Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-10 563 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 10, 1988, at 1:30 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; and Mr. John T. P. Home, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 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 Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to accept 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. Letter from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated January 27, 1988, concerning Sight distance problems at the intersection of Routes 826 and 627, was received as information. "Reference is made to your letter dated August 13, 1987, at which time you requested on the Board's behalf that I meet with Mrs. Waltine Eubanks concerning a sight distance problem at the intersec- tion of Routes 826 and 627. Please report to the Board that I looked at this location and spoke with Mrs. Eubanks concerning easements that would be needed. She attempted to set up a meeting with the owner of the p.roperty where the easements would be located. She advised me some ~time ago that the property owner was unreceptive to the idea but t~at she would continue discussions with the owner. As of this date I have received no further word from Mrs. Eubanks concerning the prob!lem. I do not believe the property owner is receptive to the easements or the improvement and it appears it is unfeasible to do anykhing about this problem unless the Board wishes to develop plans and purchase the easements necessary." Item 4.2. A copy of the Planning Commission's minute~ of January 26, 1988, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: May 18 (Afternoon), April 15, September 9 and September 16, 1987; and February 3, 1988. Mr. Bowie read the minutes of September 9, 1987, Item i12 on Page 14 to End, and found them to be in order with the following minute book corrections: Page 17, Second paragraph, Third sentence should read: "... block of kennels, with kennels being allowed to be blocked by 10, 20, 30, 40,1 or 50 dogs (County license is $15 up to 20 dogs, $25 up to 50 dogs)." Page 231, First paragraph, First sentence should read: "Mr. Lindstrom asked where the County funds for this request will come from." February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 564 Mr. Way read the minutes of September 16, 1987, Page 1 to Item 11 on Page 14, and found them to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors. Mr. Bain read the minutes of February 3, 1988, and found them to be in order with the exception of a typographical error. Mr. Perkins read the minutes of February 3, 1988, and found them to be in order with the following minute book change: Page 3, Last paragraph, Delete the sentence reading: "He is concerned .that this plan increases salaries in the lower range, below $20,000." Insert the following sentence in its place: "I feel there is a need for some increases and adjustments, particularly at the lower salary levels, that is $20,000 or less." Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes which had been read. 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. 6. Public Hearing: Naming of Auditorium in County Office Building. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 26 and February 2, 1988. Mr. Agnor said the recommendations for naming the auditorium in the County Office Building are the "Lane Auditorium", the "Lane High Auditorium" and the "Sharon Hoose Auditorium". The name with the most recommendations is the "Lane Auditorium". Mrs. Cooke said this matter was brought to her attention by a letter from Mrs. Charlotte Humphris who suggested that it would be appropriate to name the auditorium in the County Office Building. There is sentiment in the area that the building is a link with the past, is historically significant and thus should be named appropriately. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Charlotte Humphris said the auditorium should officially be named "Lane Auditorium". This issue is important tO her because of its historical significance and because of the many happy years she spent in the building as a student and then a teacher. The auditorium~ has been a major center of activity and pleasant memories of happenings for the community. It was the site of the many band concerts conducted by Sharon Hoose. It hosted the Barter Theatre, the community concert series And many special events. The auditorium has been the scene of political rallies, municipal band concerts, public hearings and so forth. In 1973 a poll~was conducted to assess public opinion in the selection of a name for the new area high school. The people of Charlottesville cast 4,466 votes for Lane Migh, 683 for Charlottesville High, and the Lane student body voted 390 to 84 for Lane High. Sentiment in the community was, and still is, strong for remembering the name Lane. Mr. James W. Lane was the principal of the old Charlottesville High School between 1895 and 1918. This building is a real credit to the community and naming the auditorium the "Lane Auditorium" would be fit(ing and proper. Mr. Darden Towe said he also attended Lane and was president of the student body in 1954. Over the years, many people have enjoyed the name Lane High School. The name has been a vital part of the community and he asks that the Board consider the name "Lane Auditorium"J There being no one else present to speak~ the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke asked the persons present in ~upport of naming the auditorium "Lane Auditorium" to stand, ii · ~ Mr. Bain said he thinks it is approprlatq to recognize the building's contribution to the community. ~ 565 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the name "Lane Auditorium" for the auditorium in the McIntire Road County Office Building in honor of Mr. James Lane. There being no further discussion 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. 7. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-52 of the Code of Albemarle to increase the number of bond issuances of the Industrial Development Authority from eleven to twelve. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 26 and February 2, 1988.) Mr. Agnor said there is a limit placed on the number of active bond issuances of the Industrial Development Authority to eleven. The purpose of this public hearing is to increase the number to twelve to accommodate finan- cing of the Westminster-Canterbury project recently approved by the Board. The public hearing was opened and there being no one present to speak the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2-52 OF ARTICLE IX CODE OF ALBEMARLE ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY" BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and reenacted in Section 2-52 of Article IX, Industrial Development'Authority, as follows: Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues. There shall be no more than twelve bond issuances of the indus- trial development authority of the county in existence at any one time. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, ~Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. A.H.I.P. Annual Report. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Director, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), addressed the Board and presented a report on AHIP'~s activities and progress during the past year. Ms. Tapscott said in June, 1987 AHIP completed a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that was awarded to Albemarle County in 1985. From the grant, AHIP completed 55 owner-occupied rehabili- tations in three different target areas in the County. Since the completion of that project, AHIP has been awarded $150,000 by the Farmer's Home Admin- istration, $121,000 from the Human Services Discretionary Grant Program, and through the County of Albemarle an additional $700,000 to ~ontinue housing rehabilitation. The funds that AHIP plans to use over the next two years to improve the quality of life for the County's low income residents total $971,645. AHIP anticipates completion of approximately 45-owner-occupied rehabilitations in seven different target areas with the $~71,645. In addition to the 45 owner-occupied rehabilitations, for the ~irst time AHIP will undertake 18 rental rehabilitation projects through the County's CDBG Program. The money set aside for the rental rehabilitations will be used to assist low or moderate income landlords throughout the County to rehabilitate their properties to Section 8 minimum property standards and to place the February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) 566 (Page 4) rehabilitated units in the County's Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Subsidy Program. The average cost of the above mentioned 63 rehabilitations is expected to be $23,000 per job. The costs include materials, labor, and operating overhead. Ms. Tapscott presented a slide presentation on AHIP's production for the past year. To go along with the slide presentation, Ms. Tapscott handed out a description (on file in the clerk's office) of each unit and of the costs and funding involved. Ms. Tapscott said last year for the first time the County agreed to fund an emergency repair carpenter and that position is shared with the JABA Home Safety Program. Since September 19 emergency repairs have been completed, which averages to about four repairs per month. Mr. Lindstrom asked if working with JABA is amenable. Ms. Tapscott replied yes. She then invited new Board members to come by her office and said she would orient them with AHIP's program and take them on a tour of some of their work. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels this program should be applauded because it is one of the few things done where the results can be seen. He also feels that the program has been operated effectively and efficiently. Mr. Frances Fife, a member of AHIP's BoaCd, commended the Board for its support of AHIP. He said the State Board of Housing and Community Development has used the housing programs in this area asimodels. One reason that these programs are models is because of the use of funds from different sources (federal, local and private) and the meshing of those funds. Agenda Item No. 9a. Highway Matters: Request for abandonment of Plain Dealing Farm Road. This item was brought to the Board's attention by the following letter from Mr. Lindsay R. Barnes, an attorney in the law firm of McCallum and Kudravetz: ~ "This firm represents Plain Dealing, LtdJ, a Virginia corporation which owns and operates PlainDealing Farm in the Scottsville Magis- terial District of the County. At present, the farm is traversed by an Unused roadway referenced on the enclosed plat (on file) as the 'Old Gharlottesville Road'. I presume that this road was used by area ~esidents prior to the con- struction of St. Routes 712 and 713 whic~ now serve the area. My client wishes to have abandoned that portion of the 'Old Charlot- tesville Road' (highlighted on the enclosed plat) running through Plain Dealing Farm. