1999-10-06October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 6, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 10:30 a.m.), Mr. Walter F.
Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the
Vice-Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Humphris offered motion, which
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.10 (with the
exceptions), and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as
information (Note: Conversation concerning each item will be a part of the
individual agenda item). Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote (Ms. Thomas abstained from voting on Item 5.7):
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas (see note above), Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris
and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Item 5.1. Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural and
Forestal Districts, of The Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, §3-209,
Addition to Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District; §3-211, Review of
Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District; §3-221, Addition to Lanark
Agricultural/Forestal District; §3-226, Review of Sugar Hollow Agricultural/
Forestal District; Creation of the Nortonsville Local Agricultural/Forestal
District; and Creation of the South Garden Agricultural/Forestal District
(deferred from September 15, 1999.)
By the above recorded vote the Board adopted the following Ordinance to
Amend and Reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of The Code
of The County of Albemarle, Virginia, §3-209, addition to Buck Mountain
Agricultural/Forestal District; §3-211, review of Chalk Mountain Agricultural/
Forestal District; §3-221, addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District;
§3-226, review of Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District; creation of the
Nortonsville Local Agricultural/Forestal District; and creation of the South
Garden Agricultural/Forestal District:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-3(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE Ii, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICTS OF LOCAL
SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide
Significance, and Article III, Districts of Local Significance, of
Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained by
amending Section 3-209, Buck Mountain Agricultural and Forestal
District, Section 3-211, Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal
District, Section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District,
an~ Section 3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District,
and by adding Section 3-225.5, South Garden Agricultural and
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Forestal District, and Section 3-307, Nortonsville Local
Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWiDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-209. Buck Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Buck Mountain Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following deScribed properties:
Tax map 8, parcels 16A, 16C, 17E, 17F; tax map 17, parcels 26B, 26C,
31, 32. This district, created on January 4, 1989, for not more
than ten (10) years and last reviewed on January 13, 1999, shall
next be reviewed prior to January 4, 2009.
(4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(o); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(1),
1-13-99; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99)
Sec. 3-211. Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Chalk Mountain Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 97, parcels 21, 2lA, 2lB, 22; tax map 98, parcels 12, 13,
14; tax map 99, parcel 30. This district, created on September 6,
1989, for not more than ten (10) years and last reviewed on October
6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(r); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99)
Sec. 3-221. Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map
90, parcels 12, 14A; tax map 90B, parcel A-II; tax map 91, parcels
21, 2lA, 2lB, 31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels
33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels 1, lA, lB, lC, iD,
1E, IF, 1G, iH, 1J, 1K, IL, 1M, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D,
43, 43L, 43L1. This district, created on April 20, 1988, for not
more than ten (10) years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998,
shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98;
Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99)
Sec. 3-225.5. South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "South Garden Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 109,
parcel 70; tax map 110, parcels 8, 18, 18E, 27. This district, created
on October 6, 1999, for not more than seven (7) years, shall next be
reviewed prior to October 6, 2006.
(Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99)
Sec. 3-226. Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 25,
parcels llC, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 21, 2lA, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28;
tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 19, 40B, 40C, 4lA, 52,
52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3,
4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcel 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 22,
22A, 27A, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989, for not more
than ten (10) years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be
reviewed prior to September 6, 2009.
(11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5),
10-6-99)
ARTICLE III. DISTRICTS OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-307. Nortonsville Local Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Nortonsville Local Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
map 8, parcel 26. This district, created on October 6, 1999, for a
period of eight (8) years, shall next be reviewed prior to October 6,
2007.
(Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99)
Item 5.2.
#98084, #99026,
#99035).
Reappropriations: Various Funds, $11,773,078.90 (Forms #98083,
#99027, ~99028, #99029, ~99030, #99031, ~99032, #99033, ~99034,
The executive summary states that a preliminary review of the County's maj
funds shows the following results from FY 98-99 operations. Also included are
actions which have been taken since July 1, 1999, and current requests being
at this time.
General Fund
Projected Fund Balance Based on FY 98-99 Budget $13,349,535
Plus Actual Revenues to Budget Variance $2,636,984
Plus Actual Expenditures to Budget Variance (net of overexpenditures)$1,038,192
Preliminary Fund Balance at 6-30-99 $17,024,711
Less Actions Approved for FY 99-00
Budgeted Fund Balance
Remaining Fund Balance
($552,038/
$16,472,673
Less Current Requests
Reappropriations (#99026, #99027 & #99028)
Request for Carry-Over Funds (#99029)
Remaining Fund Balance
($504,432)
($465,833)
$15,502,408
Less Purchase of Development Rights
($500,000)
Remaining Available Fund Balance
$15,002,408
School Fund
Projected Fund Balance Based on FY 98-99 Budget
Less Actual Revenues to Budget Variance
Plus Actual Expenditures to Budget Variance
Preliminary Fund Balance at 6-30-99
$652,404
($26,755)
$982,662
$1,608,311
Less Actions Approved for FY 99-00
Budgeted Fund Balance
Remaining Fund Balance
($790,000)
$818,311
Less Current Requests
Reappropriation of funds for Gen Gov't QUIP Program (#99034
($9,286/
Remaining Available Fund Balance
$809,025
Capital Improvements - General Government
Projected Fund Balance Based on FY 98-99 Budget
Less Actual Revenues to Budget Variance
Plus Actual Expenditures to Budget Variance
Preliminary Fund Balance at 6-30-99
$100,113
($3,067,973)
$6,247,710
$3,279,850
Less Actions Approved for FY 99-00
Budgeted Fund Balance
Remaining Fund Balance
($20,000)
$3,259,850
Less Current Requests
Reappropriations (#99030)
Plus Offsetting Revenues
Net Current Requests
($6,247,821)
$3,143,164
($3,104,657)
Remaining Available Fund Balance
$155,193
Capital Improvements - School Division
Projected Fund Balance Based on FY 98-99 Budget
Plus Actual Revenues to Budget Variance
Plus Actual Expenditures to Budget Variance
Preliminary Fund Balance at 6-30-99
$725,318
$456,701
$2,180,568
$3,362,587
Less Actions Approved for FY 99-00
Budgeted Fund Balance
Remaining Fund Balance
($600,000)
$2,762,587
Less Current Requests
Reappropriations (# 99031)
Remaining Available Fund Balance
($2,264,815)
$497,772
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Capital Improvements - Stormwater
Projected Fund Balance Based on FY 98-99 Budget
Plus Actual Revenues to Budget Variance
Plus Actual Expenditures to Budget Variance
Preliminary Fund Balance at 6-30-99
$3,142
$49,916
$710,649
$763,707
Less Current Requests
Reappropriations (# 99032)
Plus Offsetting Revenues
Net Current Requests
($760,649)
$50,000
($710,649)
Remaining Fund Balance
$53,058
Tourism Fund
Projected Fund Balance Based on FY 98-99 Budget
Plus Actual Revenues to Budget Variance
Plus Actual Expenditures to Budget Variance
Preliminary Fund Balance at 6-30-99
$427
$236,566
$613,485
$850,478
Less Current Requests
Reappropriations (# 99033)
Plus Offsetting Revenues
Net Current Requests
($613,485)
$10,000
($603,485)
Remaining Available Fund Balance
$246,993
$40,000
Emergency Communications Center Fund
Reappropriation for Office Furniture at New Center (#99035)
Overexpenditures
Expenditures for FY 98-99 were incurred for the following
in the amount of $526,759 (#98083):
Sheriff
Sheriff - Scottsville Recovered Personnel Cost (Offsetting Revenue)
Regional Jail Due to Increased Prisoner Count
Juvenile Detention Center Due to Increased Average Daily Population
Transfer to Tourism Adjustment to Reflect Actual Revenues Received
General Gov't CIP General District Court Maintenance/Repair
School CIP CATEC Roof Repair (Reimbursed by City)
Subtotal
Reimbursable Overtime Expense (Offsetting Revenue) $75,457
$2,88O
$87,760
$30,760
$245,550
$225
$84,127
$526,759
Additional expenditures for FY 98-99 were incurred for the following
in the amount of $340,000 (#98084):
C.S.A.
Required local match for foster care
placement and residential treatment
$340,000
GRAND TOTAL - OVEREXPENDITURES
$866~759
Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations detailed on
Appropriation Forms #98083, %98084, #99026, #99027, %99028, #99029, #99030,
#99031, #99032, #99033, #99034, and #99035, totaling $11,773,078.90.
(Ms. Thomas said she was only able to find $500,000 for the PDR Program,
and she wanted to be sure that figure was correct. Mr. Tucker said the
remainder of the funds are already appropriated. Ms. Thomas said there are
also funds shown for a consultant for long-range CIP planning, and for moving
the Fiscal Impact Planner to the Planning Office and for getting a groundwater
study started. She applauds at least two of those projects. She has no
opinion about the Fiscal Impact Planner being moved to another office. Mr.
Tucker said the move has more to do with the issue of space. Also, seeing the
work the Fiscal Impact Planner is doing and not being physically connected to
the planning activity, it was felt that this person would have more of an
affect if located in the Planning Office.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolutions
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99083
FUND: VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 98-99 OVEREXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 31020 129900 SHERIFF OVERTIME-REIMBURSABLE $ 75,457.00
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
1 1000 31021 120000 SCOTTSVILLE-SHERIF? OVERTIME WAGES
1 1000 33020 700002 REGIONAL JAIL
1 1000 39000 563400 JUVENILE DETENTION
1 1000 79000 930209 TPJkNSFER
1 9010 21020 331000 C.I P
1 9000 60202 800901 C.I P
1 9000 60215 800605 C.I P
1 9000 60251 800901 C.I P
1 9000 60410 800901 C.I P
1 9000 62420 800949 C.I P
JAIL
CENTER
TOURISM
GENERAL DISTRICT COURT
BROWNSVILLE SCH
AGNOR-HURT SCH
BURLEY SCH
CATEC SCH
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
TOTAL
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE
2 9010 51000 510100 C.I.P.-GENERAL FUND BALANCE
2 9000 19000 160502 C.I.P.-SCHOOL CITY OF CH'VILLE-CATEC
TOTAL
2,880 00
87,760 00
30,760 00
245,550 00
225 00
415 00
120 00
3,225 00
154,000 00
-73,633.00
$526,759 00
AMOUNT
$442,407.00
225.00
84,127.00
$526,759.00
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1990-00
NLIMBER: 99084
FUND: C.S.A./GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 98-99 OVEREXPENDITURE
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 1551 53120 581102 C.S.A.
1 1551 53120 581601 C.S.A.
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MAN RES THERAP FC OTHER $202,000.00
MAN NRES SPEC ED PRIV DAY 138,000.00
TOTAL $340,000.00
REVENUE CODE
2 1551 51000 512001
2 1551 51000 512016
2 1551 51000 510100
DESCRIPTION
TRANSFER FROM EDUCATION
TRANSFER FROM SOCIAL SERVICES
C.S.A. FI/ND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$161,735.00
170,000.00
8,265.00
$340,00.00
TR3kNSFERS
1 1000 53013 930206
1 1000 51000 510100
TRANSFER TO C.S.A.
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
$170,000.00
170,000.00
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99026
FUND: GENEP~AL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR OUTSTANDING PRIOR
YEAR PURCHASE ORDERS
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 1000 12142 800200
1 1000 32012 601500
1 1000 32013 600900
1 1000 32015 800300
1 1000 32015 800300
1 1000 41000 312700
1 1000 41000 312700
1 1000 41000 312700
1 1000 41000 312700
1 1000 43002 312372
1 1000 43002 331200
i 1000 43002 332200
1 1000 53011 332115
1 1000 53011 800710
1 1000 81010 301210
1 1000 81010 312342
1 1000 81010 312700
1 1000 81010 312700
REVENUE CODE
2 1000 51000 510100
DESCRIPTION
FINANCE
FIRE-RESCUE
FIRE-RESCUE
FIRE-RESCUE
FIRE-RESCUE
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
VEHICLE & EQUIP SUPPLIES
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
LANDSCAPING
R&M EQUIP-BUILDINGS
AMOUNT
$1,149.00
822.00
819.35
1, 98O. 00
2,758.00
677.50
995.50
43,035.00
3,054.50
10,125.00
539.50
PUBLIC WORKS
VPA
VPA
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
MAINT CONTRACT-BUILDING 10,815.00
MAINT CONTRACT-SOFTWARE 3,750.00
DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE 26,040.00
CONTRACT SERVICES 29,624.66
DEVELOPMENT AREAS STUDY 66,293.92
PROF SER CONSULTANTS 5,400.00
PROF SER CONSULTANTS 14,262.28
TOTAL $222,141.21
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND FI/ND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$222 , 141 . 21
$222,141.21
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99027
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER FUNDING FOR FISCAL IMPACT PLAN-
NER FROM COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PLANNING
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 1000 81010 110000
1 1000 81010 210000
1 1000 81010 221000
1 1000 81010 231000
1 1000 81010 232000
1 1000 81010 270000
1 1000 12010 110000
1 1000 12010 210000
1 1000 12010 221000
1 1000 12010 231000
1 1000 12010 232000
1 1000 12010 270000
DESCRIPTION
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
TOTAL
SALARY
FICA
VRS
HEALTH INSUP3uNCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
WORKER' S COMP
SALARY
FICA
VRS
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
WORKERS COMP
AMOUNT
$25,327.00
1,937 00
2,842 00
1,936 00
62 00
41 00
-25,327 00
-1,937 00
-2,842.00
-1,936.00
-62.00
-41.00
$o.oo
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-000
NUMBER: 99028
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR ONGOING PROJECTS FROM
FY 1998-99
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION
1 1000 11010 930010 BOARD OF SUPERV TRANSFER TO CIP
1 1000 12013 560416 COMM RELATIONS
1 1000 12030 580040 QUALITY COUNCIL
1 1000 31012 930210 POLICE
1 1000 31013 800312 POLICE
1 1000 31013 800500 POLICE
1 1000 41000 950023 PUBLIC WORKS
1 1000 81010 130000 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 160801 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 301210 PLAiVNING
1 1000 81010 312342 PL~2~-NING
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 350000 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 800100 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 800200 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 800201 PLAi~NING
1 1000 81017 130000 PLAAINING
1 1000 81017 350000 PLA/~NING
1 1000 81017 550400 PLANNING
1 1000 81030 312701 HOUSING
1 t000 81030 800100 HOUSING
1 1000 81302 310000 PLANNING
AMOUNT
$15,000.00
NEIGHBORHOOD TEAM 5,900.00
Q/C INITIATIVES 1,176.00
MISC POLICE GRANTS 20,000.00
RADAR EQUIP-REPLACEMENT 3,800.00
MOTOR VEHICLES 40,000.00
AUTOMART BONDS 15,920.00
GRAPHICS AIDE-P/T WAGES 2,350.00
COMP-WORK STUDY 13,000.00
CONTRACT SERVICES 30,200.00
DEVELOPMENT AREAS STUDY66,300.00
PROF SERV-CONSULTANTS 19,700.00
PRINTING & BINDING 5,000.00
MACH & EQUIPMENT 15,640.00
FURNITURE & FIXTURES 400.00
FURN & FIX-REPLACEMENT 4,900 00
P/T WAGES
PRINTING & BINDING
EDUCATION
D/P CONSULTANTS
MACH & EQUIPMENT
PROF SERVICES
TOTAL
1,845 00
4,500 00
4,500 00
6,340 00
820 00
5,000 00
$282,291 00
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$282,291.00
$282,291.00
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99029
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR NEW PROJECTS FROM
FY 98-99 CARRYOVER FUNDS
EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION
1 1000 12010 110000 COUNTY EXECUTIVE SALARY
1 1000 12010 210000 COUNTY EXECUTIVE FICA
1 1000 12010 221000 COUNTY EXECUTIVE VRS
1 1000 12010 231000 COUNTY EXECUTIVE HEALTH INSURANCE
1 1000 12010 270000 COUNTY EXECUTIVE WORKERS COMP
AMOUNT
$29,541.00
2,703 . 00
3,885.00
1,935.00
55.00
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
1 1000
12010 800100 COUNTY EXECUTIVE
12010 800700 COUNTY EXECUTIVE
81010 332104 PLANNING
81010 350000 PLANNING
81010 520100 PLANNING
81010 520300 PLANNING
81010 520302 PLANNING
81010 550400 PLANNING
81010 580100 PLANNING
81010 600100 PLANNING
81010 601200 PLA/~NING
81010 601600 PLANNING
81010 601700 PLANNING
81010 800200 PLANNING
13020 800100 VOTER REGISTRATION
21060 350300 CLERK OF COURT
EQUIPMENT
DP EQUIPMENT
DP MAINTENANCE
PRINTING AND BINDING
POSTAL SERVICES
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LONG DISTANCE
TRAVEL-EDUCATION
DUES/MEMBERSHIP
OFFICE SUPPLIES
BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS
DP SUPPLIES
COPY SUPPLIES
FURNITURE
EQUIPMENT
INDEXING SERVICES
21020 800100 GENERAL DISTRICT CT EQUIPMENT
31013 530010 POLICE
41000 312700 PUBLIC WORKS
41000 312341 PUBLIC WORKS
42040 510430 PUBLIC WORKS
81010 312342 PLANNING
81017 800710 PLASTNING
34000 800901 INSPECTIONS
53013 800501 SOCIAL SERVICES
93010 930010 TRANSFER
93010 930202 TRANSFER
INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES
CONSULTANTS
GROUNDWATER STUDY
TIPPING FEES
DEVELOPMENT AREAS STUDY
D/P SOFTWARE
BUILDING RENOVATION
VEHICLE-REPLACEMENT
TRANSFER TO CIP
TRANSFER TO STORMWATER
TOTAL
REVENUE CODE
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FI/ND
DESCRIPTION
FUND BALANCE
TOT~uL
100.00
2,575.00
150.00
30.00
130.00
130.00
120.00
135.00
120.00
190.00
130.00
60.00
310.00
1,500.00
10,800.00
5,300.00
3,500.00
15,000.00
25,000.00
42,000.00
20,500.00
8,000.00
1,500.00
22,270.00
8,164.00
200,000.00
50,000.00
$465,833.00
AMOUNT
$465,833 .00
$465,833.00
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99030
FUND: CIP-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR ONGOING PROJECTS FROM FY 98-99
