said this seems like an appropriate use of the property.
Ms. Humphris asked if the conditions should be revised to state that rugs cannot be displayed on
walls. Mr. Cilimberg said that condition #3 addressed how the rugs can be displayed, and Mr. Davis
agreed that the conditions were sufficient as submitted by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-99-27 with
the five conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Ms. Thomas.
Conditions are as follow:
Display shall only occur during daylight business hours. Rugs shall be removed from view
of Rt. 29 traffic after business hours;
Display shall be limited to two (2) frames;
Display frames shall be no larger than the current size - 6' x 8';
Display shall not occur within the Rt. 29 right-of-way, and shall not restrict sight distance
at site entrances along Rt. 29. The frames shall be located no closer than sixty (60) feet
to the Rt. 29 right-of-way; and
The display shall not be illuminated.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-28. Boat Dock (Signs #46&56). Public hearing on a request to allow
boat dock on the Rivanna Reservoir for residential use in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.29 of the Zoning Ord which
allows for boat landings & canoe liveries in the RA. TM45, P40E, contains 4.93 acs. Located on Balbion
Dr, which is a private road, approx 0.25 mis from the intersect of Balbion Rd & St Rt 743. Znd RA. (This
property is not located in a designated growth area.) Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
July 5 and 12, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the proposed special use permit with three conditions.
At its meeting on June 15, 1999, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
request with three conditions.
Ms. Humphris asked if there were requirements as to what materials can be used to build such a
dock. Mr. Steve Bowler, Watershed Management Official, said all dock permit applications are received
by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA).
Mr. James D. Ogg, the applicant, said he had no comments to make, but asked the Board to
approve the application.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bobby McCauley, Mr. Ogg's, neighbor, asked the Board to approve the request.
July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins asked if landowners would have any recourse if the water level of the reservoir was
ever raised. Mr. Tucker said there is a bladder plan in place for the South Fork Reservoir. Mr. Davis said
if the water level encroached upon City property, ~n~ight be liable for any !~'~.'_x~?r.~_
~ Mr. Tucker said such a situation would be unlikely, but if it happened, the RWSA would then
have to acquire land around the entire Reservoir. Mr. Bowler added that Mr. Art Petrini had given his
approval to the request.
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-99-28 with the
three conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Ms. Thomas.
Conditions are as follow:
The dock shall be substantially in accord with the letter from James Ogg and the plan
entitled, "Hickory Hill Boat'Dock" dated 5/15/99;
The mulched area surrounding the platform to which the dock is attached shall be no
wider than four (4) feet on any side of the platform to act as an access path; and
There shall be no lighting within twenty-five (25) horizontal feet of the Reservoir.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-99-30. Adwell Infosystems (Sign #75). Public hearing on a request to
amend conditions of SP-99-30 to allow for add'l office uses. Located on S sd of Rio Rd E, at the entrance
of Squire Hill Apartments. TM61, P129A, consists of .7 acs & is Znd R-15. (This property is
recommended for Urban Density in Urban Neighborhood 2 of the Comp Plan.) Rio Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on July 5 and 12, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the proposed special use permit with four conditions. At
its meeting on June 29, 1999, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
request with four conditions.
Mr. Winfried Adler, the applicant, said he has been at this location for seven years. Neighbors are
supportive of what has occurred in the past and approve of the proposed changes. He said he needs to
reorganize the business due to computerization. He had considered moving part of the business to
another location, but wants to maintain a presence in the current location while renting out the rest of the
building. With the present zoning, he can only rent to his competition. Therefore he asked that the zoning
be expanded to permit general office use so that he can rent to a different type of tenant. He added that
he may need to expand the square footage eventually. He does not plan to increase the building size for
at least two to three years. He said that this is a textbook infill situation, and the appearance of the
building will not be changed.
Mr. Marshall noted that Mr. Adler had just asked for something other than what was requested in
his application and approved by the Planning Commission. He asked why Mr. Adler was limiting the total
square footage to 4,000 square feet. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission limited the building size
because it was concerned about the ability to enforce guidelines within a larger space. If the applicant
was going to expand beyond 4,000 square feet, the Planning Commission said rezoning would be a better
approach, and establishing this as a commercial office instead of applying for a special use permit in an R-
15 zone. If this is going to become an infill office site, it should be rezoned.
Mr. Bowerman said there is no other commercial use on this side of Rio Road, except for AIItel.
When this site was proposed for this use several years ago, he supported it because the building was
rundown. He does not want to see commercial use expanded on that side of Rio Road, so there is no
need to change the Comprehensive Plan. He said the current use is appropriate and he concurs with the
Planning Commission. If the applicant wants to rezone, many more facets would have to be considered.
