Sunday, December 27, 2009
City staff overstates viability of an at-grade intersection for McIntire Road Extended project - Again
I believe this letter further confuses the relationship. City council has never approved construction of an at-grade intersection at Route 250 Bypass for the McIntire Road Extended project, and now Ms. Tucker states that "City Council will grant the necessary permission to complete the at-grade intersection" at McIntire Road. I find this a bit of an overstatement by Ms. Tucker and the idea of seeking federal permits on a hypothetical statement of this kind is clearly not defensible. The issue of no designated funding for an at-grade intersection is totally ignored, and these funds and necessary right-of-way needs are not readily available for this intersection.
City Council needs to state specifically what its intentions are concerning a possible at-grade intersection. Past statements by council appear to prohibit construction of an at-grade intersection have seen in simulation models that such an intersection fails to meet traffic demand at an acceptable level of service.
Now is the time for the true relationship between the McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road projects to be stated - that these two projects are not independent of each other, but should be planned as a single facility that connects Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Road.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation publishes Case Summary on McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange
It is my understanding that the ACHP is in the process of coordinating the development of an agreement among all the local, state and federal agencies involved in the projects stipulating how the historic resources are to be treated if the projects move forward. But, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has disregarded this ongoing activity required under Section 106 or the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended and advertised for construction of the McIntire Road Extended project. To me this illustrates clearly VDOT's lack of concern for historic resources in its project development process. The Section 106 process on both the road and interchange projects wasn't initiated until very late in the project development and VDOT and the City of Charlottesville are moving their projects forward without considering findings of this effort.
I am very interested to see how the ACHP, the State Historic Preservation Officer of Virginia and other stakeholders in this process will react to actions by both VDOT and the City of Charlottesville. Suprisingly, Charlottesville's City Council approved signing a Memorandum of Agreement on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project that to my knowledge has not yet been completed, primarily on the statement of Owen Peery, the project manager for the City's engineering consultant - RK&K Engineers - that all signatories to the agreement are prepared to sign and encouraged city councilors to approve a document that they have not even seen. This is a shocking situation and appears not to be in compliance with many federal and state regulations relating to historic preservation.
I have sent letters to both ACHP and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers project leaders seeking reaction to VDOTs action and inquiring if this action is even legitimate at this state of the Section 106 process. I am awaiting their responses.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
VDOT advertises McIntire Road Extended project for construction - what is up with that?
VDOT requested the necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit related to a stream crossing for the project just advertised with a southern terminus located 0.147 miles (775 feet) north of U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but the Corps asked VDOT to provide a logical southern terminus to the project. The terminus being a point in the middle of the golf course was not adequate for the permit to be considered as a complete project submittal. VDOT then send the Corps an at-grade intersection design based on the 1999 project design as a southern terminus - an intersection that is no longer under consideration and eliminated from consideration by the Charlottesville City Council. I am curious to see how the Corps of Engineers react to this apparent "bait and switch" proposal now that the at-grade intersection is not part of the project advertisement.
I and other project stakeholders contend that the true southern terminus for this project is the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road, currently under development by the City of Charlottesville as a federal-aid highway project.
I suppose there are many possible "next steps" in this process including withdrawal of the advertisement, objection by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the permit request as submitted, and objection to the failure to consider adequately possible mitigation of impacts on historic resources by the State Historic Preservation Officer. I hope all of these happen to ensure that VDOT project do not move forward without allowing the public and other stakeholders the opportunities guaranteed to them to help develop the best possible project design to meet the needs of all project stakeholders.
I truly believe VDOT is out of line on this action and look forward the what happens next. The graphic (from C-ville Weekly) shows a recent citizen demonstration in opposition to this road going though historic McIntire Park. I expect that more citizen demonstrations will occur in reaction to VDOT's action. The estimated contract value is $6.9 million many believe would be better spent on a host of lest destructive and necessary transportation projects in Charlottesville.