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 9010 12140 950004
1 9010 12200 800700
1 9010 21000 312343
1 9010 21000 331000
1 9010 21050 331000
1 9010 31000 800305
1 9010 31010 800910
1 9010 31010 950106
1 9010 31040 800650
1 9010 32010 800523
1 9010 32010 950092
1 9010 41000 321700
1 9010 41000 800690
1 9010 41000 800960
1 9010 41000 800961
1 9010 41000 800962
1 9010 41000 800963
1 9010 41000 800964
1 9010 41000 800966
1 9010 41000 950035
1 9010 41000 950039
1 9010 41000 950059
1 9010 41000 950061
1 9010 41000 950090
1 9010 41000 950091
1 9010 41020 950024
1 9010 41020 950051
1 9010 41020 950068
1 9010 41020 950081
1 9010 43100 800666
1 9010 43100 950042
1 9010 43100 950102
1 9010 43100 950103
1 9010 7100'0 800665
1 9010 71000 800668
1 9010 71000 800949
1 9010 71000 950003
1 9010 71000 950009
1 9010 71000 950028
1 9010 71000 950033
1 9010 71000 950004
1 9010 71000 950044
1 9010 71000 950050
1 9010 71000 950063
1 9010 71000 950064
1 9010 71000 950079
DESCRIPTION
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
INFORMATION SERVICE
COURT FACILITIES
COURT FACILITIES
JUVENILE COURT
PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE DEPT
POLICE DEPT
EOC-OPER3kTIONS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
STREET IMP
STREET IMP
STREET IMP
STREET IMP
PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ADP EQUIPMENT
SPACE NEEDS STUDY
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
RADIO SYSTEM
FIRING R3kNGE
NCIC UPGRADE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
FIRE PUMPER REPLACEMENT
AMOUNT
$100,376.94
34,931 85
55,000 00
1,000 00
23,219 65
3,166,837 00
3O,0O0 00
15,000 00
103,197 20
250,000 00
FIRE HOUSE AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS 209,555.46
CONSULTANTS
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROGR3LM
STREET LIGHTS
ST LTS HYDP~AU/COMMONWEALTH
ST LTS HYDRAU/GEORGETOWN
ST LTS WHITEWOOD/GEORGETOWN
ST LTS GEORGETOWN/COMMONWEALTH
ST LTS GREENBRIER/HYDRAULIC
ST LTS NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE
MEADOW CREEK PATH
IVY ROAD
BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPING 29 NORTH
AVON ST/RT 20 CONNECTOR
WAKEFIELD ROAD IMPROVEMENT
REVENUE SHARING FOR ROADS
FACILITY MAINT
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
COB PARKING LOT
CROZET SCH ROOF/GYM AREA
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES
ADA CHANGES SCHOOLS
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS
SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNITY CENTER
RED HILL RECREATION IMP
WALNUT CREEK REC PROJECTS
TOWE PARK REC PROJECTS
ATH FIELD STUDY/DEVEL
SOUTHERN PARK DEVELOPMENT
MONTICELLO H/S FACILITIES
IVY LANDFILL DEVLP
STONE ROBINSON REC IMP
50,000.00
99,122.50
36,819.30
16,000 00
16,000 00
12,000 00
16,000 00
1,750 00
5,137 00
24,275.41
151,872.30
20,000.00
51,667.00
46,933.25
93,863.22
6,600.00
25,000.00
564,888.90
175,579.25
12,420.75
3,000.00
20,000.00
66,007.51
4,074.00
34,547.20
6,453.49
1,854.97
7,400.57
40,000.00
135,304.75
95,460.66
52,862.47
8,162.23
30,000.00
66,461.03
October 6, 1999
(Page 8)
1 9010 73020 800700
1 9010 73020 800949
1 9010 73020 950076
1 9010 81010 950053
REVENUE CODE
2 9010 16000 160529
2 9010 18000 189916
2 9010 24000 240231
2 9010 24000 240430
2 9010 41000 410500
2 9010 51000 510100
2 9010 51000 512004
2 9010 51000 512023
(Regular Day Meeting)
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
PLANNING
ADP EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
CHARGE FOR SERVICES
MISC
CATEGORICAL AID
CATEGORICAL AID
NON-REVENUE
TRANSFERS
TRANSFERS
TRANSFERS
CITY JUVENILE DETENTION
CHAMBER OF COMM 29 NORTH
VA DEPT OF TPu%NSPORT
VDOT 250E LANDSCAPING
LOAN PROCEEDS
APPROPRIATION - FUND BALANCE
T~ANSFER FROM GENER3LL FUND
TRANSFER FROM E-911
TOTAL
116,438.00
73,361.00
4,223.10
67,162.78
$6,247,820.74
AMOUNT
$2 592.50
12 q0.00
75 '? ~5.53
5 F '2.84
2,094 6~-~ 8.00
3,104 656.87
215 000.00
737,625.00
$6,247,820.74
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99031
FUND: CIP - SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR ONGOING PROJECTS FROM FY 98-99
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 9000 60100 800665
1 9000 60100 950042
1 9000 60100 950051
1 9000 60203 312350
1 9000 60203 800200
1 9000 60203 800605
1 9000 60204 800673
1 9000 60210 800605
1 9000 60211 800901
1 9000 60211 800987
1 9000 60214 800605
1 9000 60217 312350
1 9000 60252 800605
1 9000 60253 800901
1 9000 60254 800901
1 9000 60255 800200
1 9000 60301 800605
1 9000 60302 800605
1 9000 60303 800901
1 9000 60304 312350
1 9000 60304 800120
1 9000 60304 800200
1 9000 60304 800605
1 9000 60304 800700
1 9000 60304 800965
1 9000 60410 800605
1 9000 60410 800665
1 9000 60510 800901
1 9000 60510 950042
1 9000 61101 800700
1 9000 61101 800707
1 9000 62190 800700
1 9000 62420 312310
1 9000 62420 800672
1 9000 62420 800949
SCHOOL BOARD
SCHOOL BOARD
SCHOOL BOARD
CROZET ELEM
CROZET ELEM
CROZET ELEM
GREER ELEM
STONE ROBINSON
STONY POINT
STONY POINT
CALE ELEM
NORTHERN ELEM
HENLEY MIDDLE
JOUETT MIDDLE
WALTON MIDDLE
SUTHERLAND
ALBEMARLE
DESCRIPTION
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
AVON ST/RT 20 CONNECTOR
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
HVAC IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
PARKING/PLAYGROUND
CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
WESTERN ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION
MURRAY EDUC
MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO
CATEC
CATEC
VEHICLE MAINT
VEHICLE MAINT
CLASS/INST
CLASS/INST
ADM-TECH
FACILITY MAINT
FACILITY MAINT
FACILITY MAINT
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
ADP EQUIPMENT
TRAFFIC LIGHT
CONSTRUCTION
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
ADP EQUIPMENT
TECHNOLOGY GRANT EQUIPMENT
ADP EQUIPMENT
A&E ROOF REPLACEMENT
CHILLERS
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$341~213.66
2i265.00
5,0.'~5 13
5,000 00
7,431 01
22,836 09
19,317 27
348,000 00
20,000 00
10,000 00
1,628 30
428,679 50
111,317 22
12,000 00
30,393 07
1,486 92
62,596 74
153,991 79
13,341 03
11,726 81
41,3¢1 01
5,220 03
196,9'i0.35
19,848.22
34,243.85
1,402.98
14,000.00
90,266.76
60,482.23
71,303.54
2,000.00
3,917.78
18,000.00
19,326.75
78,281.58
$2,264,814.62
REVENUE CODE
2 9000 51000 510100
TRANSFERS
DESCRIPTION
APPROPRIATION - FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$2,264,814.62
$2,264,8i14.62
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99032
FUND: STORMWATER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR ONGOING PROJECTS FROM FY 98-99
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 9100 41000 800975 ENGINEERING
1 9100 41000 950093 ENGINEERING
1 9100 41035 800975 FOUR SEASONS
1 9100 41036 312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE
1 9100 41049 800975 WOODBROOK
1 9100 41053 800975 PEYTON DRIVE
1 9100 41056 800975 BROOKMILL
DESCRIPTION
STORMWATER CONTROL IMP
DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN
STORMWATER CONTROL IMP
PROF SERV-ENGINEERING
STORMWATER CONTROL IMP
STORMWATER CONTROL IMP
STORMWATER CONTROL IMP
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$141,244.06
351,606.70
104,653 . 70
12,641.28
28,035.00
10,012.00
50~000.00
$760, 648.55
REVENUE CODE
2 9100 51000 510100 TRANSFERS
2 9100 51000 512004 TRANSFERS
DESCRIPTION
APPROPRIATION - FUND BALANCE
TRANSFER - GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$710,648.55
50,000.00
$760,648.55
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99033
FUND: TOURISM
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR ONGOING PROJECTS
FROM FY 98-99
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 1810 72030 568900
1 1810 72030 568905
1 1810 72030 950026
1 1810 72030 950055
1 1810 72030 950056
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOURISM VISITOR'S BUREAU $6,000.00
TOURISM TOURISM PROJECTS 116,985.00
TOURISM RIVANNA GREENWAY 375,000.00
TOURISM RTS 250/616 TURN LANE 110,000.00
TOURISM IVY ROAD BIKE LANES 5,500.00
TOTAL $613,485.00
REVENUE CODE
2 1810 18000 181108
2 1810 51000 510100
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MISC CONTRIBUTIONS-DEVELOPER $10,000.00
TRA/qSFERS APPROPRIATION-FUND BALANCE 603,485.00
TOTAL $613,485.00
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99034
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR QUIP PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 2114 61311 312390
DESCRIPTION AMOUb7~
EDUCATION QUIP $9,285.78
TOTAL $9,285.78
REVEIFUE CODE
2 2000 5i000 510100
DESCRIPTION
SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$9,285.78
$9,285.78
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NI3MBER: 99035
FUND: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR OFFICE
FURNITURE AT NEW CENTER
EXPENDITURE CODE
1 4100 31041 800200
DESCRIPTION
EMER OPR CENTER OFFICE FURNITURE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$40,000.00
$40, 000.00
REVENUE CODE
2 4100 51000 510100
DESCRIPTION
EOC FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$40,000.00
$4O, 000.00
Item 5.3. Appropriation: School Resource Officer Grant 00-A3377,
$45,786.00 (Form #99025).
It was noted in the staff's report that an increase in the presence of
additional School Resource Officers at the middle school level has been
identified by staff and community members as an area of ongoing need. Funding
for one officer has been procured by a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services grant of $34,339.00. The grant will be administered by the Police
Department and will cover 75 percent of salary and benefits. It is renewable
for an additional three years. The local match of $11,447.00 will be funded
from the School Board's reserve. Additional equipment, training and other
operational costs will be funded from the Police Department budget. An
additional appropriation is not required for other operational costs. Staff
recommended approval of Appropriation #99025 in the amount of $45,786.00
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NI3MBER: 99025
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER TO COVER LOCAL SHARE OF SCHOOL
RESOURCE OFFICER(S) AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1 2410 60100 999981
1 2431 93010 930000
1 1000 31013 110000
1 1000 31013 210000
1 1000 31013 221000
1 1000 31013 231000
1 1000 31013 232000
1 1000 31013 270000
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE -$11,447.00
SRO TRANSFER 11,447.00
SALARIES 35,607.00
FICA 2,724.00
VRS 3,995.00
HEALTH INS 2,716.00
DENTAL INS 82.00
WORKER'S COMP 662.00
TOTAL $45,786.00
REVENLIE
1000 33000 330406
1000 51000 510307
DESCRIPTION
SRO GRANT
TRANSFER - SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$34,339.00
11,447.00
$45,786.00
Item 5.4. Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center, $194,274.00
(Form #99036).
It was noted in the staff's report that effective July 1, 1998, the
State enacted legislation imposing a $0.75 monthly E-911 tax on wireless
telephones. The State also established a Wireless E-911 Service Board to
receive this revenue and to establish guidelines for disbursing these funds to
localities and wireless carriers. These funds must be used to implement and
operate a system locally to receive wireless E-911 calls which normally are
routed to the State Police. The Albemarle County Director of Finance, Melvin
A. Breeden, was appointed to this Service Board in 1998 by Governor Gilmore.
Mr. Tom Hanson, Director of the Emergency Communications Center, made
application on behalf of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville for
FY 1999-2000 funding in the amount of $194,274.00. This amount was based on
an estimate that ten percent of E-911 calls originated from wireless
telephones, plus the fixed cost for phone service and equipment. The first
quarterly installment in the amount of $48,568.40 has been received. Staff
recommended that the Board approve Appropriation #99036 in the amount of
$194,274.00 to implement this project.
(Ms. Thomas said the report shows why the Board came up with that amount
of funding, but it does not say it is enough to do the job. Mr. Tucker said
this will be monitored. It is what the State is providing, so it cannot be
negotiated. It is based strictly on the amount of calls coming in from
wireless telephones, and the impact that has on the Center.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99036
FUND: EMERGENCY COMMI/NICATIONS CENTER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDING FROM WIRELESS
E-911 SERVICE BOARD
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1 4100 31040 114302
1 4100 31046 520311
1 4100 31046 800300
1 4100 31046 800302
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ECC-OPER3~TIONS SALARIES $116,836.00
ECC-WIRELESS WIRELESS-LOCAL CARRIER 6,134.00
ECC-WIRELESS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT49,804.00
ECC-WIRELESS COMMLIN EQUIP UPGRADE 21,500.00
TOTAL $194,274.00
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2 4100 24000 240424 WIRELESS E-911 SERVICE BD
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$194,274 . 00
$194,274.00
Item 5.5. Set Public Hearing to Amend Section 9-404 of the County Code
to Establish Amounts of License Fees for Motor Vehicles (moved to Agenda Item
No. lla on the regular agenda).
Item 5.6. Set Public Hearing to Amend Section 15-1101 of the County
Code to Establish Exemptions of Certain Personal Property from Taxation.
It was noted in the staff's report that Virginia Code §58.1-3504
provides that household goods and personal effects be a separate class of
personal property for tax purposes and provides that the governing body of a
county, by ordinance, may exempt all such personal property from taxation.
The Board has adopted an ordinance exempting such household and personal
effects (see County Code §15-1101). Recently, Virginia Code §58.1-3504 was
amended to add "antique motor vehicles" to the list of separately classified
household goods and personal effects. The County Code has not been amended to
reflect this change. Since §58.1-3504 says that if a locality elects to
exempt any household goods and personal effects, it must exempt "all" of the
classes of household goods and personal effects identified by §58.1-3504, the
County must now amend its Code to inqlude antique motor vehicles to conform to
the Virginia Code's definition of personal and household goods eligible for
exemption. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on an
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XI, Personal
Property, reordaining §15-1101 for its meeting of November 3, 1999.
By the above recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing on an
Ordinance to Ax~end and Reordain Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XI, Personal
Property, to amend Section 15-1101 of the County Code to establish exemptions
of certain personal property from taxation, for 10:15 a.m. on November 3,
1999.
Item 5.7. Adopt amended Resolution to Accept West Leigh Drive in West
Leigh Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
(Ms. Thomas said she would make a conflict of interest disclosure on
this item because she is part of a large group of people who own property
along West Leigh Drive. The Commonwealth's Attorney suggested that she did
not need to abstain, but she would like to abstain.)
By the above recorded vote (Ms. Thomas abstaining from the vote), the
Board adopted the following amended resolution to accept West Leigh Drive in
West Leigh Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street described below was established in
1957, currently serves at leas~ three families per mile and
serves from 600 to 700 cars per day from residences with no
viable alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
deemed that this county's current subdivision control ordinance
meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to
recommend additions to the Secondary System of State Highways,
pursuant to §33.1-72-1, Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, after examinin~ the ownership of all property
abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest
does not exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add the following street to the Secondary
System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1{D), Code of
Virginia:
Name of Street: West Leigh Drive
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Length:
From:
To:
0.4 miles
United States Route 250 - Ivy Road
Leigh Way
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to improve said street to the
prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant
to §33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution
be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Item 5.8. Adopt resolution supporting RailWatch.
Letter dated September 10, 1999, addressed to Mr. Forrest R. Marshall,
Jr. from RailWatch was received signed by Larry and Anne Waldron of Amelia,
Virginia, making the following request. RailWatch is an organization that was
formed because of the overwhelming number of railroad accidents. RailWatch is
a non-profit public education organization dedicated to educating the public
about railroad safety and holding the railroads accountable for their dismal
safety record. In addition to raising public awareness, RailWatch would like
Congress to conduct a complete and thorough hearing on railroad safety because
of the rail industry's dismal safety record.
Mr. and Mrs. Waldron asked the Board to consider adopting a resolution
supporting its efforts to educate the public about railroad safety, and also
join RailWatch in calling for a complete and thorough investigation of
railroad safety by the United States Congress.
(Ms. Humphris said this sounds like a good thing to do, but she has some
serious reservations about adopting a resolution that comes to the Board from
outside of the community, and from someone the Board does not know anything
about. She is concerned that the Board might do this without knowing who
these people are, if their facts are accurate, who are their members, etc. In
particular, she was concerned about the Board's relationship with the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) and what they might think
about such a resolution.
Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Humphris would like to have staff ask the VDRPT
for a recommendation. Ms. Humphris said she would like that and also would
like to know the accuracy of the facts sent along with the resolution.)
By the above shown vote, the Board referred the resolution to the
Planning Department for further information.
Item 5.9. Authorize Chairman to Sign Service Agreement with Scottsville
Volunteer Fire Department to Provide Hazmat Service to Designated Areas Within
Albemarle County.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Scottsville Volunteer Fire
Department has placed in service a unit capable of responding to hazardous
materials incidents in the southeastern section of Albemarle County. In
addition, this unit will be available to respond to incidents throughout the
County on an as-needed basis. The County is to provide reference material and
will replace equipment and supplies as necessary. Scottsville Fire Department
will provide the vehicle (HazMat 78). This plan has been reviewed and
endorsed by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association. The unit meets
all requirements of Level II hazardous materials response. It will be used in
a defensive fashion, for spill containment and leak control. Staff requested
that the Chairman be authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the
County.
