South Fork dredging selection committee picks two firms for interviews

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, July 10, 2009

Nebraska-based HDR Engineering  and Pennsylvania-based F.X. Browne  have been named as finalists in a process to hire a firm to conduct a feasibility study related to dredging sediment from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to restore water supply storage capacity. Members of the committee are now formulating questions to submit to representatives of the two companies before they are invited to Charlottesville to give both a public presentation as well as a closed session interview.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090708-Dredging

The members of the committee are:

• Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the RWSA
• Mark Graham, Director of Community Development for Albemarle County
• Gary Fern, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority
• Rebecca Quinn, a water resources engineer and Charlottesville’s citizen representative
• Chuck Kent, Capital Projects Engineer for the RWSA
• Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities for the City of Charlottesville
• Marty Quinn, Utilities Engineer for the City of Charlottesville
• Judy Mueller, Public Works Director for the City of Charlottesville
• Russell Perry, Architect with the Smith Group and Charlottesville citizen representative

Members of the committee deliberated for two hours at their first meeting

Mueller was absent from this first meeting. Perry participated via teleconference. Kurt Krueger, attorney for the RWSA, sat at the table as the committee’s counsel but did not have a vote.

Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the RWSA, began the meeting by passing out a list of questions by which the committee might begin its discussion. Eight proposals were received by the RWSA, and Frederick said the committee had to decide for itself the best way to screen the candidates.  The group decided not to have a chair and opted to use summary minutes.

Forty minutes into the meeting, each participant was asked to name their top three firms.

Gary Fern: HDR Engineering , F. X. Browne, Dalton, Olmstead and Fugelvand
Mark Graham: HDR Engineering, F.X. Browne, Gahagan and Bryant Associates
Rebecca Quinn: HDR Engineering, Anchor QEA, F.X. Browne
Chuck Kent: HDR Engineering, Anchor QEA, F.X. Browne
Lauren Hildebrand: HDR Engineering , F. X. Browne, Dalton, Olmstead and Fugelvand
Tom Frederick: F.X. Browne, Dalton, Olmstead & Fugelvand, HDR Engineering
Marty Quinn: HDR Engineering, Anchor QEA
Russ Perry: HDR Engineering, F.X. Browne and Anchor QEA

The committee quickly reached consensus that HDR Engineering and F.X. Browne would be interviewed. They spent the rest of the meeting determining what the interview process will be like for the applicants. Would the questions be provided in advance? Would the questions be made in public, during a closed meeting, or a mixture of the two?

The committee eventually decided to have each firm give a public presentation followed by an interview during closed session. The closed session would give each firm the opportunity to respond candidly without giving proprietary information to the other firm.

Committee members are now writing detailed questions for each applicant. Those questions will be edited by Frederick before being sent to each firm. Committee members will also be able to ask any other question during the closed session portion of the interviews. 

Applicant interviews are tentatively scheduled for either July 30, 2009 or August 3, 2009.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the RWSA, begins the meeting
• 03:00 – Committee discusses whether or not to have detailed or summary minutes
• 04:00 – City representative Rebecca Quinn asks for members to introduce themselves 
• 07:30 – Frederick asks committee members what qualities they wanted in selecting a consultant
• 08:30 – Frederick asks what additional information committee needs to make a decision
• 16:10 – Frederick asks what process should be for each candidate firm to be interviewed
• 20:20 – Kurt Krueger explains how Virginia Freedom of Information Act governs closed meetings for the committee
• 25:30 – Frederick asks how to handle the possibility of needing to go into closed session to handle firms’ concerns about sharing proprietary information in an open session
• 36:00 – Frederick volunteers to collect and organize committee members’ questions for interview
• 36:05 – Frederick asks how the committee will select a finalist
• 40:00 – Frederick asks what the committee expects out of the first meeting
• 43:00 – Gary Fern lists his top three choices for the short-list
• 43:35 – Mark Graham lists his top three choices for the short-list
• 43:45 – Rebecca Quinn lists her top three choices for the short-list
• 44:05 – Chuck Kent lists his top three choices for the short-list
• 44:30 – Lauren Hildebrand lists her top three choices for the short-list
• 44:50 – Marty Quinn lists his top three choices for the short-list
• 45:10 – Russ Perry lists his top three choices for the short-list
• 46:30 – Kent makes the case for Anchor QEA
• 48:00 – Discussion returns to how applicants will be interviewed
• 58:40 – Quinn asks if the committee should formulate questions tonight
• 1:32:10 – Perry suggests hybrid approach to open v. closed session question
• 1:44:10 – Frederick reviews the consensus reached at the meeting

Council indicates support for up-zoning Longwood Drive in Charlottesville

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, July 9, 2009

Longwood Drive is a cul-de-sac, but right-of-way is available for a connection to Moseley Drive

On July 6, 2009, Charlottesville City Council held the first of two readings on a proposal to rezone portions of Longwood Drive near the Fry’s Spring neighborhood from R-2 Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). That designation would allow for the applicant, Neighborhood Properties, to demolish 18 existing residential units in order to build 43 units in a series of townhouses. Another 16 units would be renovated, increasing the total amount of housing on the road by 25 units. The existing units are rental properties priced for low-income families. Many of the new units would be constructed for sale. After a half-hour of discussion, Council unanimously approved the proposal’s first reading.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090706-CC-Longwood

The Charlottesville Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning on a 4-2 vote at its meeting on January 13, 2009. The majority cited a concern that the City would lose some of its stock of affordable rental housing, as well as concerns about the increased amount of traffic that would be generated on Longwood Drive, a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Michael Osteen recused himself from that meeting because he worked with the developer to create the plan.

The applicant is offering the following proffers:

• A pedestrian trail from Longwood Drive to Jackson Via School
• A new pedestrian trail connecting Longwood Drive to the Rivanna Trail
• $20,000 to help pay for improvements of existing path from Jackson Via to Rivanna Trail
• New parking spaces would use pervious paving methods to reduce stormwater runoff
• 15% of the dwelling units would be classified as “affordable”
• Applicant would donate $50,000 to the Charlottesville Housing Fund
• Any resident displaced by demolition would be given re-location assistance if they move into another unit owned by Neighborhood Properties
• Four rental units would be made available to those with Section 8 vouchers for a period of five years

City Planner Brian Haluska said that staff recommended approval of the proposal because the conceptual plan meets the City’s goal of increasing economic diversity within neighborhoods. However, Haluska cautioned that he was aware that because Longwood Drive is already considered a low to middle income neighborhood, this project could be seen as gentrifying the neighborhood by introducing home ownership.

Richard Spurzem of Neighborhood Properties

Richard Spurzem, a developer with Neighborhood Properties, noted in his testimony that this is the first time he has sought a rezoning in the City in his twenty-nine years of working in Charlottesville’s rental housing industry. He began buying up properties on Longwood Drive in 1998, and said he has taken a number of steps to improve the neighborhood since that time, including constructing speed humps, planting additional trees and installing streetlights.