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter (on file) from James B. Murray, Jr., managing general partner of Greenmont Farms, Ltd., the owner of property adjoining Plain Dealing Farm an~ similarly affected by the 'Old Charlottesville Road'. As you can ~ee from Mr. Murray's letter, and its attached plat, Greenmont Farms, ~td. supports my client's position and, by letter, also requests that the County abandon that portion of the 'Old Charlottesville Road'i traversing its property. My review of the applicable sections of the Code of Virginia indi- cates that the proper procedure is to (a)! petition the County for abandonment and (b) file plats with the County and the Circuit Court Clerk's Office. I respectfully request ~hat these letters be treated as the applicable petitions and that the matter be placed on one of the Board's agendas in the reasonably near future for the purpose of receiving a preliminary report and, if appropriate, expressing a preliminary intention to abandon the road through both Greenmont Farms, Ltd. and Plain Dealing, Ltd. acreage. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Upon hearing from you, I shall, see that the appropriate plat copies are filed with the Clerk s Office for the Albemarle County Circuit Court. I shall share your correspondence with Mr. Murray; thus, you need not, unless you so desire, respond separately to Greenmont Farms, Ltd.'s petition." 567 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Home said the Planning staff can see no public purpose to main- taining this as a public right-of-way and has no Objection to its abandonment Mr. James Murray said he did not know the road was public and would request that it be abandoned. Mr, Lindsay Barnes said hehas no further information, and is present to request the Board to proceed with abandonment of the road. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a pUblic hearing on the abandonment of Plain Dealing Farm ROad for April 13, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, perkins and Way. None. ' Agenda Item No. 9b. Highway Matters: Hunter's Way - request to move cul-de-sac. This matter was brought to the Board by a letter dated January 25, 1988 from Mr. David J. Wood, Jr. Mr. Home presented the following staff report: "The staff has reviewed a request by David J. Wood, Jr. for the Board of Supervisors to'abandon a portion of Hunter's Way and relocate the terminus cul-de-sac for that roadway. Hunter's Way is currently a private roadway that is proposed to be accepted in the secondary system for maintenance. It is my understanding from!Mr. Wood that this relocation will facilitate the submission of a ~ite development plan for a proposal on several of the lots in Hunter!is Way Sub- division. The staff has pointed out to the applicant that it would be preferable to review the site development plan fo~ this proposal prior to approving a specific relocation point for t~e cul-de-sac. This will allow staff to ensure that this particulari~location for the terminus of the public roadway is the most appropriate location as it relates to access to the proposed development. It i~i my under- standing from Mr. Wood that the timing of the submiss!ion of the site development plan will not be convenient for the transfer of this property which requires the relocation of the cul-de,sac. The staff has no objection to this abandonment and relocation a~ this time, but will not feel constrained in their review of a site d~velopment plan as it relates to the specific location of this roadwaY." Mr. David Wood said in accordance with the State Cod~ all property owner: on Hunter's Way, all lien holders and all trustees have signed the petition. There has been no opposition. He is present to answer any! questions. Mr. Bowie said this property lies in his district an~ has no problem with the request. He noted the staff's comment that it is suggested this be done in conjunction with the site plan and the staff does not f~el constrained in its review of a site plan. Mr. Bain suggested that wording be made a part of the approval. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were time constraints. Mr. Wood said the timing is extremely important. The purpose of this request is for the deletion of lot lines to convert six lots into one large lot for con- struction of the new UPS service building. This request n&eds approval today in order to meet a closing date on March 4. UPS is aware that it will need to present a site plan and will need to comply with all requirements. Mr. St. John commented that signatures by all of the parties involved for this type of abandonment does not require a 30 day notice and thus the ~equest can be acted on today. ,~ Mr. Bowie asked what would happen with the large lot if the negotiations with UPS did not materialize. Mr. Wood said the deed willi~not be recorded until prior to the deed of conveyance on March 4. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to authorize the Chairman to sign a deed dated the 18th day of December, 19~7, by and between William H. White, III and Virginia R. White, Nationwide Ho~es, Incorporated, Forest Hill Associates, 3efferson Supply Company, Inc.', Virginia Student Aid Foundation, Woodberry Forest School, Wray Partnership, Alumni Association of February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 568 the University of Virginia, David J. Wood, Jr., sole surviving trustee, Charles A. Dwyer and Mary Jane Dwyer, bondholders, Joseph W. Richmond, Jr., sole acting trustee, First American Bank of Virginia, noteholder, Commonwealth Abstract Corporation of Winchester and Joseph W. Richmond, Jr., trustees, First American Bank of Virginia, noteholder, Richard A. Repp, sole acting trustee, Dominion Bank of Richmond, National Association, and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, abandoning a~portion of Hunter's Way and creating a