Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-05 specialAugust 5, 1987 (Afternnon Special Mmp_t~ng) (P~.~ 1) A special meeting n~ the Board of Supe=visozs of A]hpmmrl~ County, Virginia, was hm]d on August 5, 1987, at 4:00 P.M., M~-ting Room #5, Office B,,~ ]ding, 401 M~e Road, Chmrlottesville, Virginia, p,,rmuant to following lettm, r from Mr. Ge=aid E. Fishe~ and Mr. C. Timothy Lindst~om~ to the C]mrk to the Bnmrd of S-pmrvi~nrs, dated July 30, 1987: "We, the undersigned, ask that you call a speaial meeting of the Board of County Supervisors in order that we might meet with members of the Ch~rlot~-~ville City Co~nnil to disc~s~ the Li~kinghole Cr~mk Regional Seddmentation Basin. and the funding of this proj~_ct. Please call this meeting for Wednm~day, iAugust 5, 1987, at 4:00 P. M.. in Meeting Rooms. 5/6 of th~ County Offiae Building. P.S.: Please mdd to this age~ndm the discu~mlon of MPO action on the Rio Road/Route 29 North Interchange_, and appoint~en~t of Virginia ~epartm~nt of Transportation Consultant." BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived. at 4:18 P. M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 4:15 P. M.), and Pete= T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tuake=, 3r., Deputy County Executive. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Frank Buck, Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason, Messrs. E. G. Hall, Dard~n Towe and Gary O' Co~nnell, Deputy City Mmnmger. Agenda Itean No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 P. M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2a. Joint Meeting with th~ City Co-no~l for discussion of the Lickinghole Creek Regionm] Sedimentation Rm.~in.. Mr. Fisher opened the meeting by thanking the City Council members for coming to ~b~ meeting. To put the forthcoming discussion in perspective, Mr. Fisher gave a brief baakground of the area to be disc~,-~ed, the reservoir, and the Crozet Interceptor. He said in the 1982 revision of th~ Comprehensive Plan, some omreful adjustments in the boundary were made to constrict the growth area of Crozet, which allowed consideration of controls for r~nnff in the southern and northern portions of the area, with growth, encouraged between the ridge lines. Mr. Fisher said if a dam and a lake can be built at an appropriate location downstream of the growth area~, runoff prob]~m~ from the developmen~t at Crozet, as well as the surface runoff from new developmmnt, can be treated and will minimize the damage to the reservoir. He said the County has been looking at various alternatives to treat pollution; however, so far, this has not been successful. In addition, growth in the County has been scaled down to mininkize problems in the watershed and to try to protect the drinking water supply. At this t~mm, Mr. Fisher a~md Mr. T-oker to review the Staff Report, dated July 31, 1987, received as follows. "This report is prepared to explain the current protection mmmmures utilized in th~ South Fork Rivanna Watershed and specifically the Lickinghole Cr~_o_k regional basin in ~hm Crozet area. Back.-r~,n& and Misto~--/ The watershed managmmmnt plan for the South Rivanna Reservoir utilizes a multiple technique approach tb improv~n~g water qum!ity in the watershed and the reaervoir itself. !:Major point source loadings have been or will he controlled by the Crozet Interceptor. A variety of mana~t practices .h~.~ heron identified for use in ~h~ control of nonpoint sources of pollution. Incl,,dmd in tbm-~e are a Runoff Control Oral!hence, a streambank erosion control program, an Agri- cul~ral Bast M~n~g~mpnt Praat~ (BMP) Program, a rn~dway/stream crossing management effort and a regional sedimentation bm~in constructian concept~ August 5, 1987 (Afternoon Special Meeting.) (Page 2) With the exception of the construction of regional sedimentation basins, all of these techniq-es have been implm, mmnted, and are administered by the County Staff with assistance of the Watershed Management Official. Following recommmndations from the areas Water Quality and Watershed Management studies, a regional sed~mmntation basin, originally identified in the County's 1971 Comprehensive Plan in the Lickinghole Creek basin designed and evaluated for use as a control facility that would receive all of the drainage from the growth area of Crozet, plus the drainage from a substantially larger rural Watershed area upstream. The cost of the basin was estimated at $600,000. It was calculated that 45% of the total phosphorous loading from the Lickinghole basin could be removed by the impoundment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved $300,000 funding for the project. During a suhsequent environmental assessment and review of design for the basin by EPA, redm~ign to m~t Fedeanal dam standards was required which resulted in the cost of ~he project increasing to approximately $1.8 million. EPA then ~equested that alternative mmasures of controlling, pollutant inflows be evaluated4 RivannaWater and Sewer Authority (RWSA) staff along With City and County Enginemring Staf£sexaminedlthreem~thods of~Ollution control: 1. The single, large regional basin; 2. Several smaller, subreginn~l basins; 3. Basins developed on each developed parcel, r.