Judge Swett: Supermajority of votes not required for Meadowcreek Parkway easement

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, June 29, 2009

Judge Jay Swett of the Charlottesville Circuit Court has denied a claim made by the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park that a City Council vote to convey property to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) was unconstitutional. In an opinion dated June 26, 2009, Swett ruled the Virginia Constitution does not require four out of five Councilors to have approved the granting of temporary and permanent easements to VDOT in June 2008.  At that time, Council voted 3-2 to grant nearly 8.6 acres of land the City owns in Albemarle County to VDOT for construction, equipment storage and utility and drainage easements.

Download the presentation

Judge Swett’s ruling also denied an injunction requested by the Coalition to stop work on the Parkway, and also denied a request for the City to pay its legal fees. His ruling first gives a basic overview of Article VII, Section 9 of the 1971 Revised Virginia Constitution. The section contains two paragraphs, the first of which reads:

“No rights of a city or town in and to its waterfronts, wharf property, public landings, wharves, docks, streets, avenues, parks, bridges or other public places…  shall be sold except by an ordinance or resolution passed by an affirmed vote of three-fourths of all members elected to the governing body.”

The Virginia Supreme Court has only addressed this issue once, in Stending Development Corp. v Danville (1974). Swett writes in his opinion that that case is not helpful in shedding light in whether or not Council’s conveyance of land to VDOT is constitutional. Consequently, he says he is required to carefully examine the language used in the state Constitution.

“The framers’ choice of the term ‘sold’ should be given deference and the assumption is that the framers used this term for a specific purpose,” Swett writes. He then refers to the second part of Article VII, Section 9, which is a much longer paragraph which deals with special rights municipalities have to lease public property to other groups. For example, when Council granted a ground lease to the Piedmont Family YMCA in December 2007, this section restricted the terms of the lease to only 40 years.  Something to note is that Swett’s interpretation is that this second paragraph does not require a supermajority for such actions. Swett also writes that these two paragraphs must be taken together to interpret the intent of the Constitution’s framers:

“If the framers meant that any sale also included any lease, easement, or other encumbrance, then the framers would presumably would have chosen to add those words in addition to the reference of a sale,” Swett wrote in his opinion.

City Council voted 3-2 to grant the easement on June 2, 2008. Councilors Holly Edwards and Dave Norris voted against

The plaintiffs in the case had argued that transfer of land should be considered a sale because a sum of $43,120 was recorded as changing hands when the deed for the property was signed over to VDOT. At the May 2009 trial for the case, a representative from VDOT as well as Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris testified that figure was to reimburse the City and the Charlottesville School Board for landscape-screening and other related damages.

The plaintiffs had also argued that Article VII, Section 9 was designed to protect the public from having property it owns from being transferred for the benefit of private interests. Swett’s ruling details two competing interpretations of Section 9, and its precursor in the 1902 version of the Virginia Constitution. He then relates the work of constitutional scholar A.E. Dick Howard, who wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution that the framers intended for Section 9 to protect the public from elected officials who sold public land to private interests at lower than market value.

However, Swett said that interpretation did not fit in this case. He said that the City first turned consideration of the matter to a second elected body when it asked the Charlottesville School Board to vote on the easement in May 2008. That body voted 4-1 to grant the easements.  Swett also noted that the City will benefit by having a public road built and paid for by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

“It is difficult to see how this conveyance to VDOT by the City is within the category of evils which the framers of the Virginia Constitution had in mind when Section 9 of Article VII was considered,” Swett wrote.

Swett did rule that at least some of the plaintiffs in the case had legal standing to bring the case to trial in the first place. His ruling cited a Virginia Supreme Court decision to grant standing to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in a suit against tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris. Swett’s ruling states he could grant standing to those members of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park who claimed that the Meadowcreek Parkway would cause them injury by damaging the park. Specifically, that granted Stratton Salidis, Peter Kleeman, City Council candidate Bob Fenwick, John Cruickshank standing in the case. That means they can likely appeal the decision. However, Swett found that the North Downtown Residents Association and Richard Collins did not allege “a sufficiently particularized injury” and thus cannot play a role in an appeal.

Council updated on three Meadowcreek Parkway projects

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, June 16, 2009

The three components that make up the future Meadowcreek Parkway are all at various stages in the development process. While Albemarle County’s portion is under construction, the two elements to be built in Charlottesville are still in the planning process. All are scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2012. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090615-CC-MCP

An October 2008 drawing of the selected interchange design. Click for a larger view.

The City's Urban Construction Initiative Planner, Jeanette Janiczek, gave an update to Council at their meeting on June 15, 2009. She listed the various steps through which both McIntire Road Extended and the Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange must pass before construction can get underway.

Janiczek said the County’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway began in January and is on schedule to be completed by October of 2011. Janiczek reminded Council that this portion of the road will not open until the two elements in the City are complete, with the exception of a three-week window where traffic will be routed along the alignment while its connection to East Rio Road is built.

Two items, Janiczek reported, need to be cleared up before the City’s portion of the Parkway, known as McIntire Road Extended, can be advertised for bids. The first is the resolution of the Section 106 process. That is the federally-mandated procedure where a road that will affect historic assets must be evaluated so that steps can be taken to mitigate those impacts.

“The scope of the project has been identified, the historic resources have been identified within that, and it looks like there’s an agreement that McIntire Park is the only affected historic resource,” Janiczek said. The Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies are currently working with the City of Charlottesville to develop a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) which will outline the steps that need to be taken to address the impact on the park.  Janiczek said the MOU would be available “shortly” but if that doesn’t happen, the project could be pushed back.

The second item is the acquisition of a parcel of land that is currently under the control of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Negotiations are ongoing to coordinate the relocation of a utility easement for the Schenk’s Branch Interceptor with the road’s construction.

Janiczek said it would take a year to build the City’s portion as soon as the project is advertised and bids come back.

The Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange has several steps that must be completed before it can be advertised for bids. In August 2008, Council selected a grade-separated “signalized diamond” interchange as its preferred option, and Janiczek said that design is now 30% complete. That means that the actual locations of the various ramps are being oriented, and the environmental assessment documents are being updated as a result.

A design public hearing for the interchange is scheduled for late summer. Council will need to approve the final design when it is complete, and then right-of-way acquisition can begin. Janiczek said there may be as many as nine parcels of land that must be acquired to accommodate the interchange.

