1997-03-05March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
ooolso
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 5, 1997, 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, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the
Chairman, Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Ms. Karen Dame thanked the County Planning staff for the detailed
schedule and topic listing setting out the completion of the Comprehensive
Plan review, stating that the information is valuable and allows citizens to
keep track of what is going on. Ms. Dame also expressed appreciation for the
County's "FYI" publication, particularly the last issue which focused on the
specifics of reversion, saying it is of great benefit to the community. Ms.
Humphris expressed the Board's appreciation to Ms. Dame for her comments.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Ms. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.6 and to accept the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
None.
Item 5.1. Appropriation: Education/Grants $8647 (Form #96053).
At its meeting on February 10, 1997, the School Board approved the
following appropriations:
Virginia Commission for the Arts grants: Hollymead Elementary School
received a Touring Assistance Grant in the amount of $200; Brownsville
and Woodbrook Elementary Schools, and Western Albemarle High School each
received a Teacher Incentive Grant in the amount of $300; Stony Point
Elementary School received four Teacher Incentive Grants in the amount
of $300 each; Greer Elementary School received a grant in the amount of
$297. The grants are to be used to strengthen the quality of education
in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $50
from the Woman's Club of Charlottesville to be used to purchase a set of
musical videos to be used by the Hollymead Chorus.
Jack Jouett Middle School received a donation in the amount of $5000
from its PTO. This was a result of the annual magazine sales. The
donation will be used to pay for leasing and maintenance of the Sharp
copier at the school.
Burley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1000 from
Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. It will be used for miscellaneous
purchases for the band, library, chorus and science classes.
Staff recommended approval of the appropriations as detailed on
Appropriation Form #96053.
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~,.81
(Page 2)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97
NUMBER: 96053
FUND: SCHOOL/GRANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
GRANTS
VIRGINIA COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS
AND DONATIONS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1 3104 60202 601300
1 3104 60204 601300
1 3104 60211 601300
1 3104 60212 601300
1 3104 60302 601300
1 3104 60601 601300
1 2205 61101 601300
1 2253 61411 331100
1 2251 61101 580000
DESCRIPTION
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS - HOLLYMEAD
REPAIR/PLAINT EQUIP - JACK JOUETT
REPAIR/MAINT EQUIP - BURLEY
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$300.00
$297.00
$1,200.00
$300.00
$3oo 00
$2o0 00
50 00
5,000 00
1,000.00
$8,647 00
REVENUE
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 3104 24000 240308
2 2000 18100 181109
2 2000 18100 181109
2 2000 18100 181109
DESCRIPTION
GRANT 97-1062
GP~ANT 97-1031
GRANT 97-0995
GRANT 97-1036
GRANT 97-1032
GRANT 97-1033
GRANT 97-1034
GRANT 97-1035
GRANT 97-1037
DONATION
DONATION
DONATION
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$200 00
$300 oo
$30o oo
$300 oo
$297 00
$3oo 00
$3OO 00
$3OO 00
$300 00
$50 00
$5,OO0.0O
$1,000.00
$8,647.00
Item 5.2. Authorize County Executive to Execute Agreement for the
Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway Between the
County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the
Corresponding Pass-through Agreement Between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation, Inc. and the County.
It was noted in the staff's report that in December, 1994 the Board
authorized the County Executive to enter into agreements with VDOT and the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. (Foundation) to secure ISTEA
funding for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway project. The project at that time
included Phases I and II with an estimated cost of $3.125 million of which
$2.5 million was to come from ISTEA funds, with the balance being funded by
the Foundation.
In 1996, the Board approved an additional ISTEA Enhancement Program
application for Phase III of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway project. VDOT
approved this application for funding for a total project cost for Phases I,
II and III estimated at $4.625 million of which $3.0 million will be
Enhancement Program funds with the balance being funded by the Foundation.
The current Project (Phases I & II) and the proposed Phase III are
proceeding with the commitment from the Foundation that it will be responsible
for administering the Project. VDOT requires an agreement with the County to
satisfy the Enhancement Program requirements necessary for funding
eligibility. The County requires an agreement with the Foundation to pass-
through to the Foundation the County's obligations and responsibilities for
the Project placed on it by the County's agreement with VDOT. The Agreements
(located in the Clerk's Office) cover all three phases and supersede the prior
Agreements for Phases I and II. The County/Foundation Agreement makes the
Foundation responsible for the Project with little County oversight or
involvement. The Agreement requires the Foundation to post a $3.0 million
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~2
Page 3)
bond with the County to assure that the requirements for the enhancement
funding are met by the Foundation, or if not, to provide the funds necessary
for the County to reimburse any amount required to be repaid to VDOT for
failure to meet the Enhancement Program mandates.
The County Attorney's office has approved the Agreements as to form and
staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the
Agreement for the Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson
Parkway between the County and VDOT and the corresponding pass-through
agreement between the Foundation and the County. The pass-through agreement
will not be executed until the VDOT agreement has been executed by VDOT and
the Foundation has posted the requisite $3.0 million bond.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County
Executive to execute the "Agreement for Development and Administration of the
Thomas Jefferson Parkway by the County of Albemarle" which is the Agreement
between the County and %~DOT; and, the corresponding pass-through Agreement for
"Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway by the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc." which is the Agreement between the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc., and the County:
AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY
BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate as of this
day of , 1997, between the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called the
"Department" and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a municipal
corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called
the "County".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Department has adopted a Six Year Improvement
Program for Fiscal Year 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97 for
streets and highways, which includes an allocation of funds for
the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Phase I, II and III) identified in
the Enhancement Program portion of the Six Year Improvement
Program and designated as Projects EN93-002-
V05,PE101,RW201,C50t; EN94-002-V09-PE101,RW201,C501 and EN96-
002119-PE101,PE102,C501 and referred to hereinafter as the
"Project"; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the project is $4,625,000 for
Phases I, II and III, which includes $3,000,000 of Enhancement
Program Funds and $1,625,000 in contributions to the Project by
the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation; and
WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to construct
the Project as expeditiously as possible and the County agrees
to have the Project implemented within 48 months from the date
funds are made available for each phase of the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
The County shall consult with, and act as the agent of, the
Department in performing the preliminary engineering, right-
of-way/property acquisition and construction phases of the
Project, specifically including the following:
Perform or contract with a consultant to perform the
preliminary engineering, design and plan development
necessary to award a contract for construction; and the
administration, supervision and inspection of the
construction of the Project through final acceptance,
in accordance with Department procedures and policies,
including settlement of any claims and disputes arising
from the Project.
If deemed appropriate by the Department, submit each
phase of the work to the Department for review and
000 .$3
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
{Page 4)
approval as the project develops; allow Department
personnel to inspect all phases of the project at all
times.
Prepare plans for the Project, including such items as
general notes, references to specifications and
standards, typical sections, drainage plans, stormwater
management, erosion and sediment control methods,
profiles, cross sections, summaries, and the like.
Plans may be prepared in accordance with County of
Albemarle standards and format, provided the standards
meet or exceed Department standards or are approved by
the Department.
do
Coordinate the project through the State Environmental
Review Process, prepare the appropriate environmental
document as established by the Federal Highway
Administration policy and procedures and carry out the
functions necessary to clear the Project
environmentally.
eo
Locate potential contaminated and/or hazardous waste
sites during the survey or early plan development
stage. Discuss the presence of these sites and design
alternatives with the Department. Once contamination
is determined to exist, whether obvious or established
through testing, the County shall notify the
appropriate regulatory agency. Conduct detailed
studies such as site characterization to determine the
length of time required for clean-up and potential
financial liability for the County and Department. If
the purchase of property is anticipated, the first
option is to pursue remediation by the property
owner(s) through the appropriate agencies.
If required, post a "notice of willingness to hold a
public hearing" on the Project, conduct such a hearing,
if necessary, in accordance with Department and Federal
Highway Administration requirements and coordinate the
Project with property owners in the Project area.
g. Obtain all necessary permits for the Project.
If required, prepare right-of-way/property acquisition
plans for the Project and acquire title to all property
needed for the Project in the name of the County, the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc., or such
entity that is acceptable to the Department, by
purchase or by eminent domain, if necessary.
Abide by Titles 25 and 33 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended, in the acquisition of rights-of-
way/property for this Project and follow the policy and
procedures outlines in Section 702.02 of the
Department's Right of Way Manual, which are
incorporated by reference.
j o
Provide relocation assistanc~ to those whose property
is acquired for the Project in conformance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR
Part 24).
Maintain all appraisals, negotiation reports,
relocation assistance files, closing statements,
eminent domain records and the like for a period of
three (3) years after final disposition of the Project
by the Federal Highway Administration. (Acceptance of
final voucher.)
1. Coordinate and authorize utility relocations.
m. Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
OOO184
conformance with applicable provisions of the Virginia
Public Procurement Act. The County agrees not to award
a construction contract to any bidder unless its bid is
within seven percent (7%) of the County's cost estimate
or which is approved by the Department. The County
agrees not to award such contract until the
Commonwealth Transportation Board has accepted and
approved the bid and the contractor, and until a
standard County-State agreement is executed.
Submit any change orders to the construction contract
to the Department's Resident Engineer for approval.
Receive Department approval of any claims arising from
construction contracts for which reimbursement is
requested prior to settlement.
Maintain accurate records of the Project and
documentation of all expenditures, identifying
federally participating, federally non-participating,
and in-kind contributions, on which reimbursement will
be based. Make project documentation available for
inspection and/or audit by the Department or the
Federal government at any time.
Submit to the Department's Resident Engineer no more
frequently than monthly, a statement requesting
reimbursement for the Federal share of the project's
costs. The statement must identify and document
project expenditures to date and include a summary in
the following categories:
Participating expenditures
Non-participating expenditures
In-kind contributions of donated right-of-way
services.
ro
Agree to reimburse the Department 100% of all expenses
incurred by the Department in the event that:
- The project is canceled during any phase of work;
- Expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the
Federal Highway Administration due to the County's
failure to follow proper Federal guidelines and/or
the expenditures are found to be federally non-
participating items;
- Expenditures incurred exceed the total amount
allocated in the Six Year Improvement Program.
The Department will coordinate with, cooperate with, and
assist the County in implementing the Project, and
specifically agrees to:
Review each phase of the Project and respond in an
expeditious manner to requests from the County.
Provide the necessary coordination with the Federal
Highway Administration and other appropriate Federal
and State agencies; provide assistance and guidance to
the County relative to environmental documentation and
coordination as is appropriate.
Provide reimbursement for Project expenditures for the
previous month or for the final billing, within thirty
(30) days of receiving an acceptable statement from the
County. The reimbursement amount will be based on the
Enhancement Project worksheet (example attached).
Audit all project costs and records as required by the
Federal Highway Administration.
eo
Provide funding for the project pursuant to the
Enhancement Program in the Department's Six Year
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Improvement Program. The maximum amount of Federal
funds available for this project is $3,000,000.
3 o
Ail applicable Federal, state and local regulations shall
apply to all work performed on the project including
consultant services contracts and construction contracts.
Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal
liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of
the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights
or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and
their respective successors and assigns.
Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties, the
County is hereby authorized to commence with the Project.
This agreement may be modified with the mutual consent of
the Department and the County.
This Agreement supersedes the Agreement for Development and
Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway By the County
of Albemarle dated December 21, 1994, previously entered
into by the parties to this Agreement. Any provision of
such earlier agreement inconsistent with this Agreement
shall be of no further effect upon the execution of the
Agreement by all of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers.
AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY
BY THE THOMAS jEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOIINDATION, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate as of this
day of , 1997, between the THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL
FOUNDATION, INC., hereinafter called the "Foundation" and the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, hereinafter called the "County".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation,
hereinafter called the "Department" has adopted a Six Year
Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-
97 for streets and highways, which includes an allocation of
funds for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Phases I and II)
identified in the Enhancement Program portion of the Six Year
Improvement Program and designated as Projects EN93-
002V05,PE101,RW201,C501 and EN94-002-VO9,PE101,RW201,C501 and
referred to hereinafter as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the project is $4,625,000 for
Phases I, II, and III which includes $3,000,000 of Enhancement
Program Funds and $1,625,000 in contributions to the Project by
the Foundation; and
WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to construct
the Project and have entered into an Agreement in which the
County agrees to have the Project implemented within 48 months
from the date funds are made available for each phase of the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation desires to undertake certain
responsibilities and duties of the County as an incentive for
the County to undertake the Project and to complete it as
expeditiously as possible.
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000i~6
(Page 7)
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
The Foundation shall consult with, and act as the agent of,
the County in performing the preliminary engineering, right-
of-way/property acquisition and construction phases of the
Project, specifically including the following:
Perform or contract with a consultant to perform the
preliminary engineering, 'design and plan development
necessary to award a contract for construction; and the
administration, supervision and inspection of the
construction of the Project through final acceptance,
in accordance with Department procedures and policies,
including settlement of any claims and disputes arising
from the Project.
If deemed appropriate by the County or the Department,
submit each phase of the work to the County or the
Department for review and approval as the Project
develops; allow County or Department personnel to
inspect all phases of the Project at all times.
Prepare bid documents, plans and specifications for the
Project, including such items as general notes,
references to specifications and standards, typical
sections, drainage plans, stormwater management,
erosion and sediment control methods, profiles, cross
sections, summaries, and the like. Plans and bid
documents must meet or exceed Department standards and
be approved by the Department.
Coordinate the Project through the State Environmental
Review Process, prepare the appropriate environmental
document as established by the Federal Highway
Administration policy and procedures and carry out the
functions necessary to clear the Project
environmentally.
Locate potential contaminated and/or hazardous waste
sites during the survey or early plan development
stage. Discuss the presence of these sites and design
alternatives with the Department. Once contamination
is determined to exist, whether obvious or established
through testing, the Foundation shall notify the
appropriate regulatory agency. Conduct detailed
studies such as site characterization to determine the
length of time required for clean-up and potential
financial liability for the County and Department. If
the purchase of property is anticipated, the first
option is to pursue remediation by the property
owner(s) through the appropriate agencies.
If required by the Department, post a "notice of
willingness to hold a public hearing" on the Project so
that the County can conduct such a hearing, if
necessary, in accordance with Department and Federal
Highway Administration requirements and coordinate the
Project with property owners in the Project area.
g. Obtain all necessary permits for the Project.
If required, prepare right-of-way/property acquisition
plans or plats for the Project and acquire title to all
property needed for the Project in the name of the
Foundation by purchase or to pay all costs of the
County in acquiring title to property by eminent
domain, if necessary.
If applicable, abide by Titles 25 and 33 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended, in the acquisition of
rights-of-way/property for this Project and follow the
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
ooo s?
policy and procedures outlines in Section 702.02 of the
Department's Right of Way Manual, which are
incorporated by reference.
Provide relocation assistance to those whose property
is acquired for the Project in conformance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR
Part 24).
Deliver all appraisals, negotiation reports, relocation
assistance files, closing statements, eminent domain
records and the like to the County so it can maintain
them for a period of three (3) years after final
disposition of the Project by the Federal Highway
Administration. Acceptance of final voucher shall
constitute final disposition.
1. Coordinate and authorize utility relocations.
Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in
conformance with applicable provisions of the Virginia
Public Procurement Act. The Foundation will not award
a construction contract to any bidder unless its bid is
within seven percent (7%) of the County's cost estimate
or is approved by the Department. The Foundation will
not award such contract until the Commonwealth
Transportation Board has accepted and approved the bid
and the contractor, and until a standard County-State
agreement is executed.
Submit any change orders to construction contracts for
which reimbursement is requested to the County Engineer
and the Department's Resident Engineer for approval
prior to the authorization of the change order.
Receive County and Department approval of any claims
arising from construction contracts for which
reimbursement is requested prior to settlement.
Maintain accurate records of the Project and
documentation of all expenditures, identifying
federally participating, federally non-participating,
and in-kind contributions, on which reimbursement will
be based. Make Project documentation available for
inspection and/or audit by the County, the Department
or the Federal government at any time.