new cul-de-sac; this action is taken with theunderstanding that the staff has no objection to the abandonment and relocation at this time, but will not feel constrained in their review of a site development plan as it relates to the specific location of the roadway. Roll was called and the notion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9c. Highway Matters: DCaft letter: Highway Department funding. Mr. Agnor said the proposed draft letter to the Highway Commissioner is in response to the last phase of the Commission on the Twenty-First Century's report concerning funding needs of localities-for the highway system. The conclusion of the report was there was not much that could be done for loc- alities on a state-wide basis resulting in each locality having to deal with the problem individually. Mr. Roosevelt said he supports in principle any plan that gives the Board more leeway in how it spends its secondary road funds. He cautions the Board that if it widens the area in which funds areispent and uses the funds on roads that are not a part of the Secondary system, then roads that are a part of the system will move down on the waiting list and there will be no addi- tional funds available. He personally has noiproblemwith the Board's request if it is allowed. His one comment concerninglthe letter is in the first paragraph. In regard to the sentence which reads "It is the Board's under- standing that secondary highway funds can only be allocated to projects that involve new construction which will replace i~provements on existing state roads", he thinks that instead of "replace" t~e wording should be "reduce the need for" as that is the intent. Mr. Bowie said he thinks something is missing from the end of the letter as there is no transition. It seems to him that after referring to the traffic from the subdivisions that use Route 29 there should be something to state why the Board feels as it does about the use of Route 29. After some discussion, Mr. Lindstrom suggested the wording for the last sentence in the last paragraph read "The traffic from these subdivisions currently must use Route 29 to reach these employment areas and ~onstruction of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described above would divert some 6f this traffic from the already crowded Route 29 facility." ~ Mr. Bain referenced the sentence "This r~ad is recognized in the CATS Plan .... " He feels that it is important to ~nclude the length of time the road has been in the CATS Plan and when the Plan was adopted. Mr. Agnor suggested the sentence read "This road has be~n recognized in the CATS Plan since 1981, has been an approved project .... 'I Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and~seconded by Mrs. Cooke to authorize the Chairman to sign the amended lebter and forward same to Highway Commissioner Pethtel. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: i AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. (Note: The letter read as follows:) "The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation consider the use of secondary highway funds for the construction of new roads which are approved projects in 569 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation System (CATS) Plan, and in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. It is the Board's understanding that secondary highway funds can only be allocated to projects that involve new road construction which will reduce the need for improvements on existing State roads. If that is an accurate understanding of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) policy, the Board requests that the policy be amended to provide for allocation to new roads that: Are invluded in an approved transportation plan which VDoT has participated in developing and approving; Are included in the locality's comprehensive plan for a period of time sufficient to indicate the project is consistent with long range planning, and has not changed. It is suggested that one, five-year revision cycle of a locality's comprehensive plan, as required by state law, could be considered a sufficient time for a project to be unchanged; Are connections to major roads in the locality's transportation network; and 4. Will primarily serve a public service transportation need. An example of a project which the City of CharlottesVille and Albemarle County are both involved with is the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 649. This project is eligible from Rio Road to Route 649 because it does not replace improvements on Route 29. This road has been recognized in the CATS Plan since 1981, has been an approved project in the County's Comprehensive Plan since 1982, connects Route 649 to~iRoute 631 (Rio Road), and will serve as a controlled access collectQr road that will provide an alternate means to move traffic from seve=al large, existing residential subdivisions to major employmen~ centers in downtown Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. The traffic from these subdivisions currently must use Route 29 Co reach these employment areas and construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described above would divert some of this traffic from the already crowded Route 29 facility." Mr. Lindstrom suggested that instead of further correspondence, the staff follow-up with a telephone call to Mr. Pethtel in a coupl~ of weeks. Mr. Horne said, for further information, with regard !