The Jefferson Area Tea Party invited all eight of the Charlottesville City Council candidates to attend a candidate forum at the Hibachi Grill in Charlottesville on August 26. I attended the forum to see how engaged the local Tea Party group might be in supporting candidates in the upcoming election while enjoying the Chinese Dinner Buffet. Four of the five Independent candidates attended - Bob Fenwick, Brandon Collins, Paul Long and Scott Bandy. Each candidate presented a five minute opening statement about their candidacy and participated in a question and answer session for about one hour.
Tea Party members in attendance listened intently to each candidate and asked a broad range of questions of the candidates. But, will the Tea Party as a group or its members actively support any of the candidates in the council election? If the Tea Party wants to be an influence in local government it seems to me that they should should back one or more of the candidates in the field.
As a political observer, it appears to me that candidates opposing the overly expensive Water Supply Plan would be consistent with the fiscal conservatism of the Tea Party principles. I am interested to see if support for those candidates will emerge. Is it possible that Tea Party voters will support Dede Smith from the Democratic Party and Bob Fenwick and possibly another of the independent candidates who support dredging of the Rivanna Reservior first and repair (and possible expansion) of the existing Ragged Mountain Dam as necessary Water Plan option.
None of the Democratic Council Nominees were present at the forum, but I hope the Tea Party members will consider how their positions may or may not resonate with the Tea Party principles.
With no clear Tea Party affiliated candidate in the race many voters may simply opt not to vote. But voting is the best way to influence who the members of the new council will be.
I will be watching to see if the Tea Party chooses to participate in the city council campaign in any significant way. This looks like the "think globally - act locally" concept applies.
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Friday, August 26, 2011
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park asks City Council to Consider McIntire Road Extended Resolution
The Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) distributed the text of a proposed resolution concerning future council actions associated with the proposed McIntire Road Extended project that would significantly impact McIntire Park. An article in today's Daily Progress entitled "Group offers new appeal on parkway" by Rachana Dixit discusses how CPMP worked with the City Attorney to get the language of the proposed resolution in a form suitable for council consideration, but it is not clear if council has yet discussed the proposed resolution in the closed session of council held on Monday April 19, 2010. The Daily Progress Headline is a bit misleading in that this is not a new appeal on the Meadowcreek Parkway project. CPMP submitted a similar proposal to council several weeks ago. The new text is the result of discussions on the wording of the resolution between CPMP and the City Attorney carried out at the request of council.The Daily Progress article suggests that some council members are hoping what the resolution calls for will occur, but that council may not act to ensure that CPMP is afforded a fair opportunity for judicial review of the project segmentation claim.
I certainly encourage council to pass this resolution so that CPMP members and other area residents can be assured that their concerns are fairly addressed in Federal court if that turns out to be necessary. Approving this proposed resolution will be consistent with Charlottesville City Council's vision statement where they strive to be "A leader in innovation, environmental sustainability, and social and economic justice." In the vision statement council states the following:
"The delivery of quality services is at the heart of Charlottesville’s social compact with its citizens. Charlottesville’s approach to customer service ensures that we have safe neighborhoods, strong schools, and a clean environment. We continually work to employ the optimal means of delivering services, and our decisions are informed at every stage by effective communication and active citizen involvement."
CPMP believes that the proposed resolution is necessary to ensure that our opportunity to exercise active citizen involvement may be prempted by actions by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the City of Charlottesville. Passing the proposed resolution or some variant of the resolution agreed upon by CPMP and City Council would clearly demonstrate that council acts in concert with its own vision statement.
Below is the draft resolution submitted to city council for its consideration.
