Embarq bought by CenturyTel

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

 

In an effort to counter the pressure from wireless phone services and to be more competitive. CenturyTel has bought the larger Embarq. The price tag was reported to be $5.8 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction.

 

CenturyTel, based in Monroe, La., provides services to small to midsize cities located mostly in the Midwest and South. As of Dec. 31, the company had about 6,600 employees and operated in 25 states. In August, it reported a 4.4 percent drop in revenue for its second quarter.

 

Embarq reported a 3.5 percent drop in its second-quarter revenue in July, and it said in August that it would seek to cut as many as 700 employees.

 

Embarq, based in Overland Park, Kan., has publicly signaled its interest in being bought and to that end hired JPMorgan Chase at perhaps the worst possible time.

 

The combined company will now operate in 33 states and would have revenue of more than $8.8 billion, with Embarq revenue more than double that of CenturyTel's as of October this year.

 

Bridge News

Monday, November 24, 2008

 

Embarq outside engineering group in cooperation with VDOT have competed the telecommunications cabling re-routing in the area of the Advance Mills Bridge. VDOT worked with the Embarq engineering group to shorten the distance as much as possible (the shorter the distance, the better chance of service to the most remote areas). They were able to shave 5 feet off the distance but that was all..... and, of course 5 less feet is a lot better than 5 additional feet.

 

I checked my internet speed on SpeedTest.net and it tested slightly above the 3MB DSL service I am supposed to get from Embarq. So we have a status-quo on telephone and internet service and given how things are going these days, that sounds pretty good.

 

Other News - we have a new Congressman

Monday, November 24, 2008

 

Democrat Tom Perriello has been certified as the winner of the race for the 5th Congressional District by the Virginia state Board of Elections (SBE). Tom Perriello (Ivy) defeated his opponent Virgil Goode (Rocky Mount) by 745 votes. Virgil has not yet conceded the race and may request a recount. However, recounts rarely shift many votes in Virginia since a vote verification (canvassing) is done on a precinct by precinct basis prior to the SBE certification.

 

Virgil Goode wants a recount

Monday, November 24, 2008

 

Virgil Goode is requesting a recount. In a statement released by his campaign, Goode explained that the morning after the election he was ahead by 446 votes. While he was indeed ahead by 446 votes, not all of the votes had been counted. When all of the votes were finally counted, Virgil Goode was no longer ahead. When all of the votes were subsequently verified, precinct by precinct, Virgil Goode trailed Tom Perriello by 745 votes.

 

Virgil Goode has virtually no chance of overturning the State Board of Election certification of Tom Perriello as the winner of the race for the 5th Congressional District.

 

Meanwhile, events are moving quickly ahead. The incoming Obama administration has now assembled its economic team. President Elect Obama and Congressional leaders are promising to put together a major financial package that will have as its focus jobs as early as January 20th.

 

A major focus of the Perriello campaign was jobs - exactly what is front a center for the incoming President and Congress. The 5th Congressional District needs a representative focused on jobs, particularly for the Southside. Fortunately, Tom Perriello is quoted as saying "We're going to focus on the transition and moving forward."

 

So, while the vote will be contested, it does appear we will have a representative in the mix representing our interests. That should be good news no matter who you voted for.

 

Bridge News

Saturday, November 15, 2008

 

Kip Newland reports that Allan Sumpter, Charlottesville Residency Administrator for VDOT, has announced that the bridge project has now completed all of the engineering checks and what remains is (bureaucratically) administrative processing. In VDOT-eze that is “the Chief Engineer signed the title sheet for the project and Central Office staff completed what is called an Advertisement Submission Review”.

 

If you’d like a bit more information, you can always give Allan a call at 434-293-0011, Extension 127.

Continuing News

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Tom Perriello is still the assumed winner of the 5th Congressional District race - there has been no vote count changes between Goode and Perriello in 5 days.