~ferred to as "on-site" basins. Comparative Tables A & B summarizing the technical, details of this e~mination are attached (on file). EPA accepted the revised design and cost estima*~s for the regional basin, indicated that the original $300,000 could be available for the regional or subregional, basina, and advised that no additional Federal funds are available. RWSA concluded that the regional basin would provide the more effective reduction of phosphorous and seddment loaddi~g to the reservoir, but d~,m to its cost and other capital f,mding needs of RWSA, the project could not receive high priority, and the project was removed from active consideration as an RWSA project. The project was returned by County Staff to th~ Boazd~of Supervisors for their re~iew, and was recnmm~nH~d for implementation for the following reasons: o The Crozet Growth Area has been and continues to be a major factor in growth management efforts of the County, and lo~g-range plans for Crozet have been based upon the provisions of a regional basin; o The total poundage of phosphorus removed from the Watershed is highest with the regional basin, and unit costs pe~ pound associ- ated with that removal are the lowest; o The developer contribution, and/or cost to landowners, is the lowest with the regional basin; o Maintenance is l~m~ted to one basin, which is important to efficiency of the phosphorus rmmnval process; o Only a 'one time' disturbance to the environment and community would occur to establish a regional basin; o The runoff control permit and review process in the Crozet Growth Area would be relieved with the regio~a! basin approach. August 5, 1987 (Afternoon Special Meeting) (Page 3) ~ONCLUSION Depending upon funding availability, the County recnmmends construc- tion of the basin to begin in 1988-89. Current project estimates are: Stremm testing before and after construction Engineering design Land acquisition Construction Total $ 60,000 85,000 90,000 1,575,000 $1,810,000 Of the total cost, revenues of $300,000 from EPA, and $1,000,000 from developer contributions through the Runoff Control Ordinance can he anticipated. Developer contributions will, of course, require many years to recover, and depending upon actual growth in the Crozet area, the estimated contributions may never be fully realized. Staff requests your favorable consideration of this important reservoir protection measure, funded collectively from Federal funds, the land owners and developers of the Crozet growth area, and the users of the water from the South Rivanna reservoir. After Mr. Tucker completed his presentation, Mr. Fisher said the options available if the project is not built are not covered in the report, and these options should be considered. He said the current County ordinance covers on-site basins for new develop~mnt, not for development which already exists. The cost of a basin will be passed on at the _time of development; however, this will not do very much for any existing problmm~. He asked Mr. Tucker if the RivannaWater and Sewer Authority (RWSA) maintains the basins. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Authority does not provide maintenance of basins within the urban area because these fall outside of the watershed, and this is where most of the basins are currently located; for the ~most part these basins are maintained by the County, a landowner and/or ~homeowners associations. Mr. Fisher said this produces varying qualities df maintenance and he feels problems will develop over a period of time because there is no centralized system for maintaining basins. Mr. Tucker pointed out the approximate location of the proposed Lickinghole Creek baSin on the map and said the basin can handle all of the growth developed since the growth area was constricted. The dam, itself, has been designed to handle all of the runoff from the growth area in addition to all agricultural runoff in the entire watershed area. Mrs. Gleason asked if the RWSA will take over the maintenance of the Lickinghole Creek basin. Mr. Tucker said this hmm not yet been discussed, but the original intent was for Rivanna to construct the basin using funds from developers which will be turned over to them. However, Rivanna decided this was not a high priority project and decided not to go ahead with it. Mr. Tucker said if Rivmnna did decide to become involved in the construction of the project, he believes they would maintain it in the future. Mrs. Gleason asked the reason for Rivanna's decision. Mr. Tucker said he understands, from Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the RWSA, that the project was not cost-effective from Rivanna's perspective, end other projects in Rivanna's Capital Program had a higher priority. The County had hoped to move quickly on this project. Because of these factors, the project was not approved by Rivanna. Mr. Fisher said in the absence of a commitment to build the Lickinghole Creek basin, every new project will have to construct its own on-site basin, and money which would have been used for dam and lake development will be lost. In this sense, time is a concern since' the County does not want to encourage a rush to build projects now, which'will enable developers to avoid