Dear Councilors, The Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park believes the proposed McIntire Road Extended and Rt. 250 Bypass Interchange are not in full compliance with federal project development, historic preservation, and environmental laws. It is our belief that no damage should occur in McIntire Park until the legal question has been resolved. We request that you act in the best interests of the citizens of Charlottesville by passing a resolution to protect McIntire Park from premature and unnecessary disturbance. The people have a right to know that if a large section of McIntire Park is threatened with loss, there would first be full compliance with our nation’s laws. If construction begins in McIntire Park before a judicial review of the Interchange has occurred, citizens will lose a significant resource that is protected by federal law. It could also lead to the significant expense of undoing the damage done. We respectfully ask that you pass a resolution to prevent any ground disturbing activity south of Melbourne Road before the Federal Highway Administration has made a final determination on the Interchange and there has been an opportunity for an expeditious review of the FHWA decision. Here is possible wording for such a resolution: “The Charlottesville City Council hereby states that it is the will of Council that no contract for the construction of a McIntire Road Extended is to be signed, that no ground disturbing activity is to take place south of Melbourne Road, and that no agreements will be signed with the Virginia Department of Transportation for project construction, operation,and maintenance before the Federal Highway Administration has made its final determination on the proposed Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road and there has been an opportunity for an expeditious judicial review of the merits of the legal claim on the FHWA decision on the Interchange.” Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request. John A. Cruickshank Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park 973-0373
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce expresses Grave Disappointment and Concern regarding Meadowcreek Parkway project
The Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce distributed the press release (below) expressing its "'GRAVE DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONCERN' TO CHARLOTTESVILLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OVER DIRECTION WITH “GREAT POTENTIAL TO DAMAGE” KEY ROADWAY PROJECTS." A copy of a letter sent to Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris is attached.
I am a bit surprised that the Chamber is "concerned that Council is placing the City Attorney in the extremely difficult position of meeting with project opponents known to be preparing a suit to stop the project altogether, with an apparent assignment to assist those citizens with procedural elements of their case." I am curious if the Chamber contacted the city attorney on this matter prior to issuing this release. I attended the city council meeting where council asked the city attorney to meet with members of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) to ensure that all relevant issues of concern to the city and CPMP are included in a draft resolution for council consideration. It is well understood by CPMP members that the city attorney cannot provide legal advice to the coalition, and we have no intention to ask for legal advice. I have had conversations regarding legal issues regarding city actions in the past and know that our city attorney is well aware of his responsibilities as council to city council.
I am also disappointed that the Chamber appears to oppose consideration of all relevant federal, state, and local laws, regulations, ordinances, etc. prior to taking actions that may irreparably damage McIntire Park before legitimate concerns of parkland protection, historic resource preservation and federal transportation regulations are fully considered.
I requested during today's Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting that it - as the forum for consideration of regional transportation issues - host a community discussion of the true costs and benefits of the proposed project to ensure that the community decisions relating to this project are based on a comprehensive set of facts rather than isolated bits of information or opinion provided by a broad range of project stakeholders. The MPO members were not interested in serving as a forum for clarifying issues surrounding the project and moved on to other matters on their agenda.
To learn more about the project please come to C'ville Coffee on Harris Road (near the skate park) where CPMP will be holding a FUNdraiser and be providing information about their project concerns. The FUNdraiser is from 2-4 pm on Sunday March 28 at C'ville Coffee. There will be musical entertainment, comedy, and information provided. Tickets are $15 ($5 for under 12 year olds) . Come and enjoy the event and learn a bit more about how the Meadowcreek Parkway project will impact Charlottesville and McIntire Park. Check the bulletin boards around town for event details.
Chamber press release and letter to Mayor Norris follow:
“… dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business
I am a bit surprised that the Chamber is "concerned that Council is placing the City Attorney in the extremely difficult position of meeting with project opponents known to be preparing a suit to stop the project altogether, with an apparent assignment to assist those citizens with procedural elements of their case." I am curious if the Chamber contacted the city attorney on this matter prior to issuing this release. I attended the city council meeting where council asked the city attorney to meet with members of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park (CPMP) to ensure that all relevant issues of concern to the city and CPMP are included in a draft resolution for council consideration. It is well understood by CPMP members that the city attorney cannot provide legal advice to the coalition, and we have no intention to ask for legal advice. I have had conversations regarding legal issues regarding city actions in the past and know that our city attorney is well aware of his responsibilities as council to city council.