“What Mike Osteen designed with [the conceptual] plan was to eliminate this 1970’s suburban type cul-de-sac development that was developed by Dr. [Charles] Hurt,” Spurzem said. Right now the street solely consists of three bed-room townhouses, and the rezoning would be an important step towards improvement. Spurzem said the new Longwood Drive would have a greater diversity of housing types.

Several people spoke during the public hearing, mostly in favor of the project. Many of them were dressed in yellow Neighborhood Properties t-shirts.  Brian Hogg, a resident of the Fry’s Spring neighborhood and a member of the Board of Architectural Review (BAR), said he thought the project was a good one because it would increase economic diversity in the neighborhood, and because the proffers being offered would benefit the community as a whole.

However, some residents of Longwood Drive spoke out in opposition of the project. Cindy Stratton has lived on the street for 22 years, and said she was concerned about the impacts that will be created by the additional people.

“The parking is already deplorable, and we’re unable to handle that, so increasing units in my mind is not logical,” Stratton said. Stratton also said Neighborhood Properties has not done enough to reach out to neighbors on surrounding streets to communicate the scope of the project.

Wali Zakee, a homeowner on Longwood Drive, echoed Stratton’s concerns about bringing more people onto a street that is already overloaded with traffic. He also said the public trail might be a nuisance for property owners.

Colette Hall of the North Downtown Residents Association  had asked if a second entrance would be required as part of the rezoning to PUD. Brian Haluska said that usually depends on circumstances. He said sometimes residents of adjoining neighborhoods campaign against second entrances out of a new PUD out of a fear of additional cut-through traffic. In the case of Longwood Drive, the developer R.L. Beyer owns a nearby right-of-way called Flint Drive that has not yet been built.

“If that road is ever to be constructed, there will be a second way in and out of this neighborhood,” Haluska said. Spurzem said it was his belief that R.L. Beyer would one day build that road.

During Council’s discussion, Councilor Satyendra Huja said he thought the new development would improve the neighborhood and would providing more affordable housing. Councilor Julian Taliaferro agreed with Huja.

Councilor Holly Edwards said that she supported the idea of improving the neighborhood but was not sure if a rezoning to PUD was really necessary. She said she wanted more amenities for children and wanted an ongoing financial commitment to maintaining the new trail connections. Edwards also wanted Spurzem to make a larger commitment to the City’s housing fund. She also suggested that the developer speak with officials at Jackson Via School to see how they can transform the neighborhood into one that offers outdoor activities for children.

Huja said he wanted to see a play area depicted on the site plan when it comes to the Planning Commission.  Spurzem pointed him in the direction of a “tot lot” that is currently included in the conceptual plan.

Councilor David Brown said he thought the proffers submitted with the project sets a standard by which Council should judge future rezonings.

Mayor Dave Norris said his opinion of the project had improved since the Planning Commission, but added that he still thought there were some concerns about parking that still needed to be worked out.

If Council grants the rezoning at its next meeting, the developer will then need to submit a site plan to NDS. After that, the Planning Commission will be asked to review that plan to see if reasonably conforms to the conceptual plan as well as the comprehensive plan.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Mayor Dave Norris calls item to order
• 01:20 – Staff report from City Planner Brian Haluska
• 06:45 – Presentation by Richard Spurzem of Neighborhood Properties
• 11:40 – Public hearing comment from Brian Hogg of the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association
• 14:15 – Public hearing comment from Longwood Drive resident Cindy Stratton
• 16:25 – Public hearing comment from Colette Hal of the North Downtown Residents Association
• 17:15 – Public hearing comment from Wali Zakee, a homeowner on Longwood Drive
• 20:50 – Public hearing comment from Cal Tate, Longwood Drive resident
• 22:00 – Public hearing comment from Anita, Longwood Drive resident and Neighborhood Properties employee
• 22:50 – Public hearing comment from Allison Ruffner of Graves Street
• 24:40 – Public hearing comment from Cynthia Anderson of Longwood Drive
• 25:11 – Public hearing comment from Denny Howard of Longwood Drive
• 26:00 – Norris asks Haluska to follow up on concern from Colette Hall regarding two-street access for PUDs
• 29:00 – Norris asks question about parking
• 32:20 – Councilor Brown asks a question about the proffers
• 33:17 – Councilor Satyendra Huja expresses his support
• 34:40 – Councilor Holly Edwards says she needs more in order to vote for the rezoning
• 37:10 – Councilor Brown indicates his support for the project
• 38:10 – Norris indicates his support for the project
• 39:00 – Huja asks for a playground or play area to be included with site plan

Charlottesville moves a step closer to single room affordable housing

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Single room occupancy (SRO) housing units have been touted as one way to address the community’s homeless issue by providing an affordable studio apartment to qualified individuals. Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH), a Richmond-based non-profit, has announced its plans to build a 60-unit facility somewhere inside Charlottesville City limits. City Council has allocated $125,000 to support their efforts.

However, the City’s zoning code does not necessarily accommodate SRO facilities. On one hand, the units would need to be on a parcel of land that allowed for high residential density. On the other, VSH offers support services that would not necessarily be allowed in residential zoning districts.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090706-CC-SRO

Developed by VSH, Gosnold Apartments opened in December 2006 to serve the homeless population in the Tidewater area (Source: VSH)

The Charlottesville Planning Commission narrowly recommended making changes to the City’s zoning ordinance with a 3-2 vote at its meeting on June 9, 2009. Under their changes, a certain percentage of units could be open to more than one person. The Commission also supported a recommendation by VSH that each unit contain a bathroom and kitchen area, despite the comments of Commissioner Michael Osteen who said that financing those units may prove to be problematic.

The Commission also recommended adding the University Medium Density (UMD) and University High Density (UHD) zoning districts to a list of where SRO units could be built. However, City Planner Ebony Walden said because the public hearing notice did not specify that the two districts were being considered, they could not be added to the ordinance without a new round of public hearings.

The first reading of the ordinance change was before the City Council during their meeting on July 6, 2009 as part of the consent agenda. Councilor David Brown asked for it to be removed and considered by the Council as a whole. As a result, Walden made a staff report explaining the Planning Commission’s conversation.

Councilor Brown said he wanted another public discussion given the close vote by the Planning Commission, as well as the absence that night by two Commissioners. Brown said he thought requiring kitchens and bathrooms in each unit may be creating something different than what was envisioned when SROs first entered the public conversation on homelessness.

“The early discussions we had about this were not about the SRO becoming a vehicle to self-sufficiency,” Brown said. “[They were] to address a pressing housing need. And that pressing housing need was seen to argue for having the option to create units without the [kitchen and bath] requirement.” Brown said he wanted to see flexibility in the zoning code allowing for other SRO developers beyond VSH.

