1997-06-04June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 4, 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 9:05 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. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation.
Ms. Humphris presented a certificate of appreciation to Stephen N.
Runkle who had served on the Albemarle County Housing Committee from March 2,
1994, until April 20, 1997. He was the first Chairman of the Incentive
Subcommittee which began it work in the Fall of 1996. He also served as the
Housing Committee's liaison to the newly-formed Development Areas Initiatives
Steering Committee. While serving on the Housing Committee, Steve submitted
its first report to the Board o.f Supervisors in March, 1995. He was an active
member of the Committee and provided some lively discussions at its meetings.
He was thoughtful and deliberate in discussions, especially in areas of
adopting the Housing Committee's definition of "affordable" housing. The
Committee was sorry to lose him (he has moved into the City of
Charlottesville).
Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Runkle for his work on the Housing Committee
and the work he has done for the County in other areas.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Community Profile by Ms. Susan
Gardner, Virginia Power.
MS. Humphris asked Mr. Phil Sparks from Virginia Power to come forward
and speak.
Mr. Sparks said he would like to mention some recent changes at Virginia
Power. He said they have reorganized to be a process design organization. In
doing that, a lot of previous management positions have changed, but he
assured the Board that he is assigned to this area as the Community and
Governmental Relations person. He is available to any Board member at any
time for information or help. At this time, he introduced Ms. Susan Gardner
from the Richmond Office who has been working with Lee Catlin, Maynard Sipe
and Tex Weaver (County staff) on a community profile.
Mr. Gardner said that in November, 1993, she appeared before this Board
to officially present the first "Albemarle County Community Profile." She is
present today to present an updated and redesigned version of the publication.
She said Virginia Power provides this service~to communities located in its
service territory so there is information to hand out to local residents and
newcomers to the area. She said Virginia Power is pleased to be a part of the
community. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Humphris said it is a handsome publication. She thanked Virginia
Power for the publication.
Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mr. Steven Stern, a resident of 1632 Keith Valley Road in the City,
asked the Board to support the resolution in support of the Partners in
Prevention Initiative (Item 8.4 on the Consent Agenda). He Said Partners in
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meet~i 000112
(Page 2)
Prevention derives from a ~f i~~%~ ~0 encourage communities to take
steps to reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate. The Feds essentially created a
"contest." At the end of a few years time, they will measure the change in
the out-of-wedlock birth rate and those five participating states with the
greatest reduction in that birth rate, and with no increase in the abortion
rate, "win the contest." The "prize" is a multi-million dollar grant with
essentially "no strings attached." If Virginia wins, it will use a similar
rule to divide the money among the participating communities in Virginia. The
Board has to decide today whether to participate as one community with
Charlottesville.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: April 9, 1997.
Ms. Thomas had read April 9, 1997, pages 9 (Item #8) to the end and
found them to be in order with one typographical error.
Mr. Marshall had read April 9, 1997, page 1 to page 9 (Item #8) and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve Items 8.1 through 8.5, and to accept the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. (Note: Conversation
pertaining to individual items is shown with that item.)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item 8.1. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1997-98 County
Operating Budget.
It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1997-98 Operating Budget
was approved by the Board on April 16, 1997, in the amount of $126,628,365.
The Resolution of Appropriation is the Board's authority for the expenditure
of those funds effective July 1, 1997. The only significant changes to the
budget adopted in April are the reduction in Regular School Fund operations in
the amount of $39,536 to match the total anticipated revenues from the State,
and a $303,373 reduction in Self-sustaining Fund operations due to double
counting on interfund transfers between the School Fund and the Self-
Sustaining Funds. With these reductions, the total FY 1997-98 County
Operating Budget is $126,285,456, which includes $41,074,848 in General
Government operations, $71,377,147 in Regular School operations, $6,387,581 in
Self-sustaining School operations, and $7,445,880 for School Division Debt
Service payments and Debt Service Reserve Funds.
Another change is the addition of several other funds to the Resolution
of Appropriation this year: the Comprehensive Services Act Fund, the At-Risk
Four-Year Old Program (~Bright Stars") Fund, the Tourism Fund, the Towe
Memorial Park Fund and the Emergency Communications Center Fund. These funds,
mentioned in the "Other Funds" section of the Resolution, have been included
for purposes of convenience so the Board will not have to take separate action
to appropriate these funds at a later date. These other funds, which total
$4,157,222, remain outside the County's operating budget and do not increase
the County's total budget of $126,285,456.
The FY 1997-98 Resolution of Appropriation appropriates funding in the
major categories of expenditures shown in the following listing:
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeti~i
(Page 3)
000 3
General Government
Tax Refunds
General Management
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Services
Parks, Recreation & Culture
Community Development
Jail Expansion Reserve
Capital Outlays
Revenue Sharing
Subtotal - General Government
,~.,i 51 700
$ 5,627 146
$ 2,004 859
$10,412 182
$ 2,195 044
$ 6,710 384
$ 3,597 976
$ 2,534 164
$ 100,000
$ 2,323,000
$ 5,518,393
$41,074,848
School Division
School Fund
Other School Funds
School Debt Service
School Debt Service Reserve
Subtotal - School Division
$71,377,147
$ 6,387,581
$ 6,845,880
$ 6OO,OOO
$85,210,608
TOTAL FY 1997-98 OPERATING BUDGET
$126,285,456
Other Funds
Comprehensive Services Act Fund
At-Risk Four-Year Old ("Bright Stars") Program
Tourism Fund
Towe Memorial Park Fund
Emergency Operations Center Fund
$ 1,487,003
$ 220,416
$ 585,600
$ 192,785
$ 1,671,418
TOTAL OTHER FIINDS
$ 4,157,222
Staff recommended approval of the Resolution of Appropriation allocating a
total of $126,285,456 to General Government, the School Division and Debt
Service funds, and a total of $4,157,222 among various County funds for the
Fiscal Year t997-98.
(Mr. Marshall noted the sentence in the staff's report reading: ~The only
significant changes to the budget adopted in April are the reduction in
Regular School Fund operations in the amount of $39,536 to match the total
anticipated revenues from the State, and a $303,373 reduction in Self-
sustaining Fund operations due to double counting on interfund transfers
between the School Fund and the Self-Sustaining Funds." He said it looks to
him like the Board is approving almost $343,000 more than is really needed.
He asked if the total of the budget is being reduced. Mr. Tucker said "yes."
Revenues were double counted showing more revenues than needed to operate
these programs. Mr. Marshall asked where this money is going. Mr. Tucker
said it is anticipated revenue for the fiscal year for a Self-sustaining Fund.
Revenue was double counted, so it has basically just been eliminated.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998
'" A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1998;~'to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of
appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation
ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the
extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the GENERAL FI/ND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeti~i
(Page 4)
Paragraph One:
TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND OTHER REFUNDS
Refunds and Abatements $ 51,700
Paragraph Two:
GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
2
3
4
5
6
7
Board of Supervisors
County Attorney
County Executive
Elections
Finance
Human Resources
Information Services
$ 291,252
409,015
585,610
184,762
2,350,491
287,402
1,518,614
$ 5,627,146
Paragraph Three:
JUDICIAL
1. Circuit Court
2. Clerk of the Circuit Court
3. Commonwealth's Attorney
4. General District Court
5. Juvenile Court
6. Magistrate
7. Sheriff
$ 71,880
496,352
465,189
12,830
78,382
17,588
862,638
$ 2,004,859
Paragraph Four:
PUBLIC SAFETY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Community Attention Home
Community Attention Home VJCCCA
Community Criminal Justice Board
Emergency Communications Center (E-911)
Fire Department (City)
Fire/Rescue Administration
Fire/Rescue Credit
Forest Fire Extinction Service
Inspections
Juvenile Detention Home
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)
Police Department
Regional Jail Authority
SPCA Contract
Volunteer Fire Departments (JCFRA)
Volunteer Rescue Squads (JCFRA)
$ 63 915
174 268
3 865
1,057 524
641 290
480 171
59 020
13 800
676 372
123 905
39680
6,034 737
236 585
29.280
585.275
192,495
$10,412,182
Paragraph Five:
PUBLIC WORKS
1. Engineering
2. Solid Waste
3. Staff Services
$ 1,030,556
189,935
974,553
$ 2,195,044
Paragraph Six:
HD-~2%N SERVICES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Ch'ville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS)
Charlottesville Free Clinic
Children and Youth Commission (CAYC)
Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)
District Home
FOCUS - Teensight
Health Department
Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JA_BA)
JABA - Adult Health Care Facility JAUNT
Madison House
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SAi~A)
16,610
5,150
26,566
35,035
41 100
20
668
118
14
285
4
8
2O
205
370
580 ·
4O0
875
545
284
190
O00 A4
$51,700
$ 5,627,146
$ 2,004,859
$10,412,182
2,195,044
$ 6,710,384
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
14. Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)
15. Social Services
16. Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled
17. Region Ten Community Services
18. Region Ten Facility Expansion
61,840
4,829,269
220,000
259,365
75,000
$ 6,710,384
Paragraph Seven:
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
1. Darden Towe Memorial Park
2. Library
3. Literacy Volunteers
4. Parks and Recreation
5. Piedmont Council of the Arts
6. Transfer - Tourism
7. Virginia Discovery Museum
8. WVPT Public Television
$ 108,990
1,685,260
15,750
1,177,666
8,855
585,600
8,855
7,000
$ 3,597,976
Paragraph Eight:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) $
Housing Office
Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA)
Planning and Community Development
Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
Route 29 Bus Service
Soil and Water Conservation
VPI Extension Service
Zoning
357 375
378 250
60 335
973 294
62 686
46 556
30 075
140 021
485,572
$ 2,534,164
Paragraph Nine:
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FI/ND
1. Jail Expansion Reserve
$ 100,000
Paragraph Ten:
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
1. General Government Capital Improvement ProgramS 1,713,000
2. School Division Capital Improvement Program 500,000
3. Stormwater Fund 110,000
$ 2,323,000
Paragraph Eleven:
REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement
$ 5,518,393
Paragraph Twelve:
OTHER USES OF FUNDS
1. School Division Debt Service/Debt Reserve FundS 7,445,880
2. School Fund 46,091,436
$53,537,316
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from General Fund Balance
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
$87,382,847
2,687
4,932,893
2,293,737
$94,612,164
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
0005A.5
$3,597,976
$ 2,534,164
$ 100,000
$ 2,323,000
$ 5,518,393
$53,537,316
$94,612,164
$94,612,164
000116
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
SECTION II - REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL PURPOSES herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph One:
REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
$71,377,147
1. Administration, Attendance & Health
2. Debt Service Fund
3. Facilities Construction/Modification
4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance
5. Instruction
6. Pupil Transportation Services
7. Other Uses of Funds
$ 3,326,588
295,922
109,364
7,101,271
54,885,936
4,871,850
786,216
$71,377,147
SUMMARY
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$71,377,147
TO be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)S46,091,436
Revenue from Local Sources 543,220
Revenue from School Fund Balance' 133,670
Revenue from the Commonwealth 23,926,086
Revenue from the Federal Government 682,735
$71,377,147
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$71,377,147
SECTION III - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph One:
FOOD SERVICES
1. Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeterias
SUMMARY
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available
For fiSCal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Two:
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
1. Food Service
SUMMARY
$ 2,041,764
Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS
Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sales)
$ 1,330,677
45,584
665,503
$ 2,041,764
$ 384,760
$ 2,041,764
$ 2,041,764
$ 384,760
$ 2,041,764
$ 384,760
$ 384,760
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day MeetiJ~)
(Page 8)
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Transfer from School Fund
$ 80,941
980,390
4,067
$ 1,065,398
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Seven:
COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND
1. Community Education
$ 1,364,060
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from Driver's Education Fees
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$ 1,286,060
64,000
14,000
$ 1,364,060
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Eight:
SUMMER SCHOOL
1. Summer School
$ 345,376
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition (Local)
Miscellaneous Revenues
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Transfer from School Fund
$ 177,375
38,500
90,258
39,243
$ 345,376
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Nine:
SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT
1. School Bus Replacement
$ 473,007
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles)
Transfer from School Fund
$ 5,000
468,007
$ 473,007
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
000 . .7
$ 1,065,398
$ 1,364,060
$ 1,364,060
$ 1,364,000
$ 345,376
$ 345,376
$ 345,376
$ 473,007
$ 473,007
$ 473,007
SECTION IV - DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the General
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeti~g)
(Page 7)
Total ALBEMARLE HIGH FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS
Appropriations available for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Three:
PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
1. Special Ed Pre-School Program $
SUMMARY
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources
Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Four:
McINTIRE TRUST FUND
1. Payment to County Schools $
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30.i 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust $
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30,1998:
Paragraph Five:
PREP PROGRAM
1. C.B.I.P. Severe
2. E.D. Program
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Six:
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
1. Adult Education
2.~ Carl Perkins
3. Chapter I
4. Chapte~ II
5. Drug Free Schools
6. Migrant Education
7. Title II
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
73,692
73,692
t0,000
10,000
$ 555,575
585,266
$ 1,140,841
$ 1,140,84t
$ 85,008
111,911
564,511
39,892
48,908
183,345
31,823
$ 1,065,398
O00 :IB
$ 384,760
$ 73,692
$ 73,692
$ 73,692
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ 1,140,841
$ 1,140,841
$ 1,140,841
$ 1,065,398
$ 1,065,398
000119
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Government Debt Service Fund and the School Division Debt Service Fund for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph One:
SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND
$ 7,741,802
1. Debt Service Payments
2. Debt Service Reserve
3. VRS Early Retirement
$ 6,845,880
600,000
295,922
$ 7,741,802
.;
Paragraph Two:
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
$ 129,500
1. Debt Service Payments
$ 129,500
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$ 7,871,302
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Gen Fd) $ 7,575,380
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Sch Fd) 295,922
$ 7,871,302
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$ 7,871,302
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I 'THROUGH IV OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
Section I - General Fund
Section II - School Fund
Section III - Other School Funds
Section IV - Debt Service Funds
$ 94,612,164
71,377,147
6,898,898
7,871,302
$180,759,511
Less Inter-Fund Transfers
General Fund to School Fund ($ 46,091,436)
General Fund to School Debt Service FUnd ( 7,445,880)
General Fund to General Government Debt Service Fd( 129,500)
School Fund to Debt Service Fund ( 295,922)
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds ( 511,317)
($ 54,474,055)
GRAND TOTAL
$180,759,511
($ 54,474,055)
$126,285,456
SECTION V - OTHER FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for OTHER PURPOSES herein 'specified to bE apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1998.