helping to build the basin. Mr. Fisher said the County has been working on this project a long time, and it is not expected that the City Council will understand all the history and background of this project and be able to make a decision today. Mr. Fisher then asked for questions and com~ents from City Council m~mbers. Mr. Buck asked what the impact of the basin is versus the smaller impound- ments that are required under the existing ordinance, in terms of their effects on the reservoir. Mr. Tucker said the analysis showed that the actual poundage which is actually removed will be much greater with the larger basin, August 5, 1987 (Afternoon Special Meeting) (Page 4) as opposed to individual on-site basins or a subregional basin. The cost, which will be passed on directly to the homeowner, will be much higher with individual basins~ whereas, the cost of the larger basin will be spread over all of the homeowners. In addition, with the smaller basins it will not be possible to retain the phosphorus loading from existing development and the remainder of the watershed. Mr. Buck asked if a percentage-wise analysis had been done on the impact on the reservoir in terms of the total watershed that produces phos- phorus, particularly individual runoff control methods. Mr. Tucker replied that in 1984, Mr. Frank Brown completed a report for Rivanna which contained an analysis of this regional basin. Based on the existing land use, it was Mr. Brown's opinion that the basin would r~ove about five percent of the phosphorus that flows into the South Fork Rivanna reservoir. In addition, if the entire community was developed, the percentage would increase to approxi- mately ten percent. The basin, itself, mmkes up about five percent of the land area of the South Fork Rivanna reservoir. Mr. Brown,combined the phosphorus removal percentage of the interceptor (estimated at about ten percent) and other methods of removal (estimated between ten and fifteen percent), and came up with a 20 to 25 percent phosphorus removal rate at the South Fork Riva~n~ reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said the impoundmmnt will have no benefit to the County as a recreational device or anything else, except to act as a trap for the sedimentation from the Crozet area. The Council may think there is a benefit to allowing Crozet to develop; this is a dilemma over which the members of the Board have had no control. He said when he came on the B6ard the construction on Western Albemarle High School had already begun, whichi'incrmm~ed the population in that part of the County, in addition to the3~industrial base that already exists in the Crozet area. In a planning effort to use Crozet as an asset that might attract development in that area, and in designing the boundaries to constrict growth, the Board tried to make the best of an already bad situation. Since these factors were already in place~ the decision to try to ~deal with the runoff was made because it had to be shown that the County was doing all that was possible to address the issue of pollution. The 1984 assessment of the benefits from the efforts undertaken by the City and the County showed that the quality of the water in the reservoir was getting better. The degradation rate has been stemmmd with the introduction of the interceptor, and with the Lickinghole Creek basin, there might be some turn- around. During the revision of the Comprehensive Plan for the urban area, and implementation of the general plan, a debate arose concerning the part of the urban area west of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads, which mark the watershed ridge line on the east end of the reservoir. A study was!completed which assessed the de, ices used to control runoff. The study concluded that it would take a number of different devices for runoff control, but one device, collectively managed, would be optimum. Because a site could not be found in the area, this was deleted from the plans for the urban area. With relatively low density, the devices in place are sufficient; however,~ with urban densi- ties, these smmm devices would not do as good a job as a single collection basin. ~ Mr. Fisher said the South Fork reservoir is not getting any better, but it is also not getting any worse. However, as more development takes place, it is suspected that the situation will definitely worsen~ Mr. Buck said he has been informed that if the project is not completed, the phosphorus loading from it would be approximately three percent of the total ~amount that goes into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He asked if the COUnty agrees with this figure, and if the three percent figure is based on individual runoff control devices being in place, or if the figure is based ~on the fact that there will be no other individual, scattered devices in effect. Mr. Tucker said he does not know for sure; he believes the figure may have come from a report completed by Mr. William Norris. Mrs. Judy Mueller, Director of Public Works for the City, said the report just states phosphorus would account for three percent of the annual loading in the reservoir. Mr.' Norris said Mr. Brown's report, in analyzing Lickinghole Creek alternatives, stated