 

Bridge News

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

 

... from Ann Mallek (our representative on the County Board of Supervisors)

Hello.
Here is an update on Advance Mills Bridge. I met today with Commonwealth Transportation Board member Butch Davies and District Administrator Jim Utterbach in Culpeper.

The paper process is almost done on the bridge. The process has caught up, through the accelerated work done since February, and is now in the design completion stage to go to bid in January, return February. Notification of award is April 09 and the work should be done by October 09.

The right of way purchase or certificate of taking is occurring now. All environmental historical etc work is done, to satisfy the federal funders.

Because of the push from citizens and local government, this bridge stayed alive while other construction projects were shelved, probably for years. In 2010 there will be only maintenance money, since the General Assembly never passed a transportation funding bill.

Ann Mallek
Supervisor, White hall

 

Bridge News

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Ann Malek (our Supervisor) tells us that Butch Davies (Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board) is reporting the bridge replacement plans were submitted last week, slightly ahead of schedule. Jim Utterback has replaced Quinten Elliot as the director of VDOT's Culpepper District (our district). They say Jim will be "riding herd" on the request.

Allan Sumpter tells us that the right of way approval for the land the state needs is signed and underway. This involves a portion of the land owned by the Burch's. While it is expected the Burch's may want to fight the granting of the right of way, we are all assured that this will not slow down the bridge process at all.

 

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - VDOT Advance Mills report to BOS

VDOT MP3 Player.

... Alan Sumpter speaking - click player to listen

Summary

• archological survey completed - no impacts
• working towards public hearing
• dates being looked at:between the last week of June to the week after the July 4th
• Durrett Ridge Road - maintenance crews have been working
• tar work expected within a couple of weeks (weather permitting)
• all or part of the material for the bridge was delivered.
• will look to minimize school impact due to bridge work

 

Friday, March 28, 2008 - VDOT issues a Half-Truth “FAQ”

Click here for VDOT “FAQ”

VDOT’s new FAQ states that "... we found that by reducing the scope (affected area) of the project the permanent bridge could be completed approximately two years earlier than originally estimated."

Snake Oil is slippery stuff.... the statement leans heavily on the word "permanent".

 

The truth is that VDOT will open a bridge 2 years LATER than originally promised. By changing the scope (using less land), they can no longer build the permanent bridge next to the current bridge. Because of that they will have to remove any temporary bridge well in advance of the permanent bridge construction. VDOT's unilateral decision to change the scope killed the temporary bridge that was due in by next month. This pushed back the community getting a bridge by 2 years.

 

Lou Hatter and the rest of the folks at VDOT should be ashamed of themselves for spinning misdirection and presuming Advance Mills residents to be so gullible.

 

At this rate Pinocchio's nose will get across the North Fork Rivanna before we do.

 

 

Meeting: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

The next Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 starting at 9:00 a.m. in the Lane Auditorium, 2nd floor, County Office Building, McIntire Road.

The following items are on the agenda:

• Public Hearing: Housing Choice Voucher Program Annual Plan
• Crozet Community Advisory Council Review
• Bright Stars Annual Report
• VDOT Monthly Report/Advance Mills Bridge Update

COMMUNITY MEETING WITH VDOT

VDOT continues to turn a tin ear to Advance Mills

 

On Tuesday, March 18th VDOT came to the Mount Zion Baptist Church and spoke to community residents. VDOT came to talk, not to listen. While community residents did speak, VDOT did not indicate any inclination to change course, even slightly.

The officials that showed up were (from VDOT), Quintin Elliot (Culpepper District Administrator), Allan Sumpter, (Charlottesville Residency Administrator), Lou Hatter (Public Affairs Manager), David Pierce (Senior Bridge Engineer), Rick Crofford (Culpepper District Environmental Manager) and John J. “Butch” Davies III, (Culpepper District representative to the Commonwealth Transportation Board).

In an earlier meeting with Advance Mills Village Homeowners Association representatives, it was reported that Quintin Elliot explained the need to scuttle the temporary bridge was financial. It was reported he claimed it was the transportation budget impasse between the Governor and General Assembly. At the Advance Mills meeting he claimed that was not true and the real reason was a change in scope for the bridge.

