Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-01March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 309 A regular night meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 1, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney (arrived at 7:33 P.M.); and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to accept Items 4.1 through 4.6 of the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 1989, received as information. Item 4.2. Albemarle County Financial Report for July 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988, as prepared by the Director of Finance, received as infor- mation as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1988 TO DECEMBER 31, 1988 GENERAL FUND ** REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS 42,043,289 30,820,119 11,223,170 - 73.31% 3,722,015 1,490,359 2,231,656 - 40.04% 104,440 42,423 62,017 - 40.62% 2,429,818 2,429,818 0 - 100.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH AND WELFARE EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL 48,299,562 34,782,719 88/89 EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD 3,169,025 !,515,926 1,103,980 544,876 4,343,091 2,392,722 1,793,460 622,482 2,888,438 i,449,085 25,367,126 12,546,410 1,696,508 614,930 1,314,778 622,736 4,153,596 2,563,256 2,469,560 168,352 13,516,843 - 72.01% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD 1,653,099 + 47.84% 559,104 + 49.36% 1,950,369 + 55.09% 1,170,978 + 34.71% 1,439,353 + 50.17% 12,820,716 + 49.46% 1,081,578 + 36.25% 692,042 + 47.36% 1,590,340 + 61.71% 2,301,208 + 6.82% TOTAL 48,299,562 23,040,775 25,258,787 + 47.70% 310 ** SCHOOL FUND ** REVENUES LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT FIXED CHARGES ADULT EDUCATION TRANSFER TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND ....~,, REVENUES LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL ** OTHER FUNDS ** REVENUES METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP T J HEALTH EDUCATION GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT TIPS E. D. PROGRAM CBIP SEVERE FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD 421,493 16,420,426 362,987 25,330,705 153,624 7,492,254 1 12,718,793 20,364,672 42,535,611 267,869 - 36.45% 8,928,172 - 45.63% 362,986 - .00% 12,611,912 - 50.21% 22,170,939 - 47.88% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD 402,529 10,223,233 150,903 1,556,258 2,715,817 3,004,445 4,667 0 749,288 26,572,224 341,016 3,040,752 4,548,452 7,273,251 10,628 0 42,535,611 18,057,852 346,759 + 53.72% 16,348,991 + 38.47% ! 190,113 + 44.25% ~,484,494 + 51.18% 1,832,635 + 59.71% 4,268,806 + 41.31% 5,961 + 43.91% 0 + 0.OO% 24,477,759 + 42.45% 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD 418,500 326,398 92,102 77.99% 501,140 0 501,140 0.00% 2,886,902 738,768 2,148,134 25.59% 4,626,458 4,626,458 0 + 100.00% 2,102,795 2,047,000 55,795 97.35% 7,738,624 2,797,171 - 73.45% 10,535,795 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD 239,571 1,245,945 1,383,080 5,385,542 1,336,263 812,609 132,785 47,328 88,676 26,831 3,434,830 339,682 516,161 0 4,453,508 10,535,795 192,243 + 19.76% 1,157,269 + 7.12% L, 356,249 + 1.94% L~950,712 + 63.78% 996,581 + 25.42% 296,448 + 63.52% 132,785 - 0.00% 6~'082,287 + 42.27% 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD 2,225 21,405 439,626 138,760 11,434 7,500 506,573 71,286 1,669 0 223 8,771 0 6,286 49,688 134,500 45,344 28,540 1,015,000 0 0 0 401,130 110,900 1,669 440,463 377,550 33,731 16,771 28,786 113,579 263,636 43,119 - 4.91% 7,135 + 75.00% 575,374 - 43.31% (138,760)+ 0.00% i~(11,434)+ 0.00% (7,5oo)+ o.ooz 105,443)+ 126.29% 39,614 - 64.28% 0 + 100.00% 440,463 - 0.00% 377,327 - 0.06% 24,960 - 26.00% 16,771 0.00% 22,500 - 21.84% 63,891 43.75% !1129,136 - 51.02% March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND 5,937 474,354 63,423 34,991 1,394,845 3,141,259 658,462 195,066 218,500 10,000 0 463,037 143,140 0 2,043,666 TOTAL 11,723,779 ** OTHER FUNDS ** EXPENDITURES 311 0 5,937 0.00% 0 474,354 - 0.00% 8,775 54,648 13.84% 0 34,991 0.00% 487,753 907,092 34.97% 735,693 2,405,566 23.42% 319,197 339,265 48.48% 8,242 186,824 - 4.23% 152,755 65,745 - 69.91% 27 9,973 0.27% 167 (167)+ 0.00% 374,260 88,777 + 80.83% 0 143,140 + 0.00% 33,867 (33,867)+ 0.00% 516,256 1,527,410 - 25.26% 4,036,938 7,686,841 - 34.43% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD 3,113 42,231 + 6.87% 15,622 12,918 + 54.74% 395,122 619,878 + 38.93% 138,760 (138,760)- 0.00% T 13,422 (13,422)- 0.00% 20,992 (20,992)- 0.00% 123,812 277,318 + 30.87% 24,210 86,690 + 21.83% 1,668 1 + 99.94% 118,429 322,034 + 26.89% 136,543 241,007 + 36.17% 6,527 27,204 + 19.35% 5,932 10,839 + 35.37% 8,452 20,334 + 29.36% 63,365 50,214 + 55.79% 212,975 50,661 80.78% 3,178 2,759 + 53.53% 183,167 291,187 + 38.61% 28,248 35,175 + 44.54% 23,058 11,933 + 65.90% 559,504 835,341 + 40.11% 914,988 2,226,271 + 29.13% 261,053 397,409 + 39.65% 27,590 167,476 + 14.14% 80,119 138,381 + 36.67% 0 10,000 + 0.00% 0 0 + O.OO% 50,240 412,797 + 10.85% 105,008 38,132 + 73.36% 33,867 (33,867)+ 0.00% 530,319 1,513,347 + 25.95% METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 45,344 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 28,540 MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 1,015,000 CDBG-AHIP 0 J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 110,900 TIPS 1,669 E. D. PROGRAM 440,463 CBIP SEVERE 377,550 FED. JOB TRAINING PART. ACT. 33,731 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 16,771 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 28,786 SUMMER SCHOOL FUND 113,579 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 263,636 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 5,937 CHAPTER I 474,354 CHAPTER II 63,423 MIGRANT EDUCATION 34,991 CAFETERIA FUND 1,394,845 JOINT SECURITY FUND 3,141,259 JOINT DISPATCH FUND 658,462 JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 195,066 TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 218,500 MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND 0 STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 463,037 FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT 143,140 VISITOR CENTER FUND 0 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,043,666 TOTAL 11,723,779 4,089,283 7,634,496 + 34.88% Item 4.3. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for January, 1989, received as information. Item 4.4. Staff Report on the Southside Health Center, Inc. Review for Comprehensive Plan Compliance, dated February 15, 1989, which stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 14, 1989, unanimously found the proposed construction of a health care delivery site to be in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan as per Section 15-1-456 of the Code of Virginia. 312 March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Item 4.5. IRS Form 8038 filed with the Internal Revenue Service in connection with issuance by the Industrial Development Authority for Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, received as information. Item 4.6. Charlottesville City Council's Position on the Route 29 North Issue, dated February 21, 1989, from 3eanne Cox, Clerk of Council, received as follows: "Some recent public statements and news accounts regarding City Council's position on the Route 29 North issue have inaccurately reflected the position of the Council on this issue. This policy statement has been developed to clarify any misconception there may be about the Council's position. The Charlottesville City Council believes it is inappropriate to take a formal position on how to address the traffic problems in the 29 North Corridor until the Draft Environmental Impaat Statement is completed. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement~will be avail- able in late spring or early summer according to officials of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Upon receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Council will examine the contents of the Statement and study~.the data and proposals presented therein, with particular emphasis on their impact on the City. Recommendations will be requested from City staff, the City Planning Commission and the City representatives on the Joint Transportation Committee. An opportunity for public comment will be provided and Council members will confer with the County and the University about various options. Then a determina- tion will be made by the Council regarding which option or combina- tion of options is in the best interest of the City and the com- munity at large. It is the Council's hope that the option selected will also be one acceptable to Albemarle County and the University of ~iVirginia. The Council desires to select an option which is accepta~ie to all three, and is committed to working toward that end. ~iHowever, if no agreement can be reached within a reasonable length Of time, then Council will devote its energies to persuading the public, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Virginia Transporta- tion Board that the option it has selected is the be~t one for all concerned." Agenda Item No. 5. Yellow Mountain Agricultural/For~Stal District. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2.1 of the Code of Albemarle, Section 2.1-4 by the addition of subsection (p) entitled "Yellow Mountain AgriCdltural/Forestal District". The proposed district contains about 663 acre~and is located south of U. S. Route 250 West near Greenwood in western Albemarle County, Samuel Miller and White Hall Districts. (Advertised FebrRary 14 and February 21, 1989.) i!i Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the par- cels as submitted. He said there were some additional parcels to be included which he had not had time to review since he just found ou~ about them immed- iately prior to the meeting. Mr. Horne said Ms. Sherry Bu~trick may need to explain the characteristics of the Parcels 37E, 37F, 37B, ~7G, and 37H in terms of current uses and proposed uses since she had beenliworking with the owners and was more familiar with this property than he. ~ The public hearing was opened, and Ms. Sherry Buttrick came forward to speak. She said she had been helping Rick Privy who spearheaded the formation of this agricultural/forestal district. She explained which parcels of land were to be included in the district and to show where they~were located. She said this property is Blue Ridge Farm. The owner has the ~roperty on the market, and he thought it might increase the salability ifihe divided some land into smaller lots. Parcels 37E and 37F are two-acre ~arcels, and Parcel 37G is about 20 acres. The owner had expressed a desire td include the two- acre parcels in the agricultural/forestal district, but Msi Buttrick said if March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 313 the Board chose not to include those, the owner would not mind. She said there were no dwellings on them at this time, but the owner does expect possibly to sell the three smaller parcels for dwellings to be built. The two-acre lots are currently in land use. She said whatever the Board decided, the owner wanted it to be clear that he has the option to develop and sell separately the three smaller parcels. Mr. Horne asked if Parcel 37H was less than 21 acres also. Ms. Buttrick said she had seen the information only prior to the meeting as well. Mr. Perkins asked if the 20-acre parcel had further development rights. Ms. Buttrick said she believed it did not. Mr. Bain said it might be best to know the exact information before acting on this application. Mr. Lindstrom said he had concerns about including the two-acre parcels in the agricultural/forestal district. He did not think they should be included. Ms. Buttrick said she had told the owner it had not been the policy of the Board to include two-acre parcels and had suggested that he leave them out. He included them because they were already in the land use program. Mr. Bain said once he created these smaller parcels, they would automatically have to come out of land use. Ms. Buttrick said the owner had included them in the district in case the Board wished to include'them. Leaving them out would be fine with the owner, she said. Mr. Bowie said he could not remember having two-acre lots in agricultural/forestal districts. Ms. Susan Kappas came forward to speak. She said she was speaking against the proposal. She asked the Board to consider whether it was wise to remove land taxation for ten years on land tO be included in the agricul- tural/forestal districts. She said the school budget review is coming up, and since the meals tax revenue was not approved~in the recent referendum, the Board may need some sources of revenue to pay for schools. She said she could not understand how so many wealthy people live in Albemarle County, and yet textbooks for schools are not affordable. SSe suggested that the County does not need another agricultural/forestal distr~ct. Ms. Kappas felt the Board should start freeing up taxable land by denying this request. Mr. Way asked how much of the land bein~ proposed for inclusion in the agricultural/forestal district was already inl the land use program. Mr. Horne said, with the exception of what was mentioned in this meeting by Ms. Buttrick, which he did not know about, 11 parcels totaling 773 were in land use. Of that, about 340 acres are used for Agricultural purposes, 411 for forestry, and 22 acres are non-qualifying. Mr. Way said by forming the agricultural district, the land does not automatically go into land use. Therefore, the tax base does not change. Ms.~'Kappas said she had understood that including this land in an agricultural/f~restal district meant that the County could not reevaluate it for ten years,~ and she asked if that was correct. Mr. Home said it was not. Mr. Bowie said land use is "reevaluated'~iwhen reassessed every two years. Mr. Agnor said the land use values are not "Hrozen" by establishing an agri- cultural/forestal district. It just makes the land in that district eligible for the land use program. He said the County!~ihad a land use program long before agricultural/forestal districts were eyer established. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the considerations presented by people who live in rural areas with very low densities is tha~ the property tax is not really fair to them without the land use taxation program because they are paying on land that may only have one dwelling for 50 acres, and they are not getting any more services than the person who lives on one acre. One of the arguments in favor of land use is that it does, in a minor way, make a little bit more fair the real estate tax. He said he supports the land use program. He said if people are willing to submit themselves tolten year restrictions on their ability to develop their land, it is only fai~ they are accorded the State Code benefits. Mr. Lindstrom said he has concerns about ~including two-acre parcels since they are clearly notfor agricultural use. H~ wondered if the other parcels mentioned had been clarified enough for the B~ard to act. Mr. Horne said in 314 March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) terms of acreage, he could give those numbers. However, in terms of the intent of those parcels recently subdivided, he did not have that information. Ms. Kappas said the rural agricultural zoning prevents development at the same level that the district does. She wondered why creating a district would make a difference to land owners in terms of development. She said the only difference it would make would be on taxing, unless the owner expects the County will change the zoning on their land. Mr. Lindstrom said under rural agricultural zoning, property could be divided into a certain number of parcels. Inclusion in the agricultural district precludes that right. Ms. Kappas said she was told it was 21 acres, which would be the same. Mr. Horne said the ordinance requires that the land not be developed to a more intense use. By definition, that would mean anything less than 21 acres. For a standard rural agricultural parcel not in an agricultural district, there would be five development~rights that could be developed with two-acre lots. In an agricultural and forestal district, those are not available. He said in addition, in the rural agricultural zoning district there is a list of special use permits that could be applied for and granted by the Board for more intense use. Land in agric~ltural/forestal districts cannot apply for any of those special use permits. The public hearing was closed. ~ Mr. Bowie said regarding land use taxation, some people may not need it financially, but the County cannot limit its use to only those people who need its benefits. He said taxing smaller farms at regular rates without the benefit of land use rates would mean some people could not keep their farms because they just do not make enough money from their land. He said it was mentioned in another context earlier today that the County should end the land use program because it would increase revenues. He said ~t would drive small farmers out of business as well. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciated the comments from Ms. Kappas. However, he does support land use taxation and the agricultural/fo~estal districts. 4 Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer action to the March 8, 1989, meeting to allow staff time do gather more information. Roll was called and the motion carried by t~e following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~i Perkins and Way. None. : Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-88-26. Alford Associates. To rezone 7.5 acres from RA to HC. Property located on north side of U. S. R~. 250 East approxi- mately one-quarter mile east of its intersection with 1-64. Tax Map 78, parcels 44, 45 and 45A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 14 and February 21, 1989.) Mr. Home said the applicant had requested withdrawal without prejudice. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the request for withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,i Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. To receive suggestions from citizens on the criteria to be used in the selection of the Chief of Police. Comments are limited to this subject only, and may be made by appearing at this meeting, or may be in written form. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 14 and February 21, 1989.) Mr. Way said the purpose of this public hearing was to receive comments regarding the qualities and characteristics of the new Chief of Police. It was not intended to hear comments regarding any particularilcandidate. He said March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 315 the deadline for applications is March 3. Comments received at this public hearing would be compiled and used in the screening and selection process. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 P.M. Mr. Sam Kaplan, Vice President of Albemarle County Crime Prevention Council, Inc., said the police chief should: -build upon what is already in place -have ideas of a police department which are not limited to a patrol division and a detective division -believe in community-oriented policing -be willing to find out what citizens think is important and have communications skills to do that -be able to understand the public's fears -encourage police officers without immediate assignments or calls to leave their cars and walk through malls or neighborhoods -be someone the public has confidence ih who shares the values and concerns of everyone in the communSty -have leadership ability which will inspire others to fulfill their responsibilities. Mr. Bob Merrill, owner of a cow/calf favming operation, said the police chief should: -be a hard working, "grass roots" type who can get to know the people in the community -have a strong background in law enforcement-be strong enough to take a stand againSt homosexual and ACLU lobbyists -have practical experience as opposed to only theoretical knowledge. Mr. James Morris said the police chief ~hould: -seek more citizen input to law enforcement problems -establish better working relationships With neighboring counties. Mr. Rod Clark said the police chief selection committee should include the Sheriff. Mr. Mannie Norford, Jr. said the police ~chief should: -not be under the oversight of a citizen committee -have leadership ability as the primary qualification, determined through background check from elementary school forward -have good common sense even if no college degree -have strong background in law enforcement -be familiar with the needs of those under his/her command -know that the best communication network is the people -understand that everybody cannot be policed in the same way -absolutely be able to get along with other law enforcement heads ~ -possibly be considered from among the current police department -be a strong and consistent disciplinariSn -be willing to give 15 20 year people a chance to be promoted. The public hearing was closed at this ti~e. Mr. Way expressed his appreciation for those who had shared their t~oughts regarding characteristics for the Chief of Police. He said there were several threads that seemed to be the predominate characteristics. He mentioned the need for mingling with the people of the County, a desire for a practica~ orientation as opposed to an "idea" orientation, and of course, having exp~rtise in criminology. 316 March 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the public might like to know the process the Board had agreed upon regarding selection of the new Chief of Police. Mr. Agnor outlined the steps involved. He indicated that the comments received at the public hearing would be compiled and given to those responsible for interviewing. Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: May 14, 1986; January 6 (N) and March 16, 1988. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for March 16, 1988, Pages 22 End and found the following minute book correction on Page 27, seventh paragraph. Change the second sentence to read: "Of that 42 acres, Mr. Lindstrom said, because of site characteristics, around 12 acres can would be unusable anyway." On Page 29, the fourth paragraph should read: "Before he can support this request, Mr. Lindstrom said, he would like to know how much of the open land can be used for recreational activities." Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the minutes as corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bain asked staff to follow 'upon on a newspaper ~eport that Reid and Associates consultants will not be doing the bathymetric Study on the Rivanna Reservoir, while studying some of the Route 29 North proposals. Mr. Way said he had received an invitation to addres~ the Educational Policy Committee of the University of Virginia on March 30, 1989. He said he would appreciate input from the Board so that the statement would be represen- tative of the entire Board's thoughts. He asked staff toi~idraft a statement representing the Board on the effects of growth in Albemarle County. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr~i Bowie to appoint Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. to the Equalization Board, term to ~xpire on December 31, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carrie~ by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,~: Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. William L. Howard to the Equalization Board, said term to~!expire on December 31, 1989. RolI was called and the motion carried'by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 8:44 P.M., with no ~urther business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.