Do read the Sean Tubbs report at the Charlottesville Tomorrow website or in today's Daily Progress.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Summary of Interchange Public Hearing Comments provided to Charlottesville City Council
This project is perceived by many to provide benefits to Albemarle County residents with all of the impacts occurring in Charlottesville City. My brief scanning of the comments indicates that many of the comments in support of the project are from Albemarle County residents. I will be urging councilors to be sensitive to the balance of comments between city and county commentators given that this is a city project primarily funded by federal, city, and Charlottesville's portion of the State Urban Road System funds. Albemarle County provides no direct funding for the interchange project to my knowledge.
Here is the city staff summary of comments as provided to City Council on Nov. 13, 2009:
A Design Public Hearing for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project was held on October 29, 2009 at City Space. Attendees viewed displays about the project and the Revised Environmental Assessment including the Preferred Alternative and the likely environmental impacts of the project.
The following summarizes input received from those who attended the public hearing as well as those who submitted comments during the designated comment period (September 29, 2009 through November 9, 2009).
SUMMARY
• 94 people attended the hearing
• A total of 168 comments were received
o 41 people provided oral testimony, either publicly or privately
o 12 written comments using the hearing comment form
o 109 comments were received through the project website
o 6 comments were received via letter or email letter
• A total of 146 people provided comments
MOST FREQUENT COMMENTS (No. of People Commenting)
• Oppose the project (38)
• In favor of the project (38)
• Pedestrians and Bicyclists not sufficiently accommodated / prioritized (72)
• Interchange is too large (8)
• Project should be combined with McIntire Road Extended Project (7)
• Historic properties impacts too great (31)
• Additional traffic in neighborhoods (29)
• Environmental impacts can be / are appropriately mitigated (17)
• Environmental / park impacts are substantial (31)
Friday, November 13, 2009
See a Sneak Preview of "Coal Country" on Saturday
I am planning to attend this screening and believe it is open to all interested folks.
The photo is from Appalachian Voices.
Here is the announcement:
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation sends its comments on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Proposed Memorandum of Agreement on the Route 250 Bypass Ingerchange at McIntire Road to be discussed on Oct. 09, 2009
This is the first time that all of the federal agency stakeholders in this project will be meeting together, and I anticipate a lively discussion of a broad range of issues relating to the interchange design. I look forward to participating in this meeting and working toward solving the many problems associated with the interchange project and its impact on several historic properties on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Click on the images to enlarge.
Agenda Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 Consultation Meeting Regarding the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange Project. Friday, October 9, 2009 8:30 – 11:30 am
Community Design Center
City Space Meeting Room
100 Fifth Street NE
Charlottesville, VA
I. Welcome and Statement of Objectives
II. Ground Rules
III. Introduction of Consulting Parties
IV. Facilitated Discussion of FHWA’s mitigation proposal
A. McIntire Park
B. Rock Hill Landscape
C. Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District (501 and 502 Park Hill
D. Design Minimization Measures
E. Other Comments/Recommendations for Mitigation
V. Comments from the public
(3 minute limit for those who sign up)
VI. Summary and Next Steps
Monday, October 5, 2009
Why is VDOT providing outdated plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of a water quality permit application?
If the southern terminus is currently planned to be an interchange, why provide plans to the Corps of Engineers for a project that will only be considered "if, and only if, the interchange project is abandoned. Is this an appropriate action by VDOT? I think the clear answer to this is no.
Do read the original letter and the response below and consider for yourself if this would meet a professional standard of practice in project planning.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 ORANGE ROAD
CULPEPER. VIRGINIA 22701
virginiaDOT.org
DAVID S. EKERN, P.E.
COMMISSIONER
September 28, 2009
Mr. Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Kleeman:
Secretary Homer has asked that I thank you for and respond to your letter regarding the McIntire Road Extended project in Charlottesville.
As you are aware, the City of Charlottesville had originally intended for McIntire Road Extended to connect with the Route 250 Bypass with an at-grade intersection, and plans for the project were developed that showed an at-grade connection. The City later determined that a grade-separated interchange is necessary, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) subsequently revised its McIntire Road Extended plans to reflect a connection to the access ramps for the Route 250 Bypass Interchange project.