Ail project costs shall be paid by the Foundation. The
Foundation shall submit to the Department, with a copy
to the County, no more frequently than monthly, a
statement requesting reimbursement for the Federal
share of the Project's costs. The statement must
identify and document Project expenditures to date and
include a summary in the following categories:
- Participating expenditures
Non-participating expenditures
- In-kind contributions of donated right-of-way or
services.
Agree to reimburse the County 100% of all expenses
incurred by the County in the event that:
- The project is canceled during any phase of work;
- Expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the
Federal Highway Administration due to the failure to
follow proper Federal guidelines and/or the
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000'188
expenditures are found to be federally non-
participating items;
- Expenditures incurred exceed the total amount
allocated in the Six Year Improvement Program or
funds actually available for the Project.
s. Meet all County site plan, zoning, and subdivision
ordinance requirements.
The County will coordinate with, cooperate with, and assist
the Foundation in implementing the Project, and specifically
agrees to:
a. Respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the
Foundation.
bo
Provide the necessary coordination with the Department,
Federal Highway Administration and other appropriate
Federal and State agencies; provide assistance and
guidance to the Foundation relative to environmental
documentation and coordination as is appropriate.
Co
Process payments to the Foundation of reimbursements
received from the Department for Project expenditures.
do
Cooperate with the Foundation and the Department in the
audit of all project costs and records as required by
the Federal Highway Administration.
To take all reasonable actions required to obtain
funding for the project pursuant to the Enhancement
Program in the Department's Six Year Improvement
Program. The maximum amount of Federal funds available
for this project is $3,000,000.
3 o
Ail applicable Federal, state and local regulations shall
apply to all work performed on the project including
consultant services contracts and construction contracts.
Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal
liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of
the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights
or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and
their respective successors and assigns.
Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties and
upon notification by the County that the Department
approvals have been received, the Foundation will be
authorized to commence with the Project.
This agreement may be modified by written agreement with the
mutual consent of the Foundation and the County.
8. The Foundation will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion,
~. sex, age, handicap, national origin.or other non-merit
factors provided they are qualified and meet physical
requirements established for the positions.
None of the funds, materials, property or services
contributed by the County or the Foundation, under this
Agreement, shall be used in the performance of this
Agreement for any partisan political activity, or to further
the election or defeat of any candidate for public office.
10. No officer, member, or employee of the Foundation who
exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or
approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this project,
shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement
which affects his personal interest or have any personal or
oooa.89
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or
the proceeds thereof.
11. The Foundation shall contribute a minimum of $625,000 to the
Project, such contribution to be in a form and made at such
time as acceptable to the Department and the County.
12.
The Foundation shall maintain any property improved as part
of the Project which is.not accepted for maintenance by the
Department. The minimum level of maintenance shall be a
reasonable standard of care as determined by the Department.
13. The Foundation shall, after construction of the Project, or
any part thereof, not permit any changes or alterations to
the Project, as approved and completed, without the prior
written approval of the Department.
14. The Foundation shall, prior to any substantial work on the
Project, have appropriate Foundation agents and personnel,
as determined by the County and the Department, attend a
preliminary coordination meeting with the County and the
Department.
15. The Foundation agrees to indemnify the County and hold it,
and its officers, agents, representations and employees
harmless from any and all claims, damages, costs, including
attorney's fees, and liabilities of any kind arising out of
or resulting from the Foundation's or its agents' negligent
performance of its obligation under this Agreement or any
failure by the Foundation to meet any obligation required to
complete the Project.
16. The Foundation shall take out and carry during the entire
term of this Agreement, property damage insurance and
general public liability insurance with adequate limits to
protect both the Foundation and the County from liability,
such limit being not less than $1,000,000. The Foundation
will provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance
naming the County as an additional insured and evidencing
the insurance coverage required herein.
17. The Foundation shall provide to the County a performance
bond, in a form approved by the County Attorney, in the
amount of $3,000,000, to guarantee the Foundation's
performance of this Agreement. Such performance bond shall
be delivered to the County prior to its execution of the
Agreement.
18. This Agreement supersedes the Agreement for Development and
Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway By the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation dated December 21, 1994,
previously entered into by the parties to this Agreement.
Any provision of such earlier agreement inconsistent with
this Agreement shall be of no further effect upon the
execution of this Agreement by all of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers.
Item 5.3. Participate in the Development and Maintenance of the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir Nature Trail.
It was noted in the staff's report that in March of 1996, the Ivy Creek
Foundation (ICF) began seeking input on a proposal for very limited
development of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir property for hiking and nature
observation. In addition to the development, the proposal specifies that the
property be designated as a natural area to be managed by ICF in a similar
fashion as the Ivy Creek Natural Area (ICNA) . After receiving favorable
comments on the proposal, the Foundation requested the matter be discussed at
the July 22, 1996, meeting of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA).
ICF members left the July 22 meeting with the understanding that the project
was approved in concept and that the necessary permission to proceed should be
00 0
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
sought from City Council and the Board of Supervisors. On August 30, 1996, a
meeting was held at City Hall to get appropriate City and County
representatives involved in the discussions. The discussion of the project
was generally favorable. RWSA staff pointed out several potential liability
hazards and concerns that would need to be addressed. The group agreed that
staff analyses of the pro's and con's of the projeCt, including initial and
on-going costs, review of hazards, and other general concerns, should be
provided before presentation of the proposal to the City and County. A
summary of the staff analyses of the ICF proposal in the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir is on file in the Clerk's Office.
The initial costs to be incurred by the City and County are estimated at
$5000 for trail building materials and mitigation of hazards. Labor for trail
construction will be provided by ICF. The cost of the parking area is
estimated at $15,000 and ICF has secured a grant in that amount. It is noted
that the City and County could anticipate an additional cost of up to $5000
for potential cost over-runs and for costs associated with a land donation for
the parking area. Annual operating costs are estimated at $3650 for an
employee to open and close the gate and $1200 for Porta-John service.
The Water Resources Manager has reviewed this use and believes it can be
done with minimal impact. RWSA engineers would review and approve trail plans
to make sure concerns for the upper lake spillway are addressed. It is
anticipated that these improvements would allow area residents to better
access the property in a legal fashion. Minor improvements are not expected
to encourage additional trespassing through Ednam Forest. Due to the
stewardship of ICF and the clientele expected to be attracted, illegal uses of
the property may actually decrease. Ragged Mountain Reservoir is a beautiful
property. It is possible that increased public use may lead to the demand for
more improved public access. Designation of this property as a natural area
from the onset, as requested by ICF, should be considered if better future
public access is deemed undesirable.
City and County staff believe this is a good project with more benefits
than costs. The concerns are manageable and not significant enough to
prohibit the project. If approval is received from the City, County, and RWSA
to proceed, a formal agreement on the lease or purchase of the private
property for the parking lot needs to be reached as the first step. Any
City/County expenses should be absorbed to the extent possible from the Towe
Park budget with that crew assuming responsibility for general supervision and
assistance to ICF volunteers. The County Parks and Recreation Director should
provide administrative and policy oversight and assistance to ICF, as is
currently done with ICNA. Since the property is owned by the City, the City
Attorney's Office should do the legal work related to the property
acquisition, and City Engineering should provide oversight for the parking lot
project.
Staff recommended that the Board approve the proposed project and agree
to participate in the manner outlined. County approval and participation
would be contingent on similar approval by the Charlottesville City Council
and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proposed
project and agreed to participate in the manner outlined contingent on similar
approval by Charlottesville City Council and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority.
Item 5.4. Set a Public Hearing to Abandon Old State Route 631 (the
portion that runs between 1-64 and Moores Creek).
It was noted in the staff's report that Mr. Robert T. Smith,
representing Holiday Inn South of Bangor, Maine, has requested that Albemarle
County abandon a public road known as Old State Route 631 which is
approximately 600 feet long in the County and serves only three parcels. The
applicant owns all three parcels. This section of Old State 631 was
"discontinued from maintenance" by the Virginia Highway Department in 1971 as
a result of the construction of Interstate 64. A discontinuance pursuant to
Code of Virginia 33.1-150 is a determination that a road no longer serves any
public convenience warranting its maintenance at public expense. The road
remains a public roadway until it is abandoned. The applicant, as well as
staff, assumed this section had been abandoned by the State. In October 1996,
the Board approved the abandonment of Tebbs Lane-Route 1104. 'Tebbs Lane
000191
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
intersects with Old State Route 631. The applicant was informed by VDOT in
the process of finalizing the Tebbs Lane abandonment that Old State Route 631
had not been abandoned. Old State Route 631 does not have any historical
significance and its abandonment would not negatively impact any historical
property. Staff feels this is an acceptable request and recommended that this
request proceed to public hearing.
By the above recorded vote, the Board ordered this matter advertised for
a public hearing on May 7, 1997.
Item 5.5. Authorize County Executive to Execute Crozet Park Agreement
and Restrictive Covenant.
It was noted in the staff's report that when the Board approved the
donation of $200,000 to Crozet Park for the construction of the new pool,
staff met with the Crozet Park Board and negotiated an agreement to assure
that the Park is forever used for recreational and community-related
activities. Due to language in the Park's existing by-laws, some time has
passed in order to allow them to properly amend their legal documents so the
agreement could be signed.
This new agreement, which was drafted by the County Attorney, eliminates
the restrictive covenant which existed on only part of Crozet Park and places
the entire park in a position where it shall be forever used only for park and
recreational purposes. This restrictive covenant runs with the land and is
enforceable by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors. The agreement also
articulates that Crozet Park will make land available in the Park for
additional recreational fields and facilities to be developed by the County to
help meet the recreational needs of the Crozet Community and the citizens of
the County as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Further, the Agreement
formalizes the current practice of using the Park and its swimming facilities
by the County's Summer Playground Program, as well as providing for free or
reduced-price entry scholarships for County residents up to five percent of
the total value of Park membership fees at a minimum. Lastly, if Crozet Park,
Inc. ever ceases to exist as a legal entity, the Park and its improvements
would revert to the County at no cost, and, if there is ever an interest in
selling Crozet Park, the County would be given first right of refusal to
purchase the property and its improvements for $1.00. These two provisions
assure that the Park will not be developed into anything other than its
intended recreational and entertainment uses and provides the framework for
County investment in recreational facilities on this land. The Crozet Park
Board approved the restrictive covenant agreement at its February, 1997
meeting and all parties involved seemed excited about this public/private
partnership that has produced what appears to be a "win/win" situation for all
involved. Staff recommended that the Board authorize the County Executive to
execute this agreement.
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to
execute the following Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant:
CROZET PARK AGREEMENT
and
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 25th day of March, 1997, by and
between CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC., a Virginia non-profit
corporation (hereafter the "Crozet Park") and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
Of Virginia (hereafter the "County").
WHEREAS, Crozet Park is the owner of all those two tracts
or parcels of land, with improvements thereon and appurtenances
thereto, known as Claudius Crozet Park, (hereafter "Park")
designated as Parcel A1 and BI, containing 22.396 acres, as
shown on a plat made by Kirk Hughes and Associates, dated March
15, 1996, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1536, page
408. The Park is the same property in all respects previously
designated as Parcel A, containing 8.81 acres, more or less, and
Parcel B containing 13.62 acres, more or less, as shown on plat
of John McNair & Associates, dated August 24, 1958, revised
December 4, 1975, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
00019
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 587, page 55 and
is the same property in all respects conveyed to Claudius Crozet
Park, Inc. by deed of Dabney N. Sandridge, et al., dated
September 23, 1958, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 343, page 381. Crozet Park presently operates a
park on Parcels A1 and Bi for the benefit of the residents of
the community of Crozet and the surrounding area of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Crozet Park and the County entered into an
Agreement dated November 6, 1985, in which Crozet Park placed a
restrictive covenant on what was then designated Parcel B
restricting use of said Parcel B to recreational and public
purposes and the County agreed to make recreational improvements
to the Park and assist in the maintenance of the Park; and
WHEREAS, the County has agreed to contribute $200,000 to
the construction of a new swimming facility and to further plan
for the funding and construction of additional facilities at the
Park; and
WHEREAS, Crozet Park and the County now agree that the
entire Park should in perpetuity be used only for park and
recreational and community related entertainment activities for
the benefit of the citizens of the community of Crozet and
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Crozet Park and the County have reached further
agreement for cooperative use and participation in the future of
the Park.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above stated
premises and for valuable consideration Crozet Park and the
County agree as follows:
The Park, consisting of both Parcel A1 and Parcel Bi shall
in perpetuity be used only for park and recreational
purposes which may include any lawful activities such as
festivals, carnivals, concerts, celebrations, and other
community related entertainment uses that have
historically been allowed at the Park and shall be open
for public use unless the County and Crozet Park jointly
agree otherwise. This restrictive covenant shall run with
the land for the benefit of the citizens of the community
of Crozet and Albemarle County, Virginia, and shall be
enforceable on their behalf by the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors.
The County will contribute a total of $200,000 to Crozet
Park to be used solely for the construction of a new
swimming facility.
3 o
The County will assist in the maintenance of the Park and
in the mowing and trimming of the Park grounds.
Crozet Park shall make land available in the Park for
additional recreational fields and facilities to be
developed by the County to help meet the recreational
needs of the Crozet Community and the citizens of the
County. The development of the fields and facilities
shall be determined by the County Parks and Recreation
Department in consultation with the Crozet Park Board and
subject to final approval by the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors .... The fields and facilities shall be developed
in general accord with the plan titled Claudius Crozet
Park: Field Study dated May 15, 1996, and attached hereto
as Exhibit "A", unless otherwise agreed to by Crozet Park
and the County.
Crozet Park shall make the Park available free of charge
for the County's summer playground program. The program
will be allowed to operate for up to an eight week period
during the months of June, July and August of each year.
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
00019
During such period the program will be allowed to operate
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a schedule
determined by the County Parks and Recreation Department.
Facilities available to the program shall include the.main
building, identified on Attachment "A", and all outdoor
fields and facilities exclusive of the swimming pool.
6 o
Crozet Park shall make its swimming facilities available
for use by the County summer playground program at a
reduced entry fee. The price per participant in the
playground program for group visits shall not exceed 59%
of the regular daily admission charge for children ages 6
to 11. Playground program participants who have a Park
season pass to the pool will not be charged an additional
entry fee. County summer playground employees and persons
acting in a supervisory capacity for the summer playground
program will be admitted free of charge.
7o
Crozet Park shall give free or reduced priced entry
scholarships for the swimming facilities to families and
individuals certified by the County Department of Social
Services using the same criteria used for free and reduced
County park passes. Initially, scholarships shall be
equal to five percent of the total value of Park
membership fees. Crozet Park will consider increasing
this percentage in the future as its revenues grow.
Crozet Park shall make the swimming facilities available
for use by the County Parks and Recreation Department if
such use does not conflict with the regular pool hours,
programs and maintenance of the facilities by Crozet Park.
Such use shall be coordinated between the County Parks and
Recreation Department and the Crozet Park Board. The
charge for such use, if any, shall be limited solely to
cover any incurred operating costs that result from the
use. Future uses may include, but shall not be limited
to, a water aerobics class for senior citizens and a
therapeutic recreation class.
Crozet Park agrees that it shall assure that prior to or
at such time as it ceases to exist as a legal entity all
legal interests and fee simple title to the Park,
including all improvements thereto, shall be transferred
to the County by Crozet Park or its successors in interest
at no cost to the County upon the County's request.
10.
Crozet Park hereby gives the County a right of first
refusal to purchase the Park, or any part thereof, before
the Park, or any part thereof, may be offered for sale.
Notice of such proposed sale shall be given by certified
mail to the County Executive and shall include a copy of
this Agreement. The County may purchase the Park, or any
part thereof, offered for sale for $1.00. The $1.00 shall
constitute full and fair consideration for the purchase in
light of the contributions made by the County to the park
prior to the exercise of this right of first refusal.