Paragraph One:
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND
1. Comprehensive Services Act Expenditures
SUM/4ARY
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$ 1,487,003
$ 1,487,003
$ 1,487,003
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Gen Fd)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$ 515,810
225,000
746,193
$ 1,487,003
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources
Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Two:
AT-RISK FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND
1. Bright Stars Program
$ 220,416
SUMMARY
Total AT-RISK FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Gen Fd)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$ 118,810
101,606
$ 220,416
Total AT-RISK FOUR-YEAR' OLD PROGRAM FUND resources
Available for fiscal year ending June 30,1998:
Paragraph Three:
TOURISM FUND
1. Rivanna Greenway Development
2. Routes 250/616 Turn Lane Project
3. Tourism Projects
4. Visitor's Bureau
167,000
10,000
287,376
121,224
585,600
SUMMARY
Total TOURISM FI/ND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Gen Fd)
$ 585,600
Total TOURISM FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Four:
TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND
1. Darden Towe Memorial Park
$ 192,785
SUMMARY
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Miscellaneous Local Revenue
City of Charlottesville
$ 108,990
14,725
69,070
$ 192,785
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources
Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph Five:
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND
1. Emergency Communications Center Operations $ 1,671,418
000 .20
$ 1,487,003
$ 220,416
$ 220,416
$ 220,416
$ 585,600
$ 585,600
$ 585,600
$ 192,785
$ 192,785
$ 192,785
$ 1,671,418
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
SUMMARY
TOTAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30,1998:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
City of Charlottesville
University of Virginia
Miscellaneous Local Revenue
Federal Revenue
$ 734,716
772,353
153,631
1,800
8,918
$ 1,671,418
Total EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND resources
Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
000izi
$ 1,671,418
$ 1,671,418
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to
transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become
available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to
these funds for the period covered by this resolution of appropriation.
SECTION VI
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections
I through V are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and
provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set
forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all
appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate
appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full
in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the
aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which
the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in
full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds
is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said
fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency
under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the
Social Services Board without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being
first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances'of appropriations at the close 0f business on the thirtieth
(30th) day of June, 1998, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County
treasury'and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be
made in the resolution of appropriation for the next fiscal year, beginning
July 1, 1998. Any balance available shall be used in financing the proposed
expenditures of the respective funds for the next fiscal year.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required;
and provided further that no'requisition for contractual services involving
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
000 .22
the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but
such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department,
bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or
Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing
such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for
such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of
the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed
in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered
obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any
or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board
of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account
of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that
established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to
change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to
regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the
same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This resolution shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and
ninety-seven.
Item 8.2. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1997-98 Capital
Improvements Budget and Resolution of Official Intent for use of Virginia
Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond Proceeds.
It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1997-98 Capital
Improvements Budget was approved by the Board on April 16, 1997, in the amount
of $24,771,467: $2,031,000 to the General Government Capital Fund,
$22,630,467 to the School Division Capital Improvement Fund, and, $110,000 to
the Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund.
The ordinance appropriates a total Capital Improvement Budget of
$25,094,275, an increase of $322,808 over the approved budget due to the
addition of the County's $322,808 contribution to the new Emergency
Communications Center (ECC) facility approved by the Board in the FY 1997-98
operating budget. With the additional $322,808, appropriated funds in the
General Government Capital Fund will total $2,353,80~.
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution of Appropriation for the FY
1997-98 Capital Improvements Program and adoption of a Resolution of Intent
which will allow the County to be reimbursed by the Virginia Public School
Authority (VPSA) bond proceeds for prior school project expenditures incurred
over the Summer.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the /%nnual Appropriation
Ordinance for the Capital Improvements Program for the Fiscal Year ending June
30, 1998, and the following Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse
Expenditures for Various Public Improvements with Proceeds of Bonds:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998; to prescribe the provisos,
terms, conditions and~provisions with respect to the items of appropriation
and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this
ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of
such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as
follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1998:
Paragraph One:
ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
$ 440,000
1. County Computer Upgrade
2. County Facility Improvements
3. Old Crozet School~Improvements.
4. J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement
5. County Office Bldg Maintenance/Replacement
$ 250,000
15,000
15,000
30,000
130,000
$ 440,000
Paragraph Two:
FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
$ 908,308
1. Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund
2. Police Radio Simulcast System/ECC Link
3. Police Firing Range
4. Juvenile Detention Facility
5. Emergency Communications Center Facility
$ 262,500
108,000
40,000
175,000
322,808
$ 908,308
Paragraph Three:
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
$ 544,000
1. Revenue Sharing Road Program
2. Route 29 North Landscaping
3. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program
$ 500,000
4,000
40,000
$ 544,000
Paragraph Four:
LIBRARIES
$ 232,500
1. Library Computer Upgrade
2. Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$ 200,000
32,500
$ 232,500
Paragraph Five:
PARKS AND RECREATION
$ 229,000
I. Crozet Park Athletic Field Development
2. Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development
3. County Athletic 'Field Study/Development
4. Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$ 96,000
50,000
50,000
33,000
$ 229,000
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$ 2,353,808
TO be provided as follows:
Transfer from General Fund
Jail Expansion Fund Balance
$2,035,808
175,000
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
CIP Fund Balance
143,000
$2,353,808
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
O00:LZ4
$ 2,353,808
SECTION II - SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein
specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1998:
Paragraph One:
EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
$22,630,467
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
High School Technology Education Labs
Stony Point Parking & Playfield
Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration
AHS Phase II & III Restorations
Murray High Renovation
New High School
Administrative Technology (Schools)
Instructional Technology (Schools)
WAHS Building Renovations
Henley Addition
Technology Education Labs'
Stone Robinson Addition
Walton Renovation
Brownsville Addition
Stony Point Addition
Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Chiller Replacement (Maintenance/Replacement)
Greet HVAC Renovations (Maintenance Replacement)
ADA Structural Changes
VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement
$ 555 000
193 000
294 000
20 000
70 000
17,082 697
70 000
605 070
185 000
1,190 000
325 000
250 000
46 000
212 000
205,000
665,700
35,000
22,000
425,000
180,000
$22,630,467
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$22,630,467
TO be provided as follows:
Transfer from General Fund
Interest Earned
Miscellaneous Local Revenues
CIP Fund Balance
State Technology Funds
VPSA Bonds
Additional Split Billing Revenues
$ 500,000
100,000
136,100
100,000
575,000
20,451,367
768,000
$22,630,467
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
$22,630,467
SECTION III
STORMWATER FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
from the STORMWATER FUND for stormwater improvement purposes herein specified
to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
Paragraph One:
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
$ 110,000
1. County Master Drainage Plan
2. Transfer to Drainage/Erosion Correction
$ 60,000
50,000
$ 110,000
SUMMARY
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Total STORMWATER FUND Appropriations
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from the General Fund
Total STORMWATER FUND Resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998:
110,000
000 25
110,000
$ 110,000,
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I THROUGH III IN THIS ORDINANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998
RECAPITULATION:
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Section I - General Government Improvements FundS 2,353,808
Section II - School Division Capital Impvmnts Fd 22,630,467
Section III - Stormwater Fund 110,000
$25,094,275
GRAND TOTAL
$25,094,275
$25,094,275
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to
transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become
available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to
these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION IV
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections
I, II and III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and
provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set
forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all
appropriations are declared tO be maximum, conditional and proportionate
appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full
in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the
aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which
the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in
full.
Otherwise the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds
is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said
fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
.Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund
budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the
said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent
of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these
agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an
appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required,
and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving
the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but
000126
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
such contract shall be approved by the head Of the contracting department,
bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or
Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing
such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for
such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of
the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures prescribed
in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered
obliqations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any
or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board
of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account
of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that
established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to
change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to
regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of
this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and
ninety-seven.
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR
VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "County"), intends to undertake various
improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit
A attached hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project
prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter defined, and
to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of
the sale of the Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THAT:
The County intends to finance the Project through
the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed
$20,451,367 (the '~Bonds") .
(2)
The County intends to receive reimbursement from
proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs of the
Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of
the Bonds.
(3)
The County intends that the adoption of this
resolution be considered as ~official intent" within
the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2
promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
000127
PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS
Exhibit A
Description
Amount
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10.
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
High School Technology Education Labs
Stony Point Parking & Playfield 20
Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration294
AHS Phase II & III Restorations 20
Murray High Renovation
New High School
WAHS Building Renovations
Henley Addition
Technology Education Labs
Stone Robinson Addition
Walton Renovation
Brownsville Addition
Stony Point Addition
Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Chiller Replacement (Maintenance/Replacement)
Greet HVAC Renovations (Maint/Replacement)
ADA Structural Changes
VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement
TOTAL
70
16,946
185
1,190
15
250
46
212
2O5
105
35
22
425
$ 230 000
770
OO0
O0O
000
597
000
000
000
000
000
O00
000
0O0
000
00O
000
180,000
$20,451,367
Item 8.3. Appropriation: Education, $3550 (Form ~96079) .