In conjunction with the Section 106 process for McIntire Road Extended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested additional information about the project. VDOT provided the requested information, including plans that showed the original at-grade intersection connection along with the background and explanation for the modification to the original plan. These plans were clearly marked "Original Design - Modified 08-01-09" and contain the latest modifications to the original plans that would be used to construct the at-grade intersection if, and only if the interchange project is abandoned.
The plans provided to the City of Charlottesville that supported the application for a permanent utility easement reflect changes to the easement area that were requested by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Corps of Engineers has been advised of those modifications to the easement area, which do not affect the conditions the Corps is reviewing for the joint permit.
I regret that you were not able to contact the project manager to answer your questions. VDOT has consistently worked with you over the past several years to provide information and answer questions related to this and other transportation projects. To help us more efficiently respond to your questions, I suggest that you make such requests in writing to Mr. Lou Hatter, Culpeper District Public Affairs Manager, at 1601 Orange Road, Culpeper, Virginia 22701.
Sincerely,
[signature: J. S. Utterback]
James S. Utterback, PMP
Culpeper District Administrator
Copy - The Honorable Pierce R. Homer
Mr David S Ekern P.E.
Mr. Lou Hatter
September 18, 2009
Mr. Pierce R. Homer
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond VA 23218
Dear Secretary Homer:
I have followed the development of a project called the Meadowcreek Parkway since about 1994 and have experienced the many transitions from it being a single federally funded project connecting Preston Avenue near downtown Charlottesville to Rio Road to it now being represented as three separate projects – Meadow Creek Parkway in Albemarle County, the McIntire Road Extended in Charlottesville, and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road at the intersection of the proposed McIntire Road Extended and U.S. Route 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. I am troubled that in August of this year VDOT sent a revised U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application along with plans indicating that the McIntire Road Extended project has an at-grade intersection at its southern terminus at U.S. Route 250 Bypass. But, also in August 2009 VDOT provided me plans indicating that McIntire Road Extended has its southern ‘terminus’ not at U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but 775 feet north of the bypass where it will presumably join the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project. It also appears that VDOT distributed inconsistent plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville in August 2009 related to a permit application, and a request for a permanent utility easement, respectively. I contacted the VDOT project manager in the Culpeper District several times by telephone in the last two weeks hoping to clarify which of these inconsistent plans is the actual current plan, and why different plans have been distributed to the Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville, but have not received any such clarification.
As a civil engineer myself, I question the practice as well as the ethics of distributing inconsistent plans to stakeholders in the very same project. Not only are there inconsistencies in the plans, but the descriptions of the McIntire Road Extended project termini are different in the current Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program and the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program.
Distribution of inconsistent plans makes it impossible for interested parties in the project development process to provide meaningful and substantive comments about the project. Please look into what appears to me to be significant shortcomings in the information being provided to the Corps of Engineers, the City of Charlottesville, and to other project stakeholders by VDOT. I look forward to getting a formal statement indicating what the current plan is upon which current permit and right-of-way decisions should be based.
Sincerely,
Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
peter.kleeman@gmail.com
(434) 296-6208
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road Public Hearing Brochue now available online (and here)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road Design Public Hearing scheduled October 29, 2009
I would think it more appropriate to discuss the inter-relationships among design and historic preservation alternatives prior to having the formal design public hearing. As a consulting party of the Section 106 review on this project I have been disappointed at the lack of consideration of historic properties and the lack of interest demonstrated by Federal Highway Administration in considering historic preservation issues as part of the design process.
Do review the material and provide comments at the meeting or using other methods outlined in the announcement.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Daniel Bluestone leads tour of historic Rock Hill Garden after Hands Across McIntire Park event
About 20 of the 200-300 people who participated in the Hands Across McIntire Park event on September 27 enjoyed the garden and learned much of the history and historic importance of this garden on the tour.