Such right of first refusal must be exercised by the
County within ninety days of receipt of the notice by the
County Executive.
11.
Ail contributions, payments, and obligations of the County
shall be subject to and contingent upon the annual
appropriation of funds by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
12.
This Agreement shall be valid for a period of twenty years
from the date of its execution by the parties hereto,
unless Crozet Park and the County agree otherwise in
writing. The Agreement shall be automatically renewed for
consecutive periods of twenty years unless the County
notifies Crozet Park in writing of its intent to terminate
the Agreement at least 90 days prior to the expiration
000194
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
date of the Agreement or any future Agreement as provided
herein.
13.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the respective heirs, executors, personal
representatives, and successors in interest of the
parties.
14.
This Agreement represents the entire understanding
between the parties and there are no collateral or
oral agreements or understandings, and this Agreement
shall not be modified unless in writing of equal
formality signed by both parties.
15.
This Agreement shall be construed according to the
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this
Agreement as of the day first above written.
Item 5.6. Final Draft Statement for Annual Six-Year Primary Road Plan
Preallocation Hearing.
The Board was presented with the final draft of Ms. Humphris' remarks to
be made to the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Statement of
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board
at its
Preallocation Hearing On
Interstate and Primary Systems
Culpeper District
"Good morning, I am Charlotte HumPhris, Chairman of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. I appreciate the
opportunity to make a few brief comments about our primary road
needs on behalf of Albemarle County.
My comments focus on the national highway system and surface
transportation program and are consistent with the priorities
submitted to you last year. They are founded on the projects
identified in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study
(CATS) and on the mutual agreement between the City of
Charlottesville, University of Virginia, County of Albemarle and
Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding the phasing of these
and other road projects. Adherence to these plans is absolutely
critical to addressing the transportation needs of our
community.
Surface Transportation Program
There are several improvements that we offer for your
consideration. These are more definitively addressed in a
report we will leave with your staff. They include the
following Surface Transportation Program (STP) projects:
Standard projects include:
Undertaking CATS projects as outlined in our mutual
agreement, with particular emphasis on the construction of
the Meadow Creek Parkway. In addition to the completion
of the improvements to Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to
Airport Road, the Parkway is the county's highest priority
project. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's
decision not to construct the interchanges on Route 29,
the need for the Parkway will become even more critical to
maintaining an adequate level of service on Route 29. The
County has requested consideration of the Meadow Creek
Parkway for primary funding for the past six years.
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
000'!95
The County will also follow with great interest the Route
29 corridor studies. It is the Board's hope that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board will act favorably on
the recommendations of the Route 29 North Corridor Study.
It is also the Board's hope that the Route 29 South
Corridor Study will include an advisory committee as the
north corridor did, and will continue to emphasize public
input in the study process.
Undertaking the widening of Route 20 South from 1-64 to
the proposed Route 742/20 connector road that will serve
traffic from the new Monticello High School.
Constructing sidewalk and bike lane facilities on both
sides of Route 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to
Route 649 (Airport/Proffit Road).
Undertaking projects parallel to Route 29 which relieve
traffic on Route 29, such as the Greenbrier/Seminole
Square connector.
Widening Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route
29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by a joint City,
County, and University of Virginia approved design study,
the Ivy Road Design Study. This study should be used as a
guide in the design and development of this project.
Presenting the recommendations of the Route 240 functional
study in Crozet once complete.
Developing design plans for the improvement of Fontaine
Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvement along
the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation
development. Design plans should reflect recommendations
of the Fontaine Avenue Advisory committee.
Undertaking improvements to the Bellair/Route 250 West
intersection.
Safety projects include:
Construction of sidewalks along various primary routes
within the County's urban neighborhood.
Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor
in Ivy in accord with the ultimate recommendations of the
Route 250 West corridor study currently underway.
Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX
railroad in Crozet.
Developing functional plans for Route 20 North and South,
and Routes 22 and 231, for alignment and safety
improvements.
Enhancement projects include:
Construction of pedestrian walkways along selected primary
road sections.
Beautification of entrance corridors, particularly Route
20 South, Route 29 and Route 250.
Construction of bikeway facilities as recommended in the
bicycle plan for Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
4. Development of portions of the Rivanna Greenway path system.
Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
000 .96
proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 bypass. V/DOT
recommended to FHWA a national highway system which included the
existing Route 29 and the Route 29 bypass. The County's highest
priority project in the proposed national highway system is the
widening of Route 29 North from the corporate limits of
Charlottesville to Airport Road. The County desires to continue
active participation in Route 29 corridor studies, including the
study of the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 corridor
which is part of the national highway system.
We thank you for the opportunity to present these issues and if
questions arise, of if additional information is needed regarding
our recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact me or a
member of our County staff."
(Ms. Humphris suggested that the Board invite the local legislators to
attend the hearing and ask for Primary funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway as
they have done in the past. Mr. Tucker said that he would contact each
legislator.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the final draft statement
for the Annual Six-Year Primary Road Plan Preallocation Hearing.
Item 5.7. Letter dated February 20, 1997, from Mr. H. W. Mills,
Assistant Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: need for speed
limit along Route 240 between Route 250 and the Con-Agra Plant, was received
as follows:
"This will acknowledge a concern raised by Mr. Perkins at the
December 4, 1996, County Board meeting. Mr. Perkins has asked
that we review the need for a speed limit along Route 240
between Route 250 and the Con-Agra Pla~t.
In response to this request, we asked our Traffic Office to
review and they have advised us that a 45 mph speed limit will
be established from the Route 250 East intersection 1.28 miles
East of Route 810. Furthermore a section of Route 240 that now
has a 40 mph speed limit will be reduced to 35 mph between 1.28
miles East of Route 810 to 0.97 miles East of Route 810.
We will erect signs upon approval by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board."
Item 5.8. Notice from the Department of Transportation of a Location
and Design Public Hearing to be held on March 25, 1997, on the proposed
construction of Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) from 0.026 mile south of the
intersection of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) to 0.172 mile north of the
intersection of Route 29 (Project No. 0866-002-236,C-501), in Albemarle
County, was received for information.
Item 5.9. Notice from the Department of Transportation that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the major design features of Route
614, Sugar Hollow Road (Replacement of Bridge and Approaches over the Moormans
River at 0.39 and 1.35 miles west of Route 674 in Albemarle County) Project
Nos. 0614-7710-B02 and 0614-7710-C02, was received as information as follows:
"The Commonwealth Transportation Board, at its February 20,
1997, meeting, approved the major design features of the above
project as presented at the December 4, 1996, Location and
Design Public Hearing with the following exceptions: Building
one bridge at the western site, as opposed to two bridges as
proposed, and with consideration of minimizing work done in the
stream channel and using rustic steel guardrail on the bridges
and approaches to the bridges."
(Ms. Humphris asked that this item be discussed under transportation
matters.)
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
000197
Item 5.10. Request to the Participating Counties in the Region Ten
Community Services Board to Donate a Tree to Region~Ten's New Home Facility,
was received.
It was noted in the staff's report that Mr. Lloyd E. Barrett, Chairman
of the Region Ten Community Services Board, contacted member jurisdictions
with a request to donate a tree to Region Ten's new home facility located at
800 Preston Avenue in Charlottesville. These trees are to be planted in mid-
April and will be identified with a permanent plaque as to the donor. Unless
there is an objection, staff will proceed to provide the requested
contribution from the existing Parks and Recreation budget.
There was no objection expressed to this donation by any Board member.
Item 5.11. Copy of Ruling by the State Corporation Commission and
notice of public hearing on a request by Earlysville Forest Water Company,
Inc. of its intent to increase rates for water service, was received for
information.
Item 5.12. Copy of application filed with the State Corporation
Commission by Appalachian Power Company to revise its cogeneration tariff
pursuant to PURPA Section 210, Case No. PUE970001, was received for
information.
Item 5.13. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond
and Program Report for January, 1997, was received for information.
Item 5.14. Juvenile Detention Planning Study Update was received for
information.
It was noted in the staff's report that in September, 1995, the Board
received and discussed the Secure Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment that
documented the increasing need for secure juvenile detention in both Albemarle
and Charlottesville and outlined the process for securing State funding for a
new or expanded juvenile detention facility. In October 1996, the Board
appropriated $71,574 for a Juvenile Detention Planning Study by Mosely/Harris,
the costs of which were shared with the City and the Shenandoah Valley
Detention Home. An interim report has been received from the consultants and
a brief summary was provided with the staff's report.
Mosely/Harris's interim report provided an initial cost analysis between
the two scenarios being considered for a juvenile detention facility; that of
expanding the current facility in Staunton or building a new facility in the
Charlottesville/ Albemarle area. These initial costs will be part of the
final study, but were prepared at this time to provide an initial review of
the projected capital costs for the two options before proceeding with the
full planning study.
Expanding the current facility in Staunton will cost $7.6 million, which
includes $2.0 million for 40 new bed spaces, $2.2 million for new support
areas, $1.1 million to renovate the existing home and site work and other
costs of $1.8 million, plus contingencies. Projecting a 50 percent
reimbursement rate of $52,000/bed for 72 beds from the State, the
City/County's share will be $2.12 million or $1.06 million for each
jurisdiction. However, it is uncertain at this time that the State will
reimburse $52,000/bed for renovated bed space for the current 32 beds.
Building a new 40-bed facility, expandable to 60 beds, including land
costs of approximately $300,000, would cost $6.3 million, $1.5 million for 40
bed spaces, $1.9 million for new secured support areas, $0.773 million for
non-secure support areas, $0.706 million for site work and $1.0 million for
land and other costs. Projecting a 35 percent reimbursement rate (although
State reimbursement is 50 percent, a $52,000/bed cap for 40 beds lowers the
State share considerably), the City/County share is $4.1 million or
approximately $2.0 million for each jurisdiction. In the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), staff had estimated a $135,000/bed cost based on the most
recent estimates for a total project cost of $5.4 million or $1.6 million for
each jurisdiction. This estimate for a $6.3 million facility puts the per bed
space at $150,000.
000195
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Although the difference in capital costs is significant, other factors
must be considered. Transportation costs are one factor estimated at
$33,000/year. Other more intangible factors are access to families and other
supportive services that are not available at the Staunton facility.
Preliminary operating costs are projected to be $706,000/year for
Charlottesville/Albemarle at a new 40-bed facility. Projected operating costs
for Charlottesville/Albemarle at an expanded 72-bed Staunton facility are
projected to be $634,000. However, adding approximately $33,000 in annual net
transportation costs would bring the Staunton cost up to $667,000/year.
Mosely/Harris is in the process of finalizing the planning study, which
will also include a program design component, more detailed drawings and a
cost comparison of the operating costs for both options. The completed
planning study must be submitted to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
by April 1 for staff review before it is sent to the DJJ State Board in June
or July. If approved by the State Board, it will be forwarded on to Planning
and Budget for inclusion in the state budget request at the next General
Assembly Session. During the month of April, the Board and City Council will
need to review the completed planning study, weigh the benefits, as well as
future costs of a new facility, and be prepared to move forward with a final
decision for the State Board in May.
This summary was provided for the Board's information only and did not
require any action at this time.
Item 5.15. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 11, 1997,
was received for information.
Item 5.16. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for January 16, 1997, was received for information.
Item 5.17. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority for January 27, 1997, was received for information.
Item 5.18. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority for January 27, 1997, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Modification of
Construction Plans for the Route 29 North Project (Project 6029-002-F19,C502),
particularly Construction of Crossover Between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton
Heights Road and Proposed Closure of Crossovers at Kegler's and Better Living
entrances.
Ms. Humphris invited Ms. Angela Tucker to speak to the Board regarding
this matter.
Ms. Tucker said the proposal is to remove two unsignalized crossover
locations, one at Kegler's and one at Better Living, and replace them with one
signalized crossover in front of Schewel's Furniture. The overall safety of
the corridor and the timing through the signalized intersection should be
enhanced by this change. VDOT had discussed this issue with local homeowners'
association representatives and local business owners, and VDOT feels this
meets the needs of all involved. Carrsbrook residents were concerned about
increasing the cut-through traffic in their neighborhood. Under this change,
the Carrsbrook entrance will function as a right-in/right-out-only
intersection with Route 29. The U-turns which would be necessary for
businesses will now be signalized, which is another benefit.
Mr. Bowerman said he had discussed the proposal with VDOT about three
weeks ago. Based on discussions with VDOT, people in the community and local
businesses, this seems to meet the concerns of everyone involved, as much as
possible. The only questionable aspect is Kegler's losing their crossover.
However, Kegler's is trying to get access to the 40-foot easement which lies
between their building and Better Living. Instead of having an unsignalized
left-turn movement into Kegler's, they will have a signalized U-turn movement
in the event they cannot get the property needed to get to the easement that
is already there. Mr. Bowerman said he feels it is a good solution to
complicated issues with the neighborhoods, as well as safety on Route 29.
000199
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Martin said he does not disagree, but noted that one of the
negatives of this proposal is that the traveling public is losing flexibility.
He travels Route 29 a lot and when there has been an accident which causes a
road block, having those median openings does provide a way to make a U-turn,
or to get to Berkmar Drive, or to cut-through Carrsbrook Subdivision. But he
does think that in the long run this is probably a better movement of traffic.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any alternative to having another traffic
light. Route 29 is actually the County's main "shopping street." She asked
if having that stop light is the safest thing to do.
Ms. Tucker said before this change was proposed, the crossovers at
Kegler's and Better Living were to be restricted to northbound left-turns
only, and they were not to be signalized. These would have been the only
crossovers between Hydraulic Road and the South Fork Rivanna River which were
not signalized. The crossover at Dominion Drive has been closed because of
issues with turning movements and it was not a signalized crossover. In
keeping with the current policy of signalizing all crossovers, this will
provide appropriate left-turn lanes at this signalized crossover in front of
Schewel's Furniture for the appropriate left-turn movements. As it was, VDOT
was going to require that people traveling south and wishing to enter
Carrsbrook, go south to the Woodbrook intersection and make a U-turn to go
back north to the Carrsbrook entrance. There were to be no left-turn lanes
southbound into either crossover at Better Living or at Kegler's and they were
to be signed for UNo U-turns.~ Now, with the signalized intersection, there
can be U-turns.
Mr. Marshall asked if it will be possible to get the traffic lights more
in sync so traffic can move easier north and south. Ms. Tucker replied that
the Woodbrook Rod signal and the Hilton Heights Road signal will be added to
the rest of the signalized computer system after completion of the project.
Mr. Marshall asked whether all the lights will be timed so traffic can
continue moving, without having to stop at every light. Ms. Tucker said they
will. Drivers driving at the right speed should be able to hit all green
lights along that corridor.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands the only U-turn movement at the new
intersection would be for northbound traffic on Route 29, meaning there would
not be a southbound U-turn. Ms. Tucker said that was correct. The southbound
left-turn would only occur if some new development creates a need for a left-
turn southbound movement. This still pushes Carrsbrook residents wanting to
use their entrance off of Route 29 to go to Woodbrook and turn. VDOT has
extended the turn lane at Woodbrook to facilitate the additional traffic that
will be making U-turns.
Ms. Humphris asked if there were any other questions or comments. There
were none.
of.
Agenda Item No. 6b. West Leigh Drive, CSX Railroad Crossing, Discussion
Ms. Thomas said she would like to disclose a personal interest in this
item, informally. The crossing is one that she uses everyday, and the road in
discussion comes up to, but does not come onto, her property. She has an
interest in this matter, but that interest is the same as a large group of
similarly-affected people. Therefore, the Conflict of Interests Act does
allow her to participate if she can do so fairly, objectively and in the
public interest. Ms. Thomas said she will sign a formal statement to that
effect and file it with the Clerk.