(Ms. Humphris said she had asked Mr. Tucker yesterday about this
agreement and the Level II hazardous materials responsibility because she does
not know enough about it to know what Level I is and whether the County now
has the capability it has been relying on Harrisonburg and Richmond units to
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
provide. Mr. Tucker said the County will still need to call on Harrisonburg
and Richmond when there is a regional effort needed for such spills as ammonia
or chlorine. Ninety-five percent of the spills that have been dealt with have
been petroleum related. Earlysville Fire Department already has a HazMat
Level II. This will add a second one in the County at the Scottsville Fire
Department.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to
execute the Service Agreement with the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department
to provide HazMat service to designated areas within Albemarle County:
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated and effective the day of
, 1999, between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (hereinafter
the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
(hereinafter "Scottsville"), a volunteer fire-fighting
organization established pursuant to Virginia Code §27-8,
provides as follows:
WHEREAS, the County has determined that it is desirable
and necessary to develop a safe and efficient hazardous
materials response program in the County in order to continue to
serve the health, safety and welfare needs of the County and its
citizens; and
WHEREAS, the County and Scottsville have been working
together to develop such a program and equip a unit ("HazMat
78") for hazardous materials response in an area located south
of Route 250 and East of Route 29, or in such other locations as
may be needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions,
and covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as
follows:
SECTION ONE
TERM
This Agreement shall become effective on the date written
above, and shall continue in effect indefinitely until
terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions of
this section. This Agreement may be terminated (1) by mutual
agreement of both parties at any time, evidenced by a written
amendment to this Agreement or other similar document signed by
both parties, or (2) by either party by giving six (6) months'
written notice of such intent to terminate the Agreement to the
other party at the address and in the manner set forth in
Section Six of this Agreement.
SECTION TWO
EQUIPMENT AND USE
(a) The County agrees to provide all required reference
materials, including updated versions of all reference
materials, as listed in Appendix A-1 attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement, as well as
any additional equipment that may be authorized by the County,
acting through its Fire/Rescue Division Chief. Scottsville
agrees to provide HazMat 78 as a response vehicle for use, as
well as all equipment and materials listed in Appendix A-2
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as part of this
Agreement.
(b) The County agrees to replace any equipment and
supplies referenced in Appendix A-1 above as may be necessary to
support HazMat 78. Scottsville agrees to provide and maintain
the equipment listed in Appendix A-2.
(c) Throughout the duration of this Agreement and
thereafter, all equipment and supplies (other than the HazMat 78
vehicle itself) provided hereunder by the County shall remain
the property of the County.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
SECTION THREE
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND TRAINING
(a) The parties agree that HazMat 78 and all equipment
and supplies provided under this Agreement will be used by
Scottsville in accordance with the standard operating procedure
for spill containment and leak control attached hereto as
Appendix C, or according to such other procedure(s) that may be
adopted and/or modified from time to time by the County.
(b) Scottsville agrees to perform all maintenance and
repair on HazMat 78 at Scottsville's sole cost and expense.
(c) Scottsville agrees to notify the Fire Dispatcher and
the County whenever HazMat 78 requires repair that will take it
out of service, and agrees to notify the County whenever Scotts-
ville believes that additional supplies and equipment necessary
to support HazMat 78 are needed.
(d) In accordance with the Level II Hazardous Materials
Memorandum of Understanding dated May 13, 1988 between the
Department of Emergency Services of the Commonwealth of Virginia
("DES") and Albemarle County, DES will assist the County in
providing the necessary Level II training to HazMat 78
personnel. Scottsville agrees that a minimum of one person shall
receive Level II training prior to assignment on HazMat 78. The
County agrees to provide Scottsville with HazMat awareness and
HazMat operations training a minimum of once every five (5)
years beginning in August, 1999. However, if this Agreement
should be terminated prior to any five (5) year period, such
obligation by the County shall be null and void. The County
agrees that Scottsville personnel will receive hazardous
materials training at the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department
Firehouse.
(e) Scottsville agrees that it will use its best efforts
to respond to incidents covered by this Agreement in a timely
manner but is not guaranteeing that HazMat 78 will respond
within any specific time frames in response to such incidents.
SECTION FOUR
TERMINATION
On expiration or termination of this Agreement,
Scottsville shall provide all reasonable assistance and devote
its best efforts to returning all equipment and supplies
provided hereunder to the County.
SECTION FIVE
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the binding agreements between the
parties and supersedes all other agreements and representations,
written or oral, on the subject matter of this Agreement,
including any statements in referenced exhibits or attachments
that may be in conflict with statements in this Agreement.
SECTION SIX
NOTICE
Ail notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be deemed served when mailed to the other party at its
address stated herein or at such other address as such party
shall hereafter designate in writing.
Notice to the County shall be sent to:
County Executive's Office
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
with a copy to:
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Fire/Rescue Division Chief
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Notice to Scottsville shall be sent to:
Chief, Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department
P. O. Box 381
Scottsville, VA 24590
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party to this Agreement has
caused it to be executed on the date indicated below.
Item 5.10. FY 2000-2001 Operating Budget Citizen Participation
Initiatives.
It was noted in the staff's report that during recent years, citizen
groups have noticed a lack of meaningful citizen participation in the early
stages of the budget process. County residents seem to be unaware of or
disinterested in the initial discussion of funding priorities which create the
basic foundations of the operating and capital improvement program budgets.
Since the budget in its ideal form should be a document that lays out a shared
vision of the community's needs and priorities, anything less than full
participation by informed and aware citizens hurts the process significantly.
Last year staff implemented several strategies aimed at improving
communication with citizens about the budget with a goal of increasing
awareness of and participation in the budget process. This year staff is
looking to build on those efforts with several new initiatives.
Last year staff constituted a focus group with invited citizens
representing a diverse group of organizations to brainstorm some ways the
County could be more proactive and effective in disseminating budget
information as a first step toward increased citizen participation in and
understanding of the process. As a.direct result of suggestions made during
that session, several new communication strategies were implemented:
A slide presentation on the budget which was taken "on the road"
to nine different community organizations;
An enhanced budget website which featured in-depth, frequently
updated budget information along with a direct E-mail response
option to allow comments;
An Annual Report insert in the Daily Progress in January which
featured preliminary budget information along with other County
data; and
A special budget-related insert in the Daily Progress in April
which detailed budget data and recommendations as developed to
that point.
Staff met earlier this month with a similar focus group to review these
initiatives and discuss other suggestions for involving citizens in the early
stages of the budget when priorities are being established. The following
comments resulted from this meeting:
Continuation of the four strategies mentioned above;
Conducting town hall-type meetings in each magisterial district on
constituent priorities, to be attended by Board members and
appropriate staff;
Publicizing more "meaningful" information on the budget in a way
citizens can understand;
Incorporating budget-related discussions into existing events and
activities where possible; and
Publicizing budget information to the media as much as possible.
Staff recommends that it continue with the strategies developed last
year and implement the recommendations suggested above, including a schedule
of citizen meetings this Fall in locations around the County either involving
staff alone or staff in combination with Board of Supervisor members.
(Ms. Thomas said she would like to applaud the staff for their
suggestions. She would be willing to have a meeting in her district. She
suggested adding a School Board member to the invitation. Mr. Tucker said
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
staff will talk with the individual members to see what they wish to do in
their district.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the staff's
recommendation to continue with strategies developed last year for the FY
2000-2001 Operating Budget Citizen Participation Initiatives, and to implement
other recommendations suggested in the staff's report.
Item 5.11. Calendar for the FY 2000-2001 Operating Budget process, was
received for information.
Item 5.12. Memorandum dated September 20, 1999, from Mr. James D.
Campbell, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties, re: Proposed
changes to VACo By-laws, was received for information.
Item 5.13. Letter dated September 21, 1999, from Mr. Gerald W. Hyland,
Chairman, ~esolutions Committee, Virginia Association of Counties, re: Draft
of VACo's 2000 Legislative Program and Policy Statements, was received for
information. It was noted that each steering committee will meet on November
8 during the Association's Annual Meeting at the Homestead. The Association's
membership will vote on the final document during VACo's annual business
meeting on November 9. County representatives are invited to attend these
meetings and, if they wish, participate in the final discussion prior to
adoption of VACo's legislative program.
(Ms. Humphris said she would like to point out several draft pieces of
legislation. 1) Support a legislative study to evaluate the operations of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board and examine whether more suitable
alternatives might exist for making major transportation policy decisions.
Then there is a reference to the Pave-In-Place Program where VACo supports
stronger flexibility in that program and urges VDOT to work cooperatively with
local governments. 2) Trailer links. She does not know if this type of thing
is the problem on Routes 22/231. She said this allows small rural communities
without interstate highways to allow these large trucks. She does not think
that sounds like a good idea.
Mr. Bowerman asked how that would relate to trailers which transport
automobiles. Mr. Tucker said he believes it would apply to that type of
trailer also. Ms. Humphris noted a proposal about allowing triple trailers
and oversized or overweight trucks, etc. and it talks about a qualified
network of roads for travel by those vehicles to promote economic development.
She thinks this Board should pay careful attention to that proposal also as it
would relate to Routes 22/231.
Ms. Humphris said VACo also believes it is imperative that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board reform its procedures to facilitate
increased and more meaningful participation by local government officials in
the Board's meetings and work sessions. She said this Board has had a serious
problem because the CTB refused to allow this Board to be heard during their
1990 Western Bypass decision, so that is still of interest to a lot of
communities.
Mr. Perkins said he agrees with 95 percent of what VACo is proposing in
this package, but there are certain proposals that he does not agree with
entirely.
Ms. Thomas said she and Ms. Humphris are on several VACo committees.
That is where these proposals can be affected. Ms. Thomas is on the Finance
and Telecommunications Committees. Ms. Humphris said she is on the VACo Board
of Directors and she chairs the Finance and Public Utilities Steering
Committee. She also was named to the Nominations Committee and the
Resolutions Committee, and she will moderate a panel on E-Commerce, Taxation
and Sales through the Internet, which is a hot topic now. If the Board
members know of anyone she should contact about that, let her know.)
Item 5.14. Copy of Minutes of a Joint Meeting Work Session of the
Albemarle County Planning Commission and the Greene County Planning
Commission, was received for information.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item 5.15. Letter dated September 14, 1999, from the Honorable Tom
Bliley, Seventh District Representative, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin,
regarding Albemarle County being declared a disaster area due to drought
conditions, was received for information. Mr. Bliley noted that Albemarle
County has been declared a contiguous disaster area and is eligible for
Federal funds.
Item 5.16. Letter dated September 23, 1999 from Ms. Angela G. Tucker,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding
transportation matters discussed at the August 4 and September 1, 1999, Board
meetings, was received for information as follows:
"We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were
discussed at the August 4th and September 1st Board meetings.
We have reviewed Route 29 south for additional signs to alert
motorists to where two lanes merge into one. Modifications in this
area will be made as shown on the attached sketch. RIGHT LANE ENDS
signs with a supplemental plate stating '500 FT' will be installed.
Other signs will be relocated and combined accordingly. These
changes, in addition to the pavement arrows, should ease motorists
over into the proper lane.
The request to place 'puppy tracks' along Route 250 from Riverbend
Drive has been forwarded for scheduling by the Department's paint
crews.
The Department received a request to enhance signing to the
Visitor's Center soon after enhancement grants were received for
the Thomas Jefferson Parkway project. Visitor's Centers are signed
by the official name registered with the Department of Tourism. We
have confirmed that the official name is 'Monticello Visitor's
Center'.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the Meadowcreek
Parkway Phase I design as a two lane road on a four lane right of
way at a lower design speed. Four lanes will be built between the
railroad bridge and the old Rio Road tie-in.
* Traffic counts for Tabor Street and Hilltop Road are as follows:
ROUTE FROM TO 1992 1997 1999
691 240 1210 2118 2100 2192
691 1210 1204 1881 1800 1914
691 1204 dead-end 149 170 158
Bill Mills will be available to discuss these and other transportation
issues at the October 6th Board meeting. We look forward to discussing
the improvements to the next section of Route 29 at the work session this
same afternoon."
Item 5.17. Copy of letter dated September 23, 1999, from Ms. Angela G.
Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Laurie Royse, regarding proposed
improvements to Route 791 (Wyant Lane), and Ms. Royse's request to withdraw
her consent for right-of-way for this project, was received for information.
Item 5.18. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the
beginning of the First Day of January, 1999 of the Property of Electric Light
and Power Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes
Extended for the Year 1999 as made by the State Corporation Commission, was
received for information.
Item 5.19. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the
beginning of the First Day of January, 1999 of the Property of Gas and
Pipeline Distribution Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
State Taxes Extended for the Year 1999 as made by the State Corporation
Commission, was received for information.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Item 5.20. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the
beginning of the First Day of January, 1999 of Telecommunications Companies in
the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Regulatory Revenue Taxes Extended for the
Year 1999 as made by the State Corporation Commission, was received for
information.
Item 5.21. Letter dated September 28, 1999, from Mr. Robert H. Connock,
Jr., District Construction Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing
notice of design approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on the
McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I), was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 10, 1997; March 17(A),
March 22(A), April 21, July 7, July 14, August 4, August 11 and August 18,
1999.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of March 22, 1999, and July 14, 1999,
and approved them as written.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of July 7, 1999, and approved them
with one typographical change and the following minute book corrections. On
page 15, under Agenda Item No. 7b, Other Transportation Matters, sixth
paragraph concerning the Route 29 South Corridor study, second sentence, be
changed to read: "This is important, because it is talking about freight
(corrected by Mr. Tucker to address passenqer traffic as first priority)." On
page 17, under Agenda Item No. 8, Minor Ridge Area Stormwater Control Project,
fifth paragraph, two words were added to the sixth sentence so it now reads,
"That put a significant amount of drainage that had not been calculated in the
construction documents for Wynridqe into a stream that flows into Four Seasons
rather than a stream flowing down Greenbrier Drive." Under the same agenda
item and in the seventh paragraph, the seventh sentence was changed to read:
"While it is a higher cost than initially estimated, Mr. Bowerman said the
project needs to be done as part of the overall livcability ~rainagc pattcrn
urban public safety improvement that all ends up at Branchlands at Meadow
Creek." On page 18, under the same agenda item, second paragraph, at the end
of the second paragraph, the last sentence was changed to read: "Mr. Bowerman
said that is a good reason to go ahead with this project now, as it will
require more time at the front end."
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of August 18, 1999, and noted several
typographical errors and one minute book correction. On page 13, under Agenda
Item No. 17, Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board, Ms.
Humphris made a statement regarding a meeting with Congressman Thomas J.
Bliley, Jr. Three words were added to the end of the second sentence, so that
it now reads, "She said Congressman Bliley asked several questions and
acknowledged that the County is supposed to have land use control in tower
decisions."
Mr. Bowerman moved to approve the minutes of March 22, 1999, and July
14, 1999, as read, and the minutes of July 7, 1999, and August 18, 1999, as
amended. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Resolutio~ to Support Airport Road (Route 649)
Improvements.
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff's report stating that this is a request
from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority that the Board adopt a
resolution supporting the proposed improvements to Airport Road (Route 649)
from Route 606 to Route 29 as presented at a Design Public Hearing held on
August 12, 1999. The improvements include widening the road to four lanes
with landscaped raised medians, bike lanes and sidewalks.
Mr. Tucker said the County's Land Use Plan, adopted on June 5, 1996,
calls for widening Airport Road and controlling access to the facility to the
greatest extent possible. It also calls for bicycle facilities and walkways
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
in conjunction with all major road improvements in the Hollymead Community.
Further, the Land Use Plan General Design Standards for Roads call for roads
of four lanes or more in Communities to have walkways on both sides of the
road and for bike facilities to be provided in accordance with the Bicycle
Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, adopted by the
County on June 17, 1991. The Bicycle Plan calls for a bicycle facility along
Airport Road as part of the Earlysville/White Hall Bikeway System. It is
identified as a last priority project in that plan. Finally, the CATS Year
2015 Project Plan calls for widening Airport Road to four lanes on urban
cross-section between Route 606 and Route 29. Staff feels the proposed
Airport Road improvements fulfill all of these recommendations and supports
adoption of the resolution.
Ms. Thomas said it is hard to read through the comments made by people
at the public hearing without being somewhat alarmed. It is noted that
responses were given to these people and meetings were held. It was difficult
for her to put all of that together and she would like to be assured that as
far as possible the concerns of those speaking have been met.
Mr. Bryan Elliott said there were 11 comments received at the public
hearing. Four people had concerns regarding access to their property. Staff
has met with those people and addressed those issues. That is part of the
resolution being considered by the Board. One person was concerned with the
environmental review process and that has been addressed. The intermodal
aspect was referenced. The four individuals who oppose the entire project
were opposed to the raised medians and two were also opposed to the sidewalks
and bike trails. The sidewalks and bike trails have been part of the County's
Comprehensive Plan and all of the planning documents for a very long time.
The design of this project reflects the intent of the Board of Supervisors in
those plans. No plans, in terms of the intermodal aspect, exist. The Airport
has a right-of-way acquisition budget of approximately $1.8 million and that
covers the bike lanes, the sidewalks, and construction and drainage easements
which will be necessary as part of the project. The individuals who supported
the project that had concerns with the access submitted a proposal after the
Design Public Hearing and that is now being incorporated into the project.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the people questioning the raised median were
concerned about not being able to turn. Mr. Elliott said that is correct.
Mr. Bowerman asked if they will have an opportunity to make a "U-turn" when
necessary. Mr. Elliott said an attempt was made to link properties with
crossovers. It was not possible throughout the entire corridor, but it has
been done to the extent possible.