It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on May 12, 1997,
the School Board approved the appropriation of a $3550 donation for Stone
Robinson Elementary School. This donation, from its PTO, is to be used to
purchase supplies for Science Night, audio-visual equipment and a display
board for the lobby. Staff recommended approval of the appropriation in the
amount of $3550 as detailed on Appropriation Form #96079.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97
NUMBER: 96079
FI/ND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION FROM STONE ROBINSON PTO FOR
SCIENCE NIGHT
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION A_MOUNT
1221061101601300
1221061101800200
1221061411800100
INST/REC SUPPLIES
FURNITURE/FIXTURES
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
$ 500.00
350.00
2,700.00
$3,550.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200018000181109
DONATION
TOTAL
$3,550.00
$3,550.00
Item 8.4. Adopt Resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention
Initiative
It was ~6ted in the staff's report that Partners in Prevention is a
State initiative on out-of-wedlock births that may bring as much as $20.0
million to Virginia over the next four Federal fiscal years as part of the
1966 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Although only five
states in the country will receive these funds based on their birth rate
reduction, the State feels well-positioned to receive these funds and is,
therefore, making start-up funds available to communities throughout the
Commonwealth. Localities may request these start-up funds, but must first
agree to fulfill all requirement~ of a Partnership Agreement, one of which is
a formal resolution to participate in the initiative and also submit a plan
that reflects community input.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Sponsors of the Partners in Prevention Initiative are the CAYC
Commission, the Thomas Jefferson Health Department, Martha Jefferson Hospital,
both the City and County Departments of Social Services, the Council on
Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Steering
Committee. A town meeting was held on Friday, May 30, to solicit community
input for developing a plan to address teenage pregnancy. That plan will form
the basis of the funding application for the Partners in Prevention Initiative
funds. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution which is also being
submitted to Charlottesville City Council for its approval.
(Ms. Humphris said she has been following this initiative, but was not
able to attend the community meeting. She believes the community would be a
winner just by participating and making this additional organized effort to
prevent out-of-wedlock births. She thinks it is a particularly good thing for
the Board to support.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
PARTNERS IN PREVENTION INITIATIVE
WHEREAS, the Federal government has allocated one hundred million
dollars ($100.0 million) in each of Federal fiscal years
1999 through 2002 to be divided among the five states that
have the most reduced out-of-wedlock births in the previous
two years without an increase,in the abortion rate; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has become the first state
in the nation to announce its candidacy for one of these
Federal awards by supplying incentives to local governments,
service agencies, religious institutions, nonprofit
organizations and citizens to develop solutions to the out-
of-wedlock birth problem; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia will provide technical and
other forms of start-up assistance to any Virginia locality
that officially partners with the state in competition for
the Federal award, and the state proposes to distribute any
Federal award Virginia receives directly to its Partners in
Prevention; and
WHEREAS, a locality becomes a Partner in Prevention by adopting a
formal resolution of participation in the initiative and by
submitting a plan, reflecting the whole community input; and
WHEREAS, our locality proposes to address this initiative through
participation in the field of reducing teenage pregnancy;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville
wish to join other localities in the Commonwealth in this
important community objective;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle and
the City of Charlottesville are authorized by this body to
become Partners in Prevention with the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Item 8.5. Proclamation Congratulating The Charlottesville Municipal
Band on its Seventy-Fifth Anniversary.
(Ms. Humphris said for those who have been aware of the Municipal Band
all of their lives, it is difficult to say how important it has been to the
entire community. Those who take advantage of going to their Christmas and
Summer concerts realize that these people give their time and talent to this
community. It is a wonderful thing and it brings people together and provides
culture to the community. She said the Board appreciates the Band and is
happy to have this resolution before it for approval today.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following
Proclamation:
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
000 29
MUNICIPAL BAND
WHEREAS, The Municipal Band of Charlottesville was formed in
1922; and
WHEREAS, The Municipal Band of Charlottesville has provided
music for celebrations and commemorations in the Charlottesville/
Albemarle community for seventy-five years; and
WHEREAS, The Municipal Band of Charlottesville has provided
entertainment and has promoted the cultural arts in our community
by performing for thousands of citizens and tourists each year;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Charlotte Y.
Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of County Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby congratulate The
Municipal Band of Charlottesville on its seventy-fifth anniversary
and join in the pride felt by all for the service they render to
our community.
Item 8.6. Final Report on "Evaluation of Household Water Quality in
Albemarle County, Virginia, November, 1996" by the Department of Biological
Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, was
received for information.
It was noted in the staff's report that during the Summer of 1995, the
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service and Albemarle County sponsored a
volunteer household water quality testing and education program for residents
who utilize private, individual wells and springs. Approximately 500
Albemarle County households participated in the program. Follow-up testing
for pesticides was conducted for water sources considered to be of "high
vulnerability" due to water test results and surrounding land uses. Lessons
learned from this project include: 1) The most widespread water quality
concerns with private water supplies are corrosive (acidic) water and
bacteria; 2) Several categories of water quality results show a correlation
with the underlying geology. To some extent, water quality can be roughly
predicted based on geologic setting; 3) Water source construction determines
vulnerability to contamination; 4) Pesticide mitigation to groundwater appears
to be low; and 5) Albemarle residents are interested in learning about wells
and groundwater and are willing to take action to protect water supplies.
(Ms. Thomas said she appreciated receiving this report. It was a good
report to get after wondering the outcome of all the well testing.)
Item 8.7. Copy of memorandum dated May 22, 1997, from Mr. Richard E.
Huff, II, Deputy County Executive, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, re: Free State Road, was received for information. (The memoran-
dum indicates that Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department is aware of the
emergency access to Free State Road. They are aware of the weight limitations
of the bridge and they regularly access the area through the Dunlora Subdivi-
sion with their heavier trucks. The Fire Department is supportive of up-
grading the weight limitations of the bridge and are willing to work
cooperatively to provide rapid response to emergencies regardless of physical
barriers.)
Item 8.8. Copy of Tentative Construction Fund Allocations for Fiscal
Year 1997-98 for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as
Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including update of Six Year Improvement
Program through Fiscal Year 2002-03, was received for information.
Item 8.9. Letter dated May 22, 1997, from Mr. Joseph J. Rein, III,
District Manager, Customer Service and Sales, United States Postal Service,
addressed to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that the Batesville
Post Office will remain in its current location, was received for information.
Item 8.10. Copy of letter dated May 23, 1997, from Mr. Patrick K.
Mutlaney, Director, Parks and Recreation, to Mr. William L. Woodfin, Jr.,
Director, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, re: planning and
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
ooo .ao
development of the County's Priddy Creek property, was received for
information.
(Mr. Perkins suggested that this letter be copied to the Governor. He
said Mr. Marshall might even give the Governor a call. He suggested the Board
might even name the park after the Governor. The Board members concurred in
sending a copy of the letter to the Governor.)
Item 8.11. Copy of Orders of Virginia Electric and Power Company Case
No. PUE960036, 1995 Annual Informational Filing, and Case No. PUE960296,
Alternative Regulatory Plan, as filed with the State Corporation Commission,
was received for information.
Item 8.12. Copy of notice from the Department of Environmental Quality,
Valley Regional Office, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0028398,
Avionics Specialties, was received for information.
(Ms. Humphris asked if this notice automatically goes to the Water
Resources Manager. She asked how staff knows to officially respond to the
report. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Hirschman will have the opportunity to review the
report and respond.
Ms. Humphris asked why Mr. Hirschman is not automatically on DEQ's
mailing list as the staff person responsible for responding to one of these
requests. Mr. Tucker said not every locality has a Water Resources position.
He thinks the State automatically sends the information to the manager of the
locality or the chairman and then expects them to transmit the information to
the appropriate person. Mr. Hirschman was present and commented that he
eventually gets the report in time to respond by the deadline.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board will get some staff input as to whether it
should approve this permit. In the report the Board got last year about the
different tributaries to the Rivanna Reservoir, it is listed as being in an
area that has created some water quality problems. Mr. Tucker said after Mr.
Hirschman looks at the information, he can make a report to the Board for
informational purposes. Mr. Hirschman said he does not believe there is any
local government approval required. The locality is given a period in which
to make comments. The DEQ removed the local government approval process two
years ago.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning District Commission approves some of these
requests. She does not want to miss the opportunity to comment if this is a
problem area. Mr. Cilimberg said the PDC gets intergovernmental reviews and
they do take action, and those are normally sent to the County for comment.)
Item 8.13. Notice from the Federal Communications Commission dated May
1, 1997, in the matter of Adelphia Communications Corporation, Final
Resolution of Cable Programming Service Rate Complaints, was received for
information.
(Ms. Thomas said she had not read the whole report, and she assumes that
since the County has no franchise agreement with Adelphia, there is little the
Board can do. Mr. Davis said since the County does not have a franchise, it
has not been a party to the litigation that precipitated this, and it is
basically just for information. Mr. Martin asked if Albemarle County
residents will receive the benefits. Mr. Davis said to the extent that the
rates for Charlottesville will be applicable to the County, there will be the
benefit of reduced rates.: Albemarle County subscribers will not get refunds
pursuant to this agreement.)
Item 8.14. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts) Monthly Bond
and Program Report for the month of April, 1997, was received for information.
Item 8.15. Letter dated May 30, 1997, from Ms. A~gela G. Tucker,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding
transportation matters discussed at the May 7th Board meeting, was received as
follows:
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
000 .3 1
~'We offer the following comments regarding transportation
matters that were discussed at the May 7th Board meeting:
Please find enclosed a copy of the regular inspection
bridge report for the Norfolk Southern Railway bridge on
RoUte 651 (Free State Road). We are awaiting details of
the railroad's maintenance schedule and will share this
schedule with the Board upon receipt.
The plans for the Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road
include standard right and left turn lanes on Route 20
onto the connector road. These improvements are included
in the current project.
We have scheduled the necessary maintenance for Route 707
off Jarman's Gap Road. This work will include patching
potholes, machining the road and trimming brush.
The Department is currently establishing a written policy
to include standards by which roads may be improved under
the Pave in Place legislation. We anticipate this
information to be available for public discussion by July
1, 1997. At this time, it is premature to generate a list
of eligible roads.
The Department is reviewing a request to lower the speed
limit on Chris Greene Lake Road. We will share the
results of this study upon completion.
The Department is finalizing the construction cost
estimate for improvements to West Leigh Drive and the CSX
Railroad crossing. These figures should be available in
the next two to three weeks.
We have scheduled maintenance for Route 787 (Gillums Ridge
Road). We cannot prohibit trucks from using this road.
However, we will monitor this road for necessary
maintenance.
The Department will be signalizing Old Brook Road at Rio
Road. We anticipate the addition of a signal at this
location no later than early spring 1998.
Please share this information with the Board members. If there
are any questions regarding the above issues, I will be prepared
to discuss them at the June 4th Board meeting."
Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: Route 29 North, Median
Landscaping/ discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said he has received some telephone calls and comments about
the Trees for 29 project on Route 29 North. He said Susan Thomas and Lisa
Glass are present this morning to answer questions. He said there was a pre-
bid conference on this project yesterday, and Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of
Engineering, is present this morning to explain what happened. He said the
following history of the project is contained in the staff's report.