One of the mitigation ideas to limit impacts on this garden from the road projects is to ensure that a dense stand of trees shield the highway from the garden. But, a sewer easement is currently being considered for transfer to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority that would be forty feet wide and eliminate the possibility of planting large trees in the easement. This easement directly restricts the opportunity to provide screening between the road and the garden. A city council decision on the proposed easement may be on the next City Council agenda on the first Monday in October.
Friday, September 18, 2009
My letter to Pierce Homer - Secretary of Transportation
September 18, 2009
Mr. Pierce R. Homer
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond VA 23218
Dear Secretary Homer:
I have followed the development of a project called the Meadowcreek Parkway since about 1994 and have experienced the many transitions from it being a single federally funded project connecting Preston Avenue near downtown Charlottesville to Rio Road to it now being represented as three separate projects – Meadow Creek Parkway in Albemarle County, the McIntire Road Extended in Charlottesville, and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road at the intersection of the proposed McIntire Road Extended and U.S. Route 250 Bypass in Charlottesville. I am troubled that in August of this year VDOT sent a revised U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application along with plans indicating that the McIntire Road Extended project has an at-grade intersection at its southern terminus at U.S. Route 250 Bypass. But, also in August 2009 VDOT provided me plans indicating that McIntire Road Extended has its southern ‘terminus’ not at U.S. Route 250 Bypass, but 775 feet north of the bypass where it will presumably join the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project. It also appears that VDOT distributed inconsistent plans to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville in August 2009 related to a permit application, and a request for a permanent utility easement, respectively. I contacted the VDOT project manager in the Culpeper District several times by telephone in the last two weeks hoping to clarify which of these inconsistent plans is the actual current plan, and why different plans have been distributed to the Corps of Engineers and to the City of Charlottesville, but have not received any such clarification.
As a civil engineer myself, I question the practice as well as the ethics of distributing inconsistent plans to stakeholders in the very same project. Not only are there inconsistencies in the plans, but the descriptions of the McIntire Road Extended project termini are different in the current Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program and the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program.
Distribution of inconsistent plans makes it impossible for interested parties in the project development process to provide meaningful and substantive comments about the project. Please look into what appears to me to be significant shortcomings in the information being provided to the Corps of Engineers, the City of Charlottesville, and to other project stakeholders by VDOT. I look forward to getting a formal statement indicating what the current plan is upon which current permit and right-of-way decisions should be based.
Sincerely,
Peter T. Kleeman
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
peter.kleeman@gmail.com
(434) 296-6208
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
VDOT is silent on the McIntire Road Extended project
I visited the VDOT website describing project in the Culpeper District (in which all of Albemarle County and Charlottesville project fall) to see how the McIntire Road Extended project was characterized. To my surprise, there was no listing of this project in the VDOT online listing of current Culpeper Distsrict projects. The Meadow Creek Parkway project that runs north from Melbourne Road to Rio Road is listed as under construction. The VDOT description of this project states that the project "will connect with McIntire Road Extended at the Charlottesville city line, which will extend the new roadway alignment south to the Route 250 Bypass." This is consistent with the plans for McIntire Road Extended provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in VDOT's Corps Permit application dated August 7, 2009. But, there is no listing of the McIntire Road Extended as a current project. The Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project is listed as a proposed project that "currently includes preliminary engineering (design) only."
But, there is no independent listing for McIntire Road Extended where VDOT describes the project. Perhaps VDOT doesn't want to state clearly if the project includes an at-grade intersection (as the plans provided to the Corps of Engineers indicate) or if the project starts 775 feet north of Route 250 Bypass as the most recent plans provide me by VDOT indicate. VDOT is apparently silent on this issue.
Also, I have telephoned the project contact at VDOT several times in the last two weeks by telephone leaving a voice message asking what the current plans are for McIntire Road Extended but I have not gotten a response of any kind from VDOT in response to my inquiries.
The VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program lists the project description as going "FROM: ROUTE 250 BYPASS AT MCINTIRE ROAD TO: MELBOURNE ROAD INTERSECTION (0.5200 KM)." This would be consistent with what has been provided to the Corps of Engineers, but the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Improvement Program describes the project as "FROM: 0.147 MILES [775 feet] N. OF RT. 250 BYPASS TO 0.004 MILES S OF MELBOURNE RD INTERSECTION (0.8600 KM)," consistent with the most recent VDOT plans I received.
When will VDOT clarify this for us all? If I don't get any response from the project managers in the next day or two, I will be consacting the Secretary of Transportation to see if I can get some feedback. I will post the true limits and description of this project when VDOT provides me one. Meanwhile, the Charlottesville City Council is contemplating granting an easement to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority based on the project not including an at-grade intersection. An additional sewer easement would be required if the project includes the at-grade intersection. I urged the city council not to grant any easements until the true description of the project is revealed and all necessary planning decisions are made about how the road will actually connect to Route 250 Bypass (at-grade or at an interchange) - or if there will be a road at all.
When will these storm drains be cleared?
Now that the Juvenile and Domestic Court project is essentially complete (and an opening ceremony held several weeks ago) I am thinking that these drains have been abandoned by whomever was obligated to maintain the drains and the silt barriers. I contacted the city's environmental coordinator who promised to find out who should handle this material last week (and offered to do the job myself if that was necessary). The court project is a city project, and I believe they could easily identify who is responsible for this work. If the city claims to be eco-friendly, they also need to attend to eco-impacts from their projects.
I saw a city street cleaning truck work this block and watched the driver avoid the drains rather than address the situation. I did report the situation via charlottesville.org several days ago and not heard or seen any sort of response. Perhaps I will take action and bundle up the silt baffles, the trapped material and deliver it to someone at the city. Any suggestions as to whom I should bring the collected material?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Political Mondays segment for Sept. 14, 2009 now online.
Political Mondays videos online:
September 14, 2009 - Topics: Tea Party event in Wash. D.C. (Joe Thomas); Conflicting Plans associated with McIntire Road Extended in McIntire Park (Peter Kleeman); First Anniversary of Lehman Brothers failure (Jim Hanchett-moderator)
September 7, 2009 - Show abbreviated due to US Open Tennis coverage. Topic: Obama address on education to school students.
August 31, 2009 Topics: Why is the dredging contract cost twice expectations? (Joe Thomas); the Future of McIntire Park - is the proposed Botanical Garden at McIntire Park a good idea? (Peter Kleeman).
August 24, 2009 Topics: Desirability of the Commonwealth of Virginia contracting out major government responsibilities (Peter Kleeman); Never count on government - private enterprise is always the answer. (Joe Thomas)
August 17, 2009: Topics: Places 29 Report (Joe Thomas); Need for Civil Discourse among elected officials and the public (Peter Kleeman); Will a health care bill be passed this year? (Dan Schutte).
August 10, 2009: Topics: "Photo Red" Approval by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Peter Kleeman); Tom In Your Town meetings (Joe Thomas).
August 3, 2009: Topics: Fraudulent letters sent to Rep. Tom Perriello (Joe Thomas); Federal Cash for Clunkers program (Dan Schutte).
July 27, 2009: Topics: Fifty-year water supply plan (Peter Kleeman); Virgil Goode, Jr. not seeking US Congressional seat in 2010 (Joe Thomas).
July 20, 2009: Topics: Charlottesville rally against healthcare proposals (Joe Thomas); US Army Corps of Engineers letter denying permit to construct McIntire Road Extended (Peter Kleeman).
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Proposed Deed of Easement to RWSA in McIntire Park inconsistent with stormwater design for McIntire Road Extended
I was disappointed that council moved and seconded an ordinance that would grant this easement to RWSA to bring up a second reading on this ordinance at the next council meeting. It appeared to me that three councilors would prefer to defer consideration of the ordinance until some of the issues presented to council could be investigated and modifications to the easement ordinance and deed could be worked out with RWSA and possibly others. But, it only takes two of five council members to move this item to a second reading.