I am also disappointed that the Chamber appears to oppose consideration of all relevant federal, state, and local laws, regulations, ordinances, etc. prior to taking actions that may irreparably damage McIntire Park before legitimate concerns of parkland protection, historic resource preservation and federal transportation regulations are fully considered.
I requested during today's Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting that it - as the forum for consideration of regional transportation issues - host a community discussion of the true costs and benefits of the proposed project to ensure that the community decisions relating to this project are based on a comprehensive set of facts rather than isolated bits of information or opinion provided by a broad range of project stakeholders. The MPO members were not interested in serving as a forum for clarifying issues surrounding the project and moved on to other matters on their agenda.
To learn more about the project please come to C'ville Coffee on Harris Road (near the skate park) where CPMP will be holding a FUNdraiser and be providing information about their project concerns. The FUNdraiser is from 2-4 pm on Sunday March 28 at C'ville Coffee. There will be musical entertainment, comedy, and information provided. Tickets are $15 ($5 for under 12 year olds) . Come and enjoy the event and learn a bit more about how the Meadowcreek Parkway project will impact Charlottesville and McIntire Park. Check the bulletin boards around town for event details.
Chamber press release and letter to Mayor Norris follow:
“… dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting businessand enhancing the quality of life in our Greater
RELEASE: IMMEDIATE
CONTACT: Timothy P. O’Brien 434.295.3141
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPRESSES “GRAVE DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONCERN” TO CHARLOTTESVILLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OVER DIRECTION WITH “GREAT POTENTIAL TO DAMAGE” KEY ROADWAY PROJECTS
(
The March 22nd letter to Mayor David Norris and Charlottesville City Counselors stated, “Our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce expresses our grave disappointment and concern about recent actions on behalf of the City of Charlottesville which appear to greatly compromise the City’s and Commonwealth of Virginia’s legal standing regarding the McIntire Road Extended Project, and bringing into serious jeopardy that vital project and many other projects of benefit to the City.”
“As you know,” the letter continued, “expeditious construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway & McIntire Road Extended projects – from Rio Road in Albemarle County to a new federal intersection project at US 250 & McIntire Road in the City of Charlottesville – providing a safe, attractive, accessible gateway to a vibrant, sustained downtown residential, shopping, entertainment and employment center, remain our Chamber's highest transportation priority projects.”
A copy of the Chamber letter to the City is attached.
The Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business and enhancing the quality of life in the Greater Charlottesville communities. Founded in 1913, today the Chamber has 1,000 member enterprises. Chamber member enterprises employ more than 45,000 men and women in the Greater Charlottesville region, representing an estimated total payroll of more than $1.3 billion a year.
###
3.24.10 – 10
Attachment: March 22, 2010 Chamber letter to Charlottesville Mayor & City Council
“… dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business
and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater
March 22, 2010
RE:
Dear Mayor Norris and Honorable City Councilors:
Our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce expresses our grave disappointment and concern about recent actions on behalf of the City of Charlottesville which appear to greatly compromise the City’s and Commonwealth of Virginia’s legal standing regarding the McIntire Road Extended Project, and bringing into serious jeopardy that vital project and many other projects of benefit to the City.
As you know, expeditious construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway & McIntire Road Extended projects – from
Recent informal direction by City Council, apparently reversing more than forty years of City policy approved by numerous City Councils, politically linking two independent projects with separate and distinct functional utility, hold great potential to damage both of these projects’ prospects. This direction effectively halts progress on the McIntire Road Extended project just as the project is gaining its last needed permit, and at the 11-th hour of the awarding of a construction bid with very favorable pricing to the City’s and Virginia’s taxpayers. We are concerned that the impact of losing the $2 million benefit of these favorable construction bids was not treated more seriously. Clearly, if half or a full construction season is lost, it would be reasonable to assume project costs – taxpayer costs – will increase significantly.