~o the Secondary Road Six-Year Plan, Mr. Roosevelt told the Commission that. for new roadways that are qualifying projects, the Secondary Roads Enginee~i has said to go ahead and put the roads on the priority list and then prepare a specific list of these roadways with justifications to send through withlthe Six-Year Plan. Agenda Item No. 9d. Highway Matters: Alignment and ~Feasibility Report - Meadow Creek Parkway. The following staff report dated February 1, 1988 was presented by Mr. Home: "Enclosed (on file) is a copy of a consultant's report completed by Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc (including maps) which was requested by this office in order to provide the Board of Supervisors with information on two general alignments for the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. The staff has reviewed the report contents and the maps and concurs with the technical data presented in the report. Based on the contents of this report and staff review of the options available to the County at this time, the staff would currently favor the 'Comprehensive Plan' alignment. The staff does not recommend~ however, that the Board formallyladopt~ithis alignment due to two pieces of information that are not contained in this report. Firstly, the Board will note that the consultant would project that there would be noise and visual impacts on some adjacent February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 570 neighborhoods from a roadway along the Comprehensive Plan alignment. There should be more detailed analysis of these potential impacts and the costs of abatement measures before the Board of Supervisors formally adopts this alignment and begins detailed surveys and acquisition. Secondly, the report does not analyze the potential need for a grade-separated interchange'at the intersection of Rio Road and the Meadow Creek Parkway. Staff has requested assistance from VDOT on such an analysis, but cannot provide enough information to the Board of Supervisors at this time to accurately describe the property that would need to be acquired~ Such an interchange would not only affect future development properties but would most likely also affect some of the frontage of the~proposed Dunlora housing development which is currently under review. It would appear that the Board of Supervisors must resolve three essential issues in order to move ahead with the necessary actions to secure the possibility of construction of this roadway. The first is a resolution of the basic policy issue as to whether the County government is to get involved in funding of major roadways without participation by the State. The second,is the analysis and adoption of a general alignment based on a feasibility analysis such as this consultant report. This particular report only analyzed the section of roadway from Rio Road to the river. !It does not analyze the crossing of the river and the sections ~f this roadway north of the river. There remain severe limitationsiand issues involved for construction of the portion of the roadway north of the river which should be resolved. Thirdly, is the general discussion of acquisi- tion and funding techniques to be used ky the County should the Board of Supervisors decide to proceed on thi~ or any other roadway. Prior to acquisition there must be extensive ~urvey and preliminary design work done in order to establish the pre~ise limits of acquisition. The staff would recommend the following ifuture actions by the Board of Supervisors: 1. Completion of the feasibility analysis for that section of the roadway across and north of the Ri~anna River in order to provide the Board with enough inforknation to decide if they are willing to construct this roadway along an acceptable alignment. 2. Should the Board of Supervisors de~ide that they wish to proceed with measures to secure the necessary right-of-way for this roadway, it will be necessary to b~gin detailed surveys and design for the roadway to the extent necessary to establish the limits of acquisition. 3. Acquisition of the property necessary to construct the roadway. 4. Construction of the roadway. Clearly the first three steps can be accomplished long before any construction takes place and would have the affect of preserving the possibility of the roadway." Mr. Horne said the consultant's report includes a discussion of the characteristics of the area, standards set by, the consultants, pavement design and type of roadway, the geometrics used and an evaluation of the two align- ments. In terms of costs, the consultants concluded that the construction costs of the two alignments were very similar~ Mr. Bain asked if design speed was looke~ at beyond the 40 mph set out in the report. Mr. Horne responded no. There obviously would be change in some of the curvatures if the design speed were in~reased which would change the cost estimates. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the number of proposed entrances/exits were an issue. Mr. Home said that issue is discussed in the report. The consultants assumed that there would not be limited access, but would be controlled access with at least 800 feet, possibly 1,000 feet, between connections and with only 571 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) public road connections. There are no proposed private driveway connections on either alignment. Mr. Lindstrom said he still has a great deal of concern about the number of access pointes. Mr. Home said if the Board were to decide that this project is to be a County funded or publicly funded roadway with no contributions from developers, then it can essentially dictate where access points are going to be located. If the Board requests contributions from developers, then the developers are going to request some access points. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has not yet discussed the necessary money invol- ved. Contributions are going to be very important, but 25 years from now people are going to forget about those contributions and are going to look at what has been created. He has no problem if the contribution is significant and the developer does not want to compromise the standard, but does have a problem with basically a residential street serving as a major artery into the City. Mr. Bowie said that is also a concern of his and the amount of the contribution. Mr. Lindstrom asked how long it would take.to start receiving contributions. Mr. Horne said the contributions will depend on individual actions and when those actions are taken. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he feels the developers will try to get the most for their contribution. Mr. Bain asked the time frame for completion of the feasibility analysis. Mr. Home said once authorization is given, approximatelyi60 days. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much money is needed initially. Mr. Home responded between $8,000 and $12,000. Mr. Horne said the area in question is entirely vacant at the present time which is in the County's favor. If Board members ar~ concerned about the design speed, for a minimum amount of additional funds the consultant could go back and prepare an analysis of what would have to change~iif the speed were increased. (Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 3:15 P.M.) Mr. Roosevelt commented that the area from Rio Road into the City is only a 40 mp~ design speed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board needs to decide what it is going to do concerning the whole issue and whether it wants to proceed. He thinks there is a need for the.study, but if the majority of Board members do not agree, he does not think the matter should proceed further. He also thinks the County should start laying the foundation to inanediately protect right- of-way from proposed development. Mr. Roosevelt said he appreciates what the Board is dbing, but he is concerned about the procedure the Board needs to go through in order to adopt an alignment. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 3:29 P.M.) Before the Department of Transportation could undertake this project ~nd develop plans and purchase rights-of-way, it would have to hold public h~arings on the two alignments and have an environmental impact study done. H~ suggests that the Board request the County Attorney to look into what requirements a County has to follow in order to adopt the proposed alignment. He does not wan~ to see this end up in court because proper procedures were not followed. Mr. Horne commented that at this time the CATS alignment is the official alignment adopted by the Board. Mr. St. John said he has already done some research a~d he does not believe there is a need to do an Environmental Impact Studs unless federal funds are used. His concern is that before acquisition ofilright-of-way proceeds the plan be submitted to the Highway Department. i~The plan must be approved by the Department if the road is to be taken into the State System at some time in the future. Mr. Roosevelt said the Departmen~ is in the process of reviewing the plans and recommending changes for eligibility into the State System. ~ Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, ~hat staff prepare an estimate of costs on the Meadow Creek Parkway for revie~ by the Board on February 17. Mr. Way commented that the February 17 night imeeting is heavily scheduled and suggested meeting that afternoon. Mr. Linds6rom agreed with that suggestion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, ~erkins and Way. NAYS: None. y 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 572 The Chairman called a recess at 3:35 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 3:47 P.M. Agenda Item No. 9e. Highway Matters: Status Report: Milton Drive. Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, summarized the status of the Milton Drive road project. On September 10, 1986, the Board adopted a resolution of intent that it Would take part in the funding for upgrading Milton Drive if the homeowners would agree to pay one-half of the estimated cost of construc- tion and dedicate all of the necessary right-of-way to public use in fee simple for road purposes together with all necessary easements and appurten- ances at no cost to the County. Ail of the residents who needs to dedicate right-of-way or easements have agreed to do so. Since that time, the Engineering Department has requested a proposal from a local surveyor for the surveying of the existing Milton Drive right-of-way. This survey is necessary for the Department to complete road plans for construction to finalize a construction cost estimate. Receipt of the surveyor's estimate for the 'ect should be at any time. The estimate will also allow the Department to 've at the true cost based upon actual design. After further inspection and discussion with the Department of Transportation, it has been determined that construction cost will be substantially higher than first anticipated. The design can be used for bidding and estimating purposes. At that time, the residents of Milton Drive and the Board can determine if they are both in agreement for spending additional funds. Another matter for consideration is that there has been a change in philosophy by'~the Department of Transportation as to what roads are eligible for rural road addition funds. It appears that one of the requirements for this type of rura! addition may be the avail- ability of any additional right-of-way and/or,easements, and now we know that the neighbors are willing to dedicate the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Armm said he would like to see this pursued, but does not want the County go to any extra expense and does not want to see the neighbors go to any extra expense. The money that has been collected from the ne{ghbors is in a certificate of deposit held in the name of the homeowners gr0~p by the County. Mr. Bowie credited Mr. Armm and the staff! for responding to the people. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Armm if he has any idea h6w much more money will be needed. Mr. Armm said he does not know righti~now. Mr. Way thanked Mr. Armm for the work he~as done for the County as he has resigned to take another position. Mr. A~mm thanked the Board and said he enjoyed the opportunity to work with them. ~ Agenda Item No. 9f. Highway Matters: Other Highway Matters. Mr. Perkins handed a petition to Mr. Roosevelt which he had received from residents in the Millington area concerning th~ Millington Bridge. Mr. Roosevelt has received letters from several citizens and the Citizens of Albemarle in support of the petition which requests that the topography around that area not be changed in the construction of the new bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said he is scheduled to meet with interested property owners on Tuesday, February 23, at 7:30 P.M. It seems to him that the Department is running into this problem more and more, desires of the citizens versus the minimum standards the Department must meet. This problem is going to eventually come before the Board as in the near future it must adopt a Six-Year Highway Plan and budget in which he fully expects the inclusion of Route 671. Agenda Item No. 10. Request for Dog Leash Ordinance in Westover Hills. Mr. Agnor said Mrs. Irene Norsen, who initiated the petition, obtained 16 signatures on the petition. The staff determined that some of the signatures did not count because the persons lived in theisame household. There are 29 homes that exist in the subdivision and the county requires a majority of the homeowners to sign the petition. The correct count for households represented on the petition is 11 and thus more signatures are necessary to meet the 51 percent criteria. Mr. Way suggested that Mr. Agnor communicate with Mrs. 573 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) Nors,n, furnish her this analysis, and if she gets the required number of signatures, put this back on an agenda so that she may attend the meeting and discuss the request. Agenda Item No. 11. Request to Increase Pay for Election Officials. Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from the Albemarle County Electoral Board, dated February 2, 1988: "We request that you take under consideration at your February 10th meeting the subject of pay for election officials serving our County. Currently, the basic pay for Precinct Chiefs (of which there are 17) is 60 dollars for election day, and the pay for election officials (of which there are approximately 140) is 50 dollars. We are re- questing that these figures be increased to a basic pay of 75 dollars for chiefs and 60 dollars for officials. (Additional pay is provided for attending training sessions (10 dollars) and picking up and delivering election day materials (10 dollars)). We are requesting this increase for the following reasons: The work day for election officials is approximately 15 hours, running from 5:15 a.m. until at least 8:00 p.m.i~ We are beginning to experience veteran officialls declining to serve again because of the low pay. An informal survey of similar-sized counties in,the State suggests that our pay scale is at or near the bottom. We have found that pay ranges from 50/60 dollars (our current rate) to 100/120 dollars for similar counties. We hope that you will grant this increase in time fo~ it to be effective for the upcoming Presidential Primary on March 8. Since the State will be reimbursing the County for the cost of the Primary, a change in pay rate will have no net effect on our ~urrent budget. Sufficient funds were requested in the FY 88-89 proposal to cover the cost of the proposed increase for next year." Mr. Agnor said for the Board's information, official~ in Charlottesville performing the same tasks are paid $85 a day for chief officials (compared to the County's current rate of $60 and the request to increase it to $75) and $65 a day for election officials (compared to the County's current rate of $50 and the request to increase to $60). Mr. John Wright, Chairman of the Electoral Board, said he has also received additional information from some other counties and this information confirms that Albemarle County is low on the pay scale. The reason for this request is that some of the veteran officials are starting to resign because they are not willing to work 15 or 16 hours for that amount of pay. In addition, the Electoral Board is having trouble getting n~w people to work. The increase would be of benefit and would cost between $1!700 and $2000 for the Presidential election in the Fall which has been buil~! into next year's budget. The increase should make it easier to maintain s~able crews. He asks that the Board review the request favorably. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with allowing the same pay as the City has which is $85/$65 dollars. Mr. Bowie asked how long the $50 has been in effect. Mr. Wright responded five years. Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Cooke said they had no problem with raising the rate to that of the City. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Li~dstrom to