Ms. Tucker said she received a memorandum last week from the County
outlining the concern of both the West Leigh Homeowners' Association, as well
as the CSX railroad about the substandard at-grade rail crossing into West
Leigh Subdivision. That correspondence outlines three available options. One
of these is for VDOT to accept a portion of West Leigh Drive into the State
road system, and then subsequently upgrade both the road, and the at-grade
railroad crossing. In looking into this matter, it seems that the program
that comes closest to resolving this issue would be the State's Rural Addition
Program. Under that program, the Department is required to accept roads for
upgrading which have a clear and unencumbered right-of-way. State money
cannot be used to upgrade a road without the appropriate right-of-way.
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
ooo: Oo
Although there have not been many Rural Addition projects in Albemarle, before
VDOT would accept a road into the Six-Year Plan for improvement money, the
public right-of-way needed throughout its path would have to be dedicated.
The technicality in this project is the rail right-of-way.
Ms. Humphris said this was also mentioned in a letter received from Ms.
Tucker. She did not understand everything in the letter. She asked where the
rail crossing fits in. Ms. Tucker said the rail crossing is a right-of-way
owned and authorized by the railroad. VDOT looks at the railroad as a
utility, and VDOT would require that they quit claim their rights.
Ms. Thomas said there is not a clear and unencumbered right-of-way at
this time, but that is something the homeowners could work on. She asked if
VDOT was suggesting that the CSX Railroad crossing is a special problem that
might be insurmountable. Ms. Tucker said it was misleading of the railroad to
think the situation could be remedied by the State taking over the road with
this substandard crossing which the railroad alluded to in their letter.
There is no guarantee between the railroad and the State with regard to that
crossing.
Ms. Humphris asked if Ms. Tucker is saying the railroad told the West
Leigh Homeowners' Association they had to either upgrade the road privately,
or they had to get the State to take over the road. She added that they
failed to mention that'the second alternative could not happen unless the
railroad itself also gave the unencumbered right-of-way to the State. Ms.
Tucker responded that she did not know if the railroad had any knowledge about
VDOT's Rural Addition Policy and their requirements for the right-of-ways
necessary to upgrade roads. She added that the railroad did make light of the
fact that VDOT is governed by statutes. She said VDOT often has a difficult
time with railroads regarding such crossings.
Mr. Perkins asked how the railroad can block someone's entrance. Does
not everyone have the right to cross the railroad at that point since the
crossing has been there for years? It is an established crossing.
Ms. Thomas said CSX told her that the developer of the West Leigh
Subdivision never approached CSX with a request for a crossing for the sub-
division, so CSX still has this classified as a ~farm road" crossing. The
farm has now been turned into West Leigh Subdivision. She asked if there have
been other situations where there have been private roads crossing railroad
tracks. For example, what abut the entrance into Farmington? Ms. Tucker said
that entrance is a private road and, therefore, a private railroad crossing.
Ms. Thomas asked if Farmington built their crossing. Mr. Tucker replied
affirmatively, adding that Farmington may not have the same sort of access
that CSX says they should. That was also a "farm road" at one time.
MS. Thomas asked if the next step is getting the right-of-way issue
straightened out, assuming the six or seven homeowners with adjoining property
are willing to do the work. It is in their best interest to do so. She said
someone has to contact CSX about their right-of-way. She asked if Ms. Tucker
would be willing to be involved in that since Ms. Tucker has expertise in this
matter. Ms. Tucker said VDOT could participate, but she did not know what
they could do until the improvement actually becomes a Rural Addition.
Ms. Thomas asked how wide the right-of-way must be. Ms. Tucker said the
Rural Addition requires a minimum of 40 feet for right-of-way, 20 feet from
the centerline. There would be another option for this request if the
homeowners were agreeable to upgrading the crossing~ Then, rather than taking
on the burden of extended maintenance, the billing for annual maintenance,
and, possibly, the .liability insurance, at such time as it was upgraded, VDOT
would talk about a Rural Addition if the right-of-way was straight and the
service requirements for a rural addition and termini requirements for a rural
addition were all met.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Tucker to describe what is meant by "termini
conditions". Ms. Tucker explained that the homeowners' letter indicated the
homeowners were not interested in the entire West Leigh Drive coming into the
system, rather only the piece that contains the substandard crossing.
However, VDOT requires that there be an adequate turnaround for a public
road. Without the proper termini or service requirements, then when one
crossed the railroad, someone could arbitrarily put up a private gate. Mr.
Tucker said this did not mean it had to be a cul-de-sac; it could be a "T"
00020 1
5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
into an existing street, just enough room so state vehicles, such as
snowplows, could turn around.
Ms. Thomas asked if VDOT has a requirement for the length of the newly-
accepted road. Ms. Tucker said there have to be three separate property
owners involved to assure there is no speculative interest in using State
moneys to upgrade roads.
Ms. Thomas asked if when a road is taken into the system as a Rural
Addition if VDOT provides ditching and shoulders. Ms. Tucker said the main
requirement is that there be appropriate right-of-way. The project would then
be placed on the Six-Year Plan to be prioritized, and the road would be
upgraded to minimum standards, usually a 20 foot-wide roadway with appropriate
shoulder and ditch line.
Ms. Thomas observed that once the project was placed on the Six-Year
Plan, it could be seven to eight years before actual construction. She
clarified that the homeowners' responsibility now is to get the right-of-way
on both sides of the road, including an agreement with CSX. If that is done
including some provision for a turnaround, could the road be taken into the
system? Ms. Tucker said if the right-of-way is guaranteed, VDOT could look at
it to be a Rural Addition project.
Ms. Humphris said there is still the railroad right-of-way, and Ms.
Tucker agreed. Mr. Tucker said the larger issue is a gate or whatever else
CSX may require at the railroad crossing. According to Ms. Tucker's letter,
that must be done as part of the right-of-way acquisition before the road is
taken over.
Ms. Thomas said she thought the reason the County was getting the road
into the rural system was to make it eligible for a Federal match program that
's the major part of the $100,000 involved in a gate and crossing. Ms.
Tucker said there has been no precedent set with taking a road in with a
substandard rail crossing. There was no tactful way to say in her letter that
VDOT is not interested in taking in a substandard rail crossing. That is not
tied to any particular program, but is not something VDOT wants to do.
However, under the program that comes closest to allowing that is the Rural
Addition Program. If the right-of-way can be guaranteed to make the Rural
Program work, VDOT might consider an exception to that since the
Board already has on its Six-Year Plan many substandard grade crossings due to
be upgraded on that plan.
Mr. Martin suggested that the people in the community, Ms. Tucker, and
Ms. Thomas develop a plan to move forward and bring it back to the Board. Mr.
Tucker said if all necessary right-of-way, including the CSX right-of-way, can
be obtained and dedicated to the State, that is the first hurdle. The Board
would then have to work through the gate issue.
Ms. Humphris reminded everyone that the homeowners are still faced with
a May 15 ultimatum and huge liability insurance.
Mr. Davis said that under the Rural Addition Program, the Highway
Department has, in the past, required surveyed rights-of-way and a set of
plans, including drainage and things of that nature in its plans. He asked
Ms. Tucker if that would be required in this case, because that would be
expensive work to do to acquire the right-of-way. Ms. Tucker said she would
have to check on that. It was her opinion that once the right-of-way was
guaranteed to VDOT, that VDOT would take on the plan design.
Ms. Humphris suggested that Mr. Grice Whitley from West Leigh, Ms.
Tucker, Ms. Thomas and others develop a written plan and keep the Board
informed while pursuing it with CSX and VDOT. Implications are probably far
more reaching than apparent now, and this group may need to also involve Mr.
Davis. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Whitley for his comments.
Mr. Whitley said the right-of-way was deeded to the developers of West
Leigh and then deeded to the West Leigh Subdivision Property Owners, as
recorded in deed books. The right-of-way was initially deeded by six or seven
people, Mr. Hunter Perry, Mr. Adams and Mr. Martin and their spouses, to Mr.
Higginson, who owned the property in 1940, who then sold it subject to that
deeded right-of-way to Mr. Jimmy Wild. The Homeowners have always maintained
that right-of-way and have always understood that it extended from Route 250
000202
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
to probably where Little Ivy Creek crosses the road. He believes the right-
of-way includes a lateral requirement as well as a linear requirement.
Ms. Thomas said that apparently it does not. Mr. Whitley said from the
Homeowners' point of view, he does not believe that is a problem. That can be
worked out.
There was no further discussion of this item at this time.
(The next two items, Agenda Item No. 6c and No. 6d, were discussed
concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 6c. Transportation Matters: Greenbrier Drive
Extension, Use of Right-of-way and Reallocation of Secondary Funds, Discussion
of.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Transportation Matters: Participation in VDOT
Revenue Sharing Program, Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on February 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors
voted to delete the Greenbrier Drive Extended project from the Secondary Road
Priority List. This project had received $201,000 in previous funding from
VDOT. It was earmarked to receive $932,700 in Secondary funds in the proposed
FY 1997-2003 Six-Year Road Plan and $800,000 in Revenue Sharing funds in FY
1997-98. It was also slated to receive $62,500 in Capital Funds in the
proposed FY 1997-2002 Capital Improvements Program for sidewalk construction.
Mr. Cilimberg said substantial right-of-way has been dedicated for the
Greenbrier Drive Extended project. In its recommendation to delete the road
project from the Secondary Road priority list, the Planning Commission
recommended retaining funds in the CIP (FY 1999-2000) for a bicycle/pedestrian
path in this right-of-way. He said there is right-of-way at the end of
Greenbrier Drive Extended on the Townwood end, a half-dedication of right-of-
way to the left of Wynridge, and full dedication of right-of-way along
property to the east of Camellia Gardens down to Greenbrier Drive. With the
Planning Commission's recommendation, there is right-of-way available to begin
working toward a pedestrian/bike type of path connection, which would give the
neighborhoods in the area a connection to Whitewood Park. This would provide
for an alternative connection of urban neighborhoods and Whitewood Park.
Mr. Cilimberg said another project that has been funded in the (CIP) in
the past, and for which there is additional funding from the collection of
fees to construct it, is the Birnam Basin, which is a regional stormwater
detention basin in the area. This project has not been pursued for
construction because the Engineering Department was awaiting the design and
ultimate construction of Greenbrier Drive Extended so they could use those
plans as a basis to plan the basin and to provide access for its construction
and maintenance. Without the Greenbrier Drive Extended project, the Birnam
Basin will proceed independently, and there will need to be access for its
construction and for its maintenance. If the Board chooses to continue the
concept of a pedestrian/bike connection, that could be planned along with the
planning for the Birnam Basin as a consolidated project, and the plans would
then be available for review with the neighborhoods.
Mr. Cilimberg said another item related to right-of-way came up in the
previous week's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Technical Committee
meeting. .This was a question from Ms. Helen Poore as to whether or not it
might serve as.a future bus way. Mr. Cilimberg said that is not something
staff has planned for, and since Planning staff does not know long-term bus
routing, it is not certain whether or not this will be necessary. However, if
there is some interest, staff can work with Charlottesville Transit Service
(CTS) . The most immediate plans would be based on a pedestrian and bike
facility, and that is what the Planning Commission has recommended.
Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT suggested that for the next Six-Year Plan year,
the funds be realtocated to Airport Road, the Free State Road bridge, Jarman's
Gap Road, and the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II. Staff asked VDOT about the
possibility of improvements to Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road,
particularly the sharp curve, for a future six-year project in lieu of the
Greenbrier Drive Extended project. Traffic between Route 29 and Hydraulic
Road in this area will now be using just Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road.
000203
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Continuing the bike and sidewalk concept would be part of the Greenbrier Drive
improvements at the Route 29 end. This would not be a four-laning project,
rather it is more of a spot improvement to the curve. VDOT indicated it is
something that could be examined in the next year, with the cost being
included in next year's Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that due to the Board's decision to delete Greenbrier
Drive Extended from the Secondary Roads priority list, the $800,000 of Revenue
Sharing funds that were earmarked for that project in FY 1997-98 must now be
reallocated. Funds have to be used on a project in the year they are
allocated, in this case during the FY 1997-98 year. VDOT and County staff
have identified two possibilities: 1) unpaved road projects, or, 2) the
Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North (Phase II). Earmarking
the funds for the Meadow Creek Parkway (Phase II) would provide this project
with more than $1.0 million in FY 1997-98, which should be sufficient to fund
the Environmental Impact Study (EIS). It might also enable this project to be
strongly considered for primary road funding. Planning staff recommends that
a decision be made at this meeting so it can send to VDOT the Board's
commitment for next year, which must be done by March 21, 1997.
Mr. Marshall asked where the money for the bike lanes will come from.
The money the County is getting from the State, and the money the County has
set aside for this project, cannot be used for this purpose. Mr. Cilimberg
said there is money in the CIP for sidewalks along the proposed Greenbrier
Drive Extended.
Mr. Marshall commented that the road would not be large enough to
support bus traffic, and Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He said that suggestion was
simply one made by CTS.
Mr. Tucker asked if the County would be looking at the section of road
between the Einstein School in terms of right-of-way, since it has only been
discussed at this point. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the County would need to
acquire a right-of-way. Some of the land can be acquired with the Birnam
Basin construction, since that will be on the back part of Whitewood Park, as
well as on adjacent property in an area that is now a drainage area.
Mr. Marshall commented that this would be an additional expense. Ms.
Thomas questioned whether the money for the basin has been in the CIP. Mr.
Cilimberg said it was previously in the CIP, but Mr. Jack Kelsey would have to
answer how much money is available. Moneys have been collected from
developers in the area as part of a regional stormwater management project.
Ms. Humphris asked if there was any action the Board needed to take at
this point for a pedestrian/bicycle path in the area. Mr. Cilimberg said the
project is now in the CIP as a sidewalk. Obviously, with Greenbrier Drive
Extended not being constructed, it will not be that type of project. Planning
staff needs some direction as to whether the Board wants to still work toward
a pedestrian/bike path and keep the project in the Capital Plan for next year.
Mr. Marshall said the County needs to ask for dedication of right-of-
way. Mr. Cilimberg said that cannot be done until plans are developed, and
added that will not likely be done before next year.
Mr. Bowerman said there is a group of people present this morning
representing the Neighborhood Coalition which spoke against the Greenbrier
Drive Extension. He asked if the group had any feelings about the connection,
since it would pull the neighborhoods together.
Mr. Drucker, a resident of that area, said when the Coalition first
heard of the idea to put a bike lane, or some sort of pedestrian structure
through that right-of-way area at Whitewood Park, it seemed appealing and
consistent with a recreational area. There are presently some gravel or wood
chip surfaces in Whitewood Park, so it fits well with the environment.
Looking at all of the activity at the north and south end of the proposed
right-of-way, they have reservations about putting any kind of infrastructure
through the area. The basin is going in on the north side of the Park, and an
office park will be going in on the corner of Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood
Road, and both roads are going to be straightened. Constructing a bike path
through a right-of-way that is very straight and not meander through the
existing tree line may be too intrusive and cause disruption to the tree area.
The right-of-way abuts a lot of backyards in the Minor Hill/Wynridge area as
well. Any enhancement to the existing trails would have to be done carefully
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
oooeo
to fit the current network. Something that meanders through the trees would
not disrupt the densely wooded area. At the end of the Board meeting the last
time this was discussed, it was suggested that the owners obtain a
conservation easement which is an appealing idea, and one they would like to
pursue. The idea of a bike path/sidewalk and access to Whitewood Park is
appealing if done the right way. Looking at the right-of-way area, they are
not sure it would be to the neighborhoods benefit to have it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the neighborhoods were concerned that a straight
sidewalk through the area would eventually become a roadway. Mr. Drucker
responded "yes."
Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him that having some type of access
through the area for pedestrians is definitely in the interest of the
community if it is done correctly. As long as there is agreement, something
could be worked out that is in the best interest of the community. He hopes
the concept is not thrown way. Mr. Drucker said he agrees. The concern they
have is what this improvement could turn into.
Ms. Thomas said she feels strongly that there must be access to and from
this area because it is a community park. Many of the reasons given to the
Board opposing the road included the fact that this was to make that area
attractive as a relatively-dense place to live. Access to that park is one of
the things that is important.