Our Chamber is even more concerned that Council is placing the City Attorney in the extremely difficult position of meeting with project opponents known to be preparing a suit to stop the project altogether, with an apparent assignment to assist those citizens with procedural elements of their case. The City Attorney, by oath and public trust, represents the interests of the City – including advancing the McIntire Road Extended project, by repeated direction of City Council. Our Chamber respects Mayor Norris’ and others long-standing, firmly-held opposition to these projects. However, City Council has collectively voted to approve and forward this project on a number of occasions, and the public deserves to know that all Councilors, regardless of their personal opinion on a particular issue or project, will forward the official decisions of the Council, or, at a minimum, at least not interfere with such decisions. This is the basis of the public's trust in our democratic system.
– 2 –
As you know, the
We are further concerned that these recent reversals may only further exacerbate already-frayed tensions between the City and
Again, our Chamber urges the Charlottesville City Council to proceed with construction of the McIntire Extended project and final planning stages of the federal US250 – McIntire Road Intersection project – separately and independently, as these two projects clearly are.
We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss this very important matter with you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
X / W. Rod Gentry
W. Rod Gentry
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Timothy Hulbert
President
X / Robert P Hodous
Robert P. Hodous, Esq.
First Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors
The Honorable David Norris and Honorable City Councilors
City of
cc: The Chamber Board of Directors
The Honorable
Friday, March 12, 2010
VDOT pushes to get McIntire Road Extended project underway.
Brent Sprinkel, VDOT's preliminary engineering manager for the McIntire Road Extended project, sent the letter below to Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris requesting that the city help VDOT get a construction contract signed with the low bidder before the end of March, 2010. But, VDOT is apparently not recognizing that the City of Charlottesville is not willing to approve an at-grade intersection of McIntire Road Extended with U.S. Route 250 Bypass at McIntire Road. The confusion appears to me to be VDOT's confusion, not the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Mayor Norris wrote a clarification letter to VDOT dated January 4, 2010 stating clearly that an at-grade intersection at Route 250 Bypass is not approved. The letter states the following:
"To clarify, the official position of the City of Charlottesville, as stated in a letter of 1/18/06 to VDOT (attached) is to only build the McIntire Road Extended with a grade separated interchange."
That is very clear to me. But, VDOT is still asking the City of Charlottesville to state something totally different. They ask that the city agree that:
"In the event that a grade-separated interchange is not built, an appropriately designed at-grade intersection constitutes an acceptable and realistic alternative."
VDOT is not asking for a clarification of some confusion, but asking the city to change or to misrepresent its official position on the intersection so that VDOT can possibly get the US Army Corps of Engineers permit necessary before signing a construction contract for the McIntire Road Extended project. The proposed construction contract will build McIntire Road Extended from Melbourne Road to a southern terminus 775 feet north of Route 250 Bypass. The Corps of Engineers has already stated that such a facility could not get a Corps of Engineers permit as it is not a complete road. I find VDOT's request to be totally inappropriate. The letter that VDOT drafted for the Mayor's consideration is given below.
There is a possibility that city council will consider a resolution relating to this issue at the March 15, 2010 city council meeting. I look forward to attending that meeting to witness the discussion on this matter by council.
Mr. Robert J. Hume
Chief, Regulatory Office
Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-1096
Dear Mr. Hume:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the City's position on the McIntire Road Extended project presently under permit review by the Corps of Engineers and supplement our letter of January 4, 2010 to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). In doing so, the City wishes to provide you with a perspective on the desired transportation outcome that we wish to achieve.
The City of Charlottesville has worked with VDOT for nearly four decades to develop the McIntire Road Extended project. As early as 1975, City Council reserved right-of-way through McIntire Park for a road. From the late 1970s through the present, the City has continued to work with VDOT to develop and implement a project that provides a transportation connection through McIntire Park with a southern terminus at Route 250. While the design of the McIntire Road extended project has changed over time, especially with regard to reducing the number of lanes and including provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians, the concept of extending McIntire Road through McIntire Park, from Rt. 250 north to the Meadowcreek Parkway (now under construction) has been supported by every vote taken on the various portions of the project since the mid 1970s.