On the matter of kitchens and bathrooms, Norris said that while VSH is proposing building units with those features and that the City did not need to enshrine their business model in the zoning code.  He said he could live with flexibility. Councilors Holly Edwards, Satyendra Huja and Julian Taliaferro all said they wanted kitchens and baths to be required for each unit.

Councilor Huja said he wanted the ordinance to be changed to allow SRO facilities to be built in the UMD and UHD districts. Jim Tolbert, the City’s Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said he had a lot of concern with that idea.

“I can see some of our creative developers using this to circumvent the density regulations and put more units in a place than we intended, and they’d have nothing to do with the homeless,” Tolbert said.  Council eventually sided with Tolbert, and for now, SRO facilities will not be permitted in the University districts.

The second reading and adoption of the SRO ordinance will come back on the consent agenda for the meeting on July 20, 2009.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Staff report from City Planner Ebony Walden
• 04:10 – Comment from Councilor David Brown
• 05:54 – Comment from Councilor Satyendra Huja
• 06:30 – NDS Director Jim Tolbert on suggestion that SROs would be appropriate in the University districts
• 09:30 – Huja said he supports requiring kitchens and bathrooms for each unit
• 11:30 – Norris asks whether Council should open up SRO’s to UHD and UMD districts
• 12:30 – Norris asks whether Council should require each unit to have kitchens and baths

Council expands Belmont commercial zone by one property

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow   
Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The Charlottesville City Council has voted to rezone 814 Hinton Avenue in the City’s Belmont neighborhood from residential to Neighborhood Commercial Corridor (NCC). The owners of the property have plans to convert their home into a restaurant. The rezoning came despite opposition from some in the Belmont neighborhood who say the increasing number of commercial uses on Hinton Avenue is affecting their quality of life. Council’s vote was 3-2 with Councilors Satyendra Huja and Julian Taliaferro voting against the project.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090706-CC-Belmont

Council voted 3-2 to approve the rezoning of 814 Hinton Avenue

The NCC zoning district was created in the late 1940’s to encourage business in both Belmont and the Fontaine Road area.  Over the past few years, the Belmont corridor has emerged as a dining and entertainment destination, with several restaurants opening in former commercial buildings and former residences. The Belmont Barbecue is among the latter, operating in a building at 816 Hinton Avenue.

Andrew Ewell is one of the owners of 814 Hinton Avenue. In testimony to the Charlottesville Planning Commission, he reasoned that because the NCC corridor ends at Belmont Barbeque four feet from his property, he should be allowed the opportunity to join the commercial zoning. Ewell said his property would be a more natural buffer with the residential zone because there are 28 feet between his house and the next one further up Hinton Avenue.

However, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning at their meeting on May 12, 2009. They did so in part because some members of the neighborhood had expressed concern that the commercial uses were becoming too concentrated. Yet, the City Council indicated their support for the rezoning when the item came before them for a first reading on June 1, 2009. At that time, Mayor Dave Norris acknowledged the concerns of the neighborhood, and directed staff to work with key stakeholders to work out solutions created by the increased commercial use.

The item’s second reading was postponed to Council’s meeting on July 6, 2009. Because the public hearing had already been held, Council did not have to take further public input. However, several opponents of the rezoning took the opportunity to discuss the proposal during matters from the public at the beginning of the Council meeting.

Tomas Rahal, the owner and chef of the Mas Tapas Bar, called on the City’s Neighborhood Development Services department to spend more time addressing the issues of traffic, vandalism, and excessive noise. He said Mas is working with the neighborhood to promote “a pro-family, residential character in all of our plans going forward.” Rahal said he wanted Council to regulate amplified music outdoors, called for additional bike patrols, and to require nightclubs to keep their doors closed when live music is playing.  Rahal did not publicly comment one way or the other on the rezoning of 814 Hinton Avenue.

Allison Ruffner, a Belmont resident, said she has grown frustrated by the increasing commercial activity in her neighborhood. She said she has been personally threatened and her property has been vandalized. During her testimony, Ruffner read from the description of the NCC corridor from the City Code:

“The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods.”

Ruffner said the Planning Commission had recommended denial because the NCC corridor is becoming a “monoculture” with only one type of commercial use being promoted. She said there are other commercial properties in the existing NCC corridor that could be developed if the applicant so chose. Ruffner said families with children have moved out of the neighborhood because of the noise generated at some of those restaurants.

Fellow Belmont resident Eleanor Biasiolli said the rezoning would remove one more residence from the City’s housing stock. She said the neighborhood would bear the brunt of the rezoning by giving up more parking.

“Your decision to make on any rezonings will send a message to the Charlottesville community as to your priorities and your goals,” Biasiolli said.

COUNCIL TAKES UP THE REZONING

On June 1, Mayor Dave Norris said his support was contingent upon NDS staff working with the neighborhood to address their concerns. City Planner Brian Haluska said he has met with Jesse Fiske, the President of the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association. Together, they’ve met with city traffic planners as well as Police Chief Tim Longo. There will be a meeting on July 13, 2009 between planners and the neighborhood in the basement conference room at City Hall.  Traffic counts are being gathered so planners have data on which to base the next steps.

Norris also asked if the proffers being made by the applicant would be in place if the property changes hands. Haluska said future owners are bound by the proffers, which are to maintain a vegetated buffer, not to expand past the building’s existing footprint, and not to offer amplified music.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he was impressed by the sincerity of the applications, but did not think he could support the rezoning for several reasons. First, he said rezoning was against the spirit of the City’s comprehensive plan. Second, he said rezoning would contradict the reason why the NCC zone was created. Third, he said there were other available properties zoned commercial in the NCC zone. Fourth, he said the rezoning would not benefit the neighborhood.

Councilor Julian Taliaferro said he would not support the rezoning because the precedent it would set would make it harder for future Councils to deny requests to rezone residential land to commercial. He also said the neighborhood is already stressed by the commercial uses that are already allowed.

Councilor David Brown said the issues experienced by the Belmont neighborhood had come to Council’s attention due to this rezoning, but that he thought those issues were somewhat separate from the merits whether or not to change the zoning for 814 Hinton Avenue.

“Those issues will be there whether this property is changed or not, and these issues in my mind will not be dramatically affected by this one piece of property being changed,” Brown said. He said he supported NDS’s outreach to the neighborhood, but supported Ewell’s claim that his property would be a more fitting buffer between residential and commercial zones. Mayor Dave Norris agreed with both of Brown’s arguments.

Councilor Holly Edwards said she thought having businesses in the neighborhood made it safer and provided job opportunities. She said she wished other parts of the City, such as 6th Street S.E., had the ability to have commercial uses mixed in with homes.