“Of these properties, if we assess the property, make a fair offer, and negotiations don’t reach a successful conclusion, then we may come before you again and request for condemnation proceedings,” Janiczek said.

Janiczek said City staff is also working with residents of Birdwood Road and Hillcrest Road to discuss how to address their concerns. The interchange will likely require the closing of Hillcrest Road. The interchange also must go through the Section 106 process because a historic landscape on the grounds of the former Rock Hill Academy and because McIntire Park will be affected.

If Council approves the final interchange design, purchases the right of way, and completes the Section 106 process for the interchange, Janiczek said construction on the interchange could begin in the summer of 2010. She said it will take two years to complete.

Before Janiczek’s presentation, Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert gave a history lesson on the reasons why a grade-separated interchange is to be built. In 1999, the City Council indicated it would support the construction of the Parkway, but only with certain conditions.

“One of the primary reasons for moving forward with [a grade-separated] interchange was the traffic that would be created [without it],” Tolbert said. Council’s initial approval was for a design that would have created an intersection that would have 17-lanes. Tolbert showed a simulation that depicted how vehicles traveling on the bypass would back up while waiting for traffic traveling through the Meadowcreek Parkway.

“Without an interchange, this is an intersection that would be terribly congested,” Tolbert said. Council decided to approve the Meadowcreek Parkway but only with a grade-separated interchange.  Former Senator John Warner was persuaded to secure a federal earmark of around $27 million to pay for the interchange.

One more hurdle that doesn’t affect the setting of advertising dates is the lawsuit filed by the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park. The community is awaiting a ruling from Judge Jay Swett, who heard six hours of arguments in the case on May 19, 2009. At issue is whether City Council’s conveyance of an easement on land in the County was legal. The Coalition sued the City and claim a supermajority of four votes is required to authorize the transfer of public land.

Another potential federal lawsuit regards the segmentation of the Meadowcreek Parkway into three projects. In that case, the road’s opponents claim that the project was illegally split into three in order to avoid federal regulations. That lawsuit has so far not yet been filed.

McIntire Park activist Bob Fenwick launches independent campaign for City Council

McIntire Park activist Bob Fenwick launches independent campaign for City Council
By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, May 15, 2009

Independent City Council Candidate Bob Fenwick

Bob Fenwick, a member of the McIntire Park Preservation Committee, has launched an independent campaign for the Charlottesville City Council that he promised would be a referendum on the Meadowcreek Parkway. He made his campaign announcement on the steps of his downtown-area home on May 15, 2009. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090515-Fenwick

 “For 40 years, the Meadowcreek Parkway has been an open wound on our community,” Fenwick said. “A political campaign is perfect because you can say things publicly to a lot of people  that you normally wouldn’t be able to say. We’re going to keep this issue up for five and a half months and we’re going to keep pounding it.”

Fenwick is also opposed to the building of the YMCA on the western end of the park, the temporary displacement of the Dogwood Festival, as well as the potential removal of a public wading pool that could be displaced by the Parkway’s interchange with the Route 250 bypass. Fenwick also said he was a supporter of adding dredging into the community water supply plan. 

Another important issue Fenwick said he would promote is economic development. In the coming weeks, he said he will announce specific steps he would like to see the City take in order to create jobs.
In the meantime, Fenwick is trying to collect the 125 signatures he needs to get on the ballot for the November 3, 2009 election. Like fellow independent Andrew Williams, Fenwick acknowledged that it will be a hard campaign to defeat the two Democrats running in the race, but that he was confident he could win.

“A new day is about to dawn in Charlottesville,” Fenwick said. “A day of citizen representation, not citizen rule.”

Fenwick’s policy positions are spread out among a host of websites that he operates. Here’s a list of some of them:

• http://www.SaveMcIntire.com
• http://www.stoptheparkway.com
• http://www.DemandJobs.net
• http://www.RivannaDam.com
• http://www.votebob.net/

Independent candidates interested in running for City Council have until June 9, 2009 to file paperwork with the City registrar.

See Charlottesville Tomorrow's Election Watch page for complete coverage of the City's 2009 elections.

Charlottesville Democrats hold forum for three City Council candidates

By Sean Tubbs & Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, May 7, 2009

The three Democratic candidates seeking their party’s nomination for the two open seats on the Charlottesville City Council have held their final debate before an open primary on Saturday, May 9, 2009. Incumbents Dave Norris and Julian Taliaferro along with challenger Kristin Szakos spent an hour answering questions at the party’s candidates’ forum on May 6, 2009.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090506-Dems-Candidates-Forum

Watch the video: Video: City Council Candidate Forum #2

Mayor Dave Norris said that if he is re-elected, he looks forward to the revitalization of the City’s public housing sites. He says redevelopment will be the community’s “best opportunity” to increase the amount of affordable housing units. Norris also said he would like Council to have more authority over the hiring and firing  of City department heads.

Challenger Kristin Szakos called for holding City Council meetings outside of Council Chambers, meetings where dinner and childcare would be made available to attendees. Szakos also said she supported a dedicated City fund for affordable housing, called for the upgrading of the Charlottesville Transit System to a “more urban” system, and said she would be a careful watchdog of City staff.

Incumbent Julian Taliaferro said he wanted to complete the community’s 50-year water supply plan, defended his unwillingness to support a dedicated affordable housing fund, and said he has the experience to help the City through the next few years of economic turmoil. Taliaferro also said he is capable of standing up to City Manager Gary O’Connell. 

Moderator Sean McCord had the opportunity to ask questions on current issues facing the City. None of the candidates felt the City had the responsibility to help complete the abandoned Landmark Hotel project on the Downtown Mall. 

On the topic of the Hillsdale Drive/Regal Cinema 4 expansion issue, Norris said a “communications breakdown” between City staff and the developers has lead to a misunderstanding that he said could be solved by moving the road’s alignment. Szakos said the City did not do a good job of bringing all the stakeholders together to explain the road’s purpose. Taliaferro did not directly answer this question, but did explain why he continued to be a supporter of the Meadowcreek Parkway.

Saturday’s unassembled caucus will be held from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM at Burley Middle School on Rose Hill Drive in Charlottesville. Registered City voters can participate as long as they are willing to sign a loyalty pledge that says they will not support another party’s candidate or an independent candidate in the general election.