While the original plan for the road involved an at grade intersection, the City, in an effort to improve traffic flow sought, and in 2005 was able to obtain Federal funding specifically for the construction of a grade-separated interchange to connect the McIntire Road Extended project with Route 250. A grade-separated interchange at Route 250 is the City's preferred option and we are working closely with the Federal Highway Administration to complete preliminary engineering and an Environmental Assessment. This approach merely confirms the City's consistent position for almost 40 years that a complete transportation facility is constructed to connect the Meadowcreek Parkway to Route 250 through McIntire Park. In the event that a grade-separated interchange is not built, an appropriately designed at-grade intersection constitutes an acceptable and realistic alternative.
Sincerely,
Dave Norris
Mayor
Mayor Norris wrote a clarification letter to VDOT dated January 4, 2010 stating clearly that an at-grade intersection at Route 250 Bypass is not approved. The letter states the following:
"To clarify, the official position of the City of Charlottesville, as stated in a letter of 1/18/06 to VDOT (attached) is to only build the McIntire Road Extended with a grade separated interchange."
That is very clear to me. But, VDOT is still asking the City of Charlottesville to state something totally different. They ask that the city agree that:
"In the event that a grade-separated interchange is not built, an appropriately designed at-grade intersection constitutes an acceptable and realistic alternative."
VDOT is not asking for a clarification of some confusion, but asking the city to change or to misrepresent its official position on the intersection so that VDOT can possibly get the US Army Corps of Engineers permit necessary before signing a construction contract for the McIntire Road Extended project. The proposed construction contract will build McIntire Road Extended from Melbourne Road to a southern terminus 775 feet north of Route 250 Bypass. The Corps of Engineers has already stated that such a facility could not get a Corps of Engineers permit as it is not a complete road. I find VDOT's request to be totally inappropriate. The letter that VDOT drafted for the Mayor's consideration is given below.
There is a possibility that city council will consider a resolution relating to this issue at the March 15, 2010 city council meeting. I look forward to attending that meeting to witness the discussion on this matter by council.
Draft
Mr. Robert J. Hume
Chief, Regulatory Office
Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-1096
Dear Mr. Hume:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the City's position on the McIntire Road Extended project presently under permit review by the Corps of Engineers and supplement our letter of January 4, 2010 to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). In doing so, the City wishes to provide you with a perspective on the desired transportation outcome that we wish to achieve.
The City of Charlottesville has worked with VDOT for nearly four decades to develop the McIntire Road Extended project. As early as 1975, City Council reserved right-of-way through McIntire Park for a road. From the late 1970s through the present, the City has continued to work with VDOT to develop and implement a project that provides a transportation connection through McIntire Park with a southern terminus at Route 250. While the design of the McIntire Road extended project has changed over time, especially with regard to reducing the number of lanes and including provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians, the concept of extending McIntire Road through McIntire Park, from Rt. 250 north to the Meadowcreek Parkway (now under construction) has been supported by every vote taken on the various portions of the project since the mid 1970s.
While the original plan for the road involved an at grade intersection, the City, in an effort to improve traffic flow sought, and in 2005 was able to obtain Federal funding specifically for the construction of a grade-separated interchange to connect the McIntire Road Extended project with Route 250. A grade-separated interchange at Route 250 is the City's preferred option and we are working closely with the Federal Highway Administration to complete preliminary engineering and an Environmental Assessment. This approach merely confirms the City's consistent position for almost 40 years that a complete transportation facility is constructed to connect the Meadowcreek Parkway to Route 250 through McIntire Park. In the event that a grade-separated interchange is not built, an appropriately designed at-grade intersection constitutes an acceptable and realistic alternative.
Sincerely,
Dave Norris
Mayor
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Charlottesville City Council Clarifies Position on McIntire Road Extended Intersection
Last night, Charlottesville City Council approved sending a letter to VDOT (and distribute it to other project stakeholders) clarifying councils position on a possible at-grade intersection of McIntire Road Extended and the Route 250 Bypass. The letter was presented to council as given below and passed without amendment. Below is the text of the letter as presented.