Essentially Quintin's argument is that VDOT decided it would ignore community input and the agreement it had with the Board of Supervisors and would eliminate the change in road approaches and, because of that they would have to place the new bridge in exactly the same place it is today. Since they would have to place the permanent bridge in the current bridge location, any temporary bridge would have to be removed to work on the permanent bridge. Since the temporary bridge would have to be removed, it would not be financially “prudent” to pay for a temporary bridge.

 

VDOT said all along they did not want to put in a temporary bridge. The scope change provides them with the political cover to do what they had intended to do all along.

Quintin Elliot also shed some light on Administration thinking by explaining that since the bridge had deteriorated over years and that emergency services has had to be diverted during that time, there was no need for the government to rush on the bridge replacement. Essentially, his argument goes that Advance Mills had gotten used to inadequate services so why rush now?

 

Another Quintin Elliot gem was the “Act of God vs. Government Failure” distinction. This explanation was that if a flood knocked out the bridge, they would rush in to replace it. However, if the bridge fell into the river due to government neglect, there was no emergency. …distinctions that only a government bureaucrat could think make sense.

 

Allan Sumpter stated that a temporary bridge would only last 2 or 3 yrs (see Fact Check) – bridge manufacturers disagree with that statement.

Allan Sumpter claimed that truss bridge with a plank deck could be placed in location faster than a beam bridge with a concrete deck (see Fact Check) . Bridge builders say a beam bridge with a plank deck can be placed in location just as fast as a truss bridge with a plank deck.

 

VDOT asserts that their timeline is solid and that they expect to stay on schedule.

 

VDOT will be investing $100,000 in Durrett Ridge Road and the small bridge. This will consist of surface improvements (tar and gravel) along the entire path of dirt road. This will not be a paved road but they promised it would be safer than it is today. Residents talked of their concern for blind turns. VDOT said this kind of more substantial improvement would need to be an approved project in the 6 year plan. VDOT said they would talk to the landowners and ask them for permission to change the slopes but VDOT didn’t hold out any real hope for this.

The small Durrett Ridge Road Bridge will have some improvements – new decking and side rails.

Clearly, if Durrett Ridge Road is to be really improved, the community will have to press the case with local and state government.

VDOT was asked about funding given their history of reneging on promises. VDOT officials claimed they could spend the money and then just get it reimbursed by the FHWA. This explanation seemed to fly in the face of all of the previous explanations about FHWA funding. VDOT assurances did little to allay the concerns of most.

Resident’s indicated a concern about the old Fray hole in the ground (formerly the store). It seems the current owners have applied for a bulding permit and some resident’s think that may hold up new bridge construction. VDOT officials did not think this was a problem. VDOT officials explained that even if they had to invoke eminent domain VDOT would have plenty of time to do this without delaying the project.

 

At the end, VDOT came to talk, not to listen. Nothing really changed. It would appear that if we expect a different result we should change what we are doing.

What do you think?

VDOT makes questionable claims

(2 Pinocchios)

VDOT made a number of statements at the recent community meeting at Mount Zion Baptist Church that would seemingly support their rational for the Advance Mills Bridge. A follow-up fact check shows a different take.

 

VDOT Claim: a temporary bridge would only last 2 or 3 years and no longer
Research: a temporary bridge could last 5 or 6 years before anything more than inspection is required. After that only very minor maintenance would be required for years.

 

VDOT claims the 2 to 3 year limit is critical to the strategic decisions on how to proceed with the Advance Mills Bridge. A 5 or 6 year (and more) lead time would allow an immediate temporary bridge to be put into place and it would allow more time for funding and a more considered approach on a permanent bridge.

 

VDOT Claim: a beam bridge would take 3 or 4 months longer than a truss bridge to install.
Research: Actually, they are being a bit slippery here. You have to look closely at what was actually said. VDOT claimed that a truss bridge with a wood plank deck would take 3 to 4 months less time than a beam bridge with a poured concrete deck.