Mr. Bowerman added that the County does not have to keep the entire
right-of-way. Mr. Tucker commented that in the section between the Einstein
School and the Park, the County has no right-of-way. Any right-of-way that
must be acquired could be meandering, and not just a straight right-of-way.
Ms. Thomas said she feels this will be an asset to the whole community.
In a new study about what is happening in the Four Seasons area, residents say
they have no place to go for recreation.
Mr. Cilimberg said one thing that must be accommodated is access for
construction and maintenance of the Birnam Basin. There will have to be some
width of relatively flat, graded area to get that access. It will be a part
of the planning for the basin.
Mr. Marshall reminded the Board that they still had to deal with the
matter of the $800,000 in revenue sharing funds.
MS. Humphris said she thinks it is important to have an environmental
impact statement done for the Meadow 'Creek Parkway. The CTB members have told
the Board that if the County is to go forward with Phase II of the Meadow
Creek Parkway, the Board must come up with the money for that study. She said
it seems like this is a blessing in disguise. The Board has the opportunity
to add the $800,000 to the $300,000 that is already in the plan to fund the
project and show the County's good faith in getting that accomplished.
While not disagreeing, Mr. Martin suggested that the Board consider
using some of the money to pave some of the County's unpaved roads. Some of
those roads have been on the waiting list for quite some time. Ms. Humphris
said the Board does not know how much the EIS will cost, although Mr.
Roudabush estimated it would cost about $1.0 million. It is possible the
County could pay for the EIS and have money left for the unpaved roads. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff can only make an estimate based on the Secondary moneys
that are in the plan for the Meadow Creek Parkway for next year. Adding the
$800,000~totals about $1.1 million. He did not know how much $100,000 would
do for unpaved roads because many of those projects typically costs more than
that amount.
Ms. Thomas asked what $100,000 would do for Whitewood Road and
Greenbrier Drive which will now be impacted by this improvement. Mr.
Cilimberg said no planning has been done on improvements to Greenbrier or
Whitewood, so there is no way to estimate a cost for an additional
sidewalk/bike lane, curb and gutter work, etc. The Board must first commit
the $800,000 for this coming fiscal year. It would be difficult to try and
spend any of the revenue sharing money on that because staff will need the
next year just to determine the cost of improving Greenbrier and Whitewood
Roads. Mr. Marshall said it is obvious that cannot be done before March 21,
so he feels the Board should go along with the suggestion made by Ms.
Humphris.
000205
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Humphris asked if there was a consensus to put the additional
revenue sharing funds toward the Meadow Creek Parkway Environmental Impact
Statement. Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
reallocate the Revenue Sharing funds ($800,000) which were previously
earmarked for Greenbrier Drive Extended to fund the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase II, from Rio Road to Route 29
North.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was one more item not covered. There needs to
be an agreement regarding how the County would use the Six-Year funds. For
this year, VDOT recommended putting that money on four projects, and then
working on the Greenbrier/Whitewood possibilities for consideration in the
next Six-Year Plan next year. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board was agreeable
with that suggestion. Ms. Thomas said she thinks those two roads need to be
in the Plan within the next six years, so that would be an addition to the
four roads Mr. Cilimberg mentioned earlier.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Humphris said she had asked that Consent Agenda Item No. 9, the
major design features of Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road (Replacement of Bridge
and Approaches over the Moormans River) be discussed at this time.
Ms. Thomas requested an update since this project has been on ua roller-
coaster ride." She has the feeling the local VDOT Office has been supportive
of the Board's concern for the river and its protection, and not have this
become just another subdivision road pushing college students up to the
Reservoir to drink.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, said the Route 614 bridge
replacement project has been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB) with a 22-foot width on both bridges. While VDOT understood there was a
desire for one-lane bridges, it is not possible to install one-lane bridges,
but the local office supported the need to reduce the width to 18-feet in lieu
of 22-feet. There will also be a timber hand rail along with the deck to give
the bridge a more overall timber quality. She does not have a firm date, but
she is meeting with the Chief Engineer in the field next week to review the
design exceptions requested. Even though the CTB has approved the design as
presented at the hearing, she was told that until there is a final sign-off by
the Chief Engineer, design exception requests may still be granted.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was any way the Board could help. Ms. Tucker
said she will present the request using accident data and design exceptions in
accordance with the 3R guidelines that can be used on some roads, so it is
more of a technical pitch. Ms. Thomas said that Ms. Tucker could use all the
data that had been collected on Millington Bridge, on which there has been no
accident on that single-lane bridge since some sheriff ran somebody off on
purpose in 1942. Ms. Tucker said she had intended to look at the Millington
bridge on the way to Sugar Hollow, as the Chief Engineer has not seen it since
completion of construction. That will give him a good idea of what is meant
by Steel-backed, wood-faced guardrail.
Ms. Thomas asked about the work in the channel which is an important
part of getting the River itself into a healthy state. She said the Board
assumes that is included when talking about adopting a modified "David
Hirschman" plan. Ms. Tucker said she will confirm that, meaning that it
refers to having one single-span bridge in lieu of two bridges. Ms. Thomas
said the longer bridge can have a pier off-center, which has been agreed to,
but there has to be work in the River itself because the borrow pit that
created another channel will create the same washout problem if it is not
taken care of. That was always an integral part of the proposal; it was not
an add-on or a side thought. It is integral to making it work. Ms. Tucker
said she will confirm that that is to be part of the reconstruction efforts
with the bridges.
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000206
(Page 27)
Ms. Thomas asked if the bridge is 18 feet wide, would VDOT be justified
in putting up a sign saying ~Caution, Narrow Bridge?" She thinks such a sign
would be almost as good as a single-lane bridge in slowing down traffic. Ms.
Tucker said she did not know what the standard signage would be for a bridge
of that width, but there were sections of Sugar Hollow now that are signed for
"Narrow Roadway."
Ms. Thomas agreed, saying that additional signage is not always
desirable. It was Ms. Thomas' understanding that a one-lane bridge might be
safer than an 18-foot bridge. If Ms. Tucker hears that from any of the
engineers, Ms. Thomas said she should let them know that the Board would
prefer a one-lane bridge, if possible. The Board, in its resolution,
preferred the 18-foot bridge to a 22-foot bridge which is simply
inappropriate. Ms. Tucker said she hopes that since the bridges are being
replaced without changing the roadway alignment, it will be a factor in the
Board's favor, because they are just one side or another of a fairly severe
turn in the road. She said she will share these concerns with the Chief
Engineer, but cannot give the Board any indication of where the decision will
lie.
Ms. Thomas asked again if there was anything the Board could do to help
since it will be a technical matter. Ms. Tucker said the road itself was a
design exception for a 20-mile per hour design speed, which could lead to a
design exception for the bridges also. The Chief Engineer understands there
is a lot of local concern for the River.
Ms. Thomas agreed, saying it is not just local interest, since the
Moorman's is a State Scenic River. Ms. Tucker said everything will be weighed
with the State's liability with regard to safety issues. If they are in line
with the rest of the roadway, it may be that safety is not as big an issue as
getting over the other concerns.
Ms. Humphris asked whether any members of the Moorman's Scenic River
Advisory Board were present to speak this morning.
Mr. Jeff Morris said the Advisory Board would like to see the one-lane
bridges which the Board has requested, although he does not believe that will
be approved. He cannot understand why a 22-foot bridge would be built, making
the bridge wider than some parts of the road. When leaving the Millington
area and going toward Sugar Hollow, the road becomes much narrower. A 22-foot
bridge is appropriate at Millington, but the rugged nature of Sugar Hollow
does not lend itself to a highway. Mr. Morris said if the Advisory Board can
do anything to support the Board's action, it will help to try and reduce the
size of the bridges to reduce the long-term effect of creating an area that
will be more susceptible to traffic and people wanting to move into the area.
Ms. Humphris said it sounds as if the project is now in the hands of Mr.
Browder, the Chief Engineer, so it would seem that any contact the committee
could make with Mr. Browder might be helpful in supporting it before the
meeting on the technical aspects next week. Mr. Morris said he would send a
letter.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider
restricting through-truck traffic on Georgetown Road at its March 20 meeting.
He just received a copy of VDOT's staff report yesterday regarding the various
criteria studied for truck restriction.. It is the Planning staff's
understanding that it is going to the CTB with a recommendation that the
restriction occur, This is a meeting where the CTB generally does not take
public input. However, staff understands that if there is a desire to have
public, comment from the local area, the Board must make a request of Secretary
Martinez in advance of the meeting. It would then be decided whether or not
the CTB would receive comment at the meeting. There was a citizens committee
that worked on this request headed by Dr. Hoel. Mr. Cilimberg wondered if Dr.
Hoel might be available to speak at the meeting.
MS. Humphris said she had been told the same thing the previous day and
had left a message for Dr. Hoel. It was Ms. Humphris' understanding from
telephone conversations yesterday, that Mr. Mills in Ms. Tucker's office said
they had finished the data, and had contacted Culpeper. Mr. Jeff Horet said
VDOT had the data and believed it was going to be a favorable recommendation,
but there was nothing in writing yet. Mr. Buttner in Richmond said that there
was a favorable recommendation, but nothing was in writing. Mr. Juan Wade
000207
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
explained to Ms. Humphris earlier that VDOT staff would not be taking the
request to the CTB if the recommendation were not favorable, which makes
sense.
As to whether someone needs to be there, is questionable. The CTB does
not welcome people being there, so Ms. Humphris did not know if it was a good
idea to attend the meeting. Mr. Tucker said he tried unsuccessfully to get in
touch with Mr. Roudabush, but he is away. He will be back early next week.
Mr. Tucker said he will try to get some direction at that time.
Mr. Perkins said he has received some complaints from people saying they
cannot see the end of the Millington Bridge at night. He asked Ms. Tucker to
consider installing additional reflectors at the south end of the bridge.
Mr. Perkins said the Board has been discussing how to spend revenue
sharing money in 1997-1998, but he did not think the Board had discussed that
yet. Mr. Cilimberg said the money is part of the CIP. The Board must make
the indication now that the County is going to participate and list the
projects by March 21. Mr. Tucker said VDOT requires action by this Board
before the Board actually goes through the CIP process
Mr. Perkins said there was a letter enclosed with the paperwork for Ms.
Humphris to sign indicating the Board will make that commitment. As he has
traditionally not voted for use of these funds, he will not support it because
he does not think the Board should be spending property tax dollars to build
highways. He feels that is VDOT's job. He does not approve of participating
in the program. Gasoline taxes should pay for building roads. Mr. Davis said
it is subject to the Board's approval of the expenditure in the CIP budget
this year. If that is not approved, the Board could still back out of this
program.
Ms. Thomas provided Ms. Tucker with a list of guard rail issues which
she said can be discussed at another time.
Ms. Humphris said a citizen brought to her attention the clearing of
some big trees on a bank that is quite steep along Route 20 about one mile
north of Route 250. The work seems to be destabilizing the bank. Mr.
Marshall commented that this is where a day care center is being built near
Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. Ms. Humphris asked that staff look into this
situation if it is not part of a road project.
Ms. Thomas thanked VDOT for the clearing of greenery along Route 250
West. She said that drivers can see the road signs and the road is now safer.
Mr. Marshall asked that Route 20 South be restriped, as several citizens
have called to say they could not see the road during a recent heavy rain
because the white line on the right side of the road has been obliterated.
Mr. Marshall asked for an update next month on the status of the
widening of Route 20 South from Route 53 to the Monticello High School.
Mr. Marshall asked when work on the deceleration lane coming off of the
1-64 ramp onto Route 20 South at Piedmont Virginia Community College will be
completed. Mr. Charlie Williams said the weather has not been conducive to
paving, but the project is now in its final paving stages and V DOT anticipates
the project will be completed by the end of April.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Tucker to consider a request made by Ms. Liz
Seabrook of the Senior Center. She has made a suggestion which makes sense,
and that is to place a pedestrian crosswalk from the Senior Center across
Greenbrier Drive. There is already a crosswalk between the two sidewalks on
Hillsdale Drive and in a couple of other places. In light of the fact that
the Board is looking at making Hillsdale Drive a three-lane highway with right
and left turn lanes in the center lane, and with the addition of bike lanes,
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
000205
this makes sense. It could be on either side, but the side closest to Route
29 is where it should be in that intersection.
Ms. Seabrook was present and said she had received several requests for
a crosswalk. There is a paved sidewalk and a lot of traffic coming from the
west on Greenbrier, plus all of the traffic that swerves around the corner
where there is no stop sign. It makes sense to have traffic slow down when
there is somebody in a crosswalk.
Mr. Bowerman said since there is no stop sign at this location, VDOT may
determine it would be best to place it on the other side of the intersection
where there is less traffic, the side closer to Branchlands. Ms. Tucker said
VDOT will review the entire area for crosswalks. It may be that they will
find locations where additional crossings would be necessary. They were not
successful with the ~Duck Crossing" sign, but she hoped they would be more
successful with this.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: To receive comments on whether the
County should participate in a Regional Competitiveness Program in the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 24
and March 3, 1997.)
Mr. Tucker said this item was discussed at length last month. The Board
was furnished a copy of the Regional Competitiveness Program guidelines, and
Ms. Nancy O'Brien did answer some of the Board's questions at that meeting.
The Board was provided with a draft resolution in support of the program, but
decided to hold a public hearing regarding this program before taking any
action.
Mr. Tucker said that, in the meantime, he invited Mr. Bill Shelton from
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to make some
brief comments and answer any questions the Board may have prior to opening
the public hearing.
Mr. Shelton said the purpose of the Regional Competitiveness Program Act
was passed in order to enhance economic competitiveness for all regions of the
Commonwealth. To do this, the Act establishes an incentive fund to encourage
joint activities designed to address regional economic competitiveness needs.
The Program is intended to both reward existing regional behavior and
stimulate new behavior in the way of planning and acting regionally. Even in
areas where regional activity has already been initiated, it is intended to
increase their efforts and reach new levels of cooperation in order to qualify
for incentives. The Program is not a mandate, and the incentive funds are
available to localities which choose to carry out new levels of regional
cooperation. In order for substantive change to take place in the way
communities interact, it is necessary to involve all sectors of the community.
The new ways of working together that the Act calls for will necessitate
forming effective collaborative partnerships to successfully address economic
competitiveness issues.
Mr. Shelton said as to funding, a region's funding eligibility will be
based on meeting the guidelines on regional configuration, partnership and
strategic plan and receiving at least 20 points in the scoring system. Once
eligibility for funding has been determined, the population of all eligible
regions will be totaled. Each eligible region will receive a proportion of
funding equal to its proportion of that population total. Eligible regions
will receive annual incentive fund payments for a five-year period as long as
the regional partnership continues to exist a~d function effectively. Regions
may reapply for continued funding after the end of the five-year funding
period.
Mr. Shelton said there are three basic criteria for qualification. A
region comprises the cities, counties and towns above 3500 population within a
planning district boundary which indicate their commitment to forming a
regional partnership through a resolution of the governing body. A regional
configuration that is different from the planning district boundaries can be
formed with the permission of DHCD. DHCD will not approve a configuration of
localities that might result in a fragmentation of the region.
Mr. Shelton said the second issue is a partnership as a vision.
Urban Partnership, the organization which originally proposed this
legislation, felt this presents an opportunity to craft a partnership
The
000209
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
organization at the regional level to lead the region in areas of mutual
interest.
Mr. Shelton said the third issue is development of the regional economic
competitiveness strategic plan. People in the region would sit down together
to decide on a vision for the region and then discuss obstacles or
opportunities to work together on this vision. Once a consensus were built,
they would decide what specifically could be done working together. Once the
region qualified, moneys would flow back to local governments who have
options, either channel those moneys to the partnership or not. Those moneys
would continue coming back to the region provided everyone moves forward under
that strategic plan.