Ms. Humphris said she and Ms. Thomas attended the last Design Public
Hearing, and although there were a small number of people in attendance, there
was a great deal of muttering and undercurrents of disenchantment with what
VDOT calls a Public Forum type of public meeting. She thinks staff and the
public would have been better served had there been a true public meeting with
the people who had the answers sitting at the front, and the people with the
questions in the audience. People complained that they could not find the
proper person to give them an answer to their questions. She hopes this Board
will continue to try and convince VDOT that a public meeting is a meeting
where the public can express itself. She said the output would have been more
positive had the public had a chance to ask questions and have VDOT staff
answer so everybody present could hear the answer.
With no further discussion of this agenda item, Ms. Humphris moved to
adopt the following Resolution Endorsing the Design Improvements to State
Route 649 (Airport Road) in Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO
STATE ROUTE 649 (AIRPORT ROAD) IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
supports the improvements to Airport Road (Route 649) from Route
606 to Roue 649; and
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
held a Design Public Hearing for this project on August 12,
1999, in accordance with said regulations, policies and
procedures; and, has reviewed all public comments and
determined it to be feasible and desirable to address these
comments to the greatest extent possible in the design of these
road improvements; and
WHEREAS, the improvements are consistent with the County's
Land Use Plan, Bike Plan, and the CATS Year 2015 Project Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors recommends to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board that the design of State Route 649 (Airport
Road) in Albemarle County as presented at the August 12, 1999,
Design Public Hearing be approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors that the Commonwealth Transportation Board fully
evaluate the "Service Road" concept as proposed by several
property owners located south of this road near the intersection
of U. S. Route 29 for inclusion in this project.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Bill Mills was present. He said VDOT had received Ms. Thomas'
letter about the turn lanes at Bellair Subdivision. Ms. Thomas said if the
other Board members are not interested, Mr. Mills may give her a response
later. She pointed out that it was a complimentary letter saying the process
of making the change at the Bellair intersection had been done well.
Mr. Mills said he had a response concerning Wyant Lane. Ms. Thomas said
Wyant Lane is a dead-end road off of Midway which is off of Miller School
Road. At the end of it there is a rental subdivision of 35 or more units. It
had just worked itself up on the Six-Year Road Improvement list about the time
she was elected to the Board six years ago. Now, suddenly people are finding
out what it means to have the road paved. Some people think it is good and
others can't believe that all of the trees along the road will have to be cut
down. She is trying to assist the people who want to show their neighbors
what paving will mean. She brings up again the issue of what people think
should happen in rural areas, and what, in fact, happens. There is a
difference between what people assume will happen when a road is paved, and
what actually happens, a suburban road with two-foot shoulders and two-foot
ditch and sloping shoulders back from that point. The project will forever
change the character of that area, and she wishes there were something in
between those two things. The dust and the dirt and the washboarding are
things they would like to get rid of, but not the trees. She said the Board
has such a discussion before it about every six months.
Mr. Mills said he took the opportunity to look at the road before this
meeting. One thing he saw is that there will be very little cutting on the
road, except at one spot. The impact to get further back is minimized
somewhat on this road. Also, there is a wood line that lies behind the trees
that would not immediately come down.
Mr. Perkins asked if the work on this road would be contracted out or
done by VDOT. Mr. Mills said it would be contracted. Mr. Perkins said when
VDOT does it, they have more flexibility, but when it is contracted out,
everything has to be spelled out in that contract. Mr. Mills said they could
spell out in a contract that impact to trees be minimized. He said there
would be little cut and fill for this project, so the grades would come
together. Where Routes 688 and 791 intersect, there is a possible five-foot
cut in that area.
Ms. Thomas said it is an ongoing dilemma. Mr. Mills said the work is
already occurring on the utility relocations. The power poles have been
moved, and VDOT is now waiting for an estimate from the telephone company.
Mr. Tucker said in the future when staff talks to property owners, it would be
helpful to have some type of computerized rendering or image of what the road
will look like after it is widened, etc. Most people only visualize that the
project means hard-surfacing of the road. If they had a true picture of what
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
the road would look like after the project is complete, that might help from
having this dilemma when it is time to let the project to bid.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there had been a meeting with the people in the
neighborhood so they would know what to expect. Ms. Thomas said there had not
been such a meeting. She put notices in newspaper tubes and walked the road
talking to people. Some people in the community went to look at Route 610, a
nicely done rural road which has been paved. One person thought that was
okay, but all the others took it as a bad sign, even people who had been in
favor of the paving beforehand. The neighbors have been trying to educate
themselves. Just showing them a rending will not necessarily get them to say
they don't want the paving. This is a road that is scheduled for paving
because the people wanted it paved. The County and VDOT have no reason to
want the road paved. She has told the neighbors that it will take a
~substantial" majority not wanting the road paved if there is to be a change.
The rights-of-way have been in place for ten, plus years.
Mr. Mills said he has heard that there is a person in the neighborhood
who is actually gathering signatures to support the paving.
Ms. Humphris said in Ms. Tucker's letter of September 23, there is an
answer to the question she has asked many times about the name of the
Visitor's Center Sign on 1-64 and Route 20. Ms. Tucker notes that ~Visitor's
Centers are signed by the official name registered with the Department of
Tourism. We have confirmed that the official name is ~Monticello Visitor's
Center'." Ms. Humphris said she has been fooling with this question for almost
a year. She needs to know why, and by whom, it was decided that the
Charlottesville/ Albemarle Visitor's Information Center, became the Monticello
Visitor's Center. To her, Monticello Visitor's Center means only that, and she
wonders where people think they should go to get information on this entire
area. She still wants to know why it was changed, and by whom. She thinks it
is significant since taxpayer's dollars are used to fund the facility. Mr.
Tucker said he would research the question.
Mr. Marshall thanked Ms. Tucker for getting him some hay.
Mr. Perkins asked if any progress has been made on getting the
landowners and VDOT together on the Routes 240/250 connector. Mr. Tucker said
staff wants to have a meeting, but not with the landowners first. They want
to do some design work first and then see how it could be funded. A date has
not been set.
Agenda Item No. 8. JAUNT Annual Report for FY 1998-99. Ms. Donna
Shaunnesey was present to make the report. She said there had been an
excellent year at JAUNT. It did not meet all needs, although people are not
turned down for service. This year they started night and weekend service for
people with disabilities. That has been a successful program. Ten percent
more trips were provided in Albemarle County than in the previous year. The
Welfare Reform Program has been successful in removing the barrier of
transportation for those people from'returning to work. The money came
through a grant received by the Albemarle Department of Social Services and
which then passed the money to JAUNT. JAUNT has now applied for a Federal
grant to continue the same process and expand it to the entire Planning
District. The grant was awarded in June, but they have not received any money
at this time. Although they carried 150 percent more people this year than
last year, it is still a low number.
Mr. Bowerman asked the location of destination points. Ms. Shaunnesey
said most people start at 6:40 a.m. on the route coming into Charlottesville
to the University or businesses along the way, transferring to City buses to
go to other destinations. Mr. Bowerman asked how far north the buses travel.
Ms. Shaunnesey said they go to the Parham United Methodist Church near the
Greene County border. Also, if someone needs a ride to a destination which is
not on the route, they do carry these people to that site which might be far
off of the route. Most of the people using the bus have no alternative method
of transportation.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Church allows their lot to be used for "park
and ride". Ms. Shaunnesey said "yes", and also two of the three other churches
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
along the way have allowed them to have "park and ride" lots at each of these
churches. The County covered the insurance costs on a couple of the lots.
She said six "park and ride" lots. were added as part of putting "Big Blue" in,
and that is a plus. A lot of people who work at NGIC use public transit now,
and they hope that when the new facility is completed, they will be able to
help those people with transit. They have worked with a couple of businesses
at the UREF Park. JAUNT is an important part of the Commuter Information
Team, and so a combination of RideShare, JAUNT and CTS are making visits to
each of the businesses who are trying to come up with transportation
solutions. JAUNT also works with the University Transit System. Although
JAUNT has 60 vehicles, they use two cab companies (using 10 cabs) to
supplement their services. Those drivers go through the same training process
and provide the same level of assistance.
Ms. Shaunnesey said she would like to talk about efficiency versus
effectiveness. If they were as efficient as possible, they would have
everybody in Scottsville ride the 7:00 o'clock bus and then take them all home
at 4:00 o'clock. That would make people going to a doctor's appointment at
11:00 a.m. ride all over the County first, and get to town with nothing to do
until their appointment time, and then have to wait for the bus to go home.
She said they are always thinking about that and adjusting their schedules.
Ms. Thomas said a couple of years ago an issue arose because some of the
retirement homes had private bus service but people continued to call JAUNT.
She asked if that is still occurring. Ms. Shaunnesey said it has not gotten
any worse. Some of these homes have their own vehicles, but they are only
used for certain activities.
Ms. Shaunnesey said one other issue has to do with safety. The worse
thing that could happen would be to have a rider injured. Last year was
JAUNT's safest year ever, although traveling over two million miles on some
fairly bad roads, and in some unusual weather conditions.
Mr. Marshall said he would like to comment about the exceptional job Ms.
Shaunnesey does at JAUNT. JAUNT is a role model for the entire state. When
he was ~on its Board of Directors, there were people coming from all over to
seek advice. Ms. Shaunnesey said JAUNT did win a statewide award as the
outstanding Rural Transportation System last year. There is also the Job
Access Grant, and experts do come at least once a month to study JAUNT's
operation.
Mr. Perkins said the whole community should be looking at ways to get
more people to ride buses. It is a bigger issue than picking up riders.
There needs to be some incentive for the employers in Charlottesville to give
their employees (even paying employees to ride buses). It would help with
parking in Charlottesville. He was astounded by the increase in personal
vehicles usage since 1994 (60,000) to the present day (over 100,000). He said
more and more people ride in single vehicles, and that needs to be changed.
Ms. Shaunnesey said she is chairing the Single Occupancy Vehicle
Alternatives Committee, and they are trying to find ways to make changes and
get employers to do more efficient kinds of service so people will leave their
cars at home. Mr. Bowerman said a critical mass is needed before implementing
some of the things being done across the country. He thinks JAUNT is helping
to establish that critical mass along with CTS. Mr. Marshall said when
traffic gets so bad that you can't stand to drive anymore, you will look for
an alternative. The only way to get people out of those cars is to make
driving miserable. ~
Ms. Thomas said this area also received an international prize just last
week from the Alternative Commuter Transportation Organization for the traffic
diet game that was created by the Planning District and RideShare people. The
area was competing against Boise and Washington state and several much large
entities. It is a small thing, but it helps people work through how to find
more alternatives.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Safety, Presentation. Mr. Tucker said County
Departments are going to start giving periodic reports on their operations.
Chief of Police, John Miller, is present today to begin the public safety
presentation. He will be followed by a report from Mr. Carl Pumphrey, Chief
of Fire and Rescue.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Chief Miller introduced Officer Peter Baber who will assist with the
presentation. They presented a slide show giving an overview of operations of
the Police Department. He also wished to talk about the accreditation process
which has been an ongoing program for over three years. He said the Police
Department currently has 102 officers; he anticipates two retirements at the
end of the current year. Calls for service in 1998 increased 10 percent over
those in 1997. There were 40,555 calls and they project another 10 percent
increase in 1999. They made 2700+ criminal arrests in 1997 and wrote over
10,000 incident reports. In 1998, there was a four percent increase in
crimes, mostly burglaries in the daytime at residences, as well as an increase
in larcenies (automobiles, auto accessories, and shoplifting). There were
2300+ motor vehicle crashes and the Department recovered over $710,000 in
stolen property.
Chief Miller said there are two major bureaus in the department;
administrative services and operations. He will discuss the accreditation
process which they have been working on for over three years. He hopes the
Department will be an accredited police agency by the end of 1999. He asked
Officer Baber to explain the accreditation process and its value to the
community.
Office Baber said he works in the administrative bureau. He said the
Executive Board members for accreditation in Virginia consists of active
sheriffs and chiefs of police. They have established 211 professional
standards and administer the accreditation process with Virginia agencies.
The program is independent of government in Virginia, but the Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services administers the day-to-day operations
of the Commission. The program is voluntary. It is Virginia-specific being
based on the Virginia Code. It is inexpensive, costing only $100.00 to get
into the program. There are no time limits for completing the accreditation
process. There is also a national accreditation which gives a three-year time
limit for an agency the size of Albemarle's. That accreditation would cost
$15,000 and it is not based on any laws in Virginia. The goals of the Bilouxi
program are to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement
agencies in the Commonwealth through the delivery of services, promotion of
cooperation among components of the criminal justice system, to ensure the
appropriate level of training for law enforcement personnel and to promote
public confidence in law enforcement. Accreditation provides a framework for
professional self-inspection. It helps address high liability issues and it
enhances service delivery to the citizens. Officer Baber said the Bilouxi
process is a five-step process. There are only 17 accredited agencies in the
State at this time, and Albemarle wil~ be the next accredited agency in
December.
Chief Miller said there are other things happening in the Department.
The Neigb_borhood Watch and the Community Policing Programs continue to grow.
There are currently 146 active neighborhood watch groups covering 11,000
households. The Police Foundation has been a partner of the Community
Policing Program. The Foundation met last week and they have agreed to
continue supporting publications with the neighborhoods. They will give $4000
for the quarterly newsletter and also $4000 to publish the Police Department's
Annual Report in the Daily Progress next May. Business partnerships continue
to grow. A video exchange program was created by the midnight shift because
of crimes occurring in businesses that are open 24 hours a day. The people on
this shift took it upon themselves to meet with business owners and persuade
them to get cameras in their businesses. A number of videos have been
purchased in order to be sure these businesses have fresh videos in their
cameras.
Chief Miller said a partnership was started with U.S. Cellular and the
Postal Service. U.S. Cellular has given telephones to the postal workers who
are in the rural areas, and these people have become part of the department's
Mobile Watch Program. Through the White Collar Crime Unit, which was
initiated this past year, they have expanded security surveys for businesses.
He said that a couple of years ago, along with neighborhood policing, they
got a grant for problem-oriented policing in the Esmont area. That program
has been expanded to the Southwood Mobile Home Park which has had many calls
for service. Albemarle officers and other County personnel in the public
sector, have gone in and created a Neighborhood Watch, established a Boys' and
Girls' Club, had a neighborhood cleanup day where police officers, other
County personnel and community members hauled away over five tons of trash.
They had block parties and are continuing to work with the residents and the
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
public sector in creating recreational facilities for the children in their
mobile home park.
Chief Miller said there are School Resource Officers in three of the
high schools and two of the middle schools this year. Early in the school
year, a school resource officer made an arrest on a bomb threat case at
Western Albemarle High School, another bomb threat case at Jack Jouett Middle
School, and recently, an arrest concerning a hate crime and vandalism at
Monticello High School. There is a Kid Care Program which photographed and
fingerprinted over 3000 children in the last three years. It is an expensive
program, but one which has received a good response from the community. It is
totally funded through private resources. The Department has continued the
Halloween Putt-Putt Kids & Cops event at the Putt-Putt on Rio Road. This has
become a major attraction and the resources are provided by the private
sector.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many patrol cars are video-equipped. Chief
Miller said 25 vehicles have cameras. The Police Foundation has given money
to provide for two more cameras, but those will be used as replacement
cameras. Mr. Bowerman asked if most of the cameras have been provided by the
private sector. Chief Miller said "yes."
Ms. Humphris said the report was impressive and she hopes it can get out
to the community at-large. She thinks people would feel comforted to know
about all of these programs. Chief Miller said he thinks there will be a lot
of coverage over the accreditation process. He thanked the members of the
Police Foundation and said the next annual report will have a lot of
information for the community.
Mr. Carl Pumphrey was present to speak about the County's Fire and
Rescue Division. He said they are a relatively new division of County
government having been formed in January, 1994 with only three personnel
members who were taken from the Inspections Department, and there was also a
volunteer coordinator. Now, the department has six staff members, with two
support people working in the office. In the field, there are 12
firefighters, three are captains, with nine firefighters being located at the
Seminole Trail, Earlysville and Stony Point Volunteer departments, Monday
through Friday. They are there to support the suppression and rescue
operations due to the inability at times for the volunteers to respond in a
timely fashion. They are proud of the minimum training requirements necessary
in order to be an Albemarle County fire and rescue member. It is unique that
Albemarle County is getting people who are highly trained.
Mr. Pumphrey said in their field operations, they provide support for
the seven volunteer fire companies and the rescue squads, and the Airport.
There are over 500 volunteers that they coordinate daily. There are currently
two paramedics, four cardiac technicians, three shock trauma specialists and
six EMTs in the field. The paramedics can deliver advanced life support to
citizens in the field, they can deliver drugs, defibrillation, chest
decompressions, and other things.
Mr. Pumphrey said the office staff is made up of several subsections.
These are: Fire Prevention, Training and Administration. They had 185 fire
investigations this past year, or an increase of 83 percent. There were 28
hazardous materials incidents last year, an increase of 26 percent, most being
on the roadways. North Garden is attempting to put together a Level II HazMat
Unit, so there will be three in the County if that is approved. There were
996 inspections, an increase of 23 percent. There were 1271 violations
issued. Violations are down about two percent from the previous year. They
handled 194 complaints, an increase of 29 percent. They had 276 requests for
assistance last year.
Mr. Pumphrey said they give Fire/Safety Classes in the schools each
year. They teach the children from kindergarten through the third grade how
to react in times of emergency, what to do in case of fire or an accident.
They are currently working with the School System on the Crisis Management
planning, and they have a Lunch Buddies Program where people in the fire
company actually go to a school in their area and have lunch with the kids.
Mr. Pumphrey said they conduct fire extinguisher training classes for
businesses so some help can be provided by telephone after accessing 911. If
a fire is in an incipient stage, they can handle it. They conduct fire
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
evacuation training and fire safety surveys. They have a good relationship
with the Police Department. They support Police operations with SWAT and
Diver Areas with medics. Two paramedics and one cardiac person are assigned
to the SWAT and Diver teams. He is not aware of any other system like this in
Central Virginia.