See Charlottesville Tomorrow's Election Watch page for complete coverage of the City's 2009 elections.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Introduction of forum from moderator Sean McCord
• 02:40 – Opening statement from Mayor Dave Norris
• 04:10 – Opening statement from challenger Kristin Szakos
• 05:10 – Opening statement from incumbent Julian Taliaferro
• 07:00 – Question #1: “If you are elected or re-elected to the City Council and you return to a public forum like this a year from now, what would you like to say you accomplished after this year?”
• 11:30 – Question #2: “What distinguishes you as a Democratic candidate and what are the advantages of electing Democrats to City Council?”
• 17:00 – Question #3: “Do you think the City and the City taxpayers have a responsibility to help finish the Landmark Hotel project, and what would you like to see done with it?”
• 19:30 – Question #4: “Regal Cinema 4 has announced plans to rebuild their cinema behind K-Mart with additional screens and stadium seating. Many area residents are excited that they won’t have to drive to Short Pump in order to have a modern movie-going experience. Unfortunately, that theater sits directly in the path of the $30 million proposed road construction project to extend Hillsdale Drive to Hydraulic Road. At the same time, a group of concerned citizens have gone to court to prevent the construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway through McIntire Park. What do you propose, both short term and long term, as a solution to our traffic problems and to citizen opposition to building new roads?”
• 27:30 – Audience question #1: “We have a city manager form of government, and over the years I’ve come to believe that the city manager wields more power than anyone else for setting priorities and making decisions. My question to all three of you is, what system do you have in place to watchdog the city manager?”
• 33:30 – Audience question #2: (directed at Taliaferro) “You mentioned affordable housing in your opening statement. On several occasions, you have publicly endorsed the creation of a dedicated fund for affordable housing, but when it came time to vote for it, you were the deciding vote against it. How do you reconcile your public statements against it with your [previous] campaign promises?”
• 39:00 – Audience question #3: “I hear each Council member speak for affordable housing. The last time I heard someone talk about affordable housing they  built 12 houses in the 10th and Page neighborhood, and they were all $300,000 homes. Can someone define affordable housing and who are they going to build these affordable housing units for when a large majority of people in this town are not doctors and lawyers and only have incomes [between] $30,000 or $35,000? What kind of affordable housing are we offering those citizens?”
• 42:35 – Audience question #4: “You are supposed to be voting the will of the people. You’re up there representing me and other people in this room and other people not in this room. I don’t want you to vote what you think is best. I want you to vote what I think is best and what your constituents say is the best. Would you comment on that, please?”
• 48:00 – Norris asks Szakos: “What is it about community organizing that has helped to shape the way you would serve this community as a City Councilor?”
• 50:00 – Szakos asks Norris: “What is one thing that you were not able to  achieve during your first term that you’re running for reelection so that you can accomplish?”
• 52:00: Taliaferro asks Norris: “How do you think we can bring more pressure to bear to move [the 50 year community water supply] forward?”
• 53:45 – Closing statement from Taliaferro
• 54:45 – Closing statement from Szakos
• 55:55 – Closing statement from Norris
• 57:45 – Comments from City Democratic Co-Chair Jonathan Blank

Norris, Szakos and Taliaferro appear at first City Council candidate forum

By Sean Tubbs & Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, April 23, 2009

Left to right: Julian Taliaferro, Dave Norris and Kristin Szakos

The three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for the two seats on the Charlottesville City Council spent two hours on April 21, 2009 answering questions on the water supply, the Meadowcreek Parkway, the City’s efficiency study, Council priorities, and other community issues. The event was co-sponsored by Charlottesville Tomorrow and the Free Enterprise Forum in advance of the Charlottesville Democratic Party’s unassembled caucus to be held on May 9, 2009.  The general election is this November.

About 50 people attended the forum which was held at Burley Middle School in Charlottesville.  The candidates in order of appearance are incumbents Julian Taliaferro and Dave Norris, and challenger Kristin Szakos.

Charlottesville Tomorrow now presents the audio of the event. A full transcript as well as a video will be posted shortly.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090421-Dem-Candidates-Forum

Watch the video: Video: City Council Candidate Forum

Download the transcript

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Charlottesville Tomorrow's Executive Director Brian Wheeler describes the forum
• 02:00 - Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum explains the forum's rules
• 03:45 - First question: What is your top priority for action by City Council if you are elected?
• 10:30 - Second question: Do you support the goal of establishing a 50-year water supply for the City and County designated growth areas? Why or why not?
• 17:07 - Third question: How important is increased public water supply to the City of Charlottesville and its largest water customer, the University of Virginia?
• 21:00 - Fourth question: Given the long funding and implementation period for any major infrastructure project, what are the advantages and disadvantages to the current City Council revisiting previous Councils' decisions regarding such projects?
• 25:00 - Fifth question: How do you recommend the City evaluate its effectiveness on realizing its vision and accomplishing its stated priorities?
• 31:00 - Sixth question: What are the highest priority recommendations in the City's recently completed Quality of Service and Efficiency Study and which will you champion?
• 36:40 - Seventh question: The construction of the Albemarle portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway is underway, absent a court decision that would block the project, do you support funding and design approval of McIntire Road Extended and its grade-separated interchange with the Route 250 bypass? Why or why not?
• 44:00 - Eighth question: How important is the business community to the City of Charlottesville and what specific steps do you advocate to advance the priorities for economic development and workforce development established by City Council?
• 53:40 - Ninth question:  If you could focus on one area for improved partnership with Albemarle County, what area would that be?
• 59:00 - Audience question #1: City Council funds schools but does not set education policy or spending priorities. How can City Council act given the limitations of your role in setting school policy?
• 1:04:00 - Audience question #2: What will you do about noise from restaurants and music venues that disrupt mixed use residential neighborhoods like Belmont?
• 1:07:45 - Audience question #3: Do you approve of putting the Eastern Connector through Pen Park? Regardless of alignment, how important is this road as a transportation priority?
• 1:10:45 - Audience question #4: The 50-year water supply plan has only a 5% conservation goal built into its size and expense. Do you think this is reasonable, and if not, what do you think is a more reasonable goal?
• 1:15:30 - Audience question #5: What are your concrete plans for increasing the affordable housing stock in the City and keeping it affordable?
• 1:22:30 - Audience question #6: Would you support greater participation by neighborhood associations in the decision-making process in the City. If so, how would this be achieved. Please provide specifics.
• 1:26:15 - Audience question #7: There's been a great deal of discussion outside of Council chambers regarding McIntire Park and the YMCA. What will be your stance on the YMCA in McIntire Park if it comes before Council?
• 1:29:30 - Audience question #8: What creative or innovative ideas will you bring to a term on City Council
• 1:38:00 - Closing statement from Kristin Szakos
• 1:40:00 - Closing statement from Julian Taliaferro
• 1:43:10 - Closing statement from Dave Norris