Mr. Shelton said this program is an incentive to communities, but some
communities are participating and others are probably going to wait. July 1
is the first date any region can apply to be qualified. There will be another
round of applications taken on December 1. In other words, in order to
qualify for funding for the first year, the deadline is July 1, 1997. To
qualify for the second year it would be December 1, 1997. To quality for the
third year it would be July 1, 1998.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the money coming from the state will flow to the
locality. Mr. Shelton said ~yes." The Act says the money is to flow to the
localities based upon a mutually agreed upon formula within the region. Some
regions are choosing to leave the money with the partnership to implement some
of the. strategies. Other regions are letting it flow to the localities. Some
of these regions may have other resources to implement some of their
strategies, moneys from grants or other dedicated funds, but the Act says the
locality has the right to retain those funds. If all of the money goes to the
locality and none to the strategies to get implemented, incentive payments
would stop by years two, three and four, because the region would no longer be
effectively functioning and moving forward.
Mr. Marshall said there are six localities in this region. He asked
what would happen if Albemarle County did not want to do a specific thing, and
the other five localities did. Mr. Shelton said there is nothing in the
guidelines saying every strategy has to be participated in by all members of
the region. For example, one region may be talking about regional
infrastructure of water and sewer. It would not make sense to extend that
service to every corner of that region. They are trying to cooperate as a
region, but some strategies will involve two or more localities. The
incentive payments still come back to the localities in the region and are not
tied to the projects. Just because the locality is receiving the money does
not mean it has to implement the strategies.
Ms. Thomas said if the strategies were not implemented, then the region
would not receive moneys the following year. Mr. Shelton said if the region
lists regional strategies and the region is moving forward on those, the funds
would continue. He said the DHCD would like to think the package of
strategies reflect regional cooperation. Some issues cross-cut different
localities in different ways. On one issue, all the localities may
participate, while on other issues there may be different subsets, but there
should be actual participation by all communities within a subset to show that
there is regional focus.
Mr. Davis said according to the guidelines, the distribution of funds
must be agreed to prior to the application being made for funds, and it must
be approved by each jurisdiction by resolution. Mr. Shelton said that was
correct. The localities could adopt separate resolutions or a combined
resolution. Most people go with a separate resolution. First, the region
must be set out with geographic boundaries so it is known what localities are
participating. The second thing is that the method of distribution of funds
within the region must be set out so there is no question as to how the money
is distributed. Mr. Davis said the distribution does not actually have to be
based on a per capita figure, but could be as agreed to. Mr. Shelton said
that is correct.
Ms. Thomas asked how much money is involved in this program. Mr.
Shelton said the value was based upon the assumption that the $3.0 million
which was appropriated by the 1996 Session of the General Assembly was the
total amount of money available, but an additional $3.0 million has since been
added. If every region qualified, Region 10 would qualify for about $180,000.
0002 .0
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
As a practical matter, Mr. Shelton said he did not believe that every region
in the State will qualify the first year.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Shelton if "region" means those currently defined
as a planning district. Mr. Shelton said that was correct. Mr. Martin asked
if taking one locality out would start a snowball effect, changing all the
regions. Mr. Shelton agreed. He said that although DHCD may agree to
alternative configurations, they are being very cautious because they do not
want to start a chain reaction and have localities move in and out of regions
where there are already regional identities existing.
Mr. Martin asked if in a planning district two localities decided not to
participate, would that mean that the planning district would not quality?
Mr. Shelton said not necessarily. There are some standards set out in the
guidelines for handling this possibility.
Mr. Marshall asked whether the City of Charlottesville could participate
if Albemarle County did not. Mr. Shelton said based on the current
guidelines, it could not.
Ms. Thomas asked if any of the money goes to the planning process. She
said a strategic plan is something planning district commissions are required
to do, but funding was not increased when the requirement was increased. She
said she did not see any mention of money for administration. Mr. Shelton
said there was no money set aside for these activities.
Ms. Thomas then asked if the Board passed a resolution which said it was
interested in allowing the region to participate in the program, and that the
planning district commission could form the core of this new partnership,
would the PDC make suggestions as to membership? This region has a lot of
joint activities, so the region would begin to accumulate points for existing
operations, but how would the region get points for things it is not yet
doing? She reads the Act as requiring the points before any money will be
granted to do those things. Mr. Shelton said that is basically correct. When
the strategic plan is developed it will respond to what has basically been
established as a region and the opportunities in the region for greater
cooperation and regional economic issues. In some areas, it may be work force
issues, and in other areas it may be transportation, or any issue defined as
being key to the region. Once the plan of new strategies is put together, the
proposal submitted will have a combination of existing activities and new or
proposed activities which respond to those issues. Not all existing regional
activities may be relevant, but if one of the key economic issues for the
region is work force or an education issue related to work force, the DHCD
will be looking at how the activities respond to the issues.
Ms. Thomas asked if there have to be established joint agreements. Mr.
Shelton said that is not required at the time'of application. There just
needs to be a strategic plan setting out what the region will do. In the
beginning of the process, DHCD will ask for an action plan stating a time line
if a certain activity is to be pursued. Basically, the incentive payments
will be received as long as progress is being made in line with the original
statement of intent.
Ms. Thomas asked if it was decided that transportation of people to
their jobs was a major concern, since transportation is very low in the
listing of points, what is the value of those points when Mr. Shelton had
emphasized that this had to meet locally-identified needs. Mr. Shelton said
the points in the guidelines come right out of the Act as passed by the
General Assembly. The DHCD has the authority to adjust those points relative
to regional needs.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is an advantage to getting the application in
during the first round rather than waiting until the second round. Mr.
Shelton said this is a learning experience and there is an advisory committee
and the General Assembly will have some say about the program. Change is
likely to occur, but it is not possible to say what changes will occur at this
time, although immediate changes should be minimal. It will probably be the
third and fourth rounds before changes start to take place.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if a locality wanted to withdraw
from the partnership feeling the strategic plan was not in its best interest.
Would they be locked into the plan because it is an area cooperation? Mr.
Shelton said that would indicate that the region is not effectively
000211
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
functioning. There are, in the guidelines, options which would allow a region
to revise and resubmit a strategic plan.
With no further questions for Mr. Shelton, Ms. Humphris opened the
public hearing.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of
Women Voters, said that while the League applauds the concept of regional
partnership cooperation and continually encourages regional planning in many
areas, the League has three concerns. They believe it is important to not
only think primarily of job creation for economic development, but to consider
a viable economy for the region, with a greater consideration given to the
other 14 joint activities to build a vital, sustainable regional partnership.
These activities may be difficult to measure, but they are invaluable over the
long-term in importance to the region and the State. A second concern is that
the membership be as broad-based as possible, with a balanced representation
of local government, education, business community and civic groups as
mentioned in the Act. The third is that it is important to have public
participation with updates as the plan develops and with local government
approval including a public hearing with the local government present, before
the plan is implemented in the locality.
Ms. Karen Dame spoke on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle County,
specifically addressing the draft resolution which is before the Board today
for approval. She said the Citizens Board found it impossible to reconcile
the parties mentioned in the draft resolution. The Sustainability Council is
mentioned, and yet the community does not have the Sustainability Council's
recommendations for this region. The Economic Development Partnership is
mentioned, but they do not have formal articulated strategic plans from the
Development Partnership. Therefore, they did not see a marriage of those two
groups in terms of moving into an application process for a regional strategic
plan. In the last phrase of the resolution, although those two entities were
mentioned earlier in the resolution, they are not part of what is being
resolved. Based on all of this unclarity in the draft resolution, Citizens
for Albemarle opposes having the County move ahead with the resolution as it
stands.
Ms. Dame said she had a second statement which is her own personal
comments. She recently met informally with a group of people interested in
regional planning, so these issues have been on her mind. For her profession,
she is an editor of grants, so she has some feeling looking through a set of
guidelines and anticipating what is required to meet what is asked for in
those guidelines. She said the language in the draft resolution is of great
concern to her. The title of the resolution reads: "Resolution in Support of
the Regional Competitiveness Program in the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District." A more appropriate title would be: ~Resolution of Intention to
Participate in the Regional Competitiveness Program via application to the
program by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission." She asked that
the title reflect what is actually to be done with the resolution, and not
just general support for the Regional Competitiveness Program.
Ms. Dame said the third ~whereas" statement states that planning and
acting regionally supports not only the health and well-being of the region,
but of each locality in the region. That is a supposition and although
planning in a certain way may enhance those things, she would like to see the
language say that. There are other kinds of planning that could help make
this be a homogeneous border-to-border region, and that might not meet
everyone's definition of enhancing the quality of life for citizens throughout
the region.
Ms. Dame said the fourth "whereas" states a policy of managed growth
consistent with an overall vision for the future of the region will enhance
the quality of life for citizens throughout the region. She said there are
huge terms included in that whereas that have not been defined in this
community. One is a policy of managed growth, the other being an overall
vision. She would like to see, before a resolution like this is adopted, some
more articulation as to how those things would be arrived at by the entities
proposing to do this work.
Ms. Dame said the next ~whereas" is the one that mentions the
Partnership for Economic Development and the Sustainability Council. It says
those are dedicated to the overall health of the region consistent with the
Regional Competitiveness Act. She has several problems with this language
0002 .2
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
since she does not know the meaning of ~'overall health." She said the
Economic Development Partnership has not formally articulated what it is
dedicated to, and it is yet to be seen what features would be defined as
overall health by that group. Also, when it says "consistent with the
Regional Competitiveness Act" the list of 14 features listed in the Act might
be questioned. These are the weighted categories mentioned earlier. They
amount to a list of mostly urban characteristics and they lay out significant
things which may be related to the overall health of a region, including
cultural affairs, preservation of diversity among the human population, and
water and sewer services which is sort of an urban infrastructure, but not
water resources and water quality. She asked the Board to be aware in
drafting this resolution that these terms not be '~banged around" like "overall
health" without identification and "overall vision", etc. The Act is targeted
to very specific things, not to every feature of the community.
Ms. Dame said the next ~whereas" is actually a repeat of number four.
It says "Whereas, a regional vision that identifies key local and regional
issues and prioritizes potential activities, will enhance the quality of life
and economic viability of the region in each locality." That is not what the
money is for. A way to fund a strategic plan before getting any money, has to
be found. She does not find that is germane to participation in the program.
Ms. Dame said in the ~now, therefore, be it resolved" paragraph, it
seems that all the County is in a position to resolve at this time is some
kind of method for creating or giving support to a regional entity that would
figure out whether the region could actually come up with a strategic plan.
She feels it remains to be demonstrated whether all the components of the
region actually have an interest that can be woven into a general action plan
for the whole region in a broad sense. She said this will take an extensive
amount of work, and she does not know whether the outcome of that work would
be that all of the players in this region would agree. To create a
partnership that represents to the fullest extent all the diverse features in
the regional community and to address that question and do profiles of the
community would lead to the point where the guidelines of the Regional
Competitiveness Program could be addressed. On Page 5 of those guidelines, it
stipulates that a partnership with very specific members would be formed, and
that partnership would form its own charter and bylaws for operation. Having
done that and created itself as an entity, that partnership would review all
the existing strategic plans before it did anything else. They would then
perform critical analyses of the region and identify and prioritize issues.
This is huge in scope. They would then take time out to solicit public
participation. Then, the strategic plan produced would be a five-year plan in
order to qualify for review. The guidelines point out that the plan should
include an analysis of key demographic and economic trends, Then, it says the
plan also needs to include identifiable, measured outcomes and a proposal for
the monitoring system.
Ms. Dame said she cannot imagine how, by July 1, this scope of work
could be accomplished. It would need to begin with some sort of regional
efforts that already have approved strategic plans that can be crafted into a
single document that would qualify under the point system, or anticipate that
there is up-front work to be done before even deciding that we can get
organized and produce the work that is necessary to apply for the Regional
Competitiveness Program. As far as she is concerned, these are process
questions. She thinks that adoption of a draft resolution to move forward
without addressing these things would be premature.
Ms. Dame then asked Mr. Shelton what entity would actually review the
applications and what entity will decide about the points adjustment if the
region wanted to apply for something that was not in the points category. Is
it a politically appointed board or some other kind of committee? Also, the
answer that was given in response to Mr. Bowerman's question about whether or
not a locality can change it's mind was not consistent with her understanding
of the legislation. She understands that it is up to the regional
partnership, once created, to put forward the plan, and it would be in their
purview to change the plan. She asked if is possible for a locality to change
the plan in any other way than withdrawing completely.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Shelton to answer Ms. Dame's questions at this
time. Mr. Shelton said the DHCD, which is a State agency, will use its staff
to review the applications. A review committee has not yet been set up, but
they will probably ask other State entities to provide input in specialized
areas in order to be sure they understand the strategies. As far as whether
0002 _3
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
or not a locality can change it's mind, Mr. Shelton said the plan will
probably have more strategies listed than the region can implement in the
first five years. They are not expecting every region to commit to every
strategy in their plan. The question about how it gets changed comes back to
a phrase in the Act that says ~the region must effectively function.'~ If a
strategy is not implemented, there is no performance, so, therefore, it is not
effectively functioning. If a locality withdraws, that is not effectively
functioning, but revision of strategies is not necessarily an indictment of
the process. They feel that as plans move forward, there may need to be some
restructuring and that was envisioned as the guidelines were written. So,
there is a mechanism for amendment written into the process.
Ms. Dame said she still did not understand the answer to Mr. Bowerman's
scenario where a strategic plan is created by the regional partnership and one
of the localities does not agree with what that strategic plan sets out. What
can that locality do at that moment, other than threaten to withdraw from the
whole process? Mr. Shelton said the locality would be part of the partnership
and presumably was there when the plan was put together. There is a process
involved for a strategic plan supported by the region. If the plan does go
forward, he believes it does require that the locality, once it has agreed to
participate, stay in the partnership. If the Board passes a resolution saying
they want to withdraw, the DHCD would say that causes the partnership not to
exist as it was originally proposed. At that point, they would probably
require the remaining members to reappty and requalify.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the strategic plan would propose what the
joint activities would be, and it would not commit the Board to specifically
agree to any joint activity. For those agreements to be implemented, those
decisions would have to come back before the Board of Supervisors and they
would have to enter into whatever agreement was necessary to have that joint
activity go forward. If the Board of Supervisors at that time decided not to
go forward, that would cause an amendment to the strategic plan because that
activity could not happen. There would be checks and balances as the
strategic plan is being implemented by any locality who is a participant. If
they don't agree to the joint activity, the joint activity cannot proceed.
Ms. Thomas proposed a scenario where the strategic plan might identify
transportation as a major need, and the partnership had told DHCD that 10
points would come from getting Albemarle and Nelson counties together on a
transportation system. But, then it is found that there is no Federal money
available for this activity, so it becomes an impossible task, and it is
dropped. That is not the same as dropping the County's support of the general
concept. It might change the points if that was the project that was giving
the partnership a lot of points. Would the Board then be able to come up with
another idea? Mr. Shelton said if the partnership could have otherwise
qualified without that activity, he believes there would not be a major
problem. If the activity was impossible to institute, it would definitely
impact on whether or not the region was "functioning." As long as the region
makes an attempt to work together and come up with solutions, this would be
the ultimate test and taken into consideration regarding points. If the
region broke apart and did not work together, it would be viewed differently.
Ms. Jodie Weber, President of the Earlysville Area Residents' League,
began by saying how pleased the League was at the announcement in last
Saturday's paper stating the Board is hiring a recognized consultant
experienced in neighborhood design to suggest how the County can make more
efficient use of urban growth areas. They congratulate the Board in taking
this important step toward true growth management of the County. It indicates
a commitment to finding, an alternative to the monotonous suburban sprawl that
threatens the County, to preserving rural lands, and to investigating the
vitality of well-designed and well-planned communities. Surveys have shown
that a majority of County residents say that controlling growth is a top
priority.