that total phosphorus and suspended solid reduction was best achieved by the large Lickinghole Creek basin, with an annual loading reduction of three percent for total phosphorus and six percent for suspended solids. In comparing this with the four regional basins, in conjunction with the runoff control ordinance, the reductions were 1.5 and 2.7 percent, respectively. Mr. Michael Armm, August 5, 1987 (Afternoon Special Meeting) (Page 5) County Engineer, said that it would be as if the three percent stands alone, not in conjunction with the interceptor. Mr. Buck said the comparison that should be made is the impact of the load with the other devices in place that are required by the runoff control ordinance. Mr. Armm said he believes the lower percentage figures represent use of the other, individual site controls in lieu of the larger basin. Mr. Buck said it would be helpful to have City and County staff sort through the information to come up with something everyone can agree on since there seems to be a sense of uncertainty about the information. Mr. Fisher agreed with Mr. Buck. He said there is dissatisfac- tion with the present ordinance, and finding an alternative to what is being done now should be considered. Mr. Buck asked how the charges will be allocated if RWSA contributes to funding; to what extent will those funds be allocated to City customers, or will it be a direct contribution from the City, along with a direct contri- bution from the County. Mr. Fisher replied that a decision has not yet been made as to what the percentages should be. He said this is a problem that has some shared consequences since the users of the South Fork Rivanna reservoir (both the County and the City) are beneficiaries of anything that is done to improve the water quality in the reservoir. Mr. Buck asked if there is any precedent to deal with the question. Mr. Fisher said that locally there is no precedent. Mr. Buck said he wants to understand the concept or philosophy underlying the position that the funding should be shared, beyond "some shared consequences." The "it is in your best interest to contribute" argument is valid; however, he has difficulty, philosophically, with the position that City users should support funding for a water management control program that is needed due to development taking place ink, the County. Mr. Fisher said the wisdom of the City to build a reservoir did not include the wisdom to build it downstream from Crozet. But, it is there; b6th are there. Mr. Lindstrom said most people will saylthat the County does not "pound the pavement" looking for growth. People come and the County tries to accom- modate them in a way that will do the least damage to the watershed. However, that part of the County is very appealing. Mr. Lindstrom believes that the ordinances in effect have caused a significantly lower rate of development than would have occurred in their absence, andlthe County has borne the cost of that. He said the County does not ihave any leverage in this case, other than moral persuasion. The County is ~trying-to place the growth anticipated in Crozet in an area where some of the runoff can be dealt with better. Although the basin will be in the County, it will benefit City residents as well, and the County hopes that the City will be willing to consider helping out in some way. Mr. Buck said there are two issues. First, the RWSA said the project was not cost-effective and they could not justify it, based on the percentages and figures arrived at. He suggested that perhaps: the numbers could be presented in a way that all would feel more comfortable with. Second, the philosophy for doing the project beyond the consequences to the South Fork Rivanna reservoir: the City and the users of the reservoir should have some interest in the project, and should contribute to funding. There are services provided by the City and the County that benefit its own constituents, but which also benefits the constituents in the surrounding area. This is where the problem lies -- why should this project be treated differently. Mr. Buck said this is the philosophy he is having difficulty understanding; however, with a little time and thought it will get sorted out in his, mind. Mr. Fisher said that is all the County is asking. Mr. Towe asked if Mr. Lindstrom meant financial consideration. Mr. Lindstrom said that anything over zero would be welcomed. Mr. Towe said sometimes Mr. Lindstrom is pretty specific in his generalities, and he was just wondering. Mr. Fisher said this is a joint problem. It is expected that there will be monies from developers, which could compensate those who funded the project initially, and $300,000 is expected from the Federal government. However, whatever other money is needed is expected to be paid by either water users or governments. He feels that if the project is not done, the community will have lost a good opportunity to effect a~:change in conditions. Mr. Buck asked what legal power or right the County has to recover the cost from developers. He asked if the County~can change the numbers in its ordinance to recover the full amount of the project, knowing the developer August 5, 1987 (Afternoon Special Meeting) (Page 6) will pass