I am curious to know what forces are pushing this project forward in spite of potentially serious defects in the planning process, the plans distributed to various agencies and jurisdictions by VDOT, and images being presented to the public. I will encourage city council members not to approve this requested action, but rather take a comprehensive look at the interrelationships among the Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road and McIntire Road Extended projects. There are currently at least two different sets of plans being circulated to key stakeholder groups. Shouldn't decisions be made using a common description of the project under consideration.
Very detailed images for both drawings below are available as part of the May 5, 2008 city council agenda - with background posted on the city website. But, I think you can imagine that these concept drawings do not relate to the reality of what a pedestrian will experience if city council approves what has been presented to them by the city staff and RWSA.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Progress on Mall Fountain slow at best
Will these fountains be working in time to enjoy them for the several week between now and when they would be turned off for the winter? Or will 2009 be the year the fountains were dry?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
McIntire Road Extended project plans submitted to City Council are different from plans submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
On August 7, 2009, VDOT submitted a request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with an at-grade intersection. See these plans at my August 15, 2009 posting of the VDOT submittal. You will clearly see that these plans differ in many aspects from the plans submitted to city council. In fact, the design of the box culvert that allows a tributary of the Schenk's Branch to flow under the proposed McIntire Road Extended is a different design and at a different location on the different plans.
I have visited the Charlottesville City Attorney's office and spoken with the director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in search of answers to why these plans are different, and if they are concerned. It appears to me that all parties concerned are simply reacting to documents provided them, and looking only at issues immediately before them - and only interested citizens are trying to look at the comprehensive issue of the design, review, and environmental implications of actions being considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville, and others.
One would believe that all agencies would desire to be working from the same plans - especially on a controversial project as is the McIntire Road Extended project, but this doesn't appear to be the case.
Do consider providing your thoughts to city council on September 8, 2009 at council chambers shortly after 7:00 p.m. or send your thoughts by email to council@charlottesville.org to reach all of the city councilors.
Sheet 3 of McIntire Road Extended Project - current plan dated Oct. 30, 2008.
Sheet 4 of McIntire Road Extended Project - as submitted to Charlottesville City Council
Sheet 5 of McIntire Road Extended Project - as submitted to Charlottesville City Council
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Public Hearing on permanent easement to RWSA item #2 on City Council Sept. 8, 2009 agenda
This most recent notice is worded somewhat different from the original notice posted three weeks earlier.
The staff report that is provided to the city council has had some information on the substantial costs to the city associated with the project made possible in part through this easement is identified. The city will pay two-percent of the total cost of relocating the sewer line plus over $800,000. to pay for the additional cost of upgrading the size of the sewer line. No estimate of the relocation cost is provided, but two-percent could be another substantial sum of money to be paid by the city.
On Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. the Charlottesville City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 605 East Main Street, Charlottesville, VA regarding the conveyance by the City of a permanent utility easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) for sanitary sewer line facilities. The easement is shown on plan sheets 4 and 5 of Virginia Department of Transportation Project No. U000-104-102, RW-201, C501, dated 10-30-08, and revised 8-11-09. The proposed easement is located on property identified on City Real Property Tax Map 45 as Parcel 1 (McIntire Park), on City Tax Map 46 as Parcel 1.2 and on Albemarle County Tax Map 61 as Parcel 193A. Any person may appear at the public hearing to express their views on the proposed conveyance. A copy of the full text of the Ordinance authorizing the conveyance and the above-referenced VDOT plan sheets indicating the boundaries of the easements are available for inspection in the Charlottesville City Attorney's Office.
Staff Report included in Council Agenda Packet:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: September 8, 2009
Actions Required: Yes (Approval of Ordinance First Reading)
Staff Presenter: Craig Brown, City Attorney
Staff Contacts: Craig Brown, City Attorney; Lauren Hildebrand, Public Utilities Director; Angela Tucker, Development Services Manager
Re: RWSA Easement for Schenk's Branch Interceptor
Background: The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ("RWSA") owns a sanitary sewer collection line known as the Schenk's Branch Interceptor. The line begins on the east side of McIntire Road across from the parking lot for the Albemarle County Office Building, and continues along McIntire Road, under the Rt. 250 Bypass, through McIntire Park and ultimately connects to RWSA's Meadow Creek Interceptor in Albemarle County. The Schenk's Branch Interceptor was originally owned by the City, but was a part of the wastewater infrastructure sold to RWSA pursuant to the 1973 Four Party Agreement between the City, Albemarle County, the Albemarle County Service Authority and RWSA.