Ms. Weber said participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program is
directly related to the issue of growth management. The relationship between
the two gives the League cause for concern. They understand that the purpose
of the Regional Competitiveness Act was to enhance economic competitiveness
through an incentive fund which encourages activities that contribute to a
region's economic development. At the top of the list of functions and
activities which the regional program is intended to ~recognize and reward" is
job creation, They agree with Ms. Thomas' comments about job creation and
feel that since Albemarle County is fortunate enough to enjoy low employment,
0002 .4
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
an emphasis on job creation will serve to bring in people to fill those jobs
thus providing an impetus for growth.
Ms. Weber said she was told by a member of the staff at the Planning
District Commission, all of the activities which DHCD will endeavor to
encourage, even in the categories of education, libraries or parks and
recreation, are considered essential factors in creating a desirable climate
to work and live in order to attract businesses to locate here. Will
Albemarle's participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program result in
the marketing of Albemarle County for development? Will this program
accomplish what the Board of Supervisors rejected two years ago by declining
to join the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership? The League
feels there is a need for the County to develop a fully comprehensive plan for
managing growth before a decision can be made regarding programs which will
likely provide growth incentives.
Ms. Weber said the Regional Competitiveness Act brings to mind the aims
of the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership. She said she wanted
to review the response the Earlysville Area Residents' League received two
years ago when they surveyed their members as to whether Albemarle County
should join the partnership (Ms. Weber then gave some statistics on their
survey).
Ms. Weber said that in addition to their concerns over the Regional
Competitiveness Program and its potential to be an accelerator of growth
before strategies to deal with growth are in place, they had other
observations to note. Since it appears that the only decision-making role of
local government which the proposal calls for, is choosing the people who
would serve on the regional partnership, the League feels there is too little
control over an economic development plan which the locality has had little
hand in shaping. Secondly, the program's guidelines state that the "RCP is
intended to bring together key decision-makers in the region that includes
local government, the private sector, secondary and higher education, and
civic organizations." It is proposed that the strategic economic development
plan will be formulated by the Sustainability Council, the Planning District
Commission and the Economic Partnership, the later two of which Albemarle
County does not belong and so could hardly be represented. Only the
Sustainability Council, which is not a permanent body, represents the diverse
interests set out by the guidelines.
Ms. Weber said that in summary, the League must ask if participation in
the Regional Competitiveness Program will bring more problems than it solves.
To the extent that it supports existing businesses and provides present County
residents with a better quality of life, she believes the Earlysville
Residents' League will support it. But, the lack of representation by diverse
interest groups and especially the potential of the program to stoke the fires
of growth before it can be effectively managed, raise serious concerns about
the wisdom of endorsing this program as presented.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick said she applauds the goal that former-Governor
Linwood Holton had in mind when pushing this legislation of regional
cooperation. She said this legislation looks to her like another regional
economic development partnership, which Albemarle has already opted out of.
The virtue of it lies in trying to make it into something it is not. In so
far as that can be done, she thinks it can be made into something better than
it was narrowly constructed to be. She is concerned about Albemarle County
entering into something where the main virtue is trying to turn it into
something other than what it was designed to be. By design, Albemarle County
will have a minority representation in this body. She thinks Albemarle needs
to come to grips with the fact that for the first time there is a budget
shortfall, and the shortfall is caused largely by the cost of growth. Fueling
the engines of that kind of growth for this particular county, at this time,
would not be in the best interests of the county. She suggested that the
Board defer action on entering into this partnership until it knows what the
representation will be, and know this not a "pig in a poke" and have some
sense of what the County would be getting into, if the Board wants to deviate
from the policy the Board set out for the economic partnership and enter into
it at all.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental
Council, said PEC opposes the proposal for the following reasons: 1) the
absence of balanced representation. It appears from the Regional
Competitiveness Act that the only authority granted to localities in this
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000215
(Page 36)
regional economic development process is to appoint the individuals who will
develop the plan. According to a memo the Board received from the Director of
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the law contains "no
requirement for local government approval before the plan becomes effective in
the locality." Ms. Thorpe said the virtual veto which has just been disclosed
to the Board seems a little shaky as a pale shadow of the local determination
that is guaranteed under the mutual cooperation act. She submitted the
following hypothetical situation: Suppose one strategy identified marketing
to large Fortune 50 companies as something that was necessary to make the
region competitive with Raleigh/Durham. It is clear, and she agreed with Mr.
Davis, that identifying that as a strategy would mean the County would have to
hire an economic development coordinator to begin a marketing program, but if
Albemarle objects to that strategy and if the two elected officials on the
Planning District Commission are outnumbered, then the plan would identify
that as a regional priority, and it could possibly direct another regional
group to step up its efforts to market the entire region. Under those
circumstances, she is not sure how Albemarle County could veto the plan
effectively without withdrawing from the regional group altogether.
Ms. Thorpe said this makes doubly important the task of choosing the
individuals who will draft this plan. Neither the Economic Development
Partnership nor the Planning District Commission appears to satisfy the
statutory requirements for eligibility. While the Sustainability Council
offers a balance between economic and environmental interests, this balance
would be undermined in favor of economic development due to the participation
of the Economic Development Partnership, an organization which the County has
not endorsed. It seems odd to PEC that the County would consider recommending
an organization which it has refused to join to represent the County's
interests in this project.
Ms. Thorpe said secondly, the selection of organizations rather than
individuals to develop the plan concerns PEC. The statute does not appear to
allow a partnership to be made up of a group of organizations. It provides
for individual members only. These provisions make sense when one considers
the difficulties of having three groups with three different bylaws and
organizational structures develop a plan which may require voting on key
decisions. Third, the emphasis placed by the Act on competitiveness and
economic development. The Act requires regions to identify impediments to
their ability to compete with regions outside the Commonwealth and to devise
measures to address these impediments. Analyzing data solely in terms of
competitiveness can lead to bizarre conclusions. For example, the Governor
and his regional economic development councils recently developed an economic
development plan for the Commonwealth, entitled ~Opportunity Virginia." Each
region was asked to identify its competitive advantages and its challenges to
future growth. The regional council for this area identified the region's low
unemployment rates as a challenge to future growth "because they limit the
size of a relocation and sometimes inhibit expansion of existing industry."
In other words, something that is good in and of itself--a low unemployment
rate--can be considered an impediment if the overall goal is competing with
other regions for new industry.
Ms. Thorpe said she has heard proponents of the proposal argue that
regions may choose to focus on something other than economic development, for
example, education or housing. PEC remains skeptical that such an outcome can
result from a process that is skewed toward economic development and a
region's ability to compete with other regions for new business. Handing a
big part of this process over to an economic development partnership makes it
even less likely that the result will be anything other than a regional
economic development plan focused on marketing the region to new companies.
If the Board decides that the intangible benefits of participating outweigh
the disadvantages, PEC urges the Board to work with the Planning District and
surrounding localities and appoint individuals to a new regional partnership,
one that satisfies the terms of the statute and one that includes
representatives of secondary and elementary education and civic groups, in
addition to the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Acting County Administrator of Louisa County, said
his board asked him to come before the Albemarle Board of Supervisors and ask
for the Board's cooperation and help and urges that it pass the resolution in
favor of becoming involved in the regional competitiveness program. Louisa
recognizes that there are many differences and similarities between the two
counties. They understand that growth management is of primary concern, and
do not believe that getting involved in this as a region would in any way put
000216
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Albemarle's desire to continue with a strong growth management program in
3eopardy. There are many ways the localities can cooperate together. For
example, through the educational process. Louisa views Charlottesville as
being the educational and cultural center of the region, and feels by
reinforcing that with the possibility of additional funds for such entities as
the Piedmont Virginia Community College and CATEC, that the region can work
together to strengthen the program. He said that Fluvanna County and Louisa
County have already passed a resolution to become involved in the program,
Louisa is very interested in working with Fluvanna to develop a water system
for Zion Crossroads. They recognize that Albemarle County is not interested
in additional industry, but Louisa has a different problem in its community in
that its unemployment rate is seven percent. Louisa is largely dependent on
an industry generating electric power which all in the region use. It needs
to continue to study and work toward diversification of its economic base with
additional good, clean businesses. Louisa does not feel this will impact
negatively in any way the continuation of Albemarle's strong growth management
program and rural preservation and open space preservation. It could possibly
enhance that because there is an appropriate location for additional
businesses in this area, but outside of Albemarle County. Louisa does need
Albemarle's cooperation particularly because it requires three jurisdictions,
contiguous with one another. Without Albemarle's help, it will put Louisa
into a less desirable position than it would like to be. Certainly,
cooperation with the entire planning district would be very beneficial. He
offered to answer questions.
At 11:50 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 12:10 p.m. At this
time, Ms. Humphris opened the subject to discussion by the Board members.
Mr. Marshall said he feels it is important when looking back on what the
County is and where it came from, that the Board support a resolution (not
necessarily the one presented to the Board today), and become a part of this
Regional Competitiveness Program. A couple of years ago, Mr. Dan Jordan
called him and asked him to come to Monticello and give a speech on Thomas
Jefferson's birthday. He went and when it came his turn to speak, basically
he said that he was a young boy raised '~over the hill" and pointed down to
where he was raised at 815 Bolling Avenue. As a young man he looked up at
this magnificent home and wondered who lived there. In school he learned all
about the man (Jefferson) and the documents he wrote. Mr. Marshall said he
was fortunate to live in a country where he could be successful and be able to
improve himself. All because of one document this man wrote. He said "God
Bless Thomas Jefferson" and "God Bless James Madison" and "God Bless Abraham
Lincoln" for holding this country together and "God Bless Martin Luther King"
for telling us what the words really meant. Most of all, "God Bless America!"
We are the greatest nation on this earth because of our economic power, not
out military might. We are made up of many different people from many
different backgrounds. Economic development is an extremely important part of
our lives. There is a reason that we have the quality of life that all want.
Unfortunately, there are people in the community that don't have the same
quality of life. He doubts that there are many people in this room that only
make $5.00 to $8.00 an hour. It is true that this community has low
unemployment, but it is a community of a tremendous amount of underemployment.
He knocked on the doors of these people when he ran for election. He heard
their voices. The people in Charlottesville have to be considered, where the
average person is much less fortunate than those in Albemarle County. He said
the County cannot afford to ignore the people in Louisa County and the other
surrounding counties. Albemarle has to become a part of their community.
Albemarle does not have to have a smokestack industry here or any business
that will be detrimental to the community. The County has veto power over
whether that industry will come to this community. He feels Albemarle owes it
to itself and has a moral obligation to the people of the region as a whole to
support some sort of resolution that will help them have the same benefits
that Albemarle has had in its community. That is the American way. All his
life he has fought to make his life better and also that of his wife and
children and parents. He will not take that opportunity away from anyone else
who lives here. He has had the opportunity to work hard and to succeed
because of the greatness of this country. He said "we are all God's children
and we owe an obligation to all of our people." With that in mind, he
suggested that the Board adopt some resolution to help all of the citizens,
and not just a privileged few.
Ms. Thomas said Albemarle County is amazingly competitive in any way
that you define it. Also, its citizens are not at all interested in anything
that fosters greater population growth here. Maybe because she and Mr.
0002 !7
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Perkins are members of the Planning District Commission, she is aware that
Albemarle's statistics hide discrepancies. The planning district looks like
it is a healthy, prosperous area with a high quality of life, but not all
counties share this prosperity. Old-fashioned economic development, i.e.
marketing, is not going to benefit anybody in this area because the last thing
the outlying counties needs is more population growth. One of the reasons
Albemarle has such prosperity is that the workers in Albemarle are actually
living and educating their kids in the outlying counties. Eighty-eight
percent of employment is in Charlottesville/Albemarle now. Eighty-six percent
of the retail sales are in Charlottesville/Albemarle. The others are the ones
that are being hurt by that prosperity. She feels Albemarle needs to join in
a regional effort to examine everyone's strengths and weaknesses. She does
not believe that the proposal submitted to the Board is the one to pass. She
thinks the Sustainability Council itself may decide not to join. They have
not made a final vote on it yet. She does not think the Board should "hammer"
out a resolution today.
Ms. Thomas said she had drafted a resolution which suggests that the
Planning District develop a proposal for the partnership with membership based
on the Planning District Commission as a core group with the addition of the
necessary individuals and representatives which are supposed to be from a
variety of organizations. Also, the Planning District should propose the
staffing responsibilities, which is what the three group idea was really
about, to not duplicate staffing responsibilities on a regional level. They
would then present to the Board a process and a timetable for a regional
strategic plan. She said Ms. Dame pointed out well the complexities of that
plan. It is a precise plan as opposed to a sledge-hammer, old-fashioned kind
of economic development. She suggested that next week the Board adopt some
kind of resolution, and in the meantime, a draft can be circulated to the
Board members. She would be personally embarrassed by this County if it does
not agree to work along these lines in some way to be of assistance to the
region as a whole.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it would be appropriate for the Planning
District to do that. He said Ms. Thomas is trying to get more specificity in
what the Board adopts. Ms. Thomas agreed. He then asked if the concerns
brought before the Board at this meeting can be addressed by such a
resolution. Ms. Thomas said she believes they can be addressed. Mr. Bowerman
asked if that would be by the strategic plan, or by what the Board adopts as a
resolution. Ms. Thomas said it is the whole process. A large part of what
has been talked about with Mr. Shelton indicates the Board can say ~no", or
have a public hearing or whatever it wants.
Mr. Bowerman said that pressure would be much. higher than the pressure
that is on the Board now. Once the Board is in this partnership, he thinks it
is in it. He said he had served on the Planning District Commission and is a
member of the Sustainability Council, and he does have a ~gut" feeling about
regional cooperation. He believes that the outlying counties are in a
different situation than Albemarle County. He wants to help them, but he
wants to do it in a way that creates no harm for Albemarle County. It is
conceivable that a smaller county might not like the strategic plan either.
One of the reasons the County did not join the Regional Economic Development
Partnership was the County's lack of say in the plans of that Partnership.
The County would have a limited say in this group that is put together in
relationship to its population. He has some concerns about this. He tried to
figure out ways to make things work, rather than not make things work, but he
is not satisfied at this point.
Ms. Thomas said she does not believe anybody is satisfied at this point.
She believes there are some very specific things the Board would want to
require, but they. should be stated up-front so everybody who joins the group
knows what will be required. That was the approach she took to the existing
economic development partnership, and that did not work. She thinks it could
work with this one because the County would be part of its creation.
Ms. Humphris said this was a very complex proposal. It was fortunate
the Board was able to get so much public input at this meeting, evidence that
a lot of people have actually read the program guidelines and thought about
them, and are really thinking of what is in the best interest of Albemarle
County and the community. That gives the Board members a lot more to go on
than the Board members have from just their own thinking. For example, it was
clear that there will be stress put on County staff to come forward with the
things that are required in the plan. Also, there are some things that have
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) O00Z18
(Page 39)
not been talked about today. Albemarle is talking about not promoting growth,
but about things such as transportation, housing and education. It clearly
says that they know there are problems that are endemic and deeply-rooted and
which will take far more than the resources available under this Act to deal
with those issues. The Board knows from the start that it will have to rely
heavily on good faith. Mr. Shelton said DHCD will rearrange the point system
to suit the true needs of Albemarle County.
Mr. Perkins said he found the whole thing confusing and hard to
understand. He read it and had to back up and ask himself what he had read.
He still does not know what it says. He appreciates the public comments and
Mr. Shelton coming. He thinks Mr. Shelton understands it, but Mr. Perkins
said he cannot say that he understands it. He is a little surprised at the
amount of participation from the public, and there would have been others
present today. Lisa Harmon sent him a letter. He talked with Scott Peyton
and he told Scott that a 30 percent increase in beef prices would do more for
econOmic development in Albemarle County than what this program will do. He
thinks the counties in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District are different
and have different needs. That is one concern that he has. If Albemarle
County ~gets in this box", how is that going to influence Albemarle County?
Can it do things for Nelson County, or for Louisa County who need the help?