Mr. Pumphrey said his staff is also involved with the Site Review Team
in order to have input as to safety aspects of new development. They have a
Car Safety Seat and Installation Program which began in February, 1998. They
are involved with coordinating the volunteer companies for the County Fair.
They show a video explaining the volunteer system in the County. There was
recently a disaster drill at the Airport attended by many different agencies
in the community. It was very successful. They are about to start an elderly
visitation program. It will involve the fire company having a list of people
in their area who should be checked on. They will contact these people and
have interaction with them on a daily basis.
(Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 10:30 a.m.)
As to recruitment and retention, Mr. Pumphrey said they work with
volunteers on this all the time. They have had seven grants over the past few
years to help with newsletters, brochures and other publicity items. It is
not a problem that is unique to this area. It is a problem all across the
country. They are going to work with the School System to try and get a
volunteer, junior academy started. They give a number of classes throughout
the year. It takes about 220 hours to obtain the Firefighter II level. That
is a large commitment by the volunteers. A large number are certified at that
level. This year they are adding two new classes, Instructor I and Officer I,
which is the next level of training. There will be a regional school in March
with about 10 classes.
Mr. Pumphrey said the Department continues to grow on every front. They
are trying to be proactive. They require more of their personnel than the
standard, and they hope to institute many new programs.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on the Proposed Issuance of School
Bonds of Albemarle County in the Estimated Maximum Principal Amount of
$2,835,000. The purpose of the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects
for public schools. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and
September 29, 1999.)
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:46 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff report which states that the FY 1999-
2000 Capital Improvement Budget was approved with the intent to issue
approximately $2,835,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority
(VPSA). Resolutions authorizing the application to VPSA were approved by the
School Board on August 23, 1999, and by the Board of Supervisors on September
1, 1999. Four documents are involved: a resolution authorizing the County
Executive to enter into a bond agreement, a projected payment schedule based
on an estimated 5.49 percent interest rate, a bond sale agreement, a
continuing disclosure agreement, and a proceeds agreement. In order to
proceed with this process, a public hearing is necessary. Staff recommends
that after holding the public hearing, the Board approve the resolution
necessary to proceed with this project and to meet the bond issuance
guidelines. The other three documents need to be approved as to form and will
be completed during the actual bond sale process.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:49 a.m.)
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Ms. Humphris immediately moved to adopt a Resolution Authorizing the
Issuance of Not to Exceed $2,835,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series
1999A, of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be Sold to the Virginia Public
School Authority and Providing for the.Form and Details Thereof, and approving
the other three documents as to form. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$2,835,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS,
SERIES 1999A, OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), has determined
that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to
exceed $2,835,000 and to issue its general obligation school
bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for
school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed,
on October 6, 1999, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined
below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606,
Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by
resolution, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the
Bonds and consented to the issuance of the Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board
hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and
issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,835,000 (the
"Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects
for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance
and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established
pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best
interest of the County to accept the offer of the Virginia
Public School Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the
County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price,
determined by the VPSA to be fair and accepted by the Chairman
of the Board and the County Executive, that is not less than 98%
of par and not more than 103% of par upon the terms established
pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman of the Board, the
County Executive, and such officer or officers of the County as
either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of October 12, 1999, with
the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in
substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting,
which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement").
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the
date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated
"General Obligation School Bonds, Series 1999A;" shall bear
interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually
on each January 15 and July 15 beginning July 15, 2000 (each an
"Interest Payment Date"), at the rates established in accordance
with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15
in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the
amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto {the "Principal
Installments"), subject to the .provisions of Section 4 of this
Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and PrinciDal Installments. The County
Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept the
interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided
that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one
percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA
for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be
issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds
of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed
six and one-half percent (6 1/2%) per annum. The Interest
Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to
change at the request of the VPSA. The County Executive is
hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest
Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of
the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution.
The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section
8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates
established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the
Principal Installments requested by the VPSA as having been so
accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in
the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially
in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Reqistrar. The
following provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of
the Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available
funds to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable
Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day
for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at
or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such
Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
(b) Ail overdue payments of principal and, to the extent
permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable
interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as
Bond Registrar and Paying Agent. for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments
of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15,
2010, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the
VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2010,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held
by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2010, and the definitive
bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that
mature after July 15, 2010, are subject to prepayment or
redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated
maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15,
2010, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices
(expressed as percentages of Principal InstaIlments to be
prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed} set
forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment
or redemption:
Dates
July 15, 2010, through July 14, 2011
July 15, 2011, through July 14, 2012
July 15, 2012, and thereafter
Prices
102%
101
100
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as
described above without first obtaining the written consent of
the registered owner of the Bon~s. Notice of any such
prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to
the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety
(90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman
and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the
seal of the County thereto.
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt
payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the
interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full
faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged,
and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding
there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an
annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County
subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for
the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the
interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and
interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation
as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes
authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds
of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for
such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to
Arbitrage. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and
such officer or officers of the County as either may designate
are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as
to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate each setting
forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the
Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order
to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable
regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of
interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board
covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the
issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as
set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of
Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the
other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii)
the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that
interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain
excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The
Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the
County to authorize and-direct the County Directo~ of Finance to
participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection
with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive
and such officer or officers of the County as either may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and
investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the
other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the
investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form
submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby
approved.
12. Continuinq Disclosure Aqreement. The Chairman of the
Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the
County as either may designate are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set
forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth
the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing
such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance
with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 15c2-12 and directed to make all filings required by
Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be
determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filinq of Resolution. The appropriate officers or
agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause
a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit
Court of the County.
14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all
officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may
consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance
and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is
hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date.
immediately.
This Resolution shall take effect
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1 $
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
General Obligation School Bond
Series 1999A
The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for
value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises
to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal
amount of DOLLARS ($ ), in annual
installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached
hereto payable on July 15, 2000, and annually on July 15
thereafter to and including July 15, 2019 (each a "Principal
Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of this
Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi-annually on
January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing on July 15, 2000
(each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal
Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum set
forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or
redemption as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and
interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United
States of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, Crestar Bank, as bond registrar
(the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the
presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School
Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00
a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment
or redemption. If a Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment
or redemption is not a business day for banks in the
Commonwealth of Virginia or fou the Commonwealth of Virginia,
then the payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest on
this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at or
before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding the
scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond
of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest,
written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given
promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully
discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the
payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be
surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of the principal of and the premium, if
any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds
provides, and Section 15.2-2624, Code of Virginia 1950, as
amended, requires, that there shall be levied and collected an
annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to
local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of the
principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the
same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as
to rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes
authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for
such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with
and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26,
Title 15.2, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions
duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of the County
and the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital
projects for school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost, on twenty (20)
days written notice from the Virginia Public School Authority,
at the office of the Bond Registrar on one or more occasions for
one or more temporary bonds or definitive bonds in marketable
form and, in any case, in fully registered form, in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, and having
an equal aggregate principal amount, having principal
installments or maturities and bearing interest at rates
corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the
installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid. This Bond
is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School
Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar,
and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered
owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by
such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the
surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this
Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such
definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration books in
the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or
before July 15, 2010, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2010,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities. The principal installments of this Bond
coming due after July 15, 2010, and the definitive Bonds for
which this Bond may be exchanged that mature after July 15,
2010, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of
the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part,
on any date on or after July 15, 2010, upon payment of the
prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
principal installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of
the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest
to the date set for prepayment
or redemption:
Dates
July 15, 2010, through July 14, 2011 102%
July 15, 2011, through July 14, 2012 101
July 15, 2012, and thereafter 100
Prices
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as
described above without the prigr written consent of the
registered owner of the Bonds.~ Notice of any such prepayment or
redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the
registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90)
and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the
Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen,
exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this
Bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time,
form and manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all
other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other
limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Albemarle has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by
the signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this
Bond to be dated November , 1999.
At this time, Mr. Martin assumed the chair. He apologized to everyone
for unexpectedly not being present at the beginning of this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 10. School Board Report.
Mr. John Baker, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was
present to make this report. He said he would like to report on the current
statistics for the opening of the school year. The School Division employed
137 new teachers. He believes this is the number of new hires that can be
anticipated each of the next few years. The System is still short of four
school bus drivers so staff members have been used as substitute drivers.
Their goal is to have one Resource Officer assigned to each middle school.
Mr. Baker said he believes safety and protection of citizens should be a
police function so the School Board has asked that the Local Government budget
reflect this expense beginning next year.
Mr. Baker said enrollment projections stand at 99.7 percent of the
anticipated number.
Mr. Baker noted development of a Calendar/Handbook with financial
participation by Sprint and Albemarle First Bank. This calendar has been
mailed by the Division to all parents and is available to the community as
well. The School Board is very proud of this publication. Mr. Martin said
the calendar is the most helpful item for parents that the School System
provides.
Mr. Baker said the first monthly meeting with the area legislators was
held on September 10, 1999, and there will be another meeting on October 8.
Senator Emily Couric and Delegate Mitch Van Yahres were present and the
conversation revolved around the SOLs and how the legislators might help. At
the September 10 meeting they discussed the test data in the areas of math,
English and social studies. The same thing will occur on October 8 for the
areas of language arts and math.
Mr. Baker said that of the 132 School Divisions in the State, 13 have in
place an implementation process on Charter Schools. He assured the Board that
the School Board has been proactive in this regard. They are just waiting for
someone to come forward from the community with applications in order to get
on with the process.
Mr. Baker said the Superintendent's Roundtables have begun. This is
where they go into the community and get feedback directly, some of which will
be translated into budget needs, and it also helps him stay current with what
the community wants in the School Division. He said the hate incidents and
other threats at two of the high schools were expertly handled by the
Albemarle County Police Department.
Mr. Baker said the Strings Program has begun at Jack Jouett Middle
School. There are 16 students, and the part-time instructor is doing other
administrative details and coordinating the imPlementation of a Barter Strings
Program for subsequent years. The newly-elected School Board members will be
invited to a special orientation by the current School Board members on
November 10, 1999. The new Ivy Creek School will be dedicated on October 20,
1999. There will be a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on October
25, 1999, to discuss the Five-Year Consultant Compensation Report. On
September 13 the School Board adopted a resolution of appreciation to the
University of Virginia School of Medicine for the donation of 66 Leica
Binocular Compound microscopes valued at about $125,000. The School Board has
established the Equity and Diversity Committee. It has implications from the
Columbine incident, and implications on how racial and other kinds of tensions
might be handled. He said the School Board has approved the Capital
Improvement Program for FY 2000-01 through 2004-05.
Mr. Baker said that on September 27 the School Board discussed areas to
be worked on to improve the Schools total safety posture. He said the lack of
a School Division Safety Coordinator is a position the schools cannot afford
to not have staffed. Having crisis management plans is one area of concern
that the School Division Safety person could take care of. A schematic design
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32 )
has been approved for a new Northern Elementary School for 600 pupils. The
basic design of Agnor-Hurt was used by the committee in making its
recommendation. Lastly, the dual enrollment and dual credit system with
Piedmont Virginia Community College is very important to a school division
which wants to have avenues and opportunities beyond the normal four-year
experience in the school. Albemarle is very fortunate to have PVCC collocated
with Monticello High School which gives an opportunity for Albemarle students
to get college credit for work they are doing beyond advanced placement. The
School hopes that this collegial approach can be expanded further to the
University of Virginia. He said cooperation between the Superintendent and
the President of PVCC has been outstanding. Students are already beginning to
benefit from this articulation. Mr. Baker said that concluded his report for
today, and he offered to answer questions.
Mr. Marshall referred to a sheet entitled '~Albemarle County Schools
1998-1999 Demographics." He said the'percentage of students using the
Free/Reduced Lunch Program in his district is alarming to him. He said these
figures definitely prove that there are a great number of people in Southern
Albemarle County who are socially/economically depressed. Ms. Humphris said
there are high figures in other districts, as well. Greer Elementary has 38
percent and Agnor-Hurt has 27 percent. Mr. Marshall said he is surprised that
Albemarle High School does not participate in the National School Lunch
Program. Dr. Castner said in the past Albemarle High School has been
independent, but beginning next year they will be participating. Mr. Martin
asked if the Albemarle Cafeteria did not go independent because they did not
want to meet the Federal standards. Dr. Castner said they were given that
flexibility and it was successful initially. Now, they will be joining the
other schools in the same program.
Agenda Item No. lla. Request to set a Public Hearing to Amend Section
9-404 of the County Code to Establish Amounts of License Fees for Motor
Vehicles.
Mr. Tucker said the County assesses a license fee on motor vehicles,
trailers and semi-trailers pursuant to Virginia Code §46.2-752(A). The amount
of the local license fee may be equal to, but not greater than, the amount of
the license tax imposed by the Commonwealth on such vehicles. Periodically,
the General Assembly adjusts the amount of the state license fee so the County
Code must be amended so the County's fee does not exceed the amount of the
corresponding state tax.
Currently, County Code §9-404 sets the fee for motor vehicles at $20.00
for vehicles under 4000 pounds and at $25.00 for vehicles in excess of 4000
pounds. The state tax for such vehicles has been increased to $23.00 and
$28.00, respectively. An amended ordinance has been drafted to increase the
local license fee to the state minimum. The State Code has also been amended
to raise the state tax for motorcycles to $18.00. The amendment proposed
would raise the County's license fee on motorcycles from $15.00 to $18.00 to
correspond to the increase in the state tax.
Virginia Code §46.2-694.1 has instituted a three-tiered rate schedule
based on weight for non-passenger trailers and semi-trailers. The ordinance
would also amend County Code §§ 9-404(C) and (D) to continue a two-tiered fee
schedule for trailers and semi-trailers rather than to institute a
three-tiered fee schedule. The current County Code provides for a two-tier
rate structure on trailers (less than 1500 pounds, $5.00; over 1500 pounds,
$25.00). The allowable three-tier rate would require substantial modification
to billing systems and is not recommended at this time.
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Code tax for large trailers is now less
than the County license fee for such trailers. The proposed decrease in the
fee for the large trailers, therefore, is mandatory to comply with State law
and will cost the County $10,030 in revenues.
Mr. Tucker said these proposed increases are shown for information only.
The Board has the discretion to continue with the current fee or increase the
fee up to the maximums shown. Enactment of the new rate schedules would have
the following impact on annual revenues:
Old Revenue
Type Rate New Rate Variance Impact
Vehicles under 4001 lbs $ 20.00 $ 23.00 $ 3.00 $ 168,924
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Vehicles over 4001 lbs 25.00 28.00 3.00
Motorcycles 15.00 18.00 3.00
Small Trailers 5.00 8.00 3.00
Large Trailers 25.00 18.50 (6.50)
Net Increase
39,618
2,208
3,465
(10,030)
$ 204,185
Mr. Tucker said staff seeks guidance from the Board as to whether the
motor vehicle fees should be adjusted to the greater amounts now permitted by
State Code. If a public hearing is to be held, staff recommends that it be on
November 3, 1999.
Mr. Marshall said that $3.00 is a lot of money to the people who live in
his district. He knows a lot of people who cannot even afford the license for
the car. An increase would cause a further hardship on these people.
Mr. Bowerman compared this change to the Governor's No-Car-Tax Program
and said this increased amount is minuscule in comparison.
Ms. Thomas said it is the poorest people, those "just over the line"
that cannot afford something. But, the Board has just heard the report from
the School Board which lets everyone know what is done with some funding for
those people who can't afford to have a car at all. She understands what has
been said about the people who get hurt by the small level of increases. She
asked if the question this morning is simply one of whether the Board sets
this for a public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to hold a public hearing on the issue
because he would like to hear public comments. It is something which, in
combination with the State's action, has a minimum impact on those who do have
automobiles. Mr. Marshall said he does not object to holding a public
hearing, but he will not approve of the increased amount.
Mr. Bowerman then moved that the Board set a public hearing on an
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article
IV, County Vehicle Licenses, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
amending §9-404, for November 10, 1999. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed Historic Preservation Plan and Ordinance,
Presentation of.
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, summarized the executive summary
which states that the Historic Preservation Committee was appointed by the
Board in May, 1995 for the purpose of developing a preservation plan for the
County and providing recommendations regarding a regulatory ordinance. In the
Summer of 1996, the Committee distributed copies of its initial draft to over
one hundred County citizens and organizations and asked for their comments.
The Committee held meetings with several organizations, including Garden
Clubs, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the
Board of Realtors. The Committee answered requests from individuals for
expert advice on historic building renovations. It also conducted a public
forum in the Lane Auditorium in May, 1997 and briefed the Architectural Review
Board on the proposal's potential impact on their organization and operation.
It then produced a final draft, and it is that document which is being
presented to the Board today to begin the public review process.
Ms. Scala said that in March, 1999, the Board readopted Chapter Two of
the Comprehensive Plan, including a short section on Historic Resources.
Staff did say that at the time the proposed Historic Preservation Plan was
complete, it should be adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, probably
as a free-standing document.
Ms. Scala said the Historic Preservation Plan is proposed as an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and provides a framework for public
involvement in protecting the community's historic resources. It reviews the
County's history (the Albemarle County Farm Bureau recommends that all
Albemarle County citizens read this section), and emphasizes education,
financial incentives and partnerships among all interest groups. The plan
further recommends the adoption of a Historic Overlay District ordinance.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Ms. Scala then introduced Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner, who said
the Historic Preservation Plan has been reorganized and condensed from the
initial draft. It lays out a program for future preservation efforts. Staff
believes it should be considered for adoption whether or not the accompanying
ordinance is adopted. The Committee feels an ordinance is required because
National and State designations do not provide protection for historic
resources; a local regulation is the primary way that government can provide
legal protection for historic resources. The ordinance is different from
previous proposals in that it focuses on protection of designated historic
resources through review of proposed demolition and other proposed changes,
but it does not require review of any new construction. The ordinance does
not propose review of details such as color, which do not permanently affect
the integrity of the structure. The ordinance does not require maintenance of
historic structures, although voluntary maintenance and programs to offer
assistance are recommended in the Historic Preservation Plan. The ordinance
closely tracks the State enabling legislation. For example, the law allows a
property owner to ultimately demolish a structure, provided certain steps are
followed. By adopting this ordinance, the public is granted an important
period of delay prior to the proposed demolition of a historic structure so
the building can be documented and all alternatives to demolition can be
explored. Adoption of the ordinance provides a method for subsequent adoption
of historic overlay districts. Only contributing historic resources within
adopted local historic districts would be subject to review. It is
recommended that the existing National Register properties be considered first
for adoption as local historic districts.