City Council discusses capital budget; Planning Commission's call to cut Meadowcreek Parkway funding is omitted

How much will the City of Charlottesville spend on capital projects in the next five years? Less than in previous years, according to City Manager Gary O’Connell. During a March 24, 2009 work session with City Council, O’Connell said the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the next five years has been reduced by about $25 million compared to last year.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090324-CC-BWS2

As the work session began, Councilors first got an update on some revisions that have been made to the budget.  After being prompted by Councilor David Brown to make sure the revenue assumptions were calculated correctly, Beauregard and her staff reduced the City’s projected budget by over $163,000 due to reduced property assessments and the downturn in the economy. That reduction would have been higher, but the budget passed by the Virginia General Assembly restored some state funding that Beauregard had anticipated would be cut.

Budget Director Leslie Beauregard

The trends are really scary,” Beauregard said. “We just don’t know where these are going and we don’t know if these have hit bottom.” Beauregard showed Council how expenditures have been reduced to accommodate the decrease.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REDUCTIONS

Council next turned their attention to the CIP. The total projected CIP budget for FY2010 is over $16.3 million, and anticipates a bond issue of nearly $11.4 million. The rest of the CIP money will come from the transfer from the general fund as well as contribution from Albemarle County for joint projects such as CATEC and the Levy Building. Initiatives to be completed through the CIP are divided into bondable and non-bondable projects. 

Councilor David Brown expressed frustration about not having enough information about what projects would not be completed due to the reduction in the CIP. He was concerned that the City’s aging infrastructure issues would not be addressed. City Manager Gary O’Connell said that some projects would likely be delayed for a year, and that many projects have been completed. In particular, he singled out the HVAC replacement to City schools and buildings.

Council spent some time discussing one project that isn’t slated to begin until at least FY2014. Councilor Brown also asked if the $490,000 expenditure budgeted for the"Central Library renovations" in that year would be the City’s only contribution. Beauregard said the total project is expected to cost between $15 and $20 million, and O’Connell said the City’s projected funds for FY2014 are meant to be for architectural and engineering work. Both the City and the County have pushed the project back one year. Later in the meeting, Brown encouraged the City and the County to not defer maintenance projects at the library, out of a concern the library’s condition would worsen, raising the ultimate renovation costs. 

Councilor Satyendra Huja asked what the libraries’ plans are, and Beauregard said she felt that the library wanted to stay in its building on Market Street. O’Connell said that he thought it was too early to know for sure what would happen. Council agreed to have JRML Executive Director John Halliday appear before them in the near future for an update.

Another bondable project is the Ivy Road/Fontaine Area fire station, which is budgeted at $9.2 million over the next five years. Beauregard said the project has also been pushed back a year.

Mayor Dave Norris asked why there is no funding shown for the Old Lynchburg Road project in the coming year. Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert said the plans will not be ready in time for construction to start in the upcoming fiscal year.

Satyendra Huja asked what the current status of project to place utilities underground. The FY2010 CIP contains $100,000 for the project which is to be matched by private developers. Tolbert said the next phase will involve placing utilities lines on Water Street between the Jefferson Theater and the Live Arts building.

MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY

Non-bondable projects include items such as sidewalk repair, bridge maintenance, highway inspection, as well as a $450,000 match the City must pay to get state funding for its portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway (the City’s portion is referred to as McIntire Road Extended). Mayor Norris asked why Council had not been given recommendations from the Planning Commission to reallocate that money to parkland acquisition. Norris participated in the Planning Commission's December 2008 discussion. Beauregard said she never received anything in writing from the Planning Commission.

“If they had something in writing, I would have included it in the material,” Beauregard said. Councilor Huja asked why planning staff couldn’t have relayed the message, but Beauregard said she couldn’t answer for that department.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Planning Commission Chairman Jason Pearson said Beauregard was present when the Commission passed its motion to recommend that the City's capital budget exclude funding for the two components of the Meadowcreek Parkway and instead allocate increased funding to sidewalks and park acquisition.

"If in fact Council did not receive any information about our recommendations, then I will forward them directly to Council via e-mail," Pearson said. "I think it's the responsibility of staff to make sure [Commission recommendations] are conveyed."

COUNCIL DECIDES TO SPEND $178,000 ON BIKE LANES, PARKS AND TREES

Budget staff had provided a line item of $177,906 for “non bondable contingency” projects for Council to program during the work session. Councilor Huja commented that he would like to add $50,000 in additional funding for urban tree preservation and planting. Currently the proposed CIP for FY2010 shows a line item of $106,090.  Mayor Norris and Councilor Julian Taliaferro said they would support adding more. Norris said that he wanted to use $100,000 to fund parkland acquisition, and he got the support of at least two other Councilors.

Councilor Brown asked what further opportunities there might be to develop more bike lanes. Public Works Director Judy Mueller said that the City has already installed all of the bike lanes it can where the lane marker has to be simply painted. Brown said a lot of cyclists wanted to see improvements on Emmet Street between University Avenue and Barracks Road Shopping Center. Tolbert said the only way to accomplish that would be to take off one lane of traffic in each direction. He said City Trails Planner Chris Gensic has been looking for ways to build an off-road trail with limited success so far. Councilor Huja said that the City needed a program to expand bike lanes to bring it in line with what other university communities have achieved. Huja requested funding to turn his vision into reality.

“I don’t think we’re ever going to make [bikes] a mode of transportation unless people feel safe to ride them,” Huja said. Brown said he already felt safe cycling in Charlottesville, but that he’s been doing so ever since he was a student at the University of Virginia. He said inexperienced cyclists could use a little more protection.