Albemarle County does not need to do things to encourage economic development
that some other localities need to do. If Albemarle joins this partnership,
he wonders how the County could direct it toward them and not necessarily
toward Albemarle.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Ms. Thomas and Mr. Marshall in terms of
this being a large community. In many ways, Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville are the leaders in the region. When it comes to an endeavor
like this that will be a regional approach, the County has no choice but to be
a part of it and be the leader that it is in the region. If there are things
the Board does not like about the proposal, the best way to accomplish that is
to take a leadership role and be a part of the process. He said it would be
sad for this Board to say it does not like what the final product might be,
so, therefore, we don't want to participate. He supports Ms. Thomas' proposal
to put together a draft resolution that gives clear instructions as to what
this Board sees as the direction as to how this whole thing should be set up.
Whether or not the County participates should not even be questioned.
Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Thomas if there would be enough time to
circulate a draft, think about it, and make changes, by next week. Ms. Thomas
said the Board could aim for that date. There is still one other meeting in
July where it could be discussed. She does not want the Board to be unduly
delaying, but she knows the Board wants things to be precise.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that some other localities have not yet
made their decision. Ms. O'Brien said Charlottesville has it on their agenda
on the 17th and Greene County on the 19th. She would like to have a sense of
where the Board is going before she goes to talk to them and she could be
simultaneously working on some of the issues that have come up today. She
said the conversation today has been a very good explanation of what this
program means to the localities. Working to be sure the process works for
Albemarle County is the key for everybody.
Ms. Humphris said the Board needs to be cognizant of the fact that there
are three people who are absolutely wedded to it, and possibly three people
who have some serious reservations. It will not be easy to overcome those
reservations.
Mr. Marshall said he does want to support the resolution, but he will
not be present at the meeting on the 19th.
Ms. Humphris asked for some sort of a motion. Motion was made by Ms.
Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to draft a resolution for consideration on
March 12, 1997, that will clearly state the Board's position on the
possibility of a partnership and ways it can be shaped to address its
constituent concerns.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
None.
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000219~'
(Page 40)
Not Docketed. Ms. Nancy O'Brien announced that Dr. Nick Evans will make
a presentation on the new groundwater process the Virginia Division of Mines,
Minerals and Energy is developing. This will be at the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (TJPDC) meeting on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at
7:30 p.m. Their offices are in the NationsBank Building on the Downtown Mall.
She invited the Board, County staff, and any citizen who may be interested in
groundwater issues, to attend.
Agenda Item No. 8. Fiscal Year 1998 County Operating Budget Overview.
Mr. Tucker provided the Board with an overview of the FY 1998 County
operating budget and distributed a handout titled "Understanding the Budget
Process." This year Mr. Tucker said, he decided not to have a press
conference before the Board had a chance to hear the budget recommendations.
That has created difficulties in previous years. Since the hearing has been
delayed, he thought it might be a good opportunity to give the overview and
have the press conference basically at the same time. He will take questions
from the press later today.
Mr. Tucker said he is going to talk from the one document. It contains
some factual information which the Board should find helpful. His fiscal plan
objectives this year were: to develop a fiscal plan balanced without
increasing property tax rates; to maintain current service levels to enhance
quality of life for all citizens; to fund Debt Service for Monticello High
School and other school expansion and renovation needs; and, to maintain
education and public safety as priorities for service delivery.
Mr. Tucker said revenues have changed over the years. The Federal
Government's devolution process has been passed down to the State and on to
the County. A comparison of FY 1988 revenues and the proposed revenues for FY
1998 shows: 1988 property taxes at 39 percent, 1998 at 48 percent; 1988 local
taxes at 24 percent, 1998 at 32 percent; 1988 Federal taxes at two percent,
1998 at four percent; and, 1988 State taxes at 35 percent, 1998 at 23 percent.
Regarding expenditures, the cost of services is fairly flat. The budget
is being driven by inflation and growth costs.
Mr. Tucker said the budget: provides an additional $347,540 in revenue
sharing to the City for a total of $5.5 million; funds $7.4 million in Debt
Service for new and expanded school facilities; and, transfers $2.3 million to
the Capital Fund.
Regarding FY 1997-98 revenues: real estate revenues increased by 2.7
percent compared to a 7.6 percent increase in FY 1996-97; local revenues
increased by $6.4 million equal to the $6.4 million increase in FY 1997;
proposed three percent increase in transient rate added $585,600 in local tax
revenues; and, the School Division received an additional $220,000 in State
revenues for a three percent increase over FY 1997.
Mandated programs/costs are: Social Service programs to address welfare
reform, foster care, adoption, etc., $0.7 million; VRS-mandated COLA increases
for schools and local government, $0.747 million; ECC to fund building costs
and operating costs off budget in FY 1997, $0.515 million; and, Virginia
Juvenile Crime Control Act funds for Community Attention/Probation, $0.174
million.
The impact of mandated/obligated costs is: General Government baseline
increase $2.98 million, 10.2 percent, less major obligated/mandated costs,
which include VRS at $0.412 million, Social Services at $0.700 million,
Emergency Communications Center at $0.515 million, and, Juvenile Crime Control
funds at $0.174 million. The revised baseline is therefore $1.18 million or
four percent.
The impact of growth on the School Division is: 282 new students, a
2.49 percent increase; 15.06 additional regular teachers; 5.5 special
education teachers; start-up costs for Monticello High School; and, support
positions in Human Resources, Fiscal Services and Information Services.
The impact of growth on general government is: 1600 new County
residents, a 2.15 percent increase; support positions in Human Resources and
the Registrar's Office; additional staffing for the Commonwealth's Attorney;
five positions in the Police Department; four positions in the Development
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) O002ZO
(Page 41)
Departments; and, one Information Technology Trainer/Monticello Avenue.
He said the funded priorities are: new autism program; a third Bright
Stars Four-Year Old Program; extended after-school middle school programs;
Summer playground at Greer Elementary; Neighborhood College and matching grant
fund for neighborhoods; and, expanded evening classes at Yancey.
The School's $121,690 shortfall will be funded by: State school
revenues at $220,000; savings/additional revenues at $403,441; transient tax
increase at $298,224; January revenues at $169,739; and, the initial reserve
at $200,000.
Items of special interest include: Monticello High School opening at
$1.3 million; 305 new students at $1.4 million; increased Debt Service at
$0.400 million; VRS COLA for schools at $0.442 million; and, increased jail
operating costs (unknown), opening scheduled for December 31, 1998.
Highlights of the fiscal plan were then mentioned. 1) The total County
budget is $126,369,069, about a 6.5 percent increase over the current year,
but staff has just found that there are additional State School Division
revenues in the amount of $220,000 so the actual budget is $126,589,069; 2)
The increase over FY 1997 is $7.6 million or 6.5 percent; 3) The total Schools
budget is $76.0 million, or 61 percent of the total budget; and, 4) The
proposed budget transfers $45.0 million to the School Division, a $2.9
million, or 5.7 percent increase. It provides a $1.071 million Reserve Fund
for the Board, and requires no increase in property tax rates.
Debt Service is at $6.8 million for school construction projects and an
additional $150,000 has been added to the Debt Reserve Fund for the Monticello
High School opening in FY 1999. The Charlottesville Revenue-Sharing Agreement
adds an additional $347,540 for a total FY 1998 payment of $5.5 million.
Community agencies received an average increase in funding of three percent;
departmental operating budgets were held at a two percent increase over the
prior year. General Government and School Division employees will receive an
average 3.5 percent performance increase; there is a $746,915 increase in the
Virginia Retirement System payment which will fulfill General Government's
obligation to prefund the Cost-of-Living Adjustments mandated by the State,
and it also funds the first year of a f~ve-year phase in for the School
Division.
Local government priorities were mentioned. Under Administration, three
full-time equivalent (FTE) employees have been added, one to fulfill the
Board's commitment for a Fiscal Impact Planner, one to provide computer
technology support to the Police Department and a partial FTE in both the
Registrar's Office and Human Resources to address growth needs. Additional
funds are planned to assist the Neighborhood Team and to continue funding for
a new Assistant County Attorney.
Under Judicial, the budget addresses pay equity issues and provides
additional staff in both the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's
Department, and a new voice mail system is provided for the Juvenile Court.
Under Public Safety, 5.5 FTE's are being added to the Police Department to
address public safety issues, three officers, one records clerk, and a
civilian investigative assistant. Two of the three new officers will be
Community Policing Officers. The costs for these officers is partially offset
by Federal funding. A 0.5 FTE Office Associate position is being added in the
Fire/Rescue Division.
Under Human Services, increased revenues of $600,000 for administration
and child care are added to the Social Services budget to address the
implementation of the Welfare Reform Program on July 1. Funding is provided
for a third Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program, additional child care
scholarships and increased services from the Children, Youth and Family
Services Family Partners program.
Under Parks/Recreation/Culture, funds are provided to expand the After-
School Middle School program to all five middle schools, to provide an
additional evening of classes at Yancey Elementary and to provide a Summer
Playground program at Greer Elementary. To expand public access to the
community's Monticello-Avenue Internet program, funds are provided to add an
Information Technology Trainer
Under Development, four FTE's are added to address growing development
00022 .
5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
needs, one Soil Erosion Control Inspector, one Senior Design Planner, an
office associate in Building/Zoning Services and a temporary Addressing
Technician to complete the E-911 project.
The budget addresses the shortfall of $1.4 million in the Schools
budget. The Superintendent provided, and the School Board recommended, a
~maintenance of effort" budget that provides the necessary funds to handle the
additional 282 students anticipated next year; a 3.55 percent salary
adjustment for teachers and a 3.5 percent employee performance pool for
classified staff; a two percent increase in department and school division
operating budgets; a three percent increase to community agencies; maintains
current class size and the level of services provided to the community; funds
most of the school bus replacement costs; and provides funding for Monticello
High School.
The bulk of the shortfall has been provided for. However, there is
still a shortfall of $121,690 which was discussed with the Superintendent.
The mild winter means there are sufficient carry-over funds to handle the
shortfall, and also by applying additional school revenues from the state
($220,000), additional Board reserve, additional revenues in January
projections, costs funded by the Transient Tax increase, local savings and
additional State revenues.
Mr. Tucker said the budget has been balanced under proposed revenues. A
property tax increase has been avoided, but an increase in the Transient Tax
is warranted. Local revenues will increase by approximately $6.4 million over
the current year which includes an additional $585,600 in a proposed increase
in the transient/lodging tax (which the State permitted one year ago). That
tax will go from two percent to five percent. The additional three percent
must be allocated for tourism and travel-related expenses. A separate fund
will be set up to manage the additional revenue so that the funds are directed
to the Visitor's Bureau, tourism'marketing and other CIP projects. Thus, the
revenues which are freed up permit the budget to be balanced.
Real property assessments have been flat. The average increase is 2.26
percent, a significant change over the past several years. In 1991 the
average increase was 22 percent; in 1993 the average increase had dropped to
11 percent; in 1995 the average increase had dropped to 5.5 percent; and in
1997 it dropped down to 2.6 percent due to a correction in the market. In
1991 the County held a public hearing when people were upset about their
reassessment. At that time, the Board explained there was a correction that
would take place over the next few years, and that is what has happened.
However, during this time period, it has made it difficult to fund shortfalls
in the Schools and other community needs.
The shortfall has been funded in this budget and staff has provided a
positive budget that meets the needs of the community. The critical year will
be next year as has been stated for the past two years. The opening of
Monticello High School will hit the County hard in FY 1999; $1.3 million will
be needed to open the high school and over 300 students will attend in FY
1999, creating a need for an additional $1.3 million. This will hit the
County in a non-reassessment year. Therefore, the County must find additional
ways to fund these shortfalls in FY 1999. There is a petition being
circulated to put the question of imposing a meals tax on the ballot this
coming Fall. Without that tax, it will be difficult to meets these committed
projects and expenditures. The transient lodging tax was increased this
year, and the cigarette tax was turned down by the Legislature; therefore,
there are no other sources of additional revenue.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has supported holding reserves, the use of the
uncommitted Fund Balance, debt financing, spending constraints, aggressively
pursuing State and Federal grants, and other quick fixes over the past several
years as a way to balance the budget. These methods will not be sufficient in
FY 1999. He said the Board will receive more detailed written information
later.
Mr. Marshall said the assessed value of property cannot be obtained when
homeowners try to sell their property. When Scottsville property values were
raised by 8.8 percent, it was due to economic growth. When the boundary
adjustment was made with the Town, there was an economic boom. Mr. Bowerman
asked if that was a good thing or a bad thing. Mr. Marshall said his point is
that economic growth is what raises property values. It is a double-edge
sword. Mr. Tucker said the County must examine the expenditures involved in
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
000222
the process. Let expenditures use up the funds and then reexamine
assessments. That is part of the balancing act the Board is doing now as it
deals with a balanced growth effort and a managed growth effort. The County
has been fortunate to have been able to manage its growth in the past, being
able to meet community needs with no major tax increase for quite some time.
Seven years ago the County reduced the property tax rate from 74 cents per
$100 of value to 72 cents, and has been able to maintain that rate for seven
years.
Mr. Bowerman said he appreciates the fact that staff presented a budget
with no adjustment in the property tax rate, but asked whether the BPOL tax
reported revenues were audited. Mr. Tucker said the County relies on
information supplied by the businesses. Mr. Davis said an audit could be
called for if there was reason to suspect fraud since the County does have
access to tax returns. Mr. Tucker added that the Business License Examiners
do examine information reported against their awareness of what should be
reported, but that they would not likely examine every license. Mr. Bowerman
said this could be important if it represents a large portion of County
revenue. Mr. Marshall added that the situation will worsen in the future,
particularly in the health care field becaUse someone else controls the Profit
made by health care professionals. Ms. Thomas said the General Assembly
changed the BPOL tax as it applies to Realtors, but she did not know if there
were any other changes that would affect County revenues. Mr. Tucker said the
Director of Finance is looking into this matter. He did not believe the
Realtors' BPOL tax was changed by the General Assembly.
Ms. Thomas said it was interesting how much less State support the
County is receiving than in the past. She felt it would be interesting to
hear how much less local revenue the County receives because of State law
changes. For example, the County can no longer tax University students' cars.
Mr. Tucker said this was actually a good year because of welfare reform, but
moneys are mandated and must be spent on programs related to welfare reform.
Mr. Davis said localities do have the option to charge the fee for
businesses that make more than $100,000 in gross receipts. Mr. Tucker said
this would likely come before the Board to consider in the future. Mr.
Bowerman asked for an estimate of how much this might be in lost revenues.
Mr. Tucker estimated it to be around $50,000.
Mr. Perkins commented that all of this information was helpful,
especially information showing how the property values have increased since
1987. This is due to reassessments which have increased almost one hundred
percent, and growth in construction. The Board will soon have to examine how
to meet all of the challenges it faces. The private sector adds staff all of
the time, but may soon have to cut back.
There was no further discussion of this item at this time.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Ms. Thomas reported on the Annual Conference of the National Association
of Counties (NACo) which she recently attended. It was interesting to see how
counties around the nation are managed. There was an interesting program
which addressed the aging nation's population. Examples included structure of
homes for older people, the devolution process and employment for older
people.
Ms. Humphris discussed a letter from a citizen who was unhappy with
Federal mail service. She said that apparently the envelope was misaddressed
to her.
Agenda Item No. 10. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:49 p.m., a motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) of the
Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider personnel matters relating
to appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees and, a prospective
employment candidate; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
March 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion.
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
000228
Roll was
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
At 2:09 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the
motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered
in the executive session.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments.
Motion was made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint
Mr. Terrence Y. Sieg to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with
said term to expire on December 13, 1999.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
None.
At the recommendation of the County Executive, motion was made by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint Mr. William I. Mawyer, Jr., as
the County's Director of Engineering and Public Works Department, effective
April 1, 1997.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to March 10, 1997, 5:00 p.m., for Joint
Meeting with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, Charlottesville City Council
and Board of County Supervisors in the Lane Auditorium.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adjourn
this meeting until March 10, 1997, at 5:00 p.m.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
None.
Chairman
Approved by Board of
County Supervisors
Initials