 

Bridge manufacturers say this is wrong on both counts.
1. A beam bridge with a wood plank deck would go in just as fast as a truss bridge with a wood plank deck.
2. A poured concrete deck (for either style) may take as much as an additional 2 weeks for the concrete to cure.

 

A beam bridge would have a more low profile than a truss bridge and allow for more of the surrounding area to show rather than the “erector set” appearance. A sample of what that can look like is in the AdvanceMills.org web site.

 

In both instances it looks like VDOT is changing the facts to fit their plans.

Bridge Update

The tail continues to wag the dog over the Advance Mills Bridge....

On Thursday, March 20th, VDOT will be discussing design options for the permanent bridge with its select group of area residents (interested parties committee). As a reminder, this group membership is essentially the property owners in the immediate bridge area with one other person representing the Advance Mills Village Homeowners Association. The lack of proportional community representation on this committee has been a problem from the begining.

There is a place on the VDOT calendar for a public hearing in July but that is likely little more than a formality announcing VDOT decisions rather than soliciting input. Any requests for a change of course at that point would be likely met with the response that it is too late to make changes without causing a delay to the project

The select "interested parties committee" vehicle has largely bypassed the community and focused on property owners closest to the bridge. No one on the committee represents people living on Durrett Ridge Road - folks that have been asking for road improvements since 1988. Does the Advance Mills community think this lack of representation is a good thing? If not, why is VDOT doing this?
VDOT has said it assumes that the community wants another truss bridge. The argument goes on to say that a truss bridge is historically significant even though only a few years of the "historical" years had a truss bridge and the 200 before that did not. It is possible that the community does want a truss style bridge but we don't know because no one has provided the community all of the options and then asked us for our opinion.
VDOT has directed us to look at usbridge.com for options for a new bridge - just as long as its a truss bridge. Well RFPs (request for proposals) do not work that way. Our community should be able to see and comment on all of the RFP requirements (time frame, aesthetics, etc.) and we should know the full list of vendors that will be requested to participate in this public process. The community should be able to see what kind of bridge options each of the vendors can provide and find out how reliable each company is.

 

Holding elected officals accountable ...

The process for community input and VDOT's performance has been a true disappointment. At the same time, some of our elected officials have been working very hard on our behalf, others have not and some have had real mixed support for the community. How often do you go and vote and get confronted with names that are familiar (Democratic, Republican and Independent) by you have no idea what they've done for you? This time, when you go and vote for your local and state representatives, you'll know something about their job performance as well.

VDOT Insiders Committee Report

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with VDOT is required to set up a consulting group to represent the interests of the community. In this case they have chosen to to select community representatives only in the immediate area of the bridge. The one exception is a single individual that represents over 550 people that signed the petition in support of the temporary bridge - which VDOT has, of couse, completely ignored. The FHWA calls this group the "Section 106 Consulting Parties". VDOT calls this group the "Interested Parties". However, for our purposes, we can call it the "VDOT Insiders Committee".

 

Mary Kostishak has been representing the Advance Mills Village Homeowners Association (AMVHA) interests on this committee. Mary has been doing a terrifc job for us but she has a new baby on the way and needs a break! Kip Newland has agreed to step in and help AMVHA out.

 

The following is a report from Kip Newland:

 

Meeting on Thursday, March 20, 2008

 

The Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting on Advance Mills Bridge.

 

Very little was accomplished. This was due to the fact that three residents of the historical district rose major objections to the new, reduced scope project proposed by VDOT. There objections are essentially the following:

Why does the reduced scope project only include a truss bridge option?
Answer-any other option would take 3/4 months longer.

Why can't the current bridge be restored?
VDOT Answer: Essentially they don't want to do it because it would be too expensive and require continued ongoing maintenance. They admitted, however, that they had not really done an estimate.

Why do we have to have a two lane bridge?
Answer-because VDOT feel that it is needed for the current/future traffic load.