“I would rather see more businesses on 6th Street than the violence that I’ve seen on my block,” Edwards said.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Public comment from Tomas Rahal, owner and chef of Mas Tapas Bar
• 04:30 – Public comment from Allison Ruffner, Belmont resident
• 08:02 – Public comment from Eleanor Biasiolli, Belmont resident
• 11:10 – Staff report from Brian Haluska
• 11:30 – Norris asks Haluska to update him on outreach efforts from NDS to Belmont neighborhood
• 14:00 – Haluska says the proffers made with the rezoning would be binding for next owners
• 15:30 – Councilor Satyendra Huja comments on why he will not support rezoning
• 19:42 – Councilor Julian Taliaferro comments on why he will not support rezoning
• 20:15 – Councilor David Brown comments on why he will support rezoning
• 22:00 – Councilor Holly Edwards comments on why she will support rezoning
• 24:30 – Mayor Dave Norris indicates why he will support rezoning

VDOT: County’s portion of Meadowcreek Parkway on schedule

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, July 6, 2009

Kenneth Shirley, District Construction Engineer for VDOT’s Culpeper District, appeared before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on July 1, 2009, to give a detailed status update on the County’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090701-BOS-MCP-Update

Shirley reported that the contractor, Faulconer Construction Company, had completed 12% of the project. Crews have cleared all of the trees and vegetation necessary for construction to begin and grading is underway.  Diggers have excavated 43,000 cubic yards of dirt so far, enough to fill a football field with 20 feet of fill. More than 10,000 linear feet of stormwater pipes are ready to be installed.

Shirley said that very little of the construction is currently visible, except near Rio Road and Melbourne Road, the two end-points for the County’s portion of the parkway. Work on the drainage and stormwater system is proceeding north from the Melbourne Road end. A large hill will soon be excavated, and the earth will be used to support one of the bridges.

One of the bridge piers being constructed for the County's portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway (Source: VDOT)

“We have one the bridge’s piers in, and it looks absolutely beautiful with the stone finish,” Shirley said.  During his testimony, Shirley detailed the entire sequence of how construction of the road will proceed. Next spring, crews will begin to lay down asphalt in some sections. Next summer, the Parkway’s intersection with Rio Road will be constructed, which Shirley said would require a temporary road closure.  During that time, a section of the parkway will open as a detour for the closed portion of Rio Road.

Faulconer was awarded the construction bid for $11.8 million and work is expected to be completed by October 2011. However, the road will not permanently open until the City completes its portion as well as the parkway’s interchange with Route 250 and McIntire Road.

High Growth Coalition meets in Culpeper to discuss new state regulations impacting land use and transportation

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, July 3, 2009

The Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities, is a membership association for local government officials from counties in Virginia with rapid residential development. Also known as the High Growth Coalition, the group met on June 29, 2009 in Culpeper to listen to speakers and discuss three major topics: the regulation of alternative onsite sewage systems; new stormwater management requirements; and VDOT’s secondary street requirements. The focus of the discussion was to examine how local governments will be influenced by changes in legislation approved by the General Assembly and speakers stressed how important it is for local officials to make their opinions heard.  Albemarle County is a member of the Coalition and was represented by Supervisors Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller), Ann Mallek (White Hall), and Mark Graham, the County’s Director of Community Development.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090629-coalition-high-growth-communities

Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems (AOSS)

According to the Code of Virginia (§ 32.1-163), a conventional onsite sewage system consists of one or more septic tanks flowing to a gravity distributed drainfield. An alternative onsite sewage system does not have the characteristics of a conventional system and does not flow to a point source discharge, such as a pipe.  An AOSS can treat sewage with a device other than a septic tank, such as a media filter, which uses other ways to separate the sewage, for example with peat, byproducts of coal, or foam cubes. Pressurized systems are also used instead of gravity to distribute the wastewater within a drainfield.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed two bills (HB 1788  and SB 1276) declaring that local governments cannot prohibit the use of alternative onsite sewage systems, both of which went into effect on July 1, 2009. Previously, a building permit could be withheld if the soil on site would not support a traditional septic system and public sewer was not available to the property.  In compliance with the interim requirements of the new legislation, alternative systems installed after July 1, 2009 will have to be operated and maintained by the most stringent policies declared by the manufacturer, the local government, or the state. These will be replaced by the Board of Health emergency regulations in April 6, 2010 and final regulations at the end of 2010.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Jeff McDaniel, local Environmental Health Manager for the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), said in 2008 about 74 alternative systems were approved in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and Nelson Counties. McDaniel said Albemarle did not prohibit the use of alternative systems prior to this year’s legislation and he thought the legislation would have more of an effect on other regions of Virginia.

Albemarle County's Mark Graham, told Charlottesville Tomorrow that, before the new legislation went into effect this week, alternative onsite sewage systems were allowed only when an existing conventional system had failed. Graham said a developer previously had to demonstrate a conventional system could be implemented in order to get a building plan approved. Under the new law, an alternative system could be specified up front and local government would not be able to deny a development right.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) expressed concern about the potential for increased residential growth on previously undevelopable land in an update she gave to the Board of Supervisors at their July 1 meeting.

“We have regarded whether land [percolates for septic] or not as a land use control,” said Thomas. “Now that will no longer be a controlling factor.”

McDaniel noted that about 5 to 10% of building permits with conventional sewage systems have been denied in the past year due to various limiting factors, such as soil or location limitations.

“I see it [alternative systems] as a positive thing,” said McDaniel. “Conventional systems treat the sewage, but alternative systems clean the sewage to a different level. There are places where alternative systems can be used to better treat the effluent.”

He emphasized the importance of properly maintaining all types of sewage systems and said he saw the new maintenance regulations as a way to improve VDH’s existing procedures.

“I think we’re going to clarify some better maintenance and monitoring of not just alternative but conventional [systems],” said McDaniel.

Panelists at the Coalition meeting, however, discussed potential problems with the AOSS regulations. Trapper Davis, from the Coastal Plains Environmental Group, LLC, said he maintains these systems and was also concerned with the cost for residential clients, which is currently $400 for a year of maintenance. He said that may deter people from keeping their sewage systems properly maintained. Davis also said he believed industry professionals do not have enough knowledge about proper maintenance for AOSS and this could be a problem once the interim regulations go into effect.

Bob Lee, from the Loudoun County Health Department, said many homeowners are unaware their sewage system is an AOSS, which could create a problem for trying to identify systems for inspection. Lee also emphasized the importance of establishing quantitative performance standards.

Allen Knapp, from the Virginia Department of Health, said the frequency and cost of monitoring are major issues for the implementation of AOSS.

Stormwater Management Requirements

The state is currently changing storm water management regulations for construction, local programs, and permit fees in order to increase water quality standards, in compliance with EPA standards for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) was created in 2004 with House Bill 1177, which authorized local authorities to implement stormwater management programs. The Soil and Water Conservation Board proposed amendments to parts I, II, III, and XIII of VSMP regulations on September 25, 2008. The amendments are still being discussed and there will be a 60-day public comment ending on August 21, 2009.