I am eager to hear how this clarification may impact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consideration of the permit requested by VDOT that considers the at-grade intersection as part of the McIntire Road Extended project. Without the at-grade intersection, VDOT may have to resubmit the permit request with the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road as the southern terminus of the project. Independence of the McIntire Road Extended project without the interchange is clearly difficult to defend.
Check back for future developments.
January 4, 2010
Mr. Brent Sprinkel, PE
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 Orange Street
Culpeper, Virginia
RE: City Letter of 11/23/09 re: Meadow Creek Parkway (McIntire Road Extended)
Dear Mr. Sprinkel:
This letter is written on behalf of the City Council of the City of Charlottesville to clarify a statement in the letter written on November 23, 2009 to you by Ms. Angela Tucker. On page 2 of that letter, Ms. Tucker states:
“If the City elects not to move forward with the Interchange project, City Council will grant the necessary permission to complete the at-grade intersection as designed under the McIntire Road Extended project.”
To clarify, the official position of the City of Charlottesville, as stated in a letter of 1/18/06 to VDOT (attached) is to only build the McIntire Road Extended with a grade separated interchange.
“Council has engaged a firm for engineering services for the design of this project and thanks VDOT, the County Board of Supervisors, and especially Senator Warner for their efforts to secure funding for the interchange. We remain committed to this project as a necessary improvement to both the U. S. 250 Bypass and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway.”
This position was further emphasized in the 10/1/07 Resolution of the Council (attached) which granted the temporary construction easement for the McIntire Road Extended. Condition (3) states:
“Written confirmation from the Virginia Department of Transportation that this temporary construction easement will not be used to construct an at-grade intersection at the intersection of U. S. Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road Extended.”
In summary, City Council has taken the official position that the Council support for the McIntire Road Extended is specifically based on the construction of a grade separated interchange at the U. S. 250 Bypass. Council has taken no position on an at-grade intersection.
I hope this clarifies the official City position. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Norris
Mayor
I am eager to hear how this clarification may impact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consideration of the permit requested by VDOT that considers the at-grade intersection as part of the McIntire Road Extended project. Without the at-grade intersection, VDOT may have to resubmit the permit request with the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road as the southern terminus of the project. Independence of the McIntire Road Extended project without the interchange is clearly difficult to defend.
Check back for future developments.
January 4, 2010
Mr. Brent Sprinkel, PE
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 Orange Street
Culpeper, Virginia
RE: City Letter of 11/23/09 re: Meadow Creek Parkway (McIntire Road Extended)
Dear Mr. Sprinkel:
This letter is written on behalf of the City Council of the City of Charlottesville to clarify a statement in the letter written on November 23, 2009 to you by Ms. Angela Tucker. On page 2 of that letter, Ms. Tucker states:
“If the City elects not to move forward with the Interchange project, City Council will grant the necessary permission to complete the at-grade intersection as designed under the McIntire Road Extended project.”
To clarify, the official position of the City of Charlottesville, as stated in a letter of 1/18/06 to VDOT (attached) is to only build the McIntire Road Extended with a grade separated interchange.
“Council has engaged a firm for engineering services for the design of this project and thanks VDOT, the County Board of Supervisors, and especially Senator Warner for their efforts to secure funding for the interchange. We remain committed to this project as a necessary improvement to both the U. S. 250 Bypass and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway.”
This position was further emphasized in the 10/1/07 Resolution of the Council (attached) which granted the temporary construction easement for the McIntire Road Extended. Condition (3) states:
“Written confirmation from the Virginia Department of Transportation that this temporary construction easement will not be used to construct an at-grade intersection at the intersection of U. S. Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road Extended.”
In summary, City Council has taken the official position that the Council support for the McIntire Road Extended is specifically based on the construction of a grade separated interchange at the U. S. 250 Bypass. Council has taken no position on an at-grade intersection.