along the cost to the people acquiring the property. Mr. Fisher said the fees could get so high as to discourage development, and the growth will then take place somewhere else in the watershed, and problems will develop there. Mr. Tucker said the rationale used was that there is already development existing in that area; the breakdown is based on the existing development. Mr. Buck asked if it is legally possible to have a special assessment for existing development for this type of improvement. Mr. Tucker replied that he is not sure the County can do that. Mr. Lindstrom said there is something that can be done on drainage projects, and he asked if it is the same authority that applies in this case. Mr. Armm said he does not know if it is the same authority, but in those cases only new development that comes in has been charged; the existing developments are not being assessed for the cost. Mr. Lindstrom asked how a new developer is assessed. Mr. Armm said at the site plan stage one of the conditions is an assessed amount on the property; either that amount is paid or a bond is posted. Mr. Tucker said developers are anxious to do this because putting in an on-site basin takes up a great deal of land and costs much more. Mr. Fisher said the cost of the interceptor must be considered also, since it is designed ~to handle more than called for in the ordinance. He said the unit cost for the RWSA is based on how much sewage is contained in the interceptor. Mr. Buck asked how the interceptor was funded. Mr. Fisher replied that it was 7S to 80 percent federally funded, and the balance was funded through the BWSA, with the remaining 25 percent funding split by the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and the City on the urban debt service. Mr. J. Wi~liamBrent, Executive Director of the ACSA, said the ACSA pays twice Che debt service for the urban area the City pays. Based on Rivanna's current rates, the ACSA generates about 26 percent of the urban sewer and pays aboUt 41 percent of the urban debt. Mr. Tucker said the total cost of the interceptor was approxi- mately $5.6 million. Mr. Buck asked if the Crozet interceptor benefits City customers other than by protecting the environment. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Buck said the percentage takes into account all the debt s~rvice for all the projects. Mr. Brent replied that a decision was made during the negotiations for~the Four-Party Agreement that the ACSA would pay twice~ the debt service that the City would pay for urban sewer projects. Mr. Fisher said this is the problem, and the County believes the project needs to be built for everyone. The County is looking for~a mechanism through which to fund the project, which is a primary interest. He said the major part of consideration is the initial funding of the project. The County believes much of the cost will be recovered, and developer!contributions in the future might enable an adjustment in the rates. If the project is not built, the County believes the whole community will be adv&rsely affected. At this time, Mr. Fisher asked for specific questions and said the County staff will be available to work with the City staff to deal with any problems. Mrs. Gleason asked for more detail about why the RWSAifeels the project is not cost-effective. Mr. Fisher said this project will not generate as much in revenues as other new Rivanna projects. Mr. Brent said~Rivanna reviewed this project in relation to other projects it was considering, and decided they could not afford this project. He said Rivanna has a "have to" list and a "want to" list, and even some of the projects on the "have to" list Rivanna cannot afford. Mr. Towe asked what type of projects are on Rivanna's "have to" list. Mr. Brent replied the solid disposal problem at the water treatment plants, the Buck Mountain impoundment project, a hydroelectric project, rebuilding of the Observatory Mountain water plant, etc. Mr. Towe asked Mr. Fisher if there are other areas in the County with a similar problem or other growth areas that will have this type of problem in the future. Mr. Fisher replied that under the current ordinances, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan, the answer is no. This is the only area in the watershed that has sewer service; the area is zoned for commercial, industrial, and high density residential development; it is the only area in the County proposed for those things. Unless there is some major change in the structure of the County's zoning and planning, this is the sole runoff problem; it exists, it is not going to go away. There was no further discussion. Agenda Item No. 2b. Discussion: Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) action on Rio Road/Route 29 North Interchange. 