Ms. Pickart said staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution of
intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Historic Preservation
Plan as suggested in March, 1999. The Historic Preservation Committee
requests that the Board consider forwarding the proposed Historic Overlay
District ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations.
Mr. W. J. Eddins, a member of the Committee, was present to give a slide
presentation of the report. He said the Committee has found that respecting
the past also provides economic benefits and citizenship value to the
community. He said historic resources which help connect to the past are
being lost. He said the Committee has documented 56 resources which have been
destroyed since the late 1960s. Seven of those 56 were lost to fire or flood.
The remainder were lost to demolition or neglect. Previously there has been
no data collection in the County to document losses. Some demolition does not
now require a permit and until recently, even if a permit were issued, there
were no means for the issuing agency to know that it involved an historic
resource, no procedure for reporting it and no agency to receive the report.
Mr. Eddins said Albemarle County has enacted land use regulations to
protect its farm land, its forests, its water resources, its entrance
corridors, and its dark skies, but not its historic resources. On May 3,
1995, the Board appointed the Committee to address this issue. He asked those
members of the Committee who were present to stand and be recognized. They
have drawn from documents, organizations and knowledgeable individuals within
Virginia and elsewhere in the Nation. In tailoring that information to
Albemarle County, they benefited from the liaison to the Board and the
Planning Commission, and that of their technical advisor. He said staff has
not yet reviewed the Committee's final product, which is presented to the
Board today.
Mr. Eddins said today's presentation is a brief overview of the Plan the
Committee developed. It establishes a framework for future preservation
efforts in Albemarle County and will comprise a component of the Comprehensive
Plan. In Albemarle County, as well as in other parts of the Nation where
agriculture was the early dominant industry, historic preservation correlates
closely with rural conservation. Most of the older buildings in such areas
are related to agricultural pursuits. Consequently, the rural setting is an
integral part of the contribution that historic resources make to the County's
heritage, and rural conservation is a longstanding policy goal in Albemarle
County. Growth management is important to the preservation of historic
resources. Many historic resources are also located in the County's
development areas. In these areas, choices about growth and change should be
made only after due consideration of the presence, condition and potential
contribution of any local historic resources.
Mr. Eddins said adaptive use is an important, practical approach to
preserving these important resources and the Committee has made
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
recommendations to encourage this type of use. The preservation plan
emphasizes that it is important to protect a broad spectrum of historic
resources. This includes high style resources alrDady listed on the National
and State Registers, as well as simpler buildings which house the common,
everyday activities of the majority of Albemarle's residents so all citizens
can enjoy that profound sense of continuity and belonging which inspires pride
and a feeling that each of us has a stake in the community.
Mr. Eddins said the remaining historic resources are the only tangible
evidence of the County's heritage. These resources visually remind one that
Albemarle County is a place different from all others and they offer both
tangible and intangible benefits. People enjoy living and working in
Albemarle County largely because of the character and beauty of its
surroundings. Historic resources and their settings are a significant part of
those surroundings and make a distinct contribution to the quality of life.
Historic resources also offer tangible benefits including economic benefits to
the hospitality and real estate industries, to builders, and in attracting new
businesses to the County. Not only do people like to live and work in the
County, they also like to visit and spend money here. Historic resources draw
tourists and tourist dollars to the County with events such as Garden Week.
Nearly 75 percent of all first-time visitors to Virginia focus on historic
sites. Tourism contributes nearly eleven billion dollars to the State's
economy. The Weldon Cooper Center estimated that 1995 tourist spending in
Albemarle County exceeded $136.0 million followed by Charlottesville with
$93.0 million and Nelson County with $89.0 million.
Mr. Eddins said historic resources also contribute to the economic
vitality of the County through the cascading effect of rehabilitation projects
on local employment and commerce. Because it is labor intensive,
rehabilitation creates more jobs than comparable new construction, and more of
the money circulates in the community. Other contributions to the community
are seen in property values. Studies show that property values are typically
stabilized and often increased through historic preservation. The real estate
community recognizes the attraction of historic buildings through regular
advertisements designed to capitalize on their character and value.
Mr. Eddins said historic resources need attention at the local level
because National and State Historic Register programs offer authoritative
recognition, but little protection. There are no Federal or State regulations
for historic preservation that are analogous to those for environmental
protection. Historic district zoning enacted by the local jurisdiction is the
primary means for providing legal and effective protection for historic
resources and their settings. Many Virginia localities have concluded that
the survival of their cultural heritage requires local protection of historic
resources and they have recognized that regulation at the local level is the
best way to assure that protection. Seventy Virginia localities, including 17
counties, have adopted historic preservation regulations. The Committee
understands that an enduring and equitable program to protect historic
resources should balance any regulatory measures with incentives and
educational initiatives. This Plan recommends that a wide range of
preservation tools, techniques and incentives be implemented to assist
property owners in selecting options that are practicable, historically
consistent and affordable. This menu of local incentives augments those
available from national and state programs. Some will require approval by the
Board while others have already been implemented.
Mr. Eddins said the Committee also incorporated into the Plan its strong
belief that education is key to a successful preservation program. The
primary goal of the educational component of this preservation plan is to
successfully communicate to the community the value of Albemarle's remaining
historic resources, and to engender in the community a sense of common
responsibility for those resources. The Committee focused its educational
recommendations in three areas: school programs, adult programs and community
events. By raising the community's awareness, by increasing its knowledge,
and by encouraging responsibility, the survival of the County's historic
resources for the benefit of future generations can be assured.
Mr. Eddins said preservation of historic resources cannot solely rely on
voluntary efforts. There has been the equivalent of a voluntary historic
preservation policy since the County was created in 1744 and 1745. The
ineffectiveness of that policy in today's environment was graphically
illustrated by the losses highlighted in the opening slides of his
presentation. A regulatory program is now necessary to ensure the survival of
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
the County's historic resources. The Committee is convinced that the
protection capability of voluntary measures is inadequate given the current
growth trends of technology and population. An important recommendation of
this plan is the adoption of an Historic Overlay District Zoning Ordinance to
ensure the protection of the County's outstanding collection of historic and
cultural resources.
Mr. Eddins said the Committee drafted an ordinance that focuses on the
'~big picture" of historic preservation in the County. Its emphasis is on the
survival of historic resources, not their aesthetics. There is no attempt to
save every old building in the County in its current state. Instead, the
ordinance proposes a thoughtful, practical and affordable review of proposed
demolitions and exterior alterations to historic structures that have been
designated. The Committee believes the tangible and intangible benefits
outlined earlier in the presentation justify the added administrative burden.
Based on enabling legislation in the Code of Virginia, the ordinance
establishes procedures to forestall the demolition of a designated historic
resource until a rational and informed discussion of demolition alternatives
can be explored. Dye process for the property owner is retained through the
appeals provision and the right to make an offer to sell. To minimize the
burden on property owners, there is no regulatory requirement for review of
new construction projects or interior alterations or for maintenance. The
Committee believes that these are important components of an historic
preservation program, but recommends educational initiatives to achieve
historically appropriate and compatible action in these areas. Many other
actions, which are reversible, such as paint color, are not subject to review.
Mr. Eddins said it is difficult to imagine Albemarle County without its
historic buildings and its rural landscapes. Yet, Arlington and Fairfax
County residents may have had the same imagination disconnect 30 or 40 years
ago. Albemarle County would not be what it is today without its historic
resources and it won't be Albemarle County tomorrow if action is not taken now
to preserve the historic resources we still have. The historic planning
ordinance provides a means for all County citizens to participate in
protecting historic resources. The recommendation of this historic
preservation plan, including the establishment of an Historic Overlay
Districts Zoning Ordinance, would help protect and encourage the preservation
of the County's remaining historic an~ cultural resources. To ensure that
future public policy decisions reflect the value of historic resources to the
community, the Committee recommends inclusion of the Historic Preservation
Plan in the County's Comprehensive Plan. It also recommends that its
accompanying historic overlay district ordinance be expeditiously considered
through the normal staff review and public hearing process, and then passed.
Through these, the County's historic resources, those currently endangered and
those which will face future threats, can be preserved to continue their
tangible and intangible contribution to Albemarle's Heritage, for present
citizens and for succeeding generations.
Mr. Marshall said he had a problem with some of the buildings which are
designated historic. For instance, the Warren Depot. He knows that building
well. Why would it be designated as historic? It just sat there and fell
down. Why would anybody want to spend any money on that building? Mr. Eddins
said there have been surveys of resources in the County which appear to be
historic. There are about 2000 of these resources. The reason it was
included on the list was because it was similar to other such buildings and
structures which have been included on plans in other localities. Before it
would be designated as a resource it would require an intensive survey and
study and that usually takes from six months to a year to complete. It could
be significant because of who lived in it or what happened there and how that
connected with the community.
Mr. Marshall said he knows the train station in downtown Charlottesville
and the one in Staunton, and then he looks at the Warren Depot and knows there
is not enough traffic in that area to ever do anything with that piece of
property other than tearing it down. Mr. Eddins said it was included because
it could have gone through the process outlined in the ordinance and passed.
It also could be one of those resources which are so far off the beaten track
that people would decide it did not contribute to a sense of community,
continuity and belonging. If that were the answer, then it would not be
designated.
Ms. Humphris said the staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution
of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Historic Preservation Plan,
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
and to forward the Historic Preservation Ordinance to the Planning Commission
for its recommendation. She then offered motion to adopt the following
resolution of intent. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins said he grew up in a house that was built in 1832 and his
mother, who is 96, still lives there. Even though it has never been
designated as an historic resource, W&L University has done extensive
measuring of the house and detailed drawings, etc. What he learned from
growing up there is the expense of maintaining something like that. He worked
with the lady who owned Guthrie Hall (she has since passed away and the
property is in other hands), and she never had the resources to take care of
the property. Many of the buildings shown in the slides this morning were
neglected. He would not know how to address that, but this plan is needed in
order to preserve what is left.
Mr. Bowerman said this plan is much less regulatory and confiscatory
than all previous attempts. Even if a landowner wants to demolish a building,
somebody could say they wanted to buy the building and restore it on another
location. The ordinance needs staff review. He said although these things
may be hard to maintain, somebody may be willing to do that.
Ms. Thomas said she found it interesting that the Committee attempted to
find incentives. She said some of those incentives don't yet exist and some
of them are great ideas of rotating funds and things to help the people who do
not have the means to maintain the property. She said it is a growing trend
in the country for people to buy old houses, have no idea what they are
buying, tear them down and build a new house, even in communities like San
Francisco where you would think people would treasure their old houses. She
said the emphasis on demolition is the right emphasis because she thinks
people may want a house and want to move it to another location. She thinks
it is a minimal and practical approach and she hopes the Planning Commission
will present its recommendation soon.
Mr. Marshall said he was raised in one of the oldest houses in the area
at 415 Park Street. It was the home of the first sheriff in Albemarle County.
He remembers scraping and painting when he was a small child trying to get
the house in order. His parents took in boarders just to keep the house in
order. It took everything they had just to keep the house up.
Mr. Martin congratulated the Committee saying they had balanced some
tough issues and he feels they have done an excellent job. He likes the
product. He thinks it will come back from the Planning Commission and be
passed. He had several people call him and ask that he oppose the report and
they knew nothing about the report. After explaining the report to them, they
dropped opposition.
At this time, roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
RESOLUTIQN OF INTENT
WHEREAS, a historic preservation plan has been prepared at
the request of the Board of County Supervisors by the Historic
Preservation Committee, appointed by the Board on May 3, 1995;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Historic Preservation Plan is
intended to further the Comprehensive Plan goal of protecting
Albemarle County's historic and cultural resources by defining
specific implementation, strategies; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Plan is proposed as an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and provides a framework for
public involvement in protecting the community's historic
resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the purposes of
public necessity, convenience and general welfare, the Board of
County Supervisors hereby adopts this resolution of intent to
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
amend the Comprehensive Plan to add a historic preservation plan
component; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning
Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent, and to return its recommendations to this
Board of County Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request to Set Public Hearing to Amend the Service
Area Boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide Water
Service to Property Described as Tax Map 73A, Sections 1 through 7, Peacock
Hill Subdivision, Work Session on.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executive summary which states that in
July, 1999 the Peacock Hill Community Association submitted an application to
amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) service area for provision
of public water. Planning staff had previously met with representatives from
the association to discuss the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use Plan, regarding circumstances under which public water and sewer can
be provided in the Rural Area. Subsequently, the Water Resources Manager
convened a meeting with representatives from the Peacock Hill Community
Association, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Division of Mineral
Resources, Albemarle County Service Authority, and County Planning and
Community Development. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the history
of the Peacock Hill water situation and develop strategies for possible
solutions. One outcome of this meeting was that state and private geologists
would work with the Community Association to further explore the opportunities
for groundwater development in and near the subdivision. The consulting
geologist's report has been submitted, and is on file in the Clerk's office.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, the County
initiated a policy regarding extension of water and sewer to properties
outside of the growth area which states: "Only allow changes in service areas
outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is:
(1) adjacent to existing lines; and, {.2) public health or safety is
endangered. Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the
extension of public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged
except in cases where public health and safety are at issue." There is no
public water infrastructure located adjacent to Peacock Hill, the first
criterion identified in the Land Use Plan for extension of service to the
Rural Area. The water supply limitations encountered by Peacock Hill may
constitute an endangerment of the public health or safety of the residents,
the second criterion in the Comprehensive Plan policy.
Mr. Cilimberg said the problems encountered at Peacock Hill are
indicative of a larger trend. In fact, this past summer, County staff was
contacted about water quantity and/or quality problems at Glenair, Langford
and another small system in Ivy. Earlysville Forest also experienced water
quantity problems over the Summer. It is apparent to staff that any
discussion about solving Peacock Hill's problems will lead to broader issues
of small, groundwater-dependent systems in general. The land use implication
of extending a public waterline is that a large number of small residential
lots - developed and undeveloped - lie between the closest existing waterline
(in the vicinity of West Leigh) and Peacock Hill. If a waterline is built,
future requests from other property owners to hook into the line will be
inevitable.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Peacock Hill community must have access to a safe
and reliable source of water. It is clear that the current system is not
capable of providing this. Whether the solution involves developing
additional "on-site" or "off-site" sources, increasing the system's
efficiency, or extending a public waterline, the outcome has implications for
the well-being of the Peacock Hill community and the integrity of the County's
Rural Area policies.
Mr. Cilimberg said the purpose of this work session is to provide the
Board with an opportunity to discuss this issue with the applicant and staff.
Staff is currently reviewing the consulting geologists' report received
September 14, and has no recommendations at this time. Under the service area
amendment process, the Board will ultimately need to decide whether to hold a
public hearing on the request.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Martin asked the representative of the Community Association to
speak.
Mr. Bill Hodson said he coordinates a committee which has been working
on the issue for a number of months. Because of the lateness of the hour, he
will not give a full presentation because he believes that most of the Board
members are familiar with the situation. He then introduced some of the
people from Peacock Hill who will speak this morning. He mentioned several
options staff had suggested be investigated. First, was to expand the search
for water beyond Peacock Hill. Their application talked about Jay Gillenwater
Nursery water and nothing has changed. He uses that well 100 hours a year,
and it was not identified as a water source by the geologist. The Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority has a large flow in their new well on 1-64 but it is not
possible to use that well. He asked Mr. Harold Morris to speak about the
Gertrude Webber land across from Peacock Hill.
Mr. Morris said he visited with Ms. Webber to explore the possibility of
purchasing that land for water sites. He understands the geologist's report
indicates that there are three sites on that land. The land is for sale at a
price of $850,000. Ms. Webber has offered to finance the sale to Peacock Hill
with a sizeable down payment because it may create a hardship on the community
to take this step. It would cost $170,000 as the down payment. Mr. Bowerman
asked the number of residents involved. Mr. Morris said there are 180 lots.
That would leave $680,000 to amortize. If the assessment were made by the
number of lots, it would be about $1000 for the down payment, and assessed
about $50 a month to amortize that over a period of twenty years. Adding that
to the monthly water expense makes the water bill a little high. The $850,000
would buy 131 acres of land, and the land is adjacent to Peacock Hill. Before
exploring this purchase, the Community Association would need to know there is
water on that property. This would be considered only as a short-term
solution. According to the geologist's report, initial water flow is reduced
substantially after the well is seasoned. He would rather look to a long-term
solution.
Mr. Hudson said the staff also suggested placing a moratorium on
building in Peacock Hall. There are 180 lots and 148 of them are already
improved. That leaves 33 lots that can be built upon. There was a question
as to why they would allow building to continue when the water supply is not
adequate. He asked Mr. Chuck McGinnis to speak.
Mr. McGinnis said it is a logical question, so it was referred to the
Community Association's attorney, Mr.'Francis Buck. Mr. Buck said the owners
do not have the authority, either through the Community Association or their
water service authority, to refuse a connection. If the Association did so,
the people who owned the property could appeal to State authorities, and the
most it would do is delay the water connection, but, eventually the authority
would be ordered to make the connection and would probably be liable for
damages to the property owner for.having denied him use and enjoyment of his
property. Mr. Bowerman asked if ~he property could be assessed for the cost
of installing a new system if the Community Association went forward with that
plan. Mr. McGinnis said that has not been explored with the attorneys. The
final answer is that it is possible for the County to determine that health
and safety issues would preclude extension of water system obligations, and if
that were to happen, then the County permitting department could decline to
issue building permits. He said that authority does exist through the zoning
and police powers of the County.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis would comment. Mr. Davis said it would
not be termed a moratorium. The building permit process requires that there
be an approved water source before a building permit can be issued. If the
water source in Peacock Hill were not capable of providing an approved water
source, a building permit would not be issued. There would have to be a clear
finding that the water source was inadequate to support any additional
buildings before a building permit could be denied.