The entire Schenk's Branch Interceptor is approximately 7,000 linear feet, with all flows through the line originating within the City. As part of RWSA's replacement and upgrade of the Meadow Creek Interceptor (which collects flows from both the City and County) RWSA will be replacing and upgrading approximately 640 linear feet of the Schenk's Branch line. An additional 1,075 linear feet of the line will be relocated and replaced by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") to accommodate the construction of McIntire Road Extended. The proposed relocation by VDOT provides an opportunity for the City to have this portion of the line enlarged, with VDOT paying the majority of the relocation costs and the City paying the additional costs for the larger line.
Discussion: Since the portion of the line that is being relocated by VDOT will continue to cross City-owned property (beginning in McIntire Park and ending near Melbourne Road) RWSA will require a permanent easement from the City for the new location of the line. The area of the permanent easement is outlined in red on the plats with the proposed deed, a copy of which is attached. The granting of the permanent easement to RWSA has been advertised for a public hearing, and will require the adoption of the attached ordinance following two readings.
Alternatives: City Council may decline to adopt the ordinance for a permanent easement for the relocated sewer line.
Budget Impact: Since the McIntire Road Extended project, including the utility relocation, has not yet been bid for construction all costs are estimates at this time. The estimated costs to the City will be substantial, primarily due to the fact that the new 30-inch line will need to be placed deeper in the ground than the existing line. The “betterment” costs for increasing the size of the line are estimated to be $815,730, which will ultimately be charged to the City since the line only serves City customers. The majority of these costs ($455,000) are attributable to rock excavation that will be necessary to place the new larger line deeper in the ground. The installation of the new Schenk’s Branch Interceptor will also entail improvements to an existing City sanitary sewer main that ties into the Interceptor near Melbourne Road, at an estimated cost to the City of $48,600. As with all project costs related to right-of-way acquisition and construction for McIntire Road Extended the City will also be responsible for 2% of the costs of the relocation of the Schenk’s Branch Interceptor.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance granting RWSA a permanent easement for the relocated Schenk's Branch Interceptor.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance granting a permanent easement to RWSA
Proposed deed of easement with plats attached
Attachment: Proposed ordinance granting a permanent easement to RWSA as updated for the Sept. 08, 2009 council meeting
GRANTING A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO THE
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE
RELOCATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE
SCHENK'S BRANCH SEWER INTERCEPTOR.
WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ("RWSA") has requested the City of Charlottesville to grant a permanent easement across a portion of McIntire Park and on City-owned property between the Park and Melbourne Road, as shown on the highway plan sheets 4 and 5 of the Virginia Department of Transportation, for VDOT Project No. UOOO-104-102, RW-201, C501, dated October 30, 2008 and last revised August 11, 2009; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed easement will allow for the relocation and enlargement of a portion of the Schenk's Branch Interceptor, a sewer collection line owned by RWSA and serving City residents; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), a public hearing was held to give the public an opportunity to comment on the conveyance of this easement; and
WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed the request and have no objection to the conveyance of said easement to RWSA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute one or more Deeds of Easement and such other documents as may be requested by RWSA, in form approved by the City Attorney, to convey the above-described easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Note: § 15.2-1800. Purchase, sale, use, etc., of real property.