Ryan Brown, Policy and Planning Assistant Director for the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, described these amendments and said there will be a stricter phosphorous standard for new development from 0.45 lbs per acre per year to 0.28. The amendments also propose a decrease in nutrient levels for land redevelopment. Currently the standard is a 10% reduction to the predevelopment load and the amendments will require a 20% reduction in nutrients from the predevelopment load.

“This addresses new development and prevents us from making the situation worse,” said Brown.

Lisa Ochsenhirt, of Aqualaw, PLC, described the obligations for local governments in order to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. She stated the three year milestone goal is to increase the pace of reduction by 86% for nitrogen and 52% for phosphorous during 2009-2011. She said this reduction would cost Virginia’s state government a projected $1.2 billion. Ochsenhirt stated the consequences would include a tightening of regulations and permits, an increase in reporting and auditing, and an increase in lawsuits by the EPA, state, or citizens. She warned the High Growth Coalition that the restrictions would hit the high growth communities the hardest.

Mike Flagg, Director of Public Works for Hanover County, said Hanover had calculated the expense to retrofit areas with stormwater treatment from 2005 data and determined it would cost $1,525 a person. Flagg also declared it would cost $500 or more per lot to maintain the nutrient regulations for stormwater, all of which could create more expensive growth areas.

“We may actually be promoting sprawl with some of these rules,” said Flagg.

Thomas also commented at the Board of Supervisors meeting on how the stormwater regulations will affect Albemarle County.

“Our main concern I think in this community is that if you regulate stormwater in the city or in the urban area more stringently you’re just going to squish development out into the rural area because it will be a lot less expensive in the rural area,” said Thomas.

VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR)

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has developed Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR), which will become mandatory July 1, 2009. The SSAR includes three goals: ensuring the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks; minimizing impervious surface area; and addressing performance bonding needs of new secondary streets. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the SSAR in February 2009 and a transition period was instated from March 9 to June 30.

Ted McCormack, the Director of Governmental Affairs for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), outlined the requirements, which included a calculated interconnectivity index for each neighborhood. He stressed the importance of interconnectivity and said it would lead to less construction, increased pedestrian safety, a faster emergency vehicle response time, and a more efficient network overall. He said VDOT has determined that on average throughout Virginia, 10% of all trips are walking trips, demonstrating the lack of pedestrian accessibility.

Nick Donahue, Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Virginia, said VDOT has taken a position of not widening the right of way
to reduce congestion because they believe connectivity is a more successful solution.

“It’s much more cost effective for us to have connectivity so that people’s trips to school, the grocery store, etc. are on the local roads than it is for VDOT to widen the main roads,” said Donahue.

Donahue also answered questions about the impact a reduced state budget has had on VDOT. He said there have been cutbacks in many areas due to the decrease from $8.7 billion in revenue in FY2008 to $5.4 billion in FY2010.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST FROM JULY 1, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING

• 01:45 – Dennis Rooker asks about the Virginia Health Department’s view of alternative sewage systems
• 04:45 – David Slutzky discusses the possibility of a cap and trade program
• 06:45 – Rooker asks what local authority will regulate agricultural runoff
• 07:55 – Ann Mallek comments on other counties’ setback requirements

Board of Supervisors support Crozet stormwater management system; Cost higher than original estimate

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, July 2, 2009

Greg Harper, Water Resources Manager for Albemarle County

Greg Harper, the Water Resources Manager for Albemarle County, presented an update on the Crozet stormwater management system to the Board of Supervisors on July 1, 2009. The Board originally approved the system on November 7, 2007, however, the design was further developed and the 2009 cost estimate is larger than the 2007 estimate. The Board indicated their support for the stormwater project and agreed to reexamine the cost estimate at a future meeting.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090701-crozet-stormwater

Harper described the goals of the project, which included stormwater management planning for future growth, especially a denser downtown area which he said could increase runoff. He also said the project would help to protect water resources by addressing areas currently without stormwater management. Harper stated the engineering plans are 80% complete and emphasized that staff hopes to provide stormwater management at the lowest cost possible.

A cost estimate was first provided in 2007 by Kimley-Horn Associates, the consultant for the project, and totaled $350,000. However, the estimate was changed in 2009 to $694,176. This was an increase of $344,176 and almost double the original cost. A staff report explained the cost estimate was raised due to an increase in land parcel size, a re-alignment of the storm and sewage system, and the addition of contingency costs, which were not originally included. Harper expressed hope for a lower final cost because of the favorable construction market.

“We’re hoping to be under construction within about six months,” said Harper. “There’s 15 acres of impervious area that we can immediately treat and prevent those pollutants from reaching our water supply.”

Harper also said a grant had been awarded to the Rivanna River Basin Commission and $120,000 would be provided to help fund the Crozet stormwater management project. However, Harper warned the Board of the lengthy process to receive the grant.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) said he was concerned with the total balance of the Stormwater Control Improvement Fund due to pending improvement of Sun Ridge Road. The Board approved the renovation of Sun Ridge Road on March 7, 2007 and drainage issues were to be addressed and financed by the Stormwater Fund. Slutzky said the drainage improvements have not been dealt with at the present time and wanted to confirm there would be sufficient funding in the future.

Harper told Slutzky he did not know the balance of the fund but assured him there would excess money left in the fund after the stormwater project. County executive Bob Tucker said the Sun Ridge Road project money had been set aside and its funding would not be depleted by the stormwater project.

Supervisor Ann Mallek (White hall) commented that the Birnam Basin project in 2004 was similar in cost and did not have as many features.

Harper agreed and said the Birnam Basin, a detention basin near Charlotte Humphris Park, cost $720,000 and was much simpler than the stormwater project, which will serve 30 impervious acres.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 - Greg Harper begins presentation
• 09:09 - David Slutzky asks how the program will be affected by density
• 11:36 - Ken Boyd asks when construction will begin
• 12:20 - Larry Davis comments on offsite drainage costs
• 14:36 - Ann Mallek asks how small developments will pay
• 19:45 - Slutzky asks about Stormwater Control Improvement Fund
• 21:20 - Mallek compares project to Birnam Basin

County Supervisors briefed on water and sewer issues; Whole Foods & Trader Joe’s may face added delays due to inadequate sewer capacity

By Sean Tubbs and Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, July 2, 2009

Every three months, the Executive Directors of both the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) appear before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to give an update on current water and sewer issues. Gary Fern, Executive Director of the ACSA, and Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the RWSA, made their latest visit on July 1, 2009, the first day of the new fiscal year. 