NDS Director Jim Tolbert

Tolbert said the City might likely employ a strategy of routing bike traffic on other roads, similar to what will be done with the Old Lynchburg Road project. In that case, bike traffic will be routed on to Monte Vista Avenue, rather than spend the money to widen Old Lynchburg Road to accommodate bike lanes. Council decided to go ahead and add a $25,000 line item from the non-bondable contingency fund to pay for bike lane construction for FY2010.

Councilor Brown wanted to know if it were possible to save money for large capital projects in the future, such as the Central Library renovations. O’Connell said that the City is reducing its budget in part by reducing the CIP by about $25 million over the next five years. O’Connell said the City spent more on large capital projects when times were better, pointing to the consolidation of the City’s indoor pools. He said he would compile a list of all the CIP projects that have been completed in the past five years.

“If we’re spending half a million dollars less in facilities capital projects than we proposed last year, what is it we’re not doing?” Brown asked of Judy Mueller. She responded that central office renovations for the City’s schools has been cut, and funding for a renovation of Buford Middle School has been reduced. Paving of Charlottesville High School’s parking lot will be deferred for one year.

“There was no major project that was cut out that we said we wouldn’t do,” Mueller said. “It’s a matter of saying we may have to delay things.” She said she would send Brown a detailed list of what other projects will be deferred.

While the Council did not agree last November with a staff recommendation to institute a stormwater utility fee, they did approve the spending of $600,000 for “citywide stormwater initiatives” in each of the next three years, with $100,000 proposed in both FY13 and FY14. Council will revisit the idea of instituting a fee sometime in FY13 if they want to continue the program.

NEW FUNDING INITIATIVES

Council discussed how they would like to spend the $250,000 set aside for Council Priority Initiatives. They approved of a plan to use at least $112,000 of that money for workforce development programs. The remaining funds will be programmed during the next Council work session on April 2, 2009. 
In addition, Beauregard also said staff was recommending spending on three new initiatives: $85,373 would be spent to expand the City’s Youth Internship Program; $63,000 to provide free bus rides to participants of the Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW) program; and $60,000 on the proposed Community Dialogue on Race.  Councilor Huja expressed concern about the latter project. O’Connell said he would be bringing something more detailed before Council in the near future.

COUNCIL DEBATES CREATION OF A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ANALYST

One of the recommendations of the City’s recently completed efficiency study was for the City to create a new “Performance Management Analyst” position to coordinate all of the City’s efforts to save money through streamlining. The position, which is initially set at a base salary, of $60,000, would involve developing the City’s efficiency policy.

Councilors were not enthusiastic about the idea. Councilor Brown asked what other communities had such a position, and wondered what would actually be measured. Beauregard said each department will have to develop a mission and vision statements, along with outcomes, goals and objectives. Performance would be measured differently by each department.

Councilor Taliaferro said he assumed that the intent of the position would be to try to achieve more than $60,000 worth of cost savings each year to balance the cost of hiring the person. Beauregard said her staff is currently asking many questions about how to improve performance, but the new position would enable someone to look more deeply into how City government functions.

Mayor Norris asked if it would be better to use the available funding to train department heads in state-of-the-art performance techniques. O’Connell said the efficiency study showed that the existing City government structure does not have the “horsepower” to provide analysis that can lead to results.
Brown said the idea sounds like a good one, but that he was not convinced adding a new position to the payroll would be the best way to achieve the goal of increasing efficiency. Councilors and O’Connell went back and forth for several minutes before deferring a decision on the position to a future work session.

Council will next consider the budget at a work session on Thursday, April 2 at which funding for outside agencies will be considered.

Sean Tubbs

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Mayor Dave Norris calls the meeting to order
• 01:30 - Budget Manager Leslie Beauregard describes the agenda
• 05:40 - Councilor Taliaferro asks a question about the formula that determines school funding
• 06:00 - Beauregard moves discussion to the CIP 
• 08:15 - Councilor David Brown asks for a comparison of this year's bond issue to previous years
• 09:45 - Beauregard begins discussing bondable projects
• 10:45 - Brown asks for details on what will not be done because of the reductions to the CIP budget
• 15:30 - Brown asks about the $490,000 expenditure for the Central Library renovation project anticipated in FY2014
• 19:20 - Beauregard discusses transportation and access projects in the CIP
• 21:15 - Mayor Dave Norris asks why there are no funds for the Old Lynchburg Road improvements project
• 22:10 - Councilor Satyendra Huja asks about undergrounding utilities
• 24:00 - Beauregard discusses parks and recreation projects, including $5.7 million for Smith Pool replacement
• 24:30 - Discussion turns to non-bondable projects in the CIP, including sidewalk repair
• 26:30 - Huja calls for an additional $50,000 for urban tree planting
• 27:00 - Brown asks if sidewalk projects keep up with demand, with report by Jim Tolbert
• 31:30 - Huja calls for City to condemn property to ensure consistent sidewalks throughout City
• 33:30 - Mayor Norris asks why Council was not shown the recommendations from the Planning Commission
• 38:00 - Brown asks what the implications are for decreasing the amount of money for city wide traffic improvements from $200,000 to $150,000
• 39:45 - Tolbert updates Council on the pedestrian signals that are being installed downtown
• 41:40 - Discussion of $2 million in spending for "citywide stormwater initiatives"
• 42:30 - Discussion on $5 million for the Charlottesville Housing Fund and $625,000 for the Home Energy Conservation Grant
• 46:45 - Discussion of bike lanes
• 57:30 - Brown asks if Council should be saving for large projects
• 1:03:45 - Huja says that the budget should reflect the City Council's values
• 1:05:00 - Brown asks Mueller how capital project for facilities development will be reduced
• 1:12:00 - Brown points out that the school system's CIP is overseen by a committee, but that there's no process for prioritizing replacements in City buildings
• 1:13:15 - Huja asks about the future of the existing CTS yard
• 1:15:00 - Brown expresses concern about not funding anything to do with the library
• 1:17:45 - Beauregard recaps the requests for additional funds she heard uttered by Council
• 1:18:30 - Councilor Taliaferro asks what role stimulus money can play
• 1:19:15 - Work session shifts to a discussion of new funding initiatives
• 1:23:30 - Norris asks if Councilors are okay with spending money from
• 1:27:10 - Huja says he has concerns about spending $50,000 for Community Dialogue on Race
• 1:33:00 - Beauregard moves discussion to whether or not to create a new Performance Management Analyst position
• 1:49:30 - Councilor Holly Edwards offers her views on the position
• 1:52:00 - Beauregard describes what will happen next with the budget process
• 1:53:30 - Comments from Jim Moore with the Charlottesville Taxpayer Association
• 1:59:10 – Comments from Colette Hall of the North Downtown Neighborhood Association