The planning efforts for Trees for 29 began in late 1993 when Mr. Chuck
Lebo proposed landscaping Route 29 North as a North Charlottesville Business
Council (NCBC) community project. The Council directors agreed since the
median trees had been removed during the widening work and the public reaction
to their absence was strong. The Council was committed to transforming Route
29 into an ~urban boulevard" and the median landscaping was a first step.
After months of discussion, the committee narrowed its selections to
large shade tree varieties. V/DOT standards allow planting of large varieties
where the median measures at least 18 feet in width. When the median is less
than 18 feet, VDOT will allow medium size trees. Although large trees were
emphasized, the median is discontinuous and varies in width throughout the
approximately three-mile extent of the project, so some medium size trees were
included in the original design.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
In 1995, the County was contacted by the utility companies who had
installed new facilities in the median in an early phase of the widening work,
before the Trees for 29 launch. Charlottesville Gas, Sprint/Centel, and to a
lesser extent, the Albemarle County Service Authority, all voiced strong
objections to planting trees of any type over their lines. VDOT, as owner of
the median, found itself mediating among parties. The utilities reluctantly
agreed to drop their objections to trees if small and/or medium size varieties
were substituted for large varieties. Tree lists were obtained from the
Virginia Department of Forestry and Pennsylvania's Municipal Tree Restoration
Program.
Trees for 29 faced its final hurdle in getting the three-party agreement
governing project funding and administration written and approved. After VDOT
and Albemarle County had signed the document, the Chamber of Commerce
(representing its affiliate, NCBC) objected to language designating the
Council as the party responsible for on-going maintenance after termination of
the three-year contract maintenance term. The language was revised stating
that the parties "agree to enter into good faith negotiations concerning the
ongoing maintenance of all plantings within the scope and limits of the
project." Approximately six months later, the revised agreement was signed by
all three parties.
Staff changes in the County's Planning Department, which was designated
as project manager, created additional delay and necessitated reassigning
management responsibility. Lisa Glass in the County's Engineering and Public
Works Department is now project manager. Susan Thomas in the Planning
Department is information contact. Installation of Phases I and II plant
material is scheduled for the Fall of 1997. Phase III trees will be installed
at completion of that component, currently estimated for Fall 2000. A1 Bryant
of VDOT has advised that the project must move forward if its funding is to
remain.
Mr. Mawyer said there were four prospective bidders at yesterday's
meeting. All were local nurserymen. They seemed to be satisfied with the
specifications and requested an additional week to prepare bids. He said the
trees which were selected were picked through negotiations. Staff does not
recommend that the species of the trees selected be revisited at this time.
Ms. Thomas said what she has read says there cannot be large trees due
to consideration for the utility companies. She asked if that is true for the
entire three-mile length of the project. Mr. Mawyer said consideration was
given to the width of the median, which at a maximum is 26 feet, and the trees
were chosen to fit within that maximum width so as not to extend over the
road.
Mr. Perkins asked why no evergreens were chosen. Ms. Susan Thomas said
all species of trees were considered at the beginning of the selection
process. Evergreens were not chosen because they would not match the form of
the other trees. A boulevard effect was wanted. Also, at issue in the
beginning was the fact that the business community is very sensitive to having
a visual barrier by the presence of the trees. Also, evergreens might cast a
shadow which would make icing of the road possible. It was an early decision
to select deciduous trees.
Ms. Lisa Glass said there were multiple constraints on the project
between the utility companies, the safety and maintenance factors on the
highway, the desires of the community groups and volunteers that organized the
project itself. She said what has been arrived at is a good compromise and
she would not recommend that there be any changeJ
Mr. Tucker suggested the Board members hear from some of the people who
had come today to make comments about this project.
Mr. David Tice said he originally raised concerns about the tree species
selection. He said Route 29 North is probably the most important corridor
welcoming people to the community. He thinks the landscaping done in the
median of Route 250 East is severely lacking in character, and he did not want
to see the same situation occur on Route 29 North. He has worked as a
consultant for a lot of urban forestry programs so he has some familiarity
with the problems of planting and managing trees in similar situations. The
roots of large trees planted in compacted, harsh environments, like the
medians of the roadways, do not penetrate the earth deeply. He thinks there
are some misconceptions, even among the utility companies and VDOT, over
000 .33
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
potential problems they see with roots. What is being planted is not what
most people would want to see planted along this entrance corridor. He feels
there are alternatives that could work. There are many mid- and medium-sized
trees which are superior to those that have been selected.
Mr. Tice said he has served on the Foundation Board for the Green
Virginia 2000 Foundation. They took grant requests from communities around
the State for projects such as this one. He said they had received
applications for the median strip on Route 33 in Harrisonburg, and one for the
median of the Dolley Madison Parkway in McLean. For both of these proposals,
VDOT approved large trees. He knows a lot of work went into this committee's
work, but he questions whether the committee really did everything possible to
get the type of trees that most would like to see on an ~urban boulevard.
Even if the decision has to be made for small trees, he questions the species
selection.
Mr. Tice said there is a broad issue which needs to be raised, although
it is too late for this project. In the course of designing the highway
project, how much planning went into decisions about where the utilities would
be located so there could be larger trees?
Ms. Peggy Van Yahres said she was present today as an interested
citizen. She said there are many misconceptions between the utility companies
and VDOT about street tree planting. If what Mr. Mawyer said about VDOT's
concerns is true, there would be no trees in the streets in the City today.
There are utilities all over the City, and leaf litter coming down onto the
streets. She said progressive cities, when they have to replace or repair
utilities, are tunneling under the roots, which are shallow. She said all
tree roots are shallow no matter the size of the tree, and the trees survive
wind, harsh conditions, etc., if the right tree is planted. Having shallow
roots is not a problem for wind. As to visibility, big trees are much better
because they can be pruned up so you can see underneath the branches.
Ms. Van Yahres said she understands these concerns are being expressed
late in this process. She agrees with Mr. Tice that when a road like this is
planned, street trees are important. What can be done to make it happen? She
thinks the large trees could be planted today no matter what the utility
companies say. She suggested the Board members go to Route 250 East and look
at the small ornamental trees which are struggling for survival. She
suggested the Board members look at the large oak trees planted 12 years ago
on Fifth Street Extended. She said that street is beginning to look like a
boulevard. The sourwood trees on Route 250 will never look like that. Large
urban trees have a longer life span.
Mr. Mitch Van Yahres said he wanted to reiterate what has already been
said. He comes in his capacity as urban forester, arborists, tree surgeon,
etc. In dealing with and managing trees, he thinks it is important at the
beginning of the project to pick trees that will survive. Historically, it is
known that an urban tree will survive seven years. That takes into
consideration that many trees of the wrong species have been planted. Trees
which are survivors in tough conditions need to be planted. There are already
tough conditions on Route 29 even before the cars start moving. Slow
conditions are tough to deal with, and then there is the addition of poisonous
fumes, and wind whipping. He deals with the issue of keeping trees alive on a
professional basis constantly. Keeping trees alive under those conditions
will be very difficult. Furthermore, VDOT or whoever will be in charge of
this median strip, is not going to maintain (prune, spray, fertilize) those
trees. This is what it takes to keep trees under those conditions surviving.
Mr. Van Yahres said the Board has already heard the argument about
roots. As far as maintaining the trees in the future, if median strips were
planted the way all utilities want them, there would be nothing in those
medians. He said people do want trees. Some of the polls show that having
trees in cities under urban conditions is at the top of the list along with
having a good police department. He thinks the public wants big trees. He
thinks big trees are essential. He came to Virginia from the north where
there were elm trees at one time, and those trees arched over the highways.
It was a spiritual event to go through some of these streets. He said a
feeling of scale is what is wanted on Route 29. That would be missing with
the smaller trees. He said that some of the trees on the list will not
survive even to the expected time limit of seven years.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
0002.,34
Ms. Humphris said she would summarize what the Board has heard so far
this morning. The Board has heard that due to the compaction of the soil, the
tree roots will not be as deep; in other areas, VDOT has approved larger trees
than they will approve for this location; there are trees which are better for
this location than those which have been chosen. She said bids have been
taken on planting these particular trees for this project. Mr. Tucker said
the difficulty is that the County is only one player in this issue, it is not
County-owned right-of-way. The County can only encourage VDOT to do something
their standards do not call for. He said he would like to see large street
trees. Unfortunately, what staff was told during meetings with VDOT
representatives is that those large trees did not meet their specifications.
The City can do things the County cannot because VDOT does not control the
rights-of-way in the City. County staff supported the large trees, but it did
not meet with the approval of the people who control those rights-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any member of the committee who could
deal with the questions that were raised today. He asked if there is any
counter to the criticisms from the utilities and VDOT from experts? Mr.
Tucker said he did not know. He said it is noted in the staff report that
VDOT standards don't allow that. He does not know if those standards can be
changed. That is where the push would have to begin. Mr. Bowerman said he
thinks the County should try to do that.
Mr. Marshall asked who will be responsible for replacing trees that die.
Mr. Tucker said, depending on when it dies, he thinks the County will have to
pay for a replacement. He does not expect VDOT to replace those trees.
Mr. Marshall said if that is the case, and there is a difference in what
they are willing to spend, why not plant a tree that will survive. Mr.
Bowerman asked how the species were chosen if they will not survive under the
conditions on Route 29. Mr. Tucker said these species are the types that are
listed in the VDOT standards.
Ms. Humphris asked how many dollars of taxpayer and private funds are
being used for this project. Mr. Tucker said it is ten percent County, ten
percent for the NCBC and 80 percent VDOT. Ms. Humphris asked what that cost
is in dollars. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. Mr. Mawyer said the budget
is a total of $180,000. Mr. Davis said another issue is the ability to
maintain the VDOT funding beyond this fiscal year.
Ms. Humphris asked Susan Thomas to comment. Ms. Thomas said there were
several well-qualified people on the committee. They worked from tree lists
supplied to them by Phil Grimm of the Virginia Forestry Department. They
started with a list of trees recommended for this kind of use. She discovered
during this process that well-informed, well-qualified people do not always
agree on species. There was a lot of discussion and the survival issue was
one they talked about a lot. Route 250 East was a project known to all,
although more is known about the project now than it was three years ago.
Sourwood is the variety that is the most controversial. The landscapers who
attended the pre-bid conference were requested to submit written comments with
suggested alternatives. The committee was not just a group of people who did
not know anything about trees and had strong opinions. Some of the committee
members have hands-on experience.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were committee members who pounded the table
as advocates for the large tree type of planting. Ms. Thomas said ~yes.n She
said if it were not for Henry Weinschank's .dogged type of personality, there
would be no trees in the median. He went to each utility and said the
committee did not want perennials and shrubs, but big trees. If NCBC had
thought of the project several years earlier when VDOT was in the planning
stages, or even if this plan had been derived before the new utility lines
were laid in the median, the committee would have been in a stronger position.
But, the utilities had just installed their new infrastructure, and no one
wanted to rip that out. She agrees that the Sourwood is the tree that is
drawing a lot of comment.
Mr. Tucker asked if Ms. Angela Tucker could make comments on this issue.
Ms. Tucker said she did take part in some of the early committee meetings.
She said VDOT's preference is not to have any substantial trees in its right-
of-way. Trees are considered fixed objects. While there are many trees
around the County adjacent to the roads, they were not planned. Looking at
planting after the fact, there is the liability of putting those fixed objects
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
back into the right-of-way. That is where the landscaping guide sets out the
size of tree which is allowed.
Ms. Humphris said this a quandary for the Board. It looks like the
Board is faced with allowing the plan to go ahead when some people are
predicting a lot of failures.