I hope this clarifies the official City position. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Norris
Mayor
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation publishes Case Summary on McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) published its Fall 2009 Case Digest describing several projects including the "New Interchange and Road Extention in Charlottesville." This publication describes ACHP involvement in both the McIntire Road Extended and Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road projects that have impacts on historic resources in and around the eastern portion of McIntire Park. Several historic resources on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by the proposed road and interchange projects and the ACHP is involved in developing a Memorandum of Agreement on treatment of these resources with both the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Army Corps. The image above is taken from the Case Digest and is a view of the rock wall at Rock Hill Garden - one of the impacted historic resources.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.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Summary of Interchange Public Hearing Comments provided to Charlottesville City Council
Below is the summary of comments as provided to Charlottesville City Council by the city staff. the full text of comments are available through the city clerk's or city attorney's office and contains several hundred pages. City Council wisely deferred considering any design approval to allow councilors to actually consider public commentary. Council also is reported as not feeling that pedestrian and bicycle access to East McIntire Park is adequate - especially given that providing pedestrian and bicycle access is a key element of the project purpose and need. A report on the public hearing results will be provided to council at their Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, but consideration of a resolution approving the essential features of the design has been deferred.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)
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.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Proposed Deed of Easement to RWSA in McIntire Park inconsistent with stormwater design for McIntire Road Extended
On May 5, 2008, City Council approved a concept plan for the stormwater management design for the McIntire Road Extended project in McIntire Park. The images below show how the plan is to look to a pedestrian walking along the trail next to the McIntire Road Extended. But, as discussed at City Council last night, a forty foot wide (varies a bit, actually) easement to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would make many of these trees unplantable. The proposed deed of easement states "that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be located within the Sewer Easement." As pleasant as this artist rendering of the pedestrian experience appears to be, it is a total fiction. Much of the northern portion of the roadside area will be a 2:1 slope that won't support trees, and a forty foot wide swath of land will not allow trees or even shrubs. The ability to plant a vegetative screen of shrubs and trees to protect historic properties impacted by the road is limited especially in the area by the Rock Hill Garden - a property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Tree and shrub screening is one of the suggested mitigation alternatives under consideration as part of the historic preservation (Section 106) consultation currently in progress.
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.
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.
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
Below are the graphics of the McIntire Road Extended project that as best I can determine are the most current plans for this road project. Interestingly the road still officially starts 775 feet north of Route 250 Bypass (includes neither an at-grade intersection or an interchange). Although sheets 4 and 5 were the only ones submitted to City Council by VDOT as part of the request to grant a permanent easement to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority - an item on city council's Sept. 8, 2009 agenda, sheet 3 below (showing the Route 250 Bypass end of the project) is what VDOT provided me as the current plan for this project. Plans submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on August 7, 2009, however, show a totally different project design for the Route 250 Bypass end of the project - an actual at-grade intersection of McIntire Road Extended at Route 250 Bypass. So, which of these plans is the correct plan? Or is VDOT actually providing different plans to different agencies - plans most consistent with what VDOT is seeking from that agency. Or, are there (as I beleive) still two alternative projects under consideration and no final design yet selected?
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
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
The following public notice appeared in the Sunday, Aug. 30, 2009 issue of the Daily Progress announcing a public hearing to be held at the Sept. 8, 2009 City Council meeting. The item is listed on council agenda as item #2 so it will occur immediately following consideration of the consent agenda. The council meeting begins at 7:00 pm, and the public hearing will occur soon after that (depending on number of matters from the public, announcements, etc.). You can sign up for the hearing starting at about 6:30 pm at city council chambers.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.
LEGAL NOTICE
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
AN ORDINANCE
GRANTING A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO THE
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE
RELOCATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE
SCHENK'S BRANCH SEWER INTERCEPTOR.
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.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
VDOT needs to pick one alternative for McIntire Road Extended - not two.