B. Subject to any applicable requirements of Article VII, Section 9 of the Constitution, any locality may sell, at public or private sale, exchange, lease as lessor, mortgage, pledge, subordinate interest in or otherwise dispose of its real property, which includes the superjacent airspace (except airspace provided for in § 15.2-2030) which may be subdivided and conveyed separate from the subjacent land surface, provided that no such real property, whether improved or unimproved, shall be disposed of until the governing body has held a public hearing concerning such disposal. However, the holding of a public hearing shall not apply to (i) the leasing of real property to another public body, political subdivision or authority of the Commonwealth or (ii) conveyance of site development easements across public property, including, but not limited to, easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management, and other similar conveyances, that are consistent with the local capital improvement program, involving improvement of property owned by the locality. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the vacation of public interests in real property under the provisions of Articles 6 (§ 15.2-2240 et seq.) and 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of Chapter 22 of this title.
Proposed Deed of Easement:
This document was prepared by:
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
City of Charlottesville Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 450001000, 460001200, 460003000 Albemarle County Tax Map and Parcel Number 06100-00-00-193A0
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 3rd day of November, 2008, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor ("Property Owner"), and RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate created pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, whose address is 695 Moores Creek Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee (the "Authority").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to grant the Authority the easement shown and described on the plans for State Highway Project U000-104-102, RW-201, Parcels 001 and 004, Sheets 4 and 5, attached hereto and recorded herewith (the "Plat"); and
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plat, the proposed easement crosses a portion of the property conveyed to Property Owner by deeds recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville in Deed Book 162, page 296, and Deed Book 338, page 530, and by deeds recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 192, pages 15 and 18, and Deed Book 526, page 238, and Property Owner is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($l.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the Authority a perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend a sewer line consisting of pipes, equipment, and appurtenances to such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the real property of Property Owner located in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent easement held by the Authority, the location and width of the easement hereby granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plat as Sanitary Sewer Easement (the "Sewer Easement"). Reference is made to the Plat for the exact location and dimension of the Sewer Easement hereby granted and the property over which the same crosses.
Easement Obstructions
Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be located within the Sewer Easement. The Sewer Easement shall include the right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe sewer line installation, operation and maintenance. The Authority shall have no responsibility to Property Owner, its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush, shrubbery, or other obstructions located in the Sewer Easement if cut or removed or otherwise damaged.
Easement Access and Maintenance
As part of the Sewer Easement the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the above-described property within the Sewer Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, relocating and extending the above-described sewer line and appurtenances thereto, within the Sewer Easement; and in addition, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend such sewer lines. If the Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of Property Owner adjacent to the right-of-way, and shall restore surface conditions of such property adjacent to the right-of-way as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to the Authority's exercise of such right.
Excavation
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Sewer Easement, the Authority agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to excavation, including restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation.
Ownership of Facilities
The facilities constructed within the Sewer Easement shall be the property of the Authority, its successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the Sewer Easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Dredging Contract and the Future of McIntire Park topics for Political Monday on TV-19
Previous Political Mondays videos:
August 31, 2009 Topics: Why is the dredging contract cost twice expectations? (Joe Thomas); the Future of McIntire Park - is the proposed Botanical Garden at McIntire Park a good idea? (Peter Kleeman).
August 24, 2009 Topics: Desirability of the Commonwealth of Virginia contracting out major government responsibilities (Peter Kleeman); Never count on government - private enterprise is always the answer. (Joe Thomas)
August 17, 2009: Topics: Places 29 Report (Joe Thomas); Need for Civil Discourse among elected officials and the public (Peter Kleeman); Will a health care bill be passed this year? (Dan Schutte).
August 10, 2009: Topics: "Photo Red" Approval by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Peter Kleeman); Tom In Your Town meetings (Joe Thomas).
August 3, 2009: Topics: Fraudulent letters sent to Rep. Tom Perriello (Joe Thomas); Federal Cash for Clunkers program (Dan Schutte).
July 27, 2009: Topics: Fifty-year water supply plan (Peter Kleeman); Virgil Goode, Jr. not seeking US Congressional seat in 2010 (Joe Thomas).
July 20, 2009: Topics: Charlottesville rally against healthcare proposals (Joe Thomas); US Army Corps of Engineers letter denying permit to construct McIntire Road Extended (Peter Kleeman).