Mr. Marshall said locally-owned and -operated business should not be forced out of their
locations. If the applicant has an existing building and needs to expand in order to survive, he should not
be forced out. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board considered the business in isolation from its surroundings,
that would result in spot-zoning. This section of Rio Road is all residential, and the area to the south is
planned residential. The applicant took a residential site and turned it into a residential use. That made
sense at that time, and at the proposed size.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could approve up to 5,000 square feet, but any one use could use a
maximum of 4,000 square feet. The Building Codes and Zoning Services Department has said that would
July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
00034i
be hard to enforce; therefore, staff suggested limiting it to 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Adler is already moving a portion of his business to another building. He
wants space at both places until he eventually expands. He can apply for a rezoning at that time.
Mr. Adler said he had hoped to eliminate future steps and paperwork if possible, but he can live with 4,000
to 5,000 square feet at this time.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman then offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-99-30 with the
four conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Ms. Thomas.
Conditions are as follow:
This permit is issued for computer systems consulting, sales and service use and
professional office use only;
Total building square footage shall be limited to four thousand (4,000) square feet gross
floor area;
Any additions to the existing building shall be a similar residential design; and
Any additions to the building or site will require Planning Department approval of a site
plan amendment. The adequacy of the entrance location will be reviewed at such time.
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 10(A), 1997; July 1, 1998 and April 21, 1999.
No minutes were read.
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board had recently received two letters from the City of Charlottesville,
one from Mayor Virginia Daugherty, having to do with the Meadow Creek Parkway, and one from
Mr. Gary O'Connell, Charlottesville City Manager, dealing with the termination of the fire service contract
in 2000. He said he wanted to discuss both matters.
Mr. Martin and other Board members said they had not had time to read the letters and wished to
defer discussion. Mr. Tucker added that Mr. O'Connell had told him the Meadow Creek matter was not
time-sensitive and did not require the Board to take action at this meeting. Mr. Martin said the notice of
termination of the fire service contract had already been discussed, but that Mr. Bowerman could make
any comments he wished, since he would be out of town during the month of August when the matter
would be discussed further.
The following letter, dated July 20, 1999, was received from Mr. O'Connell:
"Pursuant to Paragraph (6) of the City/County Fire Service Contract (the "Fire Service
Contract") dated May 16, 1986, the City hereby notifies the County of Albemarle that the
City will terminate the existing Fire Service Contract at the end of this fiscal year, June 30,
2000. Fire protection services delivered by the City to the County under that contract will
cease at that time.
We appreciate working with the County over the years, but, as you know, based on our
past correspondence and efforts at working out a new, longer term arrangement, we now
know that a new agreement will not be forthcoming by
July 30th, which is the end of the term for notification. This Notice still leaves the localities
with almost 12 months to reach a new agreement before the existing contract ends. We
are encouraged by the County's latest proposal for a firefighter committee utilizing a
mediator, and we think that can be productive. Since the current year-to-year contract
leaves both parties without the ability to do any effective long range planning, City Council
remains open to these future discussions. This notice is intended to keep open all options
for the City Council, but a mutually agreeable long-term contract is our continuing desire.
Under certain terms and conditions, Council may consider rescinding this Notice prior to
July 30, 1999."
Mr. Bowerman asked that the Board respond to Mr. O'Connell's letter pertaining to the fire service
July 21, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000342
contract. He has been working with the County's fire chiefs and captains, who told him they would like
the opportunity to reach an agreement with the City. They felt that, with the deadline from the City, there
was limited time in which they could make the necessary progress. He said the City liked the idea of
using a mediator and was keeping all options open. Mr. Martin said Mayor Daugherty said the contract's
terms and conditions require the existing contract be amended so that there would be a required six
months' notice instead of one year's. Mr. Bowerman said he discussed the letter with
Mr. David Toscano and Ms. Meredith Richards, both members of City Council, who said it would become
obvious whether or not a resolution can be reached quickly. If the notice date was changed, the
termination date would remain the same. Mr. Bowerman said if the City will delay their decision until a
later date, it would give City and County fire professionals an opportunity to develop an acceptable
contract. Mr. Bowerman then suggested the Board ask the City to extend its notification date from July
31, 1999 to December 31, 1999.
Mr. Martin said this was essentially "hocus pocus", because nothing is really being changed. He
said the County, if progress has not been made by the end of the six months, must be prepared to
provide fire service to the entire County within the next six months. Mr. Bowerman said staff has already
been directed to work with the County's volunteer chiefs to develop a contingency plan. He believes the
City thinks the Board has been dragging its feet.
Mr. Tucker questioned why the City did not simply ask the County for its support instead of saying
it was prepared to cancel the contract. Mr. Bowerman said the City was asking the County to make a
commitment. He said this is an opportunity to advise citizens the County is willing to work toward an
agreement, while at the same time developing a contingency plan.