If a single lane replacement was desired would the Federal government pay a portion of the cost?
Answer-none really provided but we have always been led to believe that the answer was no. So why didn't the FHWA representative present say that?

Why can't residents of the historical community see the engineering study that concluded the restoration of the bridge was not cost effective?
Answer- Federal Homeland Security will not let VDOT release structural infrastructure studies to people who do not have a "need to know".

The end results of today’s discussions were negligible. VDOT has been requested to provide historical district residents with a documented, signed position that states that VDOT will not consider restoration or replacement with a single lane bridge. VDOT/FHWA was asked for clarification on whether Federal funds could be used for a single lane replacement. The historical residents were told that, while they couldn't see the VDOT engineering study, they could apply for a permit to undertake their own study.

This all seems to raise two questions. First how does this affect the timeline currently being advertised by VDOT? Allan Sumpter from VDOOT said that it would not change their timeline. What he seems to be saying is that VDOT has built six months into the process to deal with these issues. So-- that seems to mean that spring of 2010 is really the goal, not fall 2009. Let's hope that's the reality. It could well be later than that given today's discussion.

Second, despite all of the concerns raised today, the meeting concluded with the statement that a Memorandum of Agreement between the government agencies (DHR, VDOT, FHWA and the County) would continue despite today's reservations. So--its appears that VDOT will forge ahead and try to minimize whatever disagreements seem to exist within the community. Not a good sign for really making progress and arriving at a compromise that will be acceptable to all.

 

 

 

VDOT TImeline

March 3, 2008

2008

March		Environment Coordination Begins (NEPA)
March (20th)		VDOT Community Consulting Committee
June		Environment Coordination Completed (NEPA)
July		Public Hearing
August		Public Hearing Approved (???)
September		Right-of-way Acquisition Begins
Nov - Dec		Utility Relocation Begins
		Right-of-way Acquisition Completed

2009

"Early" ???		Advertise Project to Contractors (RFP)
March		Utility Relocation Completed
Spring (March-May)		Construction Begins

2010

September 2009 to May 2010

Construction Completed

 

 