This graphic of McIntire Park showing an interchange at Route 250 Bypass providing access to a road through the park was included in the 1975 Charlottesville Open Space Plan prepared by the City of Charlottesville. This is the first graphic I am aware of that indicated that an interchange alternative was considered that would allow traffic of any kind into the eastern part of McIntire Park. The road into the park provided access to a proposed recreation area, shelters and parking where the golf course was and remains today. The road was labeled as the McIntire Parkway on this plan. In fact, this plan was the basis for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) claiming that the parkway as designed in the 1995 Environmental Assessment was not subject to federal parkland protection requirement (Section 4(f) protections included in the U.S. Dept. of Transportation Act of 1966) because the parkway and the park were being jointly developed. Later FHWA clarified that a joint development exemption only applied when the park and road were being created at the same time so this exemption doesn't apply to McIntire Park and the Meadowcreek Parkway.
What I find interesting is that since 1975 plans for a parkway through McIntire Park have considered at-grade intersection and interchange designs among the project alternatives for the southern terminus of the road through the park. Only in 2005 when funding for an interchange at Route 250 Bypass was provided in the federal SAFETEA-LU legislation as a $27 million earmark did this alternative have any chance of being selected as a preferred alternative. But, rather than select the interchange alternative in the existing planning effort, the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road became what was considered by FHWA to be a new project totally independent of the parkway itself. Now that city council has selected a diamond shaped interchange as its preferred alternative and VDOT has submitted a permit application for the parkway (McIntire Road Extended) with an at-grade intersection at Route 250 Bypass, VDOT has apparently selected both an interchange AND an at-grade intersection for the parkway. I know of no other time where VDOT has selected two alternatives for construction of the same project.
Clearly there is something going on here - and that appears to be avoiding federal funding to be allocated to the entire project and thus requiring that Section 4(f) and other federal environmental regulations applying to the project development of the entire roadway connecting Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Road. As I see it, the answer to the question - does the parkway have an at-grade intersection or an interchange - differs depending on the situation. When seeking a water quality permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the answer is "at-grade intersection." When consultants present their designs to City Council the answer is "interchange." I suppose if one did a survey of citizens, planners, government officials, consultants, city councilors and others the answer would not be the same, and likely the answer would be more complex than just "at-grade" or "interchange."
Avoiding federal environmental review of the parkway plans has lead to a comedy of errors and changes in the project that continues today. I am looking for some leader - perhaps a city councilor - to demand that a logical description of the transportation purpose and need in the city be stated. Then, a parkway (whether it has an at-grade or interchange terminus) could be considered as one of several alternatives to consider in meeting the transportation need. Without this the comedy that is the parkway planning process will continue and money better spent on other needs will be wasted. When will a true leader take on this challenge?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Here is the material associated with the now cancelled public hearing on providing a permanent easement to RWSA associated with McIntire Road Extended
Below is the original text of the material for the Aug. 17, 2009 city council agenda packet associated with original item #4: RWSA Easement for Schenk's Branch Interceptor. This item was removed from the agenda, however, due to some technical problems in identification of the easement area on the VDOT plans (as I understand it). But, I expect that this (or very similar) material will be presented to council at their September 8, 2009 council meeting. The text raises several questions in my mind, and may raise other questions in yours. What will the cost be to the city? Is this a sale of rights that would require at least four affirmative votes of council to pass this ordinance? Is this permanent easement inconsistent with Article VII, Section 9 of the Virginia Constitution limiting easements to no more than 40 years? Do we want RWSA to have the authority to cut any trees on the acreage designated in this easement without any review by the city (as the proposed easement suggests)?
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: August 17,2009
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
Attachment: Proposed ordinance granting a permanent easement to RWS
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: August 17,2009
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 575 linear feet of the Schenk's Branch line. An additional 1,250 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: As with all project costs for McIntire Road Extended the City will be responsible for 5% of the costs of the relocation of the Schenk's Branch Interceptor. The City will be responsible for 100% of the costs associated with increasing the size of the line.
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 RWS
Proposed deed of easement with plats attached
Attachment: Proposed ordinance granting a permanent easement to RWS
AN ORDINANCE
GRANTING A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO THE
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE
RELOCATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE
SCHENK'S BRANCH SEWER INTERCEPTOR.
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; 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 ยบ15.2-1800(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.
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 UOOO-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,OO) 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.
Note: plat not attached - is being reworked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