Ms. Thomas asked if having water brought in by truck is regarded as
adequate. Mr. Davis said that since this is a community water system, it
would have to be approved by the Health Department, and the County would be
dependent on their determination.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Cilimberg discussed County policies, but he would
like to ask Mr. Bill Brent, ACSA, to speak about the physical burden on the
water system in terms of extension of water to this community, and what the
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
existing infrastructure is inside the community that the ACSA would have to
deal with.
Mr. Martin said it is his understanding that if the County has a policy
which it adheres to completely, unless there is a showing of one of the two
factors mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg, this whole discussion is whether this
situation meets the County's criteria for allowing an extension of the service
area boundaries. What the Board has before it today is simply a request as to
whether or not to send the request to a public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said because it is a situation which she believes will occur
again in the Rural Areas, it takes a slightly different flavor than just being
the typical question about there being a safety issue. There is a question of
whether or not there is anything else that can be done. There is talk about
maintenance and management of the systems. There has been described an
additional piece of property. She and staff have told this community to look
at all the different alternatives, which they have done. That is not as
straight-forward as the extension of a service area. The geologist's report
indicates that this will be a growing issue in the County. Mr. Martin said if
that is the case, he thinks it should be put in a different format of looking
at the policy and whether or not the policy needs to be changed, and if so,
why and how those changes might take place. He thinks that unless the Board
sticks to the policy, and follows the procedures which have been used up until
'this point, the Board will be heading in a direction where a lot of situations
will come up.
Ms. Humphris said that in the Executive Summary, the last two paragraphs
before the recommendation explain the problems for Peacock Hill, as well as
what problems those bring to the Land Use Policies for the entire County. If
the Board would list these things, she believes it would agree that the
Peacock Hill community must have access to a safe and reliable source of
water. The current systems can't do that. One of the recommendations in the
geologist's report is to look at everything that might be wrong with the
system in terms of extensive leakage, etc. The other recommendation, which
she did not understand had been carried out, dealing with Dr. Gillenwater
because he has some very large supplies of water on his nursery property.
There has been the report on the purchase of the Gertrude Webber land, which
is very expensive, and on the moratorium. The Board really does not know
whether there is a possibility of drilling off-site. She believes those
things are not firmed up well enough for the Board to know whether or not
there is an option. The Board needs to know that for sure before it even
holds a public hearing on something that has great implications for extending
public water into a Rural Area passing rural areas which will want in the
future to tap on and all the implications for policy changes. Since the
geologist's report has not been completely reviewed by staff, and staff has no
recommendation at this time, she thinks the Board should wait until there is a
firm staff recommendation and guidance.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. David Hirschmann, Water Resources Manager, will
speak about what staff might need in directions from the Board. He has been
the most involved with the potential alternatives. To a great extent, he
said, this request is like a lot of other such requests for water service to
rural areas. It is just that the magnitude is much greater. Every request is
from someone who needs a water source. Staff has always advised that all
options on-site or nearby be exhausted before a public water hook-up is
provided. In this case, the property is much further from waterlines. Key
West, as an example, required that a waterline be extended for some distance,
and it was a health/safety matter because of petroleum in the water system.
That extension was paid for by the DEQ. But, before the Board authorized
that, there were extensive analyses to be sure there were no other options.
This request is just a question of how much more needs to be done before the
Board makes the decision Ms. Humphris mentioned. Staff was hoping to get
guidance from the Board today in terms of looking at all those other options
because they may take some time to do and they may cost money for the Peacock
Hill Community Association.
Mr. Martin said after listening to this conversation he feels that the
Board is on familiar ground. He does not want to get away from that familiar
ground because he thinks it would be a ~'blast in the face" soon. He likes
what Ms. Humphris said. It has clearly been the Board's policy that options
be explored first. If staff is asking for direction as to how far to go in
terms of saying they have or have not explored all options, then he thinks
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
that should be the conversation today. He asked Mr. Brent to speak to Mr.
Bowerman's question.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to ask the geologist how he knows there
are three potential sites on the Gertrude Webber property. Ms. Thomas said
that person is not present at this time.
Mr. David Noble, retired geologist, said the Association consulted with
Tom Gaithright, retired geologist with the Division of Mineral Resources, and
Nick Evans, a present member of the Division's staff. They used an
exploratory technique whereby ~hey use photo-images in stereo pairs and
determine where there are visual lineations. Mr. Bowerman said that means
there are certain features underground. Mr. Noble agreed and explained, in
technical terms, their findings.
Mr. Bowerman said he is curious as to the burden on the water system in
terms of extension of water to'this community, and the infrastructure existing
in the community. Mr. Bill Brent said the ACSA Board has been watching this
situation nervously. Several years ago they did a windshield survey of
getting water to the Highway Department's rest area in Ivy. That was
estimated at about $1.6 million. It would be less than that, but well over
$1.0 million to get a line to Peacock Hill. Then there is the question of the
distribution system itself. He suspects that much of that system would have
to be replaced.
Mr. Perkins asked where the waterline would be coming from. Mr. Brent
said it would begin at Route 250 at the entrance to West Leigh Subdivision.
Mr. Martin asked who the ACSA would expect to pay for that waterline
extension. Mr. Brent said that over the past 30 years the ACSA has been
correcting mistakes from the past. Never in that period of time has the ACSA
ever put the entire cost on the benefiting community, it has been spread over
all of the customer base, both through connection fees to new customers and
through the monthly user fees.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Citimberg what kind of guidance staff needs.
Cilimberg said he will need for Mr. Hirschman to answer that question.
Obviously, there are alternatives on the table which would not involve
extending a public waterline.
Mr.
Mr. Hirschman said the Board had identified well the important issues.
He said staff has been working with the Community Association. Staff realized
that it had to pursue the policy to exhaust and explore the alternatives to
extending a waterline given the policy implications in the Comprehensive Plan
and the land use implications. There is a promising possibility with the
Webber land, but should that possibility be followed due to the cost and the
fact that it might not be a permanent solution.
Mr. Martin said the question does not seem one of whether to go to
public hearing, but rather whether the County is willing to contribute in some
way to facilitate answering all of the questions that are normally asked. Mr.
Hirschman said the most important question is whether it is the Board's
opinion at this point that the Association should pursue looking at the
opportunity with the Webber land, and to what extent should the County play a
facilitating role in doing that. He said at this time, he believes there are
only two options available, and that is pursuing the Weber land or extending
the waterline. He does not see any other feasible solution to this problem.
Ms. Humphris said in order to stick to the Board's policy, the options
that are still available have to be pursued. The question of who assumes the
financial obligation she does not know the answer to. Mr. Martin said he does
not either. He thinks the Board would need different information in a
different form before dealing with whether the County is ready to use
taxpayers' money to start getting involved in these kinds of decisions.
Ms. Humphris said it is the whole community's future at stake. The
whole growth pattern policy, etc., is involved in whatever decision comes out
of this. She is not ready to send it to public hearing until the Board gets
the information it needs.
Mr. Thomas said there are a couple of things the Board can do. The word
~facilitate" and ~lassist" in looking at this property falls short of saying the
Board will pay any money. She said that is the least the County can do. She
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
thinks the County should look at this land, and see if it is land that
Albemarle County wants for any other purpose. That might seem a little far-
fetched. It is not a nice flat piece of land, but is in an area near where
the County proposed, not long ago, to put soccer fields and where it is still
planning to put soccer fields on the closed landfill. It is not out of the
realm of possibility that this land might have some recreational value. She
has assured the homeowners that the County would not be buying land for
passive recreation, it would be an active recreation site. That is something
that some neighborhoods have decided they do not want. She thinks Parks &
Recreation could look at the land, and staff could continue working with the
Community Association. There is the water system maintenance issue (which
would get the Board into something throughout the County because there are a
number of these systems), because the Board has a report that says there may
be as many as one million gallons of water missing each year, or there may be
more water sold than is pumped. There are some management issues that she
would like suggestions from staff on.
Mr. Martin said what he is hearing is that there needs to be a motion
not to move forward with a public hearing, but instead for the staff to help
and facilitate exploring other options. He asked if that is enough guidance.
Ms. Humphris asked if it is possible to not purchase the property, but
instead to purchase easements for drilling wells. Mr. Hirschman said the
Community Association has contacted Mrs. Webber. He suggested that the
property might be purchased and then subdivided with a well parcel set aside
for all good potential well sites and the remainder resold. Without knowing
the details, there may be other such options. He said Mrs. Webber may not
agree to something like that.
A gentleman from the audience said Mrs. Webber is not in favor of
easements. He has discussed this possibility with her. She wants to sell the
land.
Mr. Marshall said he is not interested in using taxpayers' money for
this purpose. The County needs school sites. Ms. Thomas said school sites
need to be in places where there is water.
Mr. Gerald Fisher said he now knows what the word "irony" really means.
He was a member of the Board of Supervisors when Peacock Hill was approved in
1973, 1975 and 1985. His greatest concern was the water systems that were
being proposed. The Board required more water for the development of Peacock
Hill than for anything else that had been requested at that time. The real
lesson from going back through all of this is that the wells are now only
producing about one-seventh of what they were tested at. The Health
Department approvals were based on well tests that were made early. The
County's approvals were based on those well tests, and the Association has now
drilled six wells that have been put into production and several more that
were never put into production because they produced so little water. While
the Health Department approval was for a 52,000 gallon per day system, it only
gets 26,000 gallons per day out of four more wells. His faith in the well
systems, whether they be on the Webber property or anywhere else, is
completely gone. He does not have any faith that is a long-term solution. He
is pleased that the Community Association has been allowed to have this
discussion today. He thinks the long-term solution will have to be public
water. They can '~limp along" as they have been doing by hauling water, not
watering lawns, being under severe restrictions, and paying a lot of money for
that. There has to be some long-term solution, and the Community Association
appreciates the effort of County staff and the Service Authority staff helping
to explore the options. In the process they will find out whether the wells
won't work, and then staff will know that the Community Association has
exhausted the options.
Mr. Martin asked for a motion not to schedule a public hearing. Mr.
Tucker suggested just deferring this discussion until staff can determine if
there is additional information the staff can present to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman moved to defer the request to set a public hearing to amend
the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to
provide water service to property described as Tax Map 73A, Sections 1 through
7, Peacock Hill Subdivision, until such time as additional information is
presented to the Board. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Bowerman asked for a clarification. He asked if there is to be
staff proaction on investigation with Peacock Hill involved. Mr. Tucker said
Mr. Hirschman will have more 0f a leading role in assistance for facilitating
and helping with Peacock Hill.
Roll was called at this time and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Voting Credentials for the Annual Business Meeting
of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo).
Mr. Tucker summarized a letter from Mr. James D. Campbell, Executive
Director of the Virginia Association of Counties. He said that normally Ms.
Humphris and Ms. Thomas have been the voting delegates for the County at the
Annual Meeting. Ms. Thomas said she cannot be present this year at the
Tuesday morning session of the meeting. Ms. Humphris said she will be present
only if she gets a room at the Greenbrier Hotel. Mr. Tucker said a lot will
depend on whether or not there are rooms for the Board members. Mr. Bowerman
said he will be the second, assuming the Board members get rooms.
Mr. Marshall moved to appoint Ms. Humphris as the Voting Delegate and
Mr. Bowerman as the alternate voting delegate at the VACo 1999 Annual Meeting.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Scheduling of Joint Meeting on Water Supply
Alternatives, Discussion of.
Mr. Martin said Virginia Daughtery, Mayor, City of Charlottesville,
prefers moving the first meeting for this discussion to a meeting already
scheduled on November 18, 1999, scheduling the second meeting after that date.
Mr. Bowerman moved to hold the first Joint Meeting on Water Supply
Alternatives on November 18, 1999, at Monticello High School, and to schedule
the second meeting after that date. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board members take a short break before
moving to the next room.
Agenda Item No. 14. Recess (the Board recessed at 12:23 p.m.) and
Reconvened in Room 235 (at 12:37 p.m.) for a Work Session with representatives
from VDOT on the Route 29 Plans.
Mr. Jimmy T. Mills, VDOT State Location and Design Engineer, addressed
access management of the Route 29 North corridor and presented a slide program
(slides on file in the Clerk's office). He then showed a map of Route 29 with
a plan to keep it functional until the year 2036. That would require limiting
access to Route 29 and providing access roads to the rear of properties along
the corridor.
Slide show: The Virginia Department of Transportation, through its
planning, engineering, construction and maintenance activities, works to
ensure that the transportation system of Virginia serves the needs of the
Commonwealth and strikes an appropriate balance between the competing needs of
its users. Over the last 50 years, Virginia has experienced tremendous
traffic growth and land development along its State Highway System. In many
areas, this growth has exceeded the systems capacity, even with the enormous
Federal and State investments to improve existing highways and construct new
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
ones. As development along these highways has exploded, the conflict between
traffic or mobility, and adjoining access has intensified.
Slide 3: Mobility Vs. Access. One key and overriding concept in
transportation planning and engineering is this relationship between mobility
and access. Mobility refers to the ability to travel through an area.
Maximum mobility is achieved when travel time is lowest and riding comfort is
highest. When you take a relatively long trip, for example from
Charlottesville to Virginia Beach, you are most interested in mobility, or
making your trip as quickly, safely and comfortable as possible. Access on
the other hand refers to the ability to get to properties and to enter and
exit these properties. When you go shopping or to work, you want convenient
access to your destination.
Slide 4: Mobility Vs. Access. Mobility and access functions at times
seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. High mobility requires low
levels of access, while increasing access results in lower mobility. Too many
access points along the a decreases mobility because entering and exiting
traffic interferes with the movement of through traffic. Restricting access
points improves mobility, but may require better planning for any development.
Every road carries a mix of traffic that seeks either improved mobility or
improved access. When you hear that a road is carrying a mix of local and
through traffic, as the Route 29 North Corridor does, and that this mix
creates traffic flow and safety problems, you are witnessing an example of
conflicting demands of mobility and access.
Slide 5: Full Signalized Intersection. A full movement intersection
like the intersection at Route 29 and Hydraulic Road can have as many as 32
conflict points.
Slide 6: T-intersection. A typical T-intersection has a total of 11
conflict points.
Slide 7: Right in/Right out Access. An intersection with right-in/
right-out entrance and no crossover access has only two conflict points.
Since every access point along a corridor has the potential to disrupt and
does disrupt traffic and mobility, access management seeks to balance the need
for access with the desire for efficient traffic flow. Conflict points
multiply with each additional access and drivers must, in turn, respond to
that conflict. A series of driveways or business entrances spaced very close
together could confront a driver with a rapid-fire number of conflict points.
Such a combination of conflict points makes maneuvering through a heavily
developed corridor a confusing and sometimes dangerous experience for drivers,
cyclists and pedestrians. Striking the right balance between access and
mobility in order to have a safe and efficient transportation system is one of
the key challenges that VDOT faces in the planning and engineering of new
roadways and improving existing ones. The ability to find a balance between
land development plans and the preservation of the functional integrity of the
roadway that serves the development of the region is also a challenge shared
by VDOT and local governments.
Slide 8: Access Management is managing and planning the spacing and
design of driveways, median openings, traffic signals and interchanges.
Slide 9: Goals of Access Management. Some of the goals of Access
management are to: Improve safety by decreasing accident rates; reduce
congestion by using the existing roadway network more efficiently; and,
maintain desirable speeds along arterial roadways.
Slide 10: Goals of Access Management. Reduce interference with through
traffic due to turns in and out of a site; optimize the functional life of the
roadway and land use; and, provide sufficient spacing between at-grade
intersections.
Slide 11: Benefits of Access Management. Some of the benefits that are
associated with Access Management are: Fewer accidents (reduces crashes by as
much as 50 percent); reduced congestion; and, shorter travel times reduces
travel time by 40 to 60 percent).
Slide 12: Benefits of Access Management. Reduced air pollution;
reduced need for widening and/or new construction; protects investment in
abutting property; and extends functional life of the roadway. Extending the
functional life of the roadway is extremely important. The cost of new
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
roadway'improvements is constantly increasing and it is important to utilize
Access Management strategies to prolong the functional life of the existing
roadway as well as consider it when new roadways are planned. Access
Management can prolong the functional life of roadways by maintaining or
increasing capacity, thereby reducing the need for new construction to meet
increasing system demands.
Slide 13: Levels of Service. VDOT uses ~Level of Service" as a way of
measuring operating conditions and congestion throughout the network. This
measure of operations can be described by the following factors: Speed and
travel time; freedom to maneuver; comfort and convenience; interruptions; and
safety.
Slide 14: Levels of Service. VDOT labels these conditions as Level of
Service A through Level of Service F. Level of Service A is free flow
conditions and Level of Service F is forced or breakdown flow. Most roadways
are designed for a Level of Service C, with the exception of some of the more
urban areas where a level of service D or E may be acceptable during peak
times. Preservation of the through traffic function of Route 29 North will
save the cost and environmental impacts of having to later build additional
facilities for through traffic. Route 29 is a major connector route to and
from Charlottesville and this function is anticipated to grow based on major
development proposed in areas north and south of Charlottesville.
Slide 15: Albemarle County Access Points Summary. Over the 2.5 mile
section of Route 29 from Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road) to Route 649 (Airport
Road) there are 35 access breaks (both sides of the road including roadways
and driveways) for just under seven access points per roadway mile. Most of
the property adjacent to this 2.5 miles is undeveloped, but there is an
indication that there is substantial development pressure within this area.
Within the Route 29 North study area from the South Fork of the Rivanna River
bridge to just north of Airport Road, traffic operations will degrade to a
Level of Service D by the year 2000 even with the implementation of projects
currently programmed within the corridor. Adding a third travel lane in each
direction on mainline Route 29, as well as associated intersection
improvements, will allow adequate levels of service in the corridor until the
year 2012. With the use of grade separation of the Route 29 intersections at
Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Boulevard, traffic would operate at a Level of
Service C or better through the year 2022. By implementing access management
strategies of eliminating business access points and driveways off of the
existing corridor, and allowing access only at signalized intersections or
interchanges at Ashwood Boulevard, Hollymead Drive, Timberwood Boulevard and
Airport Road, an adequate mainline level of service would be maintained until
the year 2036. Implementation of access management strategies will extend the
functional life of the existing corridor from 2012 until 2036.