Mr. Mawyer said one thing that was learned from the Route 250 project is
that a longer maintenance period is needed by the contractor who installs the
plantings. This new contract will require the contractor to maintain the
plants for three years as opposed to just one year.
Ms. Glass said as a County resident she would like to see big trees, but
as a County staff member she has to take other things into consideration. She
said she would like to address the issues brought up by Ms. Van Yahres. The
original desire for the project was for large street trees. When looking at
large trees used in other communities, the speed limit on the road has to be
taken into consideration and whether there are stop lights on the road. Those
things are safety issues, and a canopy can affect the visibility of a stop
light further down the road. There is also the issue of seeing under the
canopy versus not having a canopy at all. The maintenance issue was a big
part of why the plants on Route 250 East were not successful. Also, there is
the funding issue. It took about four years to go through the process and get
a signed agreement. She understands the maintenance issue was one reason why
the process was prolonged. Because it took so long to get to an agreement, it
caused VDOT to wonder if the project would be undertaken at all. She has
asked the bidders to provide comments on alternate species which would have
better survivability.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks it would be helpful if staff took one more
look at this project with the help of Peggy Van Yahres, Mitch Van Yahres and
David Tice, to see if there are any species listed which are within the realm
of VDOT standards to see if there can be some merger between the large and the
medium-sized tree, including the survivability issue.
Mr. Bowerman said nobody knows better than the Board members how
difficult it is to work in a committee and get a consensus on what should be
done. He does not want to undo that consensus or imply that everybody did not
do the best they could in making the decision. When the Board is presented
with the results of that decision, it makes him wonder if more cannot be done
with the project. Mr. Tucker said he appreciates those comments, and staff
will attempt to do that and make a further report to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 9b. Transportation Matters: Route 20 South
Improvements, discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said the Board had requested that the approved plans for the
Route 20/Avon Street Connector Road be reviewed and evaluated. A member had
asked if the improvements could be upgraded to accommodate the proposed
widening of Route 20 South to a four-lane, divided roadway (see memorandum
dated May 28, 1997, from Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public
Works, addressed to Mr. Rick Huff, Assistant County Executive, which is on
file in the Clerk's Office). It was noted that the Connector Road, its
intersection with Avon Street, its intersection with Route 20, and the
entrances to Monticello High School, were all designed to assure the safe
movement of school buses to and from the school. Staff did the best it could
during the design and review of the Connector Road to accommodate, or at least
not interfere with, the potential for Route 20 to b~ improved to a four-lane,
divided roadway.
Ms. Humphris said she recently found a copy of a letter dated May 3,
1996, which was sent to Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Myers asking their help in
expediting this project. She asked if any reply was ever received. Mr.
Tucker said he did not remember, but Mr. Roudabush had told him they are
working to get this project into the primary plan for widening, but it will
not happen prior to the opening of the high school. The question is, prior to
the opening of the high school, can there be adequate safety measures in place
on Route 20 for stacking lanes. It appears that there will be adequate
stacking and it will accommodate quite a few buses if they have to wait to
make a left-turn into the Connector Road.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000136
Ms. Humphris said the staff's report was very complete, and she hopes it
did answer the concerns.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned that there is a "S" curve at that
spot, and a lot of vehicles are being stacked on that curve. He appreciates
what Ms. Tucker has done to get the extra width for the acceleration and
deceleration, and the turning lanes, but unless something is done about the
visibility on Route 20 around that ~S" curve, it will not work. The hillsides
need to be cut back. Mr. Tucker said there are normally caution lights where
there is a school. He believes there will be on both ends of the turn lane at
the connector road, at least in the morning and afternoon hours when the buses
are going in and out of the road.
Mr. Marshall related several incidents he had seen on Route 20 from
excessive speed. He said that four-lane road to that school is needed as soon
as possible, and Route 20 needs to be straightened.
Mr. Tucker said be believes that when there is some traffic at that
intersection, it will cause people to start slowing down on that road.
Selective traffic enforcement may also be needed in that area. Mr. Marshall
said he thinks a police officer will be needed at that intersection in the
mornings. Mr. Tucker said that type of thing is already occurring at Western
Albemarle High School.
Agenda Item No. 9c. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Thomas said the residents appreciate the maintenance VDOT has
scheduled on Gillums Ridge Road. They already see an improvement just with
more water being applied to the road.
Ms. Thomas said she received an E-mail from a person who is concerned
about where the newly-paved Route 682 approaches Route 250 West and the steep
drop-off on either side of that road. It is still in the construction stage,
so no one can demand guardrails yet. But to some people who use the road, it
looks quite dangerous. There is also a concern about the school buses who use
the road. There are some orange warning cones in place to let people know
there is a drop-off. Whatever could be done to get the guardrails in place
would be appreciated. Ms. Tucker said they are in the final days of finishing
up the project and doing a final inspection. She believes the guardrails
should be put into place as soon as the weather breaks.
Ms. Thomas asked for an update on the West Leigh Drive project. Ms.
Tucker said in the next two weeks, VDOT should have a firmer construction
estimate on which the Board can base a resolution. VDOT needs a resolution in
order to insert this project as a Rural Addition in the Six-Year Plan during
this Fall's revision of that plan. Basically there needs to be a guarantee of
public rights-of-way which she believes the property owners are working on.
Then it shows up in the Six-Year Plan with funding. That information should
be available on July 1.
Mr. Martin said on Route 29 North in front of General Electric there is
a caution light. Further north at their second entrance there is no caution
light. He asked if anybody had surveyed the traffic crossing over the
southbound lane going into the plant at the same time as people from Briarwood
Subdivision are coming out and turning right onto the southbound lane of Route
29. There is a commotion at that point every morning and every afternoon. He
wonders if VDOT is aware of the traffic flow at that point. Ms. Tucker said
she has been getting calls from citizens requesting a signal analysis at that
location. It is scheduled to take place in a couple of weeks. One problem at
that location is that the southbound lanes of Route 29 just north of the
intersection with Route 763, come over a hill, and they do not allow for the
appropriate sight distance or stopping distance needed for a signal.
Mr. Martin said he is not advocating that there be a signal, especially
one that would be there all day long. Maybe there could be one that would be
used for a period of an hour or so in the mornings and afternoons. He just
wants VDOT to look at the situation and look at any possibilities to remedy
the situation. Ms. Tucker said it is an intersection that was looked at to
receive Industrial Access funded improvements by virtue of the GE Plant.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
000 .,37
Those improvements would include a deceleration lane on Route 29 into Route
763. There is already a short substandard deceleration lane on Route 29. It
would also include a longer than standard acceleration lane out of Route 763
onto Route 29 for the purpose of allowing trucks to merge because that is the
service entrance to GE. At the same time, they would have to assure that
there was appropriate sight distance as one crested that hill just north of
the intersection on southbound Route 29. She does not know when the project
will take place because it is a unique funding process which involves
dedicated right-of-way which must come from GE.
Mr. Martin said he has lived at Briarwood for several years. The
traffic has increased substantially in that time.
Ms. Thomas referred to the rail transportation program and an article in
the newspaper that talked about the possibility of getting onto Amtrak. She
thinks communities in Virginia should get together and apply some pressure.
She said there is a demand for passenger rail service. She knows there is a
State agency dealing with rail, so if other Board members agree, and there is
anyway the Board could add its voice to attempts to get an Amtrak car added at
the border of North Carolina and Virginia, she thinks it would be good. When
talking about cutting down traffic on Route 29 North, long distance traffic
could be impacted if there was the possibility of having reliable service to
get to points north by Amtrak and back again in the same day. It used to be
doable, but is becoming more difficult every year. Mr. Tucker said that Rail
Division is a division of VDOT. He guesses VACO and VML may be another avenue
to help gain some support to encourage that.
Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Tucker how the Board would go about lending its
support to this idea. It is a sensible thing to just add a car. Ms. Tucker
asked if the question is how to get funding for rail and public
transportation.
Ms. Thomas said it is not about the funding, but how to get input into
decisions which are probably made by Amtrak. Ms. Tucker said wish lists are
presented at the Pre-allocation public hearing in the Spring when requests are
taken for the Primary System, etc. It is only in the last five years that the
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation actually became its own
department. She said the report under Item 8.8 on the Consent Agenda includes
the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Rail
and Public Transportation. She said there are transcripts available of the
Spring hearing where many people present their funding requests on behalf of
Amtrak and public transit projects.
MS. Humphris asked if the Board should then make this request at the
regular public hearing in April. Ms. Tucker said "yes", and if it would be
helpful to review that transcript along with what then becomes this budget,
she would be happy to share those records with the Board. Ms. Humphris asked
Mr. Tucker to have County staff include this idea in the Pre-allocation
presentation next year.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Ms. Tucker for acceding to his second request for a
traffic study at Rio and Old Brook Roads just six months after the previous
study showed a dramatic change. A signal will be provided at Rio Road. He
appreciates VDOT being willing to go back and do that study.
.~,, Mr. Bowerman mentioned the maintenance report for the bridge on Free
State Road. He said the bridge is currently rated at eight tons and it is in
poor to fair condition. He noticed a number of items that need to be
replaced. If the repairs are not done, will the bridge continue to
deteriorate? Will VDOT lower the weight limit? Exactly, what will happen
now?
Ms. Tucker said the railroad has said that their next location for
maintenance repairs is the bridge on Route 651 (Free State Road) after they
leave the CSX bridge repair in Covesville on Route 633. She thinks that will
happen in late Summer to early Fall. At that time, the railroad will address
those concerns outlined in the inspection report. She thinks they will try to
stabilize slopes, replace bridge timbers and strengthen the rail system. She
has been told they will do their best within their costs to maintain the
bridge at an eight-ton posting. That will allow for passage of school buses,
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
000 ...38
but not emergency vehicles. She believes the railroad is only required to
maintain a posting that allows vehicular traff$c, which does not include a
school bus. The intent at this time is to maintain that eight-ton posting.
She believes the improvements the railroad will do later this year will be
sufficient enough to maintain that eight-ton posting until the bridge comes up
for replacement in the Six-Year Plan. That project has not yet been scoped,
but she believes VDOT will upgrade and replace that as a non-restricted
structure.
Mr. Martin said it will be important that they do maintain the bridge as
an eight-ton structure because there are a lot of children who live near the
end of the road. It would be quite a long walk for smaller children to get to
a bus.
Ms. Humphris said she heard the end of a report on the radio where it
was said that there was going to be a delay in the widening of the last
segment on Route 29 North because of changes to the terminus of the proposed
Western Bypass. She believes it was something that came from a CTB meeting.
Ms. Tucker said she did not know anything about the impact of any changes
because they are in the Six-Year Plan. She will find out what that specific
impact is.
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT is still planning to do anything additional
to the very curvy section of Rio Road near the City limits. Ms, Tucker said
VDOT turned that project in for safety funding of a nature that should pay for
the project. Because of the incidences along that section of road, the road
qualified for safety funding, but that will not be available until October,
1997. Because V/DOT is running into some difficulty obtaining the right-of-
way, it was felt that it would be best to work from plans, as opposed to no
plans or very minimal plans. Their first task is to start a survey which
will take about a week. Once the safety funds become available, they hope
that project can take place in the Spring or Summer of 1998.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the intent is to go into the hillside in order to
give more width so guardrails can be installed. Ms. Tucker said that is
correct. VDOT will notch over into the embankment inside of the curves such
that they get an additional five feet of pavement. It will be a very minimal
shoulder and ditch on that inside curve. They are looking to put back a two-
foot shoulder if they can squeeze that in and along what is now the existing
edge of pavement (which appears to be failing rapidly), they will place
guardrails along the existing edge and re-stripe the road accordingly. That
guardrail will be placed in what is now the outside edge of pavement.