Judge denies injunction to stop Meadowcreek Parkway construction; case to continue in mid-May

A Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge has denied an injunction that would have halted construction of the County’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway. Judge Jay Swett denied the request made by the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park for a number of reasons, but agreed to consider a second motion regarding the legality of the conveyance of land from the City of Charlottesville to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

At issue is a parcel of land in Albemarle County owned by the City on which  permanent and temporary easements were granted to VDOT by a 3-2 vote by Council on June 2, 2008. Crews with Faulconer Construction are now using the land as a staging area and have cleared the area of trees. The Coalition’s attorney, Jennifer McKeever, filed a lawsuit that claims the conveyance was illegal because Article VII, Section 9 of the Virginia constitution requires a supermajority of at least 4 votes for the sale of public land. The Coalition also requested an injunction to stop all work at the site until the legal issues involving the conveyance are resolved.

The injunction was the sole subject of a three-hour hearing on March 18, 2009. Judge Swett said he would make his decision based on a few questions.

1. Could the Coalition provide enough evidence to ultimately prevail in the supermajority case?
2. If the Court did not grant the injunction, would the Coalition continue to be harmed by the work being done at the site?
3. Is any harm potentially suffered by the Coalition outweighed by the harm that would be suffered by VDOT?

Both the City of Charlottesville and the Virginia Department of Transportation are defendants in the case. In his opening comments, Judge Swett said they had raised two legal arguments in their requests to have the motion denied. First, the City claims that the Coalition does not have sufficient legal standing to even act as a plaintiff. Second, does the Coalition as an entity have a personal stake in the outcome of the case?

OPENING ARGUMENTS

This photograph of the site taken by Coalition member Peter Kleeman was one of several used as evidence during the hearing

During her opening argument, McKeever described the Coalition as a group that was organized in August 2008 to preserve the recreational spaces of the City. She said its members are citizens who have repeatedly spoken out against the use of McIntire Park for a roadway. McKeever said the conveyance of the easement can be classified as a “sale” because part of the easement is permanently dedicated to VDOT. She expressed her confidence that the Coalition would ultimately prevail because she would be able to demonstrate how the City violated the Virginia Constitution.

City Attorney Craig Brown used his opening statement to attack the legal standing of the Coalition. He claimed that under Virginia law, “representational standing” is only granted in cases where the group itself has a legal interest in the outcome of the case. On the question of whether the Coalition could ultimately prevail, Brown said a supermajority by Council is not required because the land in question is under the exclusive control of the City School Board. That elected body voted to grant the easement on a 4-1 vote with two abstentions in May 2008.  In addition, Brown argued that a supermajority isn’t even necessary for that body because the conveyance of land is through a permanent easement, not a sale. The City of Charlottesville will retain the deed. Additionally, Brown claimed that the ultimate use of the property will be for public benefit, and not for private use. He explained that according to his view of Virginia’s constitutional history, the supermajority requirement was placed in the Constitution to prevent the sale of public land for private gain.

In her opening statement, VDOT attorney Lori Pound focused her argument on the harm that her agency would suffer if the injunction were granted. She claimed that VDOT would lose $20,000 for each day when crews could not work. VDOT would be forced to stop using the area to store equipment being used to construct Albemarle County’s portion of the parkway.

WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFF

McKeever called four witnesses to help support her argument. First, John Cruickshank of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club was called to establish why the Coalition was formed. Cruickshank said that he is currently unable to enjoy the Rivanna Trail because a portion of it has been closed to accommodate the construction. He called the Meadowcreek Parkway a mistake and that legal action was the only option available to his group. 

During cross-examination, City Attorney Brown used his questions to try to establish that the Coalition is only a loose organization and not an entity with legal standing. He asked Cruickshank if the Coalition held any property, paid any taxes, had any by-laws, or any official group activities. Cruickshank responded with a no to each question. Brown also asked how much of the Rivanna Trail had been affected by the temporary closure. Cruickshank acknowledged that the majority of the trail’s route is still open to the public.

Judge Swett took the opportunity to ask Cruickshank a few questions of his own. He wanted to know why the Coalition had waited so long to file its motion. Cruickshank responded that the deed to the property that showed the easement had not been filed until January of this year. In response to a question about how he would personally be affected by the Parkway, Cruickshank said the value of property he owns on Parkway Street will go down because of increased traffic.

Next, McKeever called Rich Collins to the stand, and he described the Coalition as an “ad hoc” successor to other groups that were formed to oppose the Meadowcreek Parkway, including his own Sensibile Alternatives to the Meadowcreek Parkway (STAMP). Collins said he is personally affected by the current construction because it interrupts a regular walk that he said he has been taking through McIntire Park for years.

VDOT Attorney Pound used her cross-examination to ask Collins if he was aware of the various conditions under which the easement was granted . Namely, landscaping must be planted to screen the playing fields from the Parkway and a replacement athletic field must be provided. Collins said he was unaware of the replacement athletic fields, but that he was aware a north-south multi-use trail was planned as part of the Parkway’s design.

Download a .PDF of the June 2, 2008 ordinance

Judge Swett asked Collins if the Rivanna Trail would be prevented from re-opening, and Collins acknowledged that the trail would re-open. Given that statement, Swett followed up and asked Collins why he had a legal interest in the case. Collins said that the Coalition felt the County’s portion of the road was being rushed through to prejudice various courts from ruling against it, and that the Coalition’s lawsuits are a strategic move to stop what he called the “steam-rolling” of the Parkway construction.

McKeever’s third witness was former City Council candidate Peter Kleeman, who showed photographs documenting the “irreparable harm” that he alleged has been done on the City-owned property.  During her cross-examination, Pound asked Kleeman if he was aware of the various amenities that will come with the Parkway. Kleeman responded that he was, but that he had not seen a final design that proved the trail would be built.