Ms. Humphris asked what the City meant by "certain terms and conditions". Mr. Bowerman said
that, in his opinion, the City meant that progress or negotiations must continue in order to show good faith.
Mr. Martin said he had read a letter Mr. Bowerman had asked Mr. Davis to draft on the Board's
behalf. He suggested that it be revised to mention that firefighters would be working under a mediator's
guidance, if the negotiators felt it is necessary.
At this time, Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to send a letter of
response to the City proposing the City rescind its Notice of Termination and amend the Fire Service
Contract to allow it to be terminated on June 30, 2000, if notice of termination is given by
December 31, 1999. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Ms. Thomas.
Virginia
The following letter, dated July 19, 1999, was received from Charlottesville Mayor
Daugherty:
"Please find attached a copy of our comments provided to the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) on the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. We attach this letter so
that the Board may have a detailed explanation of our concerns and comments, as this
road is a part of the regional transportation network affecting both City and County.
As you know, there has been considerable discussion of this road and its impact on the
City. Some of this discussion has focused on how the City and the County can better
cooperate on design of the road, and how better to design a regional transportation
network for the next twenty years. With this in mind, we are interested in expioring, with
the County, the following issues:
First, the Council is interested in revisiting the previous CATS and the regional network of
roads. There has been considerable discussion about a "eastern connector", a "near
eastern connector", and other additional roads, both north and south of the City, that
would complete the regional network. The Council is not committed to any particular
road, but is very interested in discussing the regional network and particularly interested
in facilitating better means for traffic to move from areas north of the City to Pantops and
the eastern part of the County.
Second, we wish to explore a further acquiring additional parkland over and above the
acreage necessary to replace land taken for the road. This parkland could be acquired
between the 250 By-Pass and Rio Road, and perhaps all the way to the Rivanna River.
We think that considerable discussion should occur on this idea, and are willing to commit
capital funds to the acquisition of land with the County to make this concept a reality.
Perhaps the City and County should consider jointly applying for federal grants to
supplement and enhance our local funding of any possible initiative. We are open to a
wide variety of approaches, including the notion of a park land commission and/or a
model similar to the Towe Park City/County arrangement.
July 21,
(Page 1
1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
0)
00034,3.
Third, in its letter to VDOT, the City states that it may hire a technical consultant to
monitor design and construction of the City portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway. We
think that it might be useful for the City and the County to cooperate in the hiring of a
consultant and setting forth a charge that includes design consultation for the County
portion of the road. In that way, we would get some consistency of design and be better
able to integrate the County and the City portion of the road. We do not wish to slow
construction of the road but instead improve its design.
Fourth, the City has requested that VDOT give up any right that it may have to facilitate
the construction of cellular towers in and along the right-of-way for the Parkway. Given
Albemarle's previous position on these matters, we thought it might be appropriate for us
to join together in setting forth our concern about cell towers in the right-of-way, and to
jointly seek agreement with BDOT on this issue.
Fifth, we are concerned about how the County portion of the road integrates with the City
portion, particularly at Melbourne Road. It is in the interest of both the City and the
County to have safe pedestrian access across the road at that point. Consequently, we
would ask that you join with us to approach VDOT about that critical intersection.
We appreciate your interest in working with us on the above matters and eagerly await
your responses with your suggestions as to how to move forward."
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Bowerman make any statements he would like concerning the
Meadow Creek Parkway, since he will be out of town the entire of month of August. Mr. Bowerman said
the Board had received a copy of the City's letter to VDOT regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway, and
that he agreed with its content. He suggested the Board send a letter to the City lending its support, but it
was the consensus of the rest of the Board to defer discussion until August 4, 1999.
Mr. Marshall said he is delighted the Meadow Creek Parkway will be built. However, he said it is
unfortunate there is no one on City Council who has any sense. He felt the road should be four lanes now
since it will have to be expanded eventually anyway.
Ms. Humphris said the Secretary of Transportation responded to the Board's concerns about
towers on 1-64 being used for commercial purposes. She said a citizen received a Getter that included a
response from the Secretary that said the County would have the opportunity to review and comment on
its proposal, but she said that statement has not been made to anyone else. Mr. Tucker said the County
had the opportunity to comment several months ago, although they were given only a two-week period in
which to do it. Planning Staff sent a response. Ms. Humphris said undoubtedly any response from the
Board would be ignored by VDOT.
Mr. Perkins said a large group of landowners met last night to discuss the Purchase of
Development Rights program. Positive comments were received.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Grady's proposal mentioned under "Other Matters from the Public" should
be pursued. Mr. Martin said if the City wants to revert to town status, they can do it, but they will have to
give up their revenue sharing agreement with the County.
Mr. Perkins said the recent highway improvements to Rio Road are very good.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Approved by Board
Date ¢./.,~ ,~
Initials ~