88 August 5, 1987 (Afternoon Special Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Fisher said the State Department of Transportation has requested that the interchange at Rio Road be deleted from everyone's plans. He then asked Mr. Lindstrom to elaborate on the subject. Mr. Lindstrom said Ms. Nancy O'Brien, member of staff to the MPO, had received the amended Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), which must be reviewed and acted upon by the MPO as part of its responsibilities under Federal law. If acted upon favorably, the project qualifies for Federal funding; if not acted upon favorably, the project does not qualify for Federal funding unless there is an override by the United States Secretary of Transpor- tation, who is required to consider the position of the local MPO. He said this is a procedure he has not been involved in, and he does not believe the procedure has been invoked locally. At a meeting he attended at the end of July, Mr. Lindstrom said the actions and proposals with respect to Route 29 were so important, he suggested the MPO shouid have more time to consult with their governing bodies. Mr. Lindstrom said since this is a mutual concern, he is bringing it up to inform City representatives about a meeting scheduled for August 20, 1987. The Department of Transportation is anxious to have the TIP approved so they can proceed with the proposal for Route 29. Originally, the TIP contained it the project that was brought to public hearing in November 1986; that is, the eight-laning of Route 29 and a grade-separated interchange at Rio Road. After the public hearing, the grade-separated interchange was deleted. In addition, the adopted CATS study shows Route 29 north as a six-lane road with two, and possibly three, grade-separated interchanges, one each at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road, and Greenbriar Drive. Mr. Lindstrom said it appears to him it was a policy decision to drop the interchange, which makes it appear that if the project proceeds, Route 29 will have eight lanes of traffic with no improvement for cross traffic at Rio Road, and no improvement for through traffic having to stop at Rio Road. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels some serious questions need to be raised whether this decision is consistent with the CATS plan that has been adopted. In addition, concerning the propose~ two-year study of Route 29, assuming that some of the traffic using the by-pass will be local and all of the through ~traffic will be using it, the number will be approximately 75,000 vehicles per day in the year 2008, subtract ing the 20 percent of traffic the by-pass wiI1 take off Route 29, that still leaves approximately 50,000 to 60,000 vehicle trips a day. Mr. Lindstrom said in going ahead with the project now, the Department of Transportation is "jumping the gun" since there is no current 6rigin and destination data available. He said he feels the project should be deleted from the TIP because: 1) the deletion of the interchange ~was a policy decision inconsis- tent with joint transportation planning; 2) to construct the project at this time would be to do so without adequate data that will be available within the next two years, which may cause a change of plans for Route 29. Mr. Bowie asked for confirmation on whether or not Mr. Lindstrom that the project be deleted from the TIP. Mr. Lindstrom said he recommended that the eight-lane, no grade-separated interchange proposal be deleted from this current TIP until the study is completed~. Mr. Lindstrom said if the project is not included in the TIP, it is not eligible for Federal funding unless there is a veto by the Secretary of Transportation in Washington, D. C. Mr. Lindstrom said if the project is approved the way it now stands, the MPO will be "pulling the rug out" from under its own position, and this is why it must be a joint decision. Mr. Buck agreed that what Mr. Lindstrom said makes sense. Mr. Lindstrom again spoke about the meeting on August 20, saying he will not be able to attend, but someone will be there in his place. He is asking that as mmny representatives as possible attend the meeting. Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Appointment of Virginia Department of Transportation Consultant. Mr. Fisher said the Department of Transportation had chosen the Sverdrup Corporation as the lead consulting firm. He believes there are three addi- tional firms assisting them in the study to be completed. He said the Department of Transportation plans to discuss the project and present the firm with a charge on August 6, 1987, and officials from the City, the County, and the University will participate in the meeting. He said the idea is to stress local concerns so the consultant is aware of them, so the concerns do not get lost in the process. 89 August 5, 1987 (Afternoon Special Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Tucker said that he, Mr. Satyendra S. Huja, City Planning Director, and Mr. William Middleton, Vice President of the Physical Plant at the University of Virginia, plan to attend the meeting. They will bring with them a copy of the proposed scope of work the Committee originally proposed, which expresses what the concerns are. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that there must be a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the comprehen- sive plans of the jurisdictions that it passes through if Federal funding is involved. He has checked with the County Attorney who said if land use impact is not taken into consideration, the comprehensive plan imPact cannot be assessed properly. Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P. M.