One highlight of the meeting was Fern stating that the opening of both Whole Foods and the proposed Trader Joe’s for Albemarle Place may face further delays until the Meadowcreek sewer interceptor is replaced.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090701-BOS-Fern-Frederick

FERN UPDATES BOARD ON THE ACSA

Gary Fern, Executive Director of the ACSA

Gary Fern told the Board that the ACSA implemented a four-tier rate system on July 1st that encourages conservation by only charging the ACSA’s wholesale rate to residential and irrigation customers using less than 3,000 gallons a billing cycle. The second tier charges users at two times the wholesale rate, the third tier charges users at three times the wholesale rate, and the fourth tier charges at four times the wholesale rate. The fourth kicks in after 9,000 gallons are used.

“We hope our customers will understand how we developed the rate,” Fern said. “What we’re trying to do is encourage people to conserve and try to stay in that second-tier and third-tier.” Commercial users will still play a flat-fee for each 1,000 gallons. Apartment complexes also will pay a flat-fee because Fern said it was too complicated to determine individual family amounts in multi-family dwellings.

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) questioned whether it was good practice to not charge anything additional to customers who only consume enough water to keep them in the first tier.

“It just seems to me that every tier should contribute something towards administrative overheard,” Rooker said. “You could drive everyone down to the bottom tier and the system would go bankrupt.”

Fern pointed out that all ACSA customers pay a service charge, and administrative costs are included in that fee. He added that ACSA rates have generally been increased to help pay for new infrastructure and maintenance of existing lines.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) asked Fern if he was able to balance the ACSA’s budget for FY2010 based on the new rates. He responded affirmatively. 

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) asked if there was a way to change the rate structure to make it more affordable for growth area residents who are not currently connected to the ACSA sewer system. Those homes could pay up to $7,647 to be connected under the existing fee structure. Fern said that the ACSA is considering terminating the local facilities charge, which could help reduce the one-time cost for those citizens. Fern said the ACSA will hold a public hearing on all of its connection charges in August.

FREDERICK UPDATES BOARD ON THE RWSA

Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the RWSA

Tom Frederick was on hand to update the Board on the status of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority’s many projects. First, he told Supervisors why the RWSA has decided to hire another firm to design the proposed new dam at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. The decision is one of the outcomes that stems from the RWSA’s hiring of a panel of dam experts to revisit Gannett Fleming’s original design after its cost estimate more than doubled in September of 2008. He told the Board that he is aware of criticism in the community that, by dropping Gannett Fleming’s services, important data will be lost. Frederick said those fears are unfounded.

“We own all the work that we produce, so we have a right to request it all and we have received everything that we are aware of,” Frederick said. “Nothing has been lost in terms of the data and the information.” He acknowledged that the RWSA will likely have  the new designer provide their own analysis of the data collected by Gannett Fleming.

“We want to have someone who can give us the closest interpretation we can get to a pragmatic viewpoint that recognizes the safety and importance of the structure, but who is also looking for innovative and exciting ways to keep the costs as economical as possible,” Frederick said.

Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) pointed out that Gannett Fleming’s main role to date has been in leading the public input process that led to the adoption of the 50-year community water supply plan. Frederick said that was true, and added that the consultant also played a role in getting the permits from the Army Core of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

“The goal was to get a permit from both the state and federal agencies, something this community had never accomplished before in its previous water planning,” Frederick said. The permitting process began after the City Council and the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the plan in June 2006.

Since then, the RWSA has responded to City Council and community interest in revisiting the dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as a way to restore water storage capacity. In May 2009, the Board voted to issue an RFP for that purpose, and so far eight proposals have been received. They will be reviewed during a public meeting on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at the County Office Building South.

Frederick also reported that construction is under way for upgrades at the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, but he alluded to the possibility of Virginia not meeting the deadline for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay despite efforts to upgrade treatment plants.  He also said the Meadowcreek sewer interceptor replacement, which is still in the right-of-way acquisition process, could go to bid this fall with construction taking fourteen months after the winning bid is awarded.

Near the end of his briefing, Frederick reported that the RWSA was in the process of conducting a wastewater master plan with the City of Charlottesville and the ACSA. The idea is to better link the approval of new commercial and residential developments to the provision of sewer capacity. Inadequate sewer infrastructure has delayed both the North Pointe and Albemarle Place projects in Albemarle County.  By contrast, subsequent rezonings at Hollymead Town Center and Biscuit Run have included up-front written agreements for the developers to pay for their share of sewer infrastructure upgrades. 

“The idea of the master plan is to plan to get ahead of the process so that things [like this] don’t happen again,” Frederick said. One of the obstacles to developing the plan will be to decide who is responsible for paying for efforts to prevent stormwater from getting into the sewer system, a problem known as inflow and infiltration.  Stormwater entering the sewer system increases the load at water treatment facilities.

Rooker asked what restrictions might be placed on new connections until the Meadowcreek Interceptor is complete. Frederick said that there is no additional capacity available until that project is finished.

“The system works very well under dry periods,” Frederick said. “But it is not always where we need it to be during wet weather periods.”

CAPACITY PROBLEMS FOR TRADER JOE’S AND WHOLE FOODS?

Click for a larger map of the interceptor's alignment

Rooker asked if the new Whole Foods in the City on Hydraulic Road could be connected to the system before the Meadowcreek Interceptor is upgraded. He also mentioned that a Trader’s Joe grocery store is being proposed for Albemarle Place in the County. Gary Fern of the ACSA said if any one new customer submits a connection request to use more than 40,000 gallons a day, the ACSA must request that capacity from the RWSA. Fern said that at this time, that additional capacity is not there.

“At this point in time, if there is not capacity within the Meadowcreek Interceptor, they will not get an approval from the [ACSA],” Fern said. “We don’t want to be put in a position where we would grant approval to a development and then we have no place to put the wastewater.” Fern said grocery stores usually use produce more than 40,000 gallons of wastewater a day.

Rooker asked if Whole Foods, which will be built within Charlottesville’s city limits, would be in the same situation. Fern said he did not know the status of that project. Rooker said he wants to make sure that the County gets equal access to sewer capacity.  The City Planning Commission approved a revised preliminary site plan for the store just last month.

“The City has to go through the same process of requesting [capacity],” Fern said. Fern said he had not seen a site plan for Trader Joe’s yet. Frederick said he was also not aware of any requests from either Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s.