ADVANCE MILLS BRIDGE TIMELINE

• 1790-1830: Local farming begins shift from tobacco to grain
• 1833: John Fray opens a Mill and the economic development in the area begins to grow.
• 1880s: The size and scale of the Mills operations were comparable to others in Albemarle and Charlottesville.
• 1907: Advance Mills has telephone and Post Office. Along with Earlysville, Advance Mills was most important community in this part of Albemarle County. In the first decade of 1900, Frederick Neve described in his memoirs that he crossed the (Advance Mills Bridge) and it was a plank structure with no sides (…and no truss).
• 1910-1940: Advance Mills declines ecomomically, yielding to Earlysville and Charlottesville.
• 1942: Last historic wooden Advance Mills Bridge washed away.
• 1943: A two-span used (built before 1901) cast iron (west span: Pratt pony, east span: full Pratt) truss bridge moved to Advance Mills. The bridge is 204 feet and is supported by two poured concrete piers. This is the first truss bridge ever put into Advance Mills.
• 1945, March 15th: Frays Mill burned down to the foundation.
• 1946: Fray's Store burned down to the foundation.
• 1950: Cinder block store built on old historic Fray store foundation opened for business.
• 1988: Walter Eades, resident of Durrett Ridge Road, circulated a petition to upgrade and pave Durrett Ridge Road and everyone in the area signed the petition. He was told “in 5 or 6 years” – in 1999 he came back to the BOS and was told they had no money to spend in Advance Mills.
• 1999 inventory by VDOT, VDHR and FHWA of bridges in Virginia finds that Advance Mills Bridge is a common type that is not historic.
• 1999 (April 7): Advance Mills Bridge has a weight limit of only 8 tons. Board of Supervisors rejecst VDOT request to replace bridge and opts to "maintain" bridge for 10 to 15 years. BOS also decides to pursue historic designation. BOS decisions at this meeting were the groundwork for all the future problems in Advance Mills.
• Late 1999/2000, Historical designation given to Advance Mills Village is one of local significance. The bridge, however, is designated as only a contributing structure.
• Between 2000-July 2006 VDOT incrementally reduces load limit of bridge from 18 tons to 3 tons.
• Spring 2007 VDOT permanently closes bridge and declares that it cannot be restored due to major structural failure.
• Spring 2007 Advance Mills Homeowners Association circulates petition requesting Board of Supervisors (BOS) to request immediate bridge replacement with a temporary structure. Petition results in signatures from over 540 local homeowners.
• Summer 2007 BOS and VDOT confer on the problem.
• August 2007 BOS requests VDOT to scope and plan for removal of bridge and replace it with a temporary bridge because VDOT indicates that a permanent solution cannot be completed until at least early 2012.
• Late August 2007 VDOT indicates to BOS that it will proceed with planning for the temporary bridge utilizing available state maintenance funds.
• September 2007 VDOT works with Virginia Department of Historical Resources (VDHR) and FHWA to ascertain if the temporary bridge can be decoupled from the permanent bridge replacement for the purpose of fulfilling the Federal Section 106 process.
• October 9, 2007 VDHR provides consultative input to the FHWA with regard to the need for a Federal Section 106 review of the state funded temporary bridge and FHWA co-funded new bridge as a single undertaking.
• October 29, 2007 FHWA formally responds to VDOT/VDHR that they have “concluded that the permanent bridge replacement improvement and temporary bridge replacement improvement are mutually exclusive and neither is dependent upon the other for its justification”.
• November 2007 VDOT moves ahead to scope the temporary bridge project in preparation for a January RFP and an April 2008 opening of the temporary bridge.
• December 7, 2008 Carol Legard of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation sends VDHR an opinion that the projects should be reviewed together if Federal funds are assumed to be part of the long term solution.
• December 18, 2007 VDHR writes VDOT and FHWA expressing their concern about the decision to separate the two projects while acknowledging that “it is ultimately the Federal agency’s responsibility to establish the scope of its undertaking and to define the project’s APE. The role of the state historic preservation office which in Virginia is DHR under Section 106 is one of consultation” only. VDHR also notes the prospect of a legal challenge if the project is separated, but concludes by agreeing to “accept the proposed mitigation “with additional stipulations to be included in a MOA.
• Early January 2008 VDOT informs BOS that RFP for the temporary bridge will be advertised on January 29th 2008.
• January 28, 2008 FHWA informally informs VDOT that they would like to reconsider their decision to separate the two projects based upon their concern that the current detour is not adequate. Since that inadequate detour is presumably the local unpaved road that residents have been forced to use, resulting in school bus accidents, residents are flummoxed. VDOT requests that FHWA hold off sending a formal reconsideration pending VDOT’s exploration of alternate detours possibilities. VDOT also decides to not issue the RFP.
• January 31 2008 VDHR emails Mary Kostishak (President Advance Mills Village Homeowners Association) stating “you must understand that DHR’s role in the process is one of review and comment. We do not “approve” projects and we can only respond to what is provided to us by VDOT and FHWA”.
• February 5, 2008 VDOT provides FHWA with two alternate detour proposals.
• February 6, 2008 VDOT informs BOS of their decision to not issue the RFP.
• February 7, 2008 members of BOS, Advance Mills Village Homeowners Association (AMVHOA) and VDOT meet with FHWA. FHWA indicates that they hope to issue their formal reconsideration in approximately one week. FHWA also indicates that they are reviewing the VDOT alternate detour proposals but have reached no final conclusion. FHWA requests a letter from BOS reaffirming their support of the Temporary Bridge and their support of the alternate detour.
• February 7, 2008 – Members of Albemarle BOS & AMVHOA meet with Senator Deeds and Representative Bell to reaffirm the Community’s desire for the immediate Temporary Bridge. Rob Bell contacts Congressman Goode to enlist his assistance.
• February 13, 2008 – Albemarle BOS provides FHWA with the letter of support that was requested.
• February 15, 2008 – FHWA advises BOS/AMVHOA that they reaffirm their decision that VDOT may move ahead with keeping the Temporary Bridge separate from the permanent solution and may immediately advertise it for an April 2008 opening, thereby allowing citizens almost immediate access to a bridge crossing.
• February 22, 2008 - Quintin Elliot, VDOT meets with members of Albemarle BOS and Neighborhood Association to review current status of bridge. Mr. Elliot opened the meeting by announcing that he has decided to now recommend to Pierce Homer, the Virginia Transportation Secretary that, despite a year’s work on this project, VDOT withdraw its approval of this project, utilize the committed funding for other projects such as repairing the Dickerson Road bridge, and begins plans for a more permanent solution that would cost over $3M, require $2.4M in Federal funds and not be open to traffic until October 2010, almost two and a half years later than originally proposed. Should the Transportation Secretary approve Mr. Elliot’s recommendation next week, Albemarle County will have to begin the planning process anew with really no assurance of future funding since VDOT will be requesting most of the needed money from the Federal Government. While Mr. Elliot contends that these Federal funds are already available in VDOT’s six year master plan, the fact is that the Federal government has only provisionally allocated this money and has yet to authorize it. Without this specific authorization, VDOT has no assurance that money will actually be available for this new project when needed in FY2010.
• February 25, 2008- Representative Bell informs AMVHOA that he continues to try to contact VDOT Commissioner and VA Transportation Secretary on our behalf. To date, neither has returned his phone calls.
• February 28, 2008- AMVHOA Reps and Ann Mallek meet with Butch Davies, senior member of VA Transportation Board. Butch informs us that decision has been made to not install the temporary bridge.
• February 29, 2008- VDOT Commissioner sends letter to Albemarle BOS informing them that VDOT will not install temporary bridge and will, in stead, pursue an accelerated, reduced scope permanent solution.

Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

click on image to email a Supervisor

 

The Code of Virginia provides that each county be governed by a board of supervisors, which is elected by the qualified voters. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is composed of six members, one from each magisterial district. Supervisors are elected for four-year terms which are staggered at two-year intervals. The election of supervisors is held as a part of the State's general election in November of odd-numbered years. At the first meeting of the year, the Board organizes itself and selects one of its members to serve as chairman and another to serve as vice-chairman. For 2008 the Chairman is Ken Boyd and the Vice-Chairman is David Slutzky. 

 

The regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of Supervisors are held the first two Wednesdays of the month, in Board Room 241, Second Floor, County Office Building. The Board meets on the first Wednesday beginning at 9:00 A.M., and on the second Wednesday beginning at 6:00 P.M. All meetings are open to the public. Recorded information on Board agenda items can be accessed by dialing (434) 972-4082 or click here to access the current board agenda and supporting documentation.

Have You Seen Senator Deeds?

 

We haven’t seen our State Senator in Advance Mills in … well, actually we never remember seeing him here at all.

 

His name is Creigh Deeds and he came within a few hundred votes of becoming the Attorney General in the last election cycle. He is currently on the Senate Transportation Committee (as in bridges and roads) and he knows folks all across the Commonwealth.

 

As the Governor gears up for another political battle with the General Assembly, Creigh’s support will be important. Creigh is also running for Governor in 2009 and given the fact that the state is trending blue lately, he has a fairly good shot at it if he can wrest the nomination away from Delegate Brian Moran (D-Alexandria)

 

We’ve asked him for help a while back and, as far as we know, he has called VDOT exactly one time for a status report.

 

Now Senator Deeds is under no obligation to use his years in the Senate or his position on the Transportation Committee to help his constituents - just like we are under no obligation to vote for him the next time we see his name on a ballot. Senator Deeds may want to be Governor some day, but today he is a Senator and the people of Advance Mills need their Senator to be engaged.

 

You know, its not all cool stuff like redistricting or curing world hunger - sometimes it's just boring stuff like finding a safe road for your kids to travel to get to school.

 

If you see him before we do, tell him we’ve been asking about him.