Judge Swett pointed out to Kleeman that he and his colleagues were steadfast opponents of the Parkway. He asked what Kleeman ultimately wanted. Kleeman responded that he wanted the community to be presented with all possible information about the Parkway, reasoning that more people would oppose it if they knew how much of an impact it was going to have on what he called the City’s best natural area.

“This is one of my most prized places,” Kleeman said. “No replacement parkland can replace what is going to be lost.”

McKeever’s final witness was Stratton Salidis, who said early on during his testimony that membership in the Coalition was as simple as signing one of the many petitions his group has circulated. Salidis, who occasionally works as a teacher, said he would like the entire park to be available in the future to his students as well as his nephews. McKeever borrowed from Pound’s line of questioning to ask about whether he knew of the various amenities that would come with the Parkway. Salidis doubted that the bike trail would come to pass, and added that he had a right to see his elected officials stay within the law. He said if Council really wanted the road, a supermajority of Councilors should have supported the easement.

During his cross examination, City Attorney Craig Brown asked Salidis if people who signed his petitions were told upfront that they would become members of the Coalition. Salidis responded there was no “official designation” for membership in the group. After his testimony, the defense rested.

WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE

VDOT Attorney Pound called one witness. Kenneth Shirley is the Construction Engineer for VDOT’s Culpeper District. He testified that the three projects that make up the Meadowcreek Parkway (the City’s portion, the County’s portion and the 250/Parkway Interchange) each have separate utility and stand on their own merits. Shirley said from an engineering standpoint that the County’s portion could operated independently of the others. (The ordinance granting the easement clearly states that this is against the City’s wishes.)

After giving an update on how much work has been completed on the project to date, Pound asked Shirley to tell the Court how much VDOT would suffer if the injunction were granted. Shirley responded that at least $20,000 a day would be lost, as VDOT would still have to pay the Faulconer Construction according to the terms of the contract.

During her cross-examination, McKeever asked Shirley to give a time for when the road would open. Shirley said the project was scheduled to be completed by October 14, 2011. He explained, however, that the roadway could be temporarily opened next summer to divert traffic when a portion of Rio Road will be closed for realignment. McKeever asked why VDOT was in such a hurry to build the road, given that the City has not yet moved forward with either of the two components within city limits. Shirley said he could not respond.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

McKeever used her closing argument to establish that her client does have legal standing, and claimed the injunction should be granted to stop the harm that has been done to the property. Judge Swett asked how any more harm could be done, given that the land has already been cleared. McKeever said “irreparable harm” would occur if a road is constructed, something she said would forever change the use of the land. 

Swett said the Court was in a dilemma, because the motion requesting the injunction was filed after construction had occurred. The motions were filed on February 23, 2009. Swett asked why the Coalition had waited so long. McKeever said the Coalition could not act until the deed depicting the easement had been recorded with the City. She also said that the Coalition lacked the legal resources to respond immediately after the ordinance was approved in June 2008.

Swett pointed out that a generalized interest to save the park might not necessarily be interpreted as sufficient legal standing. McKeever responded with a question.

“If this Coalition does not have legal standing, who would?” McKeever asked.

In her closing argument, VDOT attorney Lori Pound claimed that the Coalition had not done enough to prove that they had legal standing, saying that “mere proximity” to the project by some of its members was not sufficient. Pound argued that the plaintiff had shown a “lack of diligence” by not filing the injunction before construction began.

In his closing argument, City Attorney Craig Brown said the Coalition had not done enough to show they were anything more than a loosely-organized group. He said individuals might have standing, but that representational standing did not apply.  He also argued that the transfer of land was legal because the easement was granted to a public agency by another public agency. Hence, a supermajority was not required.

JUDGE SWETT’S RULING

Judge Swett provided an oral ruling so all parties would know what to expect. He first took on the matter of standing, and said that he “assumed” that the Coalition had met all the requirements. However, he cautioned that another judge may have a different interpretation and warned that if he was incorrect, any further proceedings may be a waste of time.

Swett said the Court was dealing with a gray area as there are no Virginia Supreme Court decisions regarding the question of the supermajority. He also found that the Coalition would not be harmed by continued work at the site, and said they should have filed the injunction earlier if they had hoped to stop construction. Judge Swett said VDOT would be harmed if he granted the injunction, and so he opted to deny the request.

The legal questions surrounding the possible requirement of the supermajority will be heard at a meeting on May 19, 2009 at 9:00 AM. A location has not yet been announced.

Sean Tubbs

City Council’s Meadowcreek Parkway opponents vote against appropriation

The Charlottesville City Council has voted 3-2 to appropriate over $10 million in transportation funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation to the Meadowcreek Parkway project. The money represents nearly five years of urban roadway construction funds the City has received as part of a pilot program which gave more control to local officials. Councilors Dave Norris and Holly Edwards voted against the appropriation because of their opposition to the road which will cut through McIntire Park between Melbourne Road and the Route 250 bypass.

Jim Tolbert, the City’s Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said the City joined VDOT’s First Cities Initiative in May 2005. Under the arrangement, the City would manage projects with money provided by VDOT in a quarterly payment.

“Due to all the confusion encountered because it’s a new program, we had $10,353,701 that didn’t get appropriated,” Tolbert said. “This is essentially an act of balancing the checkbook.” Later, Tolbert added that from now on, he will bring the appropriation request before Council on an annual basis.
The money is earmarked for two City road priorities. Approximately one-fifth ($2,345,667) will go to the Hillsdale Drive Extended project with the remaining going to the Meadowcreek Parkway interchange ($8,008,034) at the Route 250 bypass. 

Mayor Norris said he thought the money for the Meadowcreek Parkway could be used elsewhere.
“Even though I know this is a house-keeping matter, I’d love to see those dollars reallocated elsewhere,” Norris said. Councilor David Brown asked if that were possible. Tolbert said that with some action, some of the money for Hillsdale could be redirected elsewhere, but that the money for the interchange comes from the $27 million federal earmark secured by former Senator John Warner (R-VA).  If Council chose to not proceed with that project, the money would have to be given back to VDOT.  Tolbert added that some of the money has already been spent on preliminary engineering.