The Supervisors were informed at a briefing in September 2008 that the sewer capacity should be available by December 2009, a schedule that was expected at the time to accommodate the new Albemarle Place development schedule.  The delays in the Meadowcreek Interceptor project mean the sewer capacity will now not be available until late 2010 or early 2011.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Introduction from Gary Fern, Executive Director of the ACSA

• 02:30 – Supervisor Rooker asks for clarification on new rate structure
• 05:30 - Supervisor Thomas asks if there is a way to give different rates for those who use garbage disposals
• 06:20 – Supervisor Slutzky asks if the ACSA can change its sewer rate structure to make it easier for growth areas residences on septic fields to connect to the sewer system
• 10:05 – Rooker asks another question about the rate structure
• 13:00 – Supervisor Mallek asks for more information on the tier system
• 15:00 – Rooker hands Fern a quality report from the City of Williamsburg
• 15:20 – Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the RWSA, begins his presentation
• 17:00 -  Frederick begins discussing why the RWSA has opted to hire a new designer for the Ragged Mountain Dam
• 21:45 – Frederick reports on the dredging feasibility study
• 22:20 – Frederick reports on the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
• 25:30 – Frederick discusses the possibility of Virginia not making the deadlines for cleaning the Chesapeake Bay
• 29:38 – Slutzky asks Frederick if his trade organizations are weighing in on DCR’s new proposed stormwater regulations
• 30:35 – Frederick briefs Supervisors on the Meadowcreek Interceptor
• 32:12 – Slutzky asks Frederick to reconsider routing the RWSA’s Route 29 pipeline along the alignment for the proposed extension of Berkmar Drive and Berkmar Bridge
• 36:30 – Rooker counters Slutzky and offers a different interpretation
• 38:50 – Frederick briefs Supervisors on a new master plan for wastewater plan being conducted by the ACSA and the City of Charlottesville
• 44:00 – Rooker asks follow-up on Meadowcreek Interceptor, leading to discussion of Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s potential access to that sewer facility
• 48:20 – Frederick updates Supervisors on a Rivanna Solid Waste Authority issue – single-stream recycling
• 51:02 – Boyd, the Board’s RSWA representative, says the Board needs to make a decision about what recycling services it may offer in the future
• 55:30 – Fern asks for more time to mention that all ACSA customers pay a service charge

MPO considers re-hiring consultant for further RTA studies

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

At their meeting on June 24, 2009, the MPO Policy Board considered whether to spend additional funds on hiring a consultant to help with the formation of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA), viewed the results of two surveys conducted on the Charlottesville Transit Service and endorsed a letter asking for earlier service for an additional passenger train that will commence in October.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090624-MPO

This chart from the VHB report on the RTA shows potential transit corridors for either an expanded CTS or the proposed authority. Click to enlarge. (Source: VHB)

The basic framework for the proposed RTA has been put in place through work conducted by the firm Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, and specifically, transportation expert Frank Spielberg. The City and County both contributed $50,000 to match a $90,000 grant from the Federal Transit Administration to pay for their services. 

Their 45-page report outlines several different scenarios by which such an authority might be formed, and details different governing structures under which it might operate. Even more intricate details about how the community could proceed are featured in the 12 appendices that accompany the report.

In August 2008, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors affirmed their willingness to create the RTA during a joint work session. They set up a working group of two Councilors and two Supervisors to help guide the process. Throughout the fall of 2008, this group spent most of their time at several meetings to determine what sort of legislation should be pursued. They decided to ask the General Assembly to pass two pieces of legislation. The first would create the RTA (HB2158), and the second (HB2161) was for permission to ask citizens in a referendum if they would support a sales tax increase of up to 1 cent to fund the RTA’s operations. The General Assembly approved the first bill, but did not approve the second.

On May 14, 2009, the working group met once more to discuss whether it was worthwhile to continue pursuing the RTA’s creation without the favored method of funding. At that meeting, consensus was reached to have Barlow and her staff prepare recommendations on RTA governance issues and to draft a budget to retain a consultant to guide the RTA’s formation and system design. That consensus was ratified by the MPO later that month. Barlow contacted Spielberg to find out how much his services would cost to address some of the remaining issues, and gave four points of his action on which his firm should base a cost estimate:

• Determine what issues must be addressed before the RTA can be formed
• Develop alternative approaches to how to resolve those issues
• Understanding different cost scenarios for each potential resolution
• Develop a comparative analysis of how similar authorities in Virginia have dealt with the issues

A representative from VHB wrote back and said that the first bullet would likely consist of resolving the issues defined in the initial report’s Appendix J. While that section of the report contains an implementation schedule that largely assumed approval of a funding mechanism, many of the questions asked have yet to be answered or fully addressed, such as:

• Do the jurisdictions want to establish the principles, or the detailed methodology, for cost sharing prior to establishment of an Authority?
• What process should be used to develop a Memorandum of Understanding before proceeding to an Authority?
• Does the County accept the cost of providing service as computed by CTS staff? If not, what would the County need to accept the cost computations?
• Should the Authority strive to establish a fully independent organization or should it obtain some services from the City and County?
• How are costs of providing service allocated to the member jurisdictions?
• How are costs of capital equipment and facilities allocated to member jurisdictions?
• Can jurisdictions provide in-kind services to fulfill their funding obligations?
• How are revenues received from state and federal programs allocated?
• How are revenues received from UVa or other sources allocated?
• How are revenues accruing to the Authority allocated?
• Do the jurisdictions need to resolve all issues prior to forming the Authority?
• Is the City willing to cede this power to the Authority?
• Is the City willing to continue to allocate a portion of these funds to County services, prior to formation of an Authority?

The letter from VHB says that the above questions, along with others in Appendix J, would be a starting point for a first meeting with Frank Spielberg. It then proposes his attendance at an additional five meetings. VHB’s initial cost estimate assumes using 14 days of Spielberg’s time for meetings as well as an additional six days for research. Spielberg bills at the rate of $215 an hour, suggesting a budget of $40,000.

VHB's report contains multiple references to potential funding sources. This chart refers to revenues available to localities under HB3202 , a transportation funding bill passed in 2007. Click to enlarge. (Source: VHB)

During the MPO’s meeting, Barlow said she wanted to get input on whether this proposed estimate matched the MPO member’s expectations of what Spielberg’s future involvement should be. She also said her contact at the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) said there are least two grant-funding opportunities to help pay for VHB’s additional work. One would be a “technical assistance” grant where VDRPT would pay half of the costs with the rest coming from local sources. The second would be a federal planning grant  in which 80% of funding would come from the federal government, 10% from VDRPT and a required 10% match from localities.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he was more interested in getting additional information about how to fund the RTA, given that the state denied the sales tax referendum. Barlow referred him to Appendix H of VHB’s RTA plan, which lists several other potential funding mechanisms. She said some of these were discussed at the May 14 meeting of the RTA Working Group.

“Before moving in any direction on how to fund the RTA, the question arose as to exactly what is it going to cost us to develop this in terms of what bridges we need to cost, what we do with employees, what we do with assets,” Barlow said. Huja is also a member of the RTA working group.

Councilor Julian Taliaferro, who is not a member of the RTA working group, asked if Albemarle County would “put up any money” to purchase some of the assets currently owned by City of Charlottesville.