Slide 16: Key Players in Access Management. The key players involved
in making the decisions on managing access are: City/county Planners and
Engineers; County Economic Development staff; VDOT; citizens; and, local
elected officials.
Slide 17: Things to Consider. With public and local government input,
VDOT's planning process seeks to determine which approach to access management
and transportation improvements provides the best solution for the
transportation needs of the community, the entire state, and to some extent,
the country. In determining the best solutions, there are many things that
need to be considered: Recognize the competing demands of all of the users;
recognize both long- and short-term goals; study roadway in context of a
regional transportation system; recognize current degree of development and
future land use plans; and identify limitations of space, time, funding and
politics. Operational issues such as roadway geometry (sight distance, median
width etc.), types of land uses, trip making characteristics and driver
expectations also need to be addressed.
Slide 18: Implementation. Once the key players have been identified
and the important issues have been addressed, how can access management be
implemented? Through roadway improvements; widening; intersection upgrades;
and, construction of new lanes.
Slide 19: Implementation. Permitting; new developments; and, expanded
developments.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Slide 20: Implementation. Development of approval process in
cooperation with local governments; site plan review; and, improved
subdivision and zoning regulations.
Slide 21: Implementation. Encourage joint access/cross access (shared
entrances). Citizens often suggest to VDOT at public meetings that control of
access and control of growth in land use are more appropriate for addressing
the traffic and safety problems in their community than constructing a new
facility. In terms of environmental, social and cost impacts, this is often
true, particularly in the short-term. However, in terms of support from the
business community and local government, the ability to implement within a
reasonable time frame, and the need to address longer-term traffic and safety
concerns, may not be a realistic approach. In keeping with it's mission of
providing efficient and safe travel in the Commonwealth, VDOT needs to develop
realistic, implementable solutions.
Slide 22: Thank You. In conclusion, through traffic on Route 29 is a
major issue in Central Virginia. Route 29 is a major north-south highway,
connecting manufacturing areas in south Central Virginia to markets in the
northeast. Route 29 also serves as a major portion of the local
transportation network, getting people to school, shopping, work and
recreational activities every day. VDOT hopes it can continue to work
together to identify and implement access management strategies for the Route
29 North corridor. In doing so, the County will be able to continue to work
with developers and planners to bring new growth and industry to this vital
and fast growing portion of Central Virginia, while maintaining the mobility
of the Route 29 corridor.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Meadow Creek Parkway would still be built.
Mr. Mills said yes.
Mr. Perkins asked who will fund the access roads. Mr. Mills said VDOT
will pay for them. A field inspection will occur in two months. VDOT will
hold a public hearing in January or February, 2000.
Mr. Bowerman said some of the property along Route 29 has already been
zoned for limited access. This would affect the landowner and the Board. Mr.
Mills said if the concept is adopted, the Route 29 project will pay for loss
of access. He has discussed this with Mr. Wendell Wood, but he needs to work
with the Board, not the developers. This would mean a new land use plan for
that area.
Ms. Thomas said communities want access management, not limited access,
which means "no access." Mr. Mills said words are interchangeable. There is
a need to limit the number of roads and their access points.
Mr. Marshall said this would significantly impact the property values of
businesses along Route 29. They will not want to lose their access to Route
29 and have to use frontage roads. Mr. Mills said VDOT would "buy" the value
of the Route 29 access from landowners. Mr. Bowerman said the value of the
property along access roads may be more valuable than along Route 29. Mr.
Mills said if traffic is clogged on Route 29, those property values are
adversely affected anyway.
Ms. Humphris said the Board has not received written documentation of
any alternatives mentioned in the slide show. Mr. Mills said he would provide
that information to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Wendell Wood does not like this plan because he
does not want to lose his Route 29 access. Staff thinks this is a good plan,
with some changes. For example, they would want them to be urban streets with
sidewalks to avoid recreating the existing Route 29 problems. Route 29 should
be kept a through road and there should be access roads to access the
businesses. The Planning Commission will hold a meeting on the Comprehensive
Plan amendment for property near the UREF site next week. The County cannot
control by-right development that wants access to Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman said VDOT must work with the County to determine the type
of road that is to be built. Land use is often dictated by the type of road
that is required by VDOT.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Martin said this would require a Board public hearing before VDOT's
hearing but after the field inspection.
Agenda Item No. 20. Closed Session: Legal Matters.
At 1:20 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into
Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under
subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; under
subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for school sites and
other pubic uses; and, under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and
staff regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill and regarding
specific legal matters relating to two interjurisdictional agreements. Mr.
Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Closed Session.
At 3:35 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session, with Ms. Thomas
chairing the meeting. 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 closed session
were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman moved that Mr. Michael G. Stewart be reappointed to the
Equalization Board representing the Rio District with his new term to begin on
January 1, 2000, and expire on December 31, 2000.
Ms. Thomas moved that Mr. W. Ivar Mawyer be reappointed to the
Equalization Board representing the Samuel' Miller District with his new term
to begin on January 1, 2000, and expire on December 31, 2000.
Ms. Humphris moved that Mr. George R. Larie be reappointed to the
Equalization Board representing the Jack Jouett District with his new term to
begin on January 1, 2000, and expire on December 31, 2000.
Ms. Thomas moved that Mr. Terence Y. Sieg be reappointed to the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority with his new term to begin on January 1,
2000, and expire on December 31, 2002.
(Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 3:36 p.m. and assumed the chair.)
Ms. Thomas moved that Ms. Lisa Briskey be appointed as the joint City/
County representative and Chair of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority- Citizens
Advisory Committee with her term to begin on December 31, 1999, and expire on
December 31, 2001.'
Ms. Humphris moved that Mr. David E. Krohn be reappointed to the Joint
Airport Commission with his new term to begin on December 2, 1999, and expire
on December 1, 2003.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motions
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Agenda Item No. 17. University of Virginia (I/VA) Affirmative Action
Policy, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said he had furnished the Board members with a copy of the
resolution adopted by City Council on October 4, 1999, in which they strongly
urged the University of Virginia to maintain its admissions policy which
includes race as a factor, and which enrolls students who are broadly
representative of cultural, racial and ethnic diversity of the community,
State and Nation.
Ms. Thomas said the Board did not have a copy of President John
Casteen's statement to the community. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Casteen was
proposing that their policy remain as presently in force.
Mr. Martin said he asked to have this item placed on the agenda. He had
hoped that Mr. Marshall could be present at this time because he knows Mr.
Marshall has. expressed opposition to it. Mr. Martin said that unless all
members of the Board agree, he does not want to do anything. He basically
just wanted to discuss it. He said that Mr. Marshall feels as he usually does
on issues like this, and that is, he believes the Board should just stay out
of it.
Mr. Martin said this is one issue that he feels the Board probably
should get into because it is an important issue. He does not believe that
what UVA does is affirmative action in the sense that they are not going out
and finding unqualified people and bringing them into the University. If they
were doing that, they would not have such a high graduation percentage rate.
Among factors they consider is the type of school system a person attended. A
person from Southwest Virginia gets special consideration because the
University knows that probably the school system was not on a par with those
school systems in Northern Virginia. They consider whether or not a person
participates in sports or other civic activities while in high school. They
consider a number of factors other than test scores. Mr. Martin said it seems
to him that one of those factors being race is appropriate. He said that
often people are at a disadvantage simply because their ancestors were brought
to this country as slaves. The mother of a slave had to teach her children
what they couldn't do in order for them to accept what they were in order not
to get lynched.
Mr. Martin said he believes that the Board members raised their children
much the same as their parents raised them. Because of slavery, generations
have passed down an 'ii can't" attitude. That is not the case of other
immigrants who have come to this country looking for freedom. He said
Virginia's Affirmative Action Program is no different from that of the County.
He said education is the bridge that allows people to move forward,
particularly those people who had certain things ingrained in their minds. He
sees this all the time in his work. The concept of working for yourself is
not something he had ever thought about until long after he had graduated from
college~ He grew up in a family of hard workers, but they worked for someone
else. That is just one example of the lingering slave mentality. People say
affirmative action should no longer exist because institutional racism is a
thing of the past. But, prejudice is still here. Mr. Martin said he is not
talking about any of that, only those things that are part of one's makeup
because things have been passed down through the generations. For that
reason, he thinks affirmative action is still needed in this country,
especially affirmative action that is not trying to promote someone who is not
capable of doing a job. He does not believe the University of Virginia does
that. He would not want Albemarle County to hire someone who is unqualified.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not disagree with Mr, Martin but does have
some problems with talking about another institution. The Board has stayed
out of other institutions' policies in the past. He suggested that the Board
reaffirm the County's present policy. Mr. Martin was agreeable.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is speaking strictly about student admissions.
Mr. Martin said '~yes."
Ms. Thomas said when the City first started talking about this policy,
that was before the University decided what it was going to do. With the
statement that the Faculty Senate made a couple of days ago, and with the
statement that President Casteen made to the community, if the Board passed a
resolution, it should say the Board supports the University of Virginia's
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
current diversity admissions program, rather than urging the University to do
something. She pointed out that this is a community which supports diversity.
She said that when she worked at the University, they were often involved in
the issue of in-state and out-of-state admissions. An Admissions Director
made the statement that if the standards for Virginia residents were not
lowered, all of UVA would consist of out-of-state students and Northern
Virginia students. The question of who they are lowering the standards for is
a "red herring." She thinks they are searching for a diversity of a student
body and they get it in a variety of different ways.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that is not what Mr. Martin said. Ms. Thomas said
Mr. Martin was much more eloquent. Mr. Bowerman said he thought Mr. Martin
disagreed that race should not be one of the things considered. Ms. Thomas
said she thinks they are considering race. She interviewed for a very
prestigious university and one year they were told that if they found a really
good bassoon player, they should forward the application right away. Colleges
search for diversity in many ways. That is what the University has been doing
for the past few years. It was not the case when she first arrived in
Charlottesville. As a woman, she had to sign a pledge that said "on my honor
as a Virginia gentleman."
Ms. Humphris said the University is a great university and it has a
system they use to select their students. If they only selected those with
the highest SAT's, they would have a strange group of people at the
University. Obviously, they want a diverse population and that is why there
are students from all over the world. Whatever system they are using (the
Board does not even know what that system is), it seems to be working well.
Ms. Humphris said she does not feel she was elected to represent citizens in
Albemarle County to deal with an issue such as this. She said the Board's
policy of sticking to County issues, has stood it in good stead. The Board
has stayed with strictly Albemarle County issues on which it could educate
itself and make sound decisions on. She does not know that the University is
doing anything wrong. She thinks there have been some misunderstandings on
the part of the public. She thinks Mr. Bowerman's suggestion to reaffirm the
County's position is a good idea.
Mr. Bowerman said he is confused. He said the City's resolution
strongly urges the University to maintain its admissions policy which includes
race'as a factor. What is their policy? Mr. Tucker said that is what
President Casteen is proposing. Ms. Humphris said race is a factor. Mr.
Bowerman said he would be more comfortable with just reaffirming the County's
policy. He will not disagree if the other Board members want to do something
different. Mr. Martin said he believes Ms. Humphris agrees with Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Humphris said the Board should simply reaffirm its own policy.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that the
Board reaffirm the County's policy relating to equal opportunity.
Mr. Perkins said he is always amazed or pleased when he hears about how
well the students who transfer from Piedmont Community College do at the
University. He said that when talking about 17 and 18 year olds, there are
some very mature 18 years olds and some who are very immature. Some people
mature later than others. Sometimes it takes two or three years away from
home for those people to come out. He said the success rate of PVCC transfers
to the University is better than UVA's four-year students.
Ms. Humphris said that has always been an interesting fact. The young
people at PVCC get some close-up and personal attention from that faculty.
PVCC offers a smaller, non-partying environment which eliminates some
undesirable things.
Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Perkins said he recently attended a meeting with a group that was
discussing the $1.75 million available this year, with as much as $40.0
million in the out years, to use for conservation purposes. Ms. Sherry
Buttrick asked him to attend. He told this group of people that they should
use the money as a match for purchase of development rights. He thinks it is
strange that they would want to create a new program when the PDR program has
been on the books since the 1970s and the only place that is using the program
is Virginia Beach, and now Albemarle is the first county to use the program.
He thinks the program has not been used due to lack of funding from the State.
Albemarle does have the opportunity to write a grant requesting some of these
funds for the current year. Mr. Tucker said staff will do this and try to use
the funds the Board has already allocated as the local match.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the Lewis and Clark event. She said Mr. Marshall
sits on a committee for the 2003-2004 Bicentennial Celebration. She handed to
the Board members maps showing Long Beach, California. She said she has a
letter from Pacific County and she thinks that the city is suggesting that the
two counties form some sort of relationship. She said Long Beach was the
furthermost west point and it was where the historic first democratic vote in
the Pacific Northwest took place. She said it might be best for the Board to
decide if it wants to enter into any kind of sister city relationship before
asking staff to do anything. She finds that this kind of relationship is
mostly useful for school children in the way of pen pals and student
exchanges. She said the students at Meriwether Lewis Elementary School might
find it fun to have such a relationship.
Mr. Martin said at this point the suggestion is to find out if Pacific
County is interested in such a relationship. Ms. Humphris asked the staff to
review the materials sent which are not very legible.
Ms. Thomas said the Visual Quality proposal to the General Assembly is
moving along, but the next meeting is going to be right before the Virginia
Municipal League (VML) meeting. She asked if anyone is going to that VML
meeting on October 17 and October 19, since she cannot attend.
Ms. Thomas said she has been sitting in on meetings for two studies
about to take place. They are discussing the consultants who will be selected
for the water quality impact of the proposed Route 29 Western bypass, and the
other is the Eastern Initiative which looks first at land use and secondarily
at transportation in the Route 29 North corridor and the Route 250 East
corridor all the way to Fluvanna County. The consultants will come up with
studies the County wishes it would get on corridor studies, but have never
been able to talk V/DOT into doing. A Federal grant has been obtained to do
this independent study. The Federal Highway Department is very interested in
this type of study.
Ms. Humphris said that on October 18 and October 19 there will be a
conference in Charlottesville on Managing Growth in the 21th Century which has
a very good panel.
Ms. Humphris said she found a land use taxation notice in the Rockbridge
newspaper. She does not know if the County does anything similar, but it does
spell out exactly what has to be done and by what date in order to remain
qualified. Mr. Tucker said he will suggest that the County Finance Department
start similar advertising.
Ms. Humphris said she clipped a small article from the University of
Virginia publication about the Grounds Walk. She has heard that people see
there is need to criticize the design of the Darden Center which is a new
150,000 square foot addition on the North Grounds. The article says it
presents a long low facade at ground level from Darden, but on the back side,
the part exposed to the Route 250 Bypass, there is a concrete wall. She
thought the University would understand that concrete walls are not built in
areas the public has to look at. She thinks the Board needs to keep on top of
this. There is an ugly concrete wall where thousands of people pass by it
each day. The name of the architect is noted in the article. Mr. Tucker said
he will ask the PACC-Tech Committee, at its next meeting, to look into this.
October 6, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Ms. Humphris asked what the Board is to do with the letter dated
September 15, 1999, from Nancy Damman about appointing a joint City/County
commission to study and enhance the greenbelt areas. She had heard this
mentioned before, but had not seen anything in print until today. She has no
idea how the County should deal with the request. Ms. Thomas asked for a
staff update on the greenways. She has talked with a relatively new staff
member who is working on this matter and he is very enthusiastic. Then, when
the City and others try to pressure the Board to do certain things, they will
have some information at hand. Mr. Tucker suggested County staff talk with
City staff and then provide an update.
Ms. Humphris mentioned a request to support the upcoming Festival of the
Trees. She said it seems that they are looking for money to do advertising.
There was no discussion of this item.
Mr. Tucker said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (PDC)
is forming an Advisory Committee for the Jefferson Area Eastern Planning
Initiative. They have asked that each locality appoint one planning
commissioner and one citizen at-large to this commission. If the Board
concurs, he will ask the Planning Commission to appoint one of their members,
and then have the other appointment advertised to the general public. Ms.
Thomas said VDOT is doing a corridor Study and the PDC has already appointed
members for that. Mr. Bowerman said it would be nice to have Albemarle County
appointees to both committees. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board advertise
because there have been complaints recently that not enough appointments are
put out to the general public.
Mr. Martin mentioned a letter from Mr. Thomas Lively concerning zoning
violations on the Sweeney property on Route 53. Mr. Tucker said staff has
been working with Mr. Lively, but it is a very difficult situation. It has
been an on-going violation for years. He asked Ms. Amelia McCauley to respond
to Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres, who received a similar letter. He said it is
difficult from the legal side to get a conviction. Every time Mr. Lively
calls and staff goes out, there is nothing there. Staff cannot just go on Mr.
Lively's statements of what he has seen. Staff has to find evidence in order
to get a warrant. Mr. Tucker said Chief Miller will try to do some more
selective enforcement around the area to keep trucks from backing out onto the
highway.
(Note: Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 4:13 p.m.)
Mr. Perkins said for the VACO meeting at the Homestead, the Board
members might call as individuals to'see if there are rooms available. He has
heard that the hotel does not obligate all of its rooms to groups. Ms.
Humphris said they claim that VACO has the whole hotel for the Sunday and
Monday nights of the Conference. VACO believes that to be true.
Mr. Martin said he has to do five days of jury duty in November and one
day in December. The December date is on the Board's regular day meeting.
Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris both said that one is not allowed to do jury
duty when they are an elected official. Mr. Martin said he was called. Mr.
Marshall said he just called and told them he could not serve. Mr. Martin
said he had never been called before.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned'at 4:17 p.m.
Approved by the Be
County Supervisors
Date ~ ~ ~OO
Initials ~
Chai~an