The Capital Improvement Program budget contains a line item of $450,000 to serve as the City’s match for federal and state funding. In December 2008, the Planning Commission voted to recommend moving that money to sidewalk construction and maintenance. Council will consider the CIP at a budget work session on Tuesday, March 24.

Sean Tubbs

Meadowcreek Parkway opponents file first in a potential series of lawsuits

 

A group called the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) has filed two legal actions to stop the City’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway. Attorney Jennifer McKeever filed two motions in the Charlottesville Circuit Court on February 24, 2009 according to a press release from the group. The group is also preparing another battle in what could be a long legal campaign. McKeever is also the Co-Chair of the City’s Democratic Party and a former candidate for the party’s nomination to City Council in 2007.

McKeever’s first action was to file a motion asking for the court to declare that the City illegally transferred land to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). In June 2008, City Council approved permanent and temporary construction easements on 9 acres of land owned by the City in Albemarle County . The motion for declaratory judgment claims the action was unconstitutional because state law required a supermajority to convey public land to another body [4 votes on a 5 member body]. The vote on June 2, 2008 was 3-2 with Councilor Holly Edwards and Mayor Dave Norris voting no.

Download the Request for Declaratory Judgment

The second action is a request for a preliminary injunction to immediately halt all activities related to the construction of the Parkway. This request builds on the argument being made in the motion of judgment. The request claims that VDOT has caused and is causing “irreparable harm” by using the 9 acres as a staging area for the parkway’s construction.

Download the Request for Preliminary Injunction

Stratton Salidis, a member of CPMP, has frequently appeared before Council to make this argument. On September 1, 2008 he referred Council to Article 7, Section 9 of the Virginia Constitution.

City Attorney Craig Brown (file photo)

“This provision is designed to give extra protection to valuable City lands to make certain they are not given away without due consideration,” Salidis said. Councilor Julian Taliaferro then asked City Attorney Craig Brown to comment.

First, Brown claimed the City did not permanently transfer the land but instead granted permanent and temporary easements on both City and County land. 

“I don’t know anyone who has suggested that the supramajority requirement applies to a temporary construction easement, [in McIntire Park,]” Brown said. “That is merely the legal requirement for VDOT to come onto City property to construct the road… When the project is completed the road will all belong to the City so you are not conveying anything permanently.”

Brown acknowledged the City’s land in the County near Charlottesville High School will be a permanent easement to be held by VDOT. He said the City requested an opinion from the Attorney General about whether a supermajority was needed.

“It was the opinion of the Attorney General at that time that conveyances from a municipality to the state for the construction of a road was not within the constitutional requirement… for a supermajority,” Brown said. The April 2004 opinion from then-Attorney General Jerry Kilgore  concludes that a supermajority is not needed because a public purpose is being served.

“Public highways belong entirely to the public at large,” Kilgore wrote. “I am satisfied that the parkway will be a public road.”

A hearing for the two motions has not yet been set.

CPMP is also pursuing another legal angle to stop the parkway. Andrea Ferster, an attorney from Washington D.C., sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration which outlines their case for why the federal guidelines from both the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act need to be applied to the entire Meadowcreek Parkway, rather than just the Interchange between the 250 Bypass and McIntire Road.

Ferster serves as the General Counsel for Rails to Trails Conservancy and has extensive experience with enforcement of federal environmental and historic preservation law. The letter ends with the proposition, “Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park intends to pursue all available legal remedies, including but not limited to litigation to enforce NEPA and Section 4(f).”

Download Ferster's letter to the Federal Highway Administration

To make this case, Ferster argues that the County’s Meadowcreek Parkway, the City’s McIntire Road Extended, and the Route 250 Interchange are, in fact, dependent on each other, and that the 1997 subdivision of the Meadowcreek Parkway into three parts was intended to skirt federal regulations.

Ferster provides a few reasons for this position. Prior to 1997, the Meadowcreek Parkway had been considered a single entity, and an Environmental Impact Statement was at one time contemplated for the whole project. She also points to a 775-foot segment of the federally funded Interchange plans that juts to the north into McIntire Park and argues that this would not serve a purpose without a road to connect to it.

Furthermore, Ferster contends that the City has made it clear in writing that they would not financially support their portion of the roadway without assurance of federal funds for the Interchange. Finally, she highlights the Environmental Assessment for the Interchange, which assumes increased traffic volumes of a planned Meadowcreek Parkway in order to justify its own construction. Based on legal precedent from other similar cases around the country, the success of the lawsuit appears to hinge on how well the interdependence of these projects can be demonstrated.

Daniel Nairn & Sean Tubbs

Supervisors pass resolution in support of naming Meadowcreek Parkway after John Warner

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution in support of naming its portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway after former Senator John Warner (R-VA). However, the motion offered by Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) stated that the County will not rename the road the John Warner Parkway unless the City of Charlottesville follows suit for their portion.

Former Albemarle County Supervisor Forrest Marshall appeared before the Board to make his case, continuing his campaign to name the parkway after his old friend. This time he offered more details about Warner’s attempts to keep the National Ground Intelligence Center in the community, and praised Warner for helping to secure funds for Scottsville’s levee system to prevent catastrophic floods. Marshall said the renaming has the support of Butch Davies, the Culpeper District’s representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).

Before voting on the resolution, Rooker asked County Attorney Larry Davis to describe who has the authority to name a road. Davis replied that the City and the County have the ability to name a secondary road, like the Meadowcreek Parkway, without seeking approval from any other agency. However, naming rights for the City’s interchange at the Route 250 Bypass are reserved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board because it is classified as a primary road project. The City can request the CTB to choose a specific of name, but the rules dictate the interchange cannot be named after a living person without approval of the General Assembly.

Rooker called the request appropriate given that Warner’s role in securing the $27 million earmark for the interchange allowed the project to move forward. However, Rooker said that people don’t tend to notice if interchanges are named.

Before the vote, Chairman David Slutzky (Rio) urged caution against unilateral action without communicating to the City that their input is required as well.

“There’s been some sensitivities with the City residents about the construction project in the first place and I wouldn’t want to do anything that is too proactive,” Slutzky said. “We’re in effect suggesting that this name is acceptable to us and that we embrace it but we’re not actually adopting it until such time as the City were to decide that they to thought it was an appropriate name for their portion.”

After the vote, Marshall returned to the podium to thank the Board for their support.

Sean Tubbs