Routes 5 and 7 serve Albemarle County and run twice an hour from 6:00 AM to midnight, Monday through Saturday. Route 7 is one of only two routes that run at all on Sunday. Albemarle County currently pays for the enhanced service

“I guess the question is, are we going to do a study if we don’t know what [Albemarle County’s] commitment is,” Taliaferro asked. “It perplexes me a little bit that we’re going to do a study and we really don’t know if anyone is going to join in.”

Neither Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) nor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) was present to respond. The County’s Chief Planner, David Bennish, was the County’s lone representative at this meeting and he said the purpose of the additional study by VHB would be to determine if there’s a way for the City and County to work together to plan for future transit.

CTS Director Bill Watterson said that the study is a “work in progress” to determine how hard it would be to resolve some of the remaining questions. He said the further study’s scope of work could be expanded or reduced.

Barlow suggested that the discussion should be postponed until the MPO’s July meeting. Huja concurred.

MPO VIEWS TWO PRESENTATIONS ON IMPROVING CTS

At the May 2009 meeting of the MPO Policy Board, Chair David Slutzky had mentioned that a class at Monticello High School had conducted a survey of CTS passengers. Their basic recommendations focused on adding more buses at night, adding more stops at night, and to expand bus service further in Albemarle County.

Download Anna MacIntosh's presentation

Source: Southeastern Institute for Research

Some of these findings were echoed in a more complex survey conducted by the Southeastern Institute of Research. Anna MacIntosh, Program Director for the firm, related the results of her group’s marketing study, which was conducted under the brand “Transportation Tomorrow.” The project was paid for in part by a grant received by the MPO to assess interest in forming a Regional Transit Authority. MacIntosh said the project was designed to increase public awareness of transportation planning. Outreach efforts included a telephone survey, an on-board passenger survey, a widely-promoted online survey as well as a paper survey handed out at places such as Charlottesville’s Senior Center.  As a result, MacIntosh claimed 4,385 citizens participated in the process.

Some of the findings from the random phone survey of 300 citizens:

• 13% of respondents said they are involved in local transportation planning
• 56% said they have never been involved with local transportation planning
• 9% said they ride a bus, including the free trolley, once a week
• 74% said they never ride a bus
• 61% said they do not have a bus stop within a mile of their house
• 11% said they would be likely or very likely to increase their usage in the next year
• 70% said they are unlikely to increase their usage in the next year
• 38% said they would use transit more often if they were closer to stops
• 39% of Albemarle County residents surveyed would be interested in a long distance commuter bus
• 46% said they would ride the bus more often if there were more frequent headways
• 67% are either in favor or very much in favor of establishing a Regional Transit Authority
• 88% said they are in support of a public vote on public funding for the RTA

MPO ADOPTS RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EARLIER AMTRAK TRAIN

Earlier this year, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved three years of funding to launch new daily Amtrak passenger service from Lynchburg to Washington. At the time, it was believed that the service’s schedule would allow for citizens to conduct a full day’s business in the nation’s capitol.

However, when the schedule was released, it depicted the train leaving Lynchburg at 7:43 a.m., with the train not arriving at Union Station until 11:20 a.m. This is because a railroad line owned by the CSX Corporation cannot accommodate the earlier schedule, which is considered a “peak-hour” slot.

At the May 2009 meeting, the MPO Policy Board directed staff to write a resolution asking the VDRPT to “closely monitor the ridership performance during the first year… to determine if it is meeting expectations.” A fear held by some in the community is that the three-year experiment will not be extended if it is not useful for business travelers. The resolution also asks for state transportation officials, including Governor Tim Kaine, “to do everything within the state of Virginia’s legal power and authority to negotiate an additional peak hour slot” for the service.
Service is expected to begin this October.

FEDERAL & STATE OFFICIALS CONFIRM UNJAM 2035 IS ‘FISCALLY CONSTRAINED’

As area planners and elected officials formulate and adopt plans for the community’s future infrastructure, one issue they face concerns how to best represent cost estimates for large capital projects. Critics of the adopted community water supply plan have repeatedly said that plan is unsound because some elements lack definite cost estimates. In June, the Free Enterprise Forum released a critique of the Albemarle County Planning Commission for using current year dollars for road improvement projects called for in Places29 rather than figures adjusted for inflation.

At the MPO’s May 2009 meeting, former City Council candidate Peter Kleeman questioned how the UNJAM 2035 long range transportation plan factors in the costs related to maintenance and upgrade associated with Interstate 64. He said that because that funding can only be used for that purpose, it artificially misleads the public into thinking that the community has more money to spend on transportation projects then it really does.

“There was something on the order of $100 million of funding in the long-range plan that are Interstate dollars that have been distributed for non-Interstate projects,” Kleeman said at the June 2009 meeting. He claimed that as a result, the UNJAM 2035 plan cannot be implemented or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

Acting MPO Director Melissa Barlow said she reviewed federal regulations after receiving Kleeman’s comments, and said her interpretation was that the federal requirement for “fiscal constraint” takes all sources of funding into consideration: federal, state and local.

“There is no direction that I could find that you needed to financially constrain yourself to a particular system,” Barlow said. She then checked with VDOT and FHWA officials who agreed with her assessment. Unwanna Dabney, the FHWA representative on the MPO Policy Board, said the MPO met her agency’s basic requirements for showing fiscal constraint.

“That is the demonstration that a cumulative amount of funds are reasonably expected to be available over the 20 year timeframe [of the long range plan],” Dabney said. She said that some MPOs across the nation do break down the funding sources in their long-range plans, but that the goal of such documents is to serve as a planning document. Dabney also pointed out that much of the federal funding that comes to local communities comes through the SAFETEA-LU Act, which expires this year.

“It’s asking a bit much to constrain everything by program when we really have no idea what the next federal legislation [for transportation] is going to look like,” Dabney said.

OTHER NEWS:

This was the last meeting for Melissa Barlow, who will leave the MPO and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for a job with the Federal Transit Administration. The TJPDC’s new Executive Director, Steven Williams, has been officially certified as the Director of the MPO

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Meeting called to order by Vice Chair Satyendra Huja
• 01:20 – Public comment from Peter Kleeman regarding long range plan
• 04:46 – Public comment from John Pfaltz asking that the MPO tell the County that the Woodbrook be connected to the rest of the County’s transportation network so regional transit can work
• 06:54 – Adoption of minutes from May 2009 meeting
• 07:26 – Acting MPO Director Melissa Barlow notes that David Benish is Supervisor David Slutzky’s alternate for the purposes of a quorum
• 08:00 – MPO begins “fiscal constraint discussion”
• 16:30 – Presentation of Monticello High School CTS Survey
• 26:00 – Presentation of Southeastern Institute for Research’s RTA Toolkit
• 1:15:15 – Discussion of letter to support earlier schedule for AMTRAK Passenger Service
• 1:18:40 – Discussion of funding of further study of RTA by Frank Spielberg of VHB
• 1:28:45 – CHART Member Mac Lafferty reports on Bike Virginia

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.