Agenda Item No. 10. Alliance Report on Proposed Children, Youth and
Family Commission, Presentation of.
Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, said that the lack of a
comprehensive system for assessing the need for and provision of children,
youth and family services in Albemarle/Charlottesville was recognized by the
1988 Children and Youth Task Force through the Albemarle County Human Services
Plan. That Plan concluded with a recommendation to charge an appointed group
to oversee the assessment and provision of human services and implementation
of the human services plan. A group composed of Children and Youth Commission
(CAYC) members, Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) members, City and
County government representatives, and other interested individuals, after a
year of looking, at service coordination issued, recommends an overall
commission or oversight body to provide a stronger organization and a more
streamlined and uniform process for assessing and delivering services to
children, youth and families.
Ms. White said a group called the "Alliance" (a coalition of these
various representatives), proposes restructuring the CPMT and the CAYC
commission to form an umbrella group for Albemarle and Charlottesville called
the Children, Youth and Family Commission. This organization would be
empowered by the local governing bodies, and the membership and current
responsibilities of the CAYC Commission and the CPMT combined. The CAYC
Commission was charged in 1990 by both the County and the City to serve as a
comprehensive planning, coordinating and evaluating body for children and
youth services. Shortly after its inception, the State mandated that each
community set up a Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) to serve the
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
ooo a9
needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their families in order to maximize
the use of State and community resources. The State-mandated members of the
CPMT include agency heads from both City and County Social Services and School
Divisions, the Health Department, Region Ten, and Juvenile Court Services, as
well as a private service provider and a parent representative. The Alliance
feels that by combining the broader citizen input from CAYC with the knowledge
base and the ability to implement programs from the County's and City's major
human service agencies, including school divisions, a stronger, more balanced
and more effective organizing and implementation body would be in place for
children, youth and family services.
Ms. White said the proposed new commission would be appointed by the
County and City and consist of 18 members representing public and private
agencies, local units of government and interested citizens. In addition to
appointed citizens, all major participants in the delivery of children, youth
and family services, including each school division, would be included. The
University of Virginia and United Way would also be represented on the
Commission. The new Commission's charge would be to provide a more
comprehensive focus for planning, recommending, coordinating, delivering and
evaluating children, youth and family services in the Charlottesville/
Albemarle community, including the mandated CPMT responsibilities (more detail
can be found in the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office.)
Ms. White said staff recommends approval of the Alliance'~s proposed
plan. If both the Board and City Council approve this initial proposal, staff
will work with the Alliance to develop the charge, membership and
implementation procedures for the new commission for the Board's final
approval and appointment of members.
Mr. Madison Cummings, a member of the Alliance, said he believes this
change will be an improvement in the delivery of services throughout the
community. He feels certain that members of the CAYC Commission would say
this will be an improvement.
Ms. Kathy Ralston said she is a member of the CPMT and believes
integration of CAYC and the CPMT is important because of the dual roles of
planning and evaluation. She believes it will be given an ability to focus
and combine the energy of both of those groups on broader issues for families
and children in the community. She believes the membership of the new group
as proposed will commit the right people for the right reasons to this
process. She thinks it will give the Board more confidence in the
recommendations of the group. She encouraged the Board to support this
request.
Ms. Thomas said she is concerned that when the community representatives
on CAYC, who by definition are amateurs in this field, meet with the people
whose jobs are to deal with troubled children, that the community representa-
tives may be overwhelmed. What will assure that the activities of CAYC will
not be lost?
Ms. Cynthia Stratton said a wonderful thing about the Commission is that
the members come from a diverse background in terms of dealing with youth.
Although it is citizen-based, there is a wide variety of expertise in terms of
dealing with children, youth and families. She believes the people presently
serving on CAYC have an expertise in this matter which is significantly
greater than those serving on the CPMT. She believes the members of CAYC will
be able ~'to hold their own."
Ms'. White said this group will be taking on a huge task. The
subcommittee structure was developed as a way of bringing in more citizens for
the planning and evaluation needed.
Ms. Thomas said she had noticed the words "adequate staff support will
be important." She asked if this means additional staff. Ms. White said
there will probably be that need in the future. The idea is to decide how to
form these groups together to be more effective. Can these groups be joined
together to be more effective, and can it be done with current staffing? They
will look to see how the structure works, and then assess whether more staff
is needed.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this is a move in the right direction. He has
worked with CAYC and also the CPMT. A lot of the time the people working on
the CPMT teams did not realize what the people on CAYC were doing, and vice
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
oo0 40
versa. He thinks this will give the opportunity for people to work closely
together and know what each other are doing and use each other's strengths.
The CAYC Commission is more citizen-oriented as opposed to the CPMT team which
is more professional-oriented. The joining of those two should produce a
positive outcome.
Ms. White said there has been a lot of duplication between the two
groups and she thinks it will be a challenge for them to begin working as a
team.
Ms. Humphris said the Board is being requested for its approval of the
proposed plan. She asked for a motion.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the
Alliance's proposed plan for a stronger and more effective coordinating body
for children, youth and family programs and services. Staff is to work with
the Alliance to develop the charge, membership and implementation procedures
for the new commission for the Board's final approval and appointment of
members. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend
and Reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, of the Code of
Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, Compensation of Board of Supervisors. This
amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by $328.00, to
establish compensation at $9,696.00 per year. (This public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1997.)
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Since no one was present to
speak to this matter, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to Adopt
an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, in
General, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, Compensation of Board of
Supervisors.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINA/~CE NO. 95-2 (1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTR3~TION,
ARTICLE 1, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In
General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-
2 1, Compensation of board of supervisors, as follows:
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as
follows: Nine thousand three hundred sixty-eight dollars and no
cents ($9,368.00) for each board member; provided that in addition
to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a
stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting
chaired; provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular
salary, the chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight
hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 1997.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
000141
(Note: At 10:55 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Thomas Jefferson VENTURE Regional Strategic Plan,
Presentation by Nancy K. O'Brien, and request for adoption of resolution.
Ms. O'Brien said the VENTURE met every Thursday in May, the last
Thursday being a public hearing. They defined ~'competitiveness" which could
best be summarized by saying "competitive" for this region seems to be working
together and acknowledging that there might be some differences of opinion.
They then identified strengths and weaknesses of the region.
The primary strengths are:
1) Preservation of the BEAUTY of the region is essential to maintaining
and enhancing the economic viability of the region as increased tourism
activities are a key component of the region's economic competitiveness. A
regional agreement regarding preservation of the beauty of the area will be
developed by identifying and describing the areas to be protected and the
mechanisms to preserve them using local policies and ordinances within an
interjurisdictional framework.
2) A key component to continued economic competitiveness and viability
is a sound EDUCATION SYSTEM which provides excellent primary and secondary
schooling, but also recognizes the importance of continued adult education
through work force development and training. The education system in the
region, while considered to be a strength, could benefit by increasing its
accessibility and by spreading specialized learning and work force training
through the region. Distance learning utilizes television technology to
deliver instruction and in some cases includes infrastructure to allow
interactive television classrooms. Such a distance learning program will be
put in place through the region using agreements between localities, school
boards, businesses, vocational-technical boards, the State Department of
Education, Piedmont Virginia Community College and the University of Virginia.
The primary weaknesses are:
1) SPRAWL is evident in all localities in the region. It is the
antithesis of a vital, healthy region. It threatens the continued existence
of rural lands. Sprawl decreases regional efficiency of expensive
infrastructure and destroys the region's diverse identities of place, thus
causing loss of economic vitality in existing urban areas, vehicular
congestion, increased air pollution, loss of community identity, diminished
rural character, and it leads to the need for excessive local government
financing for expanded infrastructure. Action to be taken in this area will
be to establish a regional committee designated by the local governing bodies
to seek regional consensus on strategies for controlling sprawl. The
committee will first identify lands or areas which are threatened regional
assets and obstacles to efficient use of existing infrastructure, particularly
roads.
2) To correct ECONOMIC DISPARITIES among the localities due to a need
for jobs and a diversified tax base in each locality and to build a solid
regional economic base, a partnership among interested localities will be
created to develop employment centers that include a mixed use of residential,
industrial, and commercial activities located in accordance with local land
use plans. Such employment centers would be located in jurisdictions in need
of a more diversified tax base and the highest concentration of residents
affected by welfare reform. Work force training and transportation will be
included in the planning and development of each center, with a primary focus
on the employment and training of residents from the region. Initial partners
will include the City of Charlottesville and Louisa County, possibly Fluvanna
County. The initial project is targeted to Zion Crossroads at the
intersection of 1-64 and U.S. Route 15. Work force training will be offered
through Piedmont Virginia Community College programs and/or local high schools
and technical schools.
Expand the structure of the "Healthy Families Program" utilizing
Children, Youth and Family Services, Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC),
the Thomas Jefferson Health Department and the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency to formulate a plan which builds on existing components in place
in Charlottesville, Albemarle and Fluvanna.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Review existing housing plan for Regional Consortium HOME program.
Commit funds to the regional housing trust fund managed by the Piedmont
Housing Alliance with increased leveraging potential by limiting strings
attached to the fund. Make these funds available to local nonprofit housing
organizations for first-time home buyers and other housing activities.
3) RACE RELATIONS are an underlying area of concern as the
relationships between people of different ethnic, racial and origins groups
affect the ability of area residents to play on a level playing field and
reach their potential. A representative group of citizens will be appointed
to identify issues and set priorities and strategies for community action.
Ms. O'Brien said the funding formula which was a part of the paperwork
for today's meeting has already been approved by this Board. She then offered
to answer questions about the draft plan.
Ms. Humphris said there were some people present who would like to
speak.
Mr. Tom Olivier said he was present to speak on behalf of Citizens for
Albemarle. They believe long-term planning is crucial to a good future for
the region, and that good plans emerge from processes in which there is
extended interaction between elected and appointed officials, staff members
and residents. Citizens are aware of the economic disparities between
Albemarle County and adjoining localities and think it is likely that a good
strategic plan for economic development in the region can be developed.
Citizens have drawn attention to areas in the region that beg for
interjurisdictional cooperation and economic development.
Mr. Olivier said the County's development policy came about after a
long, demanding comment and revision process. The Venture strategic plan has
been a compressed effort designed to meet an application deadline. He said
the Regional Competitiveness Act allows regions to make submissions later this
year and again next year Should not the processes by which regional policies
are developed match the rigor expected in developing County policies.
Mr. Olivier said Citizens for Albemarle asks that the Board not approve
the current Venture Strategic Plan. They ask that the Board support
submission to the program later this year or next year after a strategic plan
has been produced through a more normal development process. He noted that
Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas, in recent months, have taken time to come to places
like Schuyler, which is a bi-jurisdictional community to meet with local
residents to discuss economical needs. Mr. Marshall is well aware of the
needs in the Schuyler area and has put them on the record many times in the
past. (See copy of full statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Tim Lindstrom was present to represent the Piedmont Environmental
Council. He said the staff and the Committee of the Venture did a tremendous
amount of work in a short period of time. The plan presented to the Board has
taken into account a number of comments and criticisms made at the hearing.
He said Ms. O'Brien's comments this morning gave him some new information. He
did not realize that the Board had approved the so-called funding formula. He
noted copy of a resolution attached to the draft plan noted as "Resolution to
Approve the Funding Formula for Activities Undertaken in the Regional
Competitiveness Program" is essentially a carte blanche. He said there is no
formula in the resolution. The Plan, while it is a very major work product
which has been produced in a short period of time, establishes no priorities
for funding. It identifies programs to be funded, but it does not establish
within that plan any priorities as to how the funds should be allocated. He
thinks this would be a matter of concern to the Board. He said if the Board
has already approved this so-called formula, he asks the Board to defer acting
on the plan until the plan includes clear priorities for funding. He said the
PEC supports the position of Citizens for Albemarle to think more clearly
about this. If the Board wants to act on this today, he urged that guidelines
for funding be established.
Mr. Bowerman said this issue came up at the meeting last Thursday. The
priorities were to be based on the discussion of the group and priorities were
to be based on what the group thought was the highest priority from the top,
down. He asked if Mr. Lindstrom had a problem with that approach because it
does not designate that beauty and sprawl are the two biggest concerns.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
ooo .4a
Mr. Lindstrom said when PEC saw the draft plan it did not seem that the
plan meshed at all with the comments that had been collected. There was a
scoring process that the Venture members went through to score different
issues in terms of their concerns. The scoring process did not seem to
reflect what was in the plan. Staff said it did not intend for the plan to
establish any priorities. The Plan did not establish priorites other than to
say that all of the things listed are important. He said that has not
changed, but there has been a reshuffling of the categories in the plan, but
they still do not reflect the priorities that were established by the Venture.
He said the plan itself does not say the first priority shall be beauty even
though it is first on the list. Even given that, it does not suggest what
percentage of funds should be allocated to these categories. He said the
minimum amount of money the Venture can get if it is successful is $180,000,
and that is the first installment of five. That assumes that every region in
the state which is qualified under the law applies for funds, and every region
in the state gets the funds. He just does not read the draft plan as having
any direction at all.
With no one else rising to speak, Ms. Humphris said the matter was
before the Board for a decision.
Ms. Thomas said the group that selected beauty and sprawl as the main
concerns would be the same group dealing with the money issue. It will not be
a new and different group taking over when the money is available. The chairs
of the boards of supervisors and the mayor are the group that worked on the
funding formula. Mr. Davis also questioned whether it was a formula, but the
State Department of Housing and Community Development said it does satisfy
their requirements for a funding formula.
Ms. Humphris said she also had a problem with the funding formula, but
when it was decided that it could be considered a formula, she assumed that
when it was said ~to fund the priority activities" that the activities would
be prioritized at this point. She had been out of town and did not get to see
the plan until yesterday. She does not find any rationale for what is in the
strategic plan as far as priority activities. She assumes it is a broad
definition of priority activities, and the ones listed are the ones chosen
from the total list, without them actually being prioritized.
Ms. Thomas said the priorities are listed in terms of the number of
points they were given by the group with beauty being first and education
second. Then the negative aspects to be attacked had sprawl first and
economic disparities third, and race relations were a separate issue. So,
there was no discussion of prioritizing them.
Ms. Humphris said work will have to be done if and when any money
becomes available. She understands the reservations presented by Citizens for
Albemarle. It has been a ~'crash" effort. It has been designed to meet this
particular deadline. She also does not believe time has been taken to
carefully analyze capability with the Comprehensive Plan and other things
mentioned. She hopes that if this goes forward all of these things will be
dealt with as the group deals with the priorities. She does not like to have
things go forward without everything being in place in a logical order, and
she does not believe that is being done; they are not based on the board
analyses she would like to see done. She understands the will of the region
to do it. She does believe that Albemarle County is much more knowledgeable
about many more things than some of the other entities.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a priority is set and the group gets the $180,000
but decides that all of the money should go toward education and the Zion
Crossroads Industrial Park, is that where the money goes because this is a
regional approach.
Ms. Thomas said the group that developed the list of strengths and
weaknesses and puts priorities on them are a group of civic-minded people from
this region who are concerned about beauty, public education and sprawl. It
comes down to whether one believes this region's participants have any good
sense and share the same interest in the region that this Board shares.
Mr. Davis said in talking with State representatives, he was told that
each May a progress report has to be submitted to the State to continue to be
eligible for the funding. At that time, the County has the ability to change
the funding formula. One option would be to ask that the County's pro-rata
share be paid directly to the County instead of directly to Venture as it is
000 .44
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
set up now. In those circumstances, the Board could spend that money in any
way it wished. The first year, he believes the Board will have to rely on the
Venture and the priorities that it sets, thereafter, if the Board is not
satisfied, the Board could have more direct control over the funds.
Mr. Marshall said it is a regional plan, and in order for the County's
neighbors to benefit from this, Albemarle County needs to participate. The
Board may not want any of these funds for Albemarle, but to deprive the City,
or Fluvanna, or Greene, or Nelson of them, is not fair. For that reason, he
will support the plan.
Mr. Bowerman said the issue is whether this Board has the confidence to
trust the process and the organization that was put together, to follow
through on what has transpired up to this point. He said the Board needs to
allow the process to work and then reevaluate if it moves in a direction that
is objectionable. He will support the resolution with the confidence that the
group will proceed as Ms. Thomas laid it out, with the expression of different
interests on a lot of priorities.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman if that was a motion in support of the
resolution. Mr. Bowerman said he would make it that. Mr. Marshall gave
second.
Mr. Martin said he sees this the same as Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall
see this in terms of it being a regional effort, and later this Board can make
a decision about how to deal with things it does not like.
Ms. Humphris said she will continue to make allowances for what she
thinks is a crash process and support it hoping it will be of benefit to the
region.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
VENTURE
REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors agreed to
join with the localities of the City of Charlottesville, and the
Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson to work toward
meeting the requirements of the Regional Competitiveness Act; and
WHEREAS, the group appointed by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, named the VENTURE, has written By-
Laws to guide the operation of the VENTURE; and
WHEREAS, the VENTURE has also developed and held hearings on
a Regional Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors is
interested in a continuing working relationship with the other
localities in the region to build on the strengths and diminish
the weaknesses of the region.
...... NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors approves the VENTURE Regional Strategic Plan.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request from John Dorrier to Set a Public Hearing
to Amend the Service Area Boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority
for Water Only to Existing Structure(s) on Tax Map 62, Parcel 24B.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. John Dorrier has requested service area
designation for ~water only" to serve a 2.7 acre parcel containing a seven
unit apartment, a pole barn and an attendant's shed, all lying in a growth
area. This parcel is located between Dorrier Drive and Route 20 just south of
the Key West Subdivision. The property would be served by the new Key West
waterline which is planned to be located along Route 20 North. The Albemarle
County Service Authority has indicated that there will be adequate capacity in
June 4, 1997 (Regular' Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
the new waterline to serve this property.
public hearing with this request.
000'{45
Staff does recommend proceeding to
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set the
public hearing for July 2, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(NOTE: Mr. Bowerman filed a Transactional and Disclosure Statement
disqualifying himself for participating in the discussion on this item. He
has a personal interest in a contract and perspective future contracts with
the applicant for fitness equipment.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Request from Forest Lakes Associates to Set a
Public Hearing to Amend the Service Area Boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for Water and Sewer Service to Forest Lakes, Tax Map 46,
Parcel 97A1 and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requests service area designation for
water and sewer service to 126 acres. The property is part of the Forest
Lakes South development and is located east of Powell Creek, north of Route
643, west of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and south of the Hollymead
Subdivision. The Board, at its meeting on December 14, 1994, amended the Land
Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and included these parcels into the
Hollymead Community. The property is currently zoned PUD and is proposed for
the development of 185 houses. This property would be served by the Powell
Creek Interceptor and the Forest Lakes South waterline. The Albemarle County
Service Authority has indicated that capacity exists in both of these lines to
serve this property. The request is consistent with the public utility policy
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a parcel (Tax Map 46, Parcel 97B) that is
not under the ownership of Forest Lakes that is within this area. The Board
could add that land at this time if they so chose. Mr. Tucker recommended
that the property be included at this time.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set the
matter for public hearing on July 2, 1997. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 15. Request from Irving and Carol Gottesman to Set a
Public Hearing to Amend the Service Area Boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) for Sewer to Undeveloped Lot, Tax Map 60, Parcel 70D.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicants, Irving and Carol Gottesman, have
requested service area designation for sewer service to an undeveloped lot
described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 70D (Lot 5) of Terrell Subdivision. The lot,
consisting of 2.03 acres, is located at 245 Terrell Road West off Georgetown
Road. The applicants stated that the request for sewer service is based on a
desire to protect groundwater and the nearby creek, and to preserve the wooded
environment on the subject property. Because of the required 100-foot front
and 50-foot side building setbacks required by the subdivision covenants,
along with the 100-foot septic setback from the stream at the rear of the lot,
the applicants say they have little latitude in house location.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at its meeting of October 3, 1984, the Board
approved an amendment to the ACSA service area to provide sewer service to
Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Terrell Subdivision where homes were under construction.
The Board cited the fact that the 29 lots in this subdivision had been in
existence at the time of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance on December 10,
1980, and, therefore, extension of sewer would not constitute an encouragement
of growth within the rural area because, in this case, the growth had already
occurred. Other factors cited in support of the approval were preservation of
trees and other vegetation onsite, and the fact that the sewer line crossed
000 .46
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
the lots in question. Subsequent to that 1984 approval, the County instituted
a new policy in its 1989 Comprehensive Plan regarding extension of water and
sewer to properties outside of the growth area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the subject property is not located within a
designated Development (Growth) Area. The sewer line serving Old Forge Road
runs along the southern property line of Lot 5 and does have adequate capacity
to serve this lot. A septic permit application has been submitted to the
Thomas Jefferson Health District and District staff have stated that it will
be approved. Adequate area exists for both new septic and reserve fields.
Although a sewer line lies adjacent to Lot 5 (the first criteria related to
extension of service), the applicants have not provided any information to the
Planning office demonstrating that a health or safety concern currently exists
(the second criteria). The applicants have expressed a desire to preserve the
existing trees which were originally part of a nursery established on the
property. Although three of the 29 lots within Terrell Subdivision have been
approved for sewer service, County policy on amendment of the service area has
changed since that approval and this request does not meet the current policy.
Approval of the request would not be in conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan, and thus is not recommended. He said the applicant was present this
morning, and he believes she would like to speak.
Ms. Carol Gottesman said the lot is no longer vacant. She said initial
clearing has taken place, but there has been no clearing for a septic field.
She said the sewer line does run through the property, not adjacent as
mentioned in the report. Also, the creek mentioned does not run through the
edge of the property, but about 40 feet from the Old Forge side. Because of
the creek on the property, there is also the County's requirement for a 100-
foot setback from that creek for a septic field. That 140 feet which cannot
be used serves as a good buffer between Old Forge and Terrell Subdivision.
Also there is an easement in Terrell Subdivision of ten feet for utilities.
She said the sewer line is at least 25 feet into her property, and the last
manhole cover is about 40 feet into Lot 6.
Ms. Gottesman said as far as being considered a Rural Area, utility
lines are in Terrell Subdivision for gas, water, cable and electricity. The
area is not rural, but very suburban. Also, as mentioned, there was a nursery
on the property before it was turned into a subdivision. Lot 5 has azaleas
and rhododendrons and lots of other small trees. They want to save as many of
the original trees as possible to try and maintain the rural character of the
property. She said they feel that being connected to the sewer line would be
healthier for the creek. She said they now live across the street and have a
huge pond, and when trees were taken out for that building they created an
erosion problem (unbeknownst to them at the time) that eventually led to a lot
of extra soil moving into that creek. They think it would be environmentally
logical to save that from happening to this creek. Hooking to the sewer line
which is on the property would be environmentally logical and would be better
for the creek, and also help preserve a nice buffer for the neighborhoods.
Ms. Gottesman said as long as the Board has allowed the three adjacent
lots to be connected to sewer service, they would also like to be allowed to
connect. She drew the Board's attention to a drawing showing the lots and
pointed out Lots 5 and Lot 7. She said Lot 7 is a very rugged lot and should
someone ever want to build on it, she does not believe there is a septic field
location on that lot.
Ms. Humphris said she understands the environmental issues the
Gottesman's have brought to the Board. The problem is that the Board has to
balance those individual environmental concerns with the integrity of the
policy under which the Board operates. She talked with the County Attorney to
see if there were a way the Board might distinguish between this application
and another. His answer was that the Board could not anticipate what it might
face in the future and any departure from the policy leaves the Board open to
having set a precedent. She talked to Ms. Gottesman and told her that unless
there were very unusual circumstances involved to make the request stand up
against anything the Board might receive in the future, she would not be able
to support the request. Even though there are good things involved such as
protecting the trees, and buffering the adjacent property, she finds that the
application does not go by the policy established in the Comprehensive Plan.
She cannot support the request.
Ms. Thomas said she had two similar situations in her district recently,
but she thinks the policy is a very important one.
000147
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Martin said he had one case in his district that was similar to this
request. What if the policy were expanded to include cases where the line is
actually existing on a piece of property? Ms. Thomas said her answer is to
remember the Crozet Interceptor which goes right through a lot of properties
in the watershed. The Board wanted to be sure it did not encourage growth all
along Route 250 West in the watershed, and that is why that has been a firm
policy. Ms. Humphris said that is the answer. That is a major part of the
policy of protecting the South Fork Rivanna watershed.
Mr. Perkins said there seem to be two different kind of sewer lines.
There are lines, such as the Crozet Interceptor, which are going somewhere to
serve a community. Then there are other lines which are scattered around the
circle around the City and those lines are not impacting future growth. It
seems foolish to him to require someone to put in a septic system and, if it
then fails and they request a hookup, it is granted at that point because
there is a health problem. In this case where the line goes through the lot,
he feels it would protect the watershed more by being able to hook to it.
Ms. Humphris said this is the quandary the Board always has to face. In
some ways it would seem a more sensible thing to be able to do, but the fact
remains, up until now nobody has been able to show the Board how it can be
done in an individual situation. If someone can clearly state exactly what
the difference is in this case that nobody else has in their situation) that
would make the difference.
Mr. Martin said he will support Ms. Humphris' feelings in this matter,
but he thinks Mr. Perkins make a good point when talking about the line to
Crozet and the line to Glenmore being lines that are going somewhere. He said
it is possible that more than just this one property would be included, but
would it be a disastrous thing? He is committed to protecting the line to
Glenmore, and not have a lot of growth follow that line. That same protection
has been offered to Crozet. He feels bad when something is reasonable and the
Board admits it is reasonable, but there is a rule that prevents the Board
from doing what is reasonable. Adding to that is the fact that the Board
wants to protect the watershed, and the watershed would be better protected by
a sewer line which is already on the property, as opposed to the applicants
building a septic field which one day will fail.
Ms. Humphris said that is the choice the Board had to make in
establishing a policy. Will there be a policy that is firm and not subject to
the problems that occur when making exceptions? That is the price the Board
has had to pay for doing that. In all the years the policy has been in place,
no one has ever been able to find a way to make an exception without the
danger of having it establish a precedent.
Mr. Davis said the policy does not have any flexibility in it that would
allow the Board to take circumstances under consideration relating to
environmental or other issues. If the Board goes outside of the policy to
make such considerations, the next project requested, and one which the Board
may not feel compelled to approve, can state environmental problems and other
circumstances. It will then become an issue for the court to determine
whether or not the policy is a firm policy, or a policy that should take other
factors into consideration. That is a ~chink in the armor" of the growth
management policy that has been important to this Board.
Mr. Marshall said it makes perfectly good sense that the Gottesman's
should be able to hook their property to the sewer line, but what Mr. Davis
said also makes good sense. It is Ms. Humphris' district, and he will not
vote against her. ~
Ms. Humphris said it is a tough thing. She believes the whole Board
would like to see that happen, but the Board has to look at the bigger picture
which is the growth management plan. Obviously, one departure from that
policy will take this Board to court, and it "goes down the drain from there",
or so to speak. The request is to set a public hearing, but with regret she
cannot support the request.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to deny
the request to go to public hearing. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
000:1.48'
Agenda Item No. 16. Wireless Telecommunications Task Force Final
Report, Presentation of.
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, was present to make the presentation.
He noted that the County has processed a total of 14 requests for towers
intended to provide cellular phone service. A total of eight requests have
been approved, and there are eight requests pending at this time. He said the
Telecommunications Task Force met several times, and this report is a summary
of their recommendations. One of their recommendations was to provide
substantial mapping of areas where improved service is desired, and that has
been partially done. He said that using the Open Space Plan will identify
those resources the County has already designated as significant resources
that should not be adversely impacted by the location of the wireless
facilities. Care needs to be taken that any areas identified as areas to be
avoided do not prohibit service. The Task Force also added a provision to
allow for administrative approval of mobile sites to serve during special
events or disasters.
Mr. Fritz said another recommendation was to provide maps of all the
known facilities of all providers which would aid in collocation and to allow
an increase, by-right, in the height of existing structures, which would
include buildings, towers, transmission lines, flag poles, light poles and
signage unless the increase in height causes the tower to be lit or result in
a change in lighting status.
Mr. Fritz said another recommendation was to establish 40 feet or 25
percent above the existing tree line, whichever is greater, as the standard
for construction of new towers in the rural areas. If an applicant wanted to
go beyond this, it would require justification, but would not guarantee any
approval. One of the more significant recommendations was to permit the by-
right construction of towers in commercial and industrial zoning districts
which are also designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. The height of
these by-right towers would be limited to 150 feet. Towers of greater height
would require a special use permit. There was some disagreement as to how
that should be done. Some merabers believed the tower should be subject to the
same setbacks as a primary structure in commercial or industrial, and some
felt it should be setback a distance of the height of the tower from any
adjoining residential or rural area property. There was also discussion about
the use of stealth sites, so they added a new word "camouflage technology",
and the tree towers are camouflage technology. Stealth sites are those in
church steeples or the cupola of a building.
Mr. Fritz said another goal of the Task Force was to insure compliance
with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. A fact sheet of information provided by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was included with this report
today. In particular, they discussed development of a standard review format
for staff reports and Board motions to insure that a written record is
established for all actions. Other recommendations are to determine the
detriments caused by telecommunication facilities and establish criteria to
determine when these detriments are substantial, and to establish a method for
determining the existing character of the district in which a facility is
proposed and establish criteria to determine when the character of the
district will be changed.
Mr. Fritz said staff had considered requiring once-a-year review of
telecommunication facilities. Based on information provided by the County
Attorney's Office, that cannot be done. The service providers have agreed to
informally provide once-a-year information to the Board. Even an informal
report would allow staff to find out what the providers are trying to do, and
help to get them to work together in collocation, etc. There was no intent to
get away from the old practice of using ~tower farms" wherever possible.
Mr. Fritz said the Task Force had provided the Board with
recommendations, for example, to do by-right expansions or locate in
commercial districts (which would require amendment of the Zoning Ordinance),
and some other recommendations require additional review. They also discussed
the hiring of RF consultants to determine areas that need additional service,
or to determine if existing structures might be adequate instead of adding a
new facility. Service providers believe there is no need to do that because
the cost and the time involved in applying for a new tower will exhaust all
000 [49
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
options for construction on existing facilities. He then offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Humphris asked for Board comments on the report.
Ms. Thomas said she is not convinced that a consultant is needed because
she thinks what would be asked of a consultant is exactly what the applicants
themselves will want to analyze carefully. She thinks they will try to find
all the existing tower(s) they can use. She said it would help her to be able
to see an example of something that is 40 feet above the existing tree line.
The by-right construction of towers in commercial and industrial zones, as
well as on County property, gives her trouble. This was brought to her mind
by the recent request near Murray Elementary School. She wondered what would
happen if the use were by-right on an elementary school property, or it was
by-right on an industrially-zoned property such as the one very near Murray.
~he would not be comfortable with either of those situations being by-right.
Mr. Fritz said the Ivy site is unique in that the industrial area is not
so designed in the Comprehensive Plan. The language recommended contemplates
that the commercial or industrial would be designated as commercial or
industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas said she had not thought
about that distinction. Mr. Fritz said many localities have established
criteria for the location of facilities on publicly-owned property to insure
it does not conflict with any existing or potential needs that the public may
have for the site.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Davis about the following statement from Section
704(a) of the 1996 Act: "... local government or instrumentality thereof
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services." He said he did not understand the
actual effect on the Board's considerations of the part of the sentence
referring to personal wireless services. Mr. Davis said that under the
Federal Act localities are pre-preempted in their land use considerations from
denying an adequate level of service so a wireless system can be put in place.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is both wireless and PCS. Mr. Fritz said there are
several types of technology, but the two most common types are wireless and
PCS.
Mr. Davis said that at this point, what is not delineated in case law is
what level of service has to be provided in order for the provision of
personal wireless services to be established. It will be a critical issue as
more of these things are proposed because service cannot be denied.
Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board needs a private engineering
firm because these requests will continue to come to the Board piecemeal and
the Board will get the information from the providers piecemeal. What the
Board needs is ~the big picture", because this independent group would
identify the areas of inadequate service, in what areas facilities should not
be provided, where there ms the possibility of collocation, all of the
technical detail which staff and the Board are not able to produce. Not
having an overall picture of what can be anticipated in the future has been
the problem all along. She suggested that the Board hold a work session on
this report. It was the consensus to have that session at the July 2 Board
meetZng.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. This item will be discussed after
the Executive Session.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins said he received a letter from a constituent expressing
concerns about a problem with deer and automobiles. Apparently the police
make no record of the number of incidents that occur. What this person is
suggesting is that Albemarle County have a deer control program. Before that
could be done, some records from the Police Department as to how many
automobiles have collisions with deer would be needed. He handed Mr. Tucker
the letter for reference.
000 .50
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of
the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters
regarding appointments to Boards and Commissions and an administrative
evaluation, and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion, probable litigation
relating to a claim for attorneys' fees and probable litigation relating to a
public safety incident. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:14 p.m. 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:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. Paul C. Harris, Sr. and
Dr. Maurice H. Lipper to the Children and Youth Commission, with new terms to
expire on June 30, 2000.
Ms. Thomas recommended the reappointment of Ms. Nancy Whiting Barnette
and Mr. Edward L. Strickler, Jr., to the Advisory Council on Aging, with new
terms to expire on May 31, 1999.
Ms. Thomas recommended the reappointment of Mr. Sanford P. Wilcox to
Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with new term to expire on March 31, 1999.
Mr. Perkins recommended the reappointment of Mr. Vernon W. Jones to the
Industrial Development Authority, with new term to expire on January 19, 2001.
Mr. Bowerman recommended the appointment of Mr. Gregory W. Edwards to
the Purchase of Development Rights Committee (there is no term limit on this
committee).
Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. Clark C. Jackson to the
Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors, with his new term to
expire on June 30, 2001.
Mr. Martin recommended the appointment Of Mr. Jeffrey W. Sobel as the
joint County/City representative on the Community Policy and Management Team
(there is no term limit on this committee).
Mr. Marshall seconded the recommendations for appointments and
reappointments. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Approved by
Board of County
Supervl sors
Initials
June 4, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
ooOxsx
(Not Docketed) Mr. Tucker said information from Planning staff dealing
with the N&S zoning request can be available for June 18. The Board agreed to
hear the petition on June 18, with the meeting being held in the Auditorium.
Mr. Marshall said he would be leaving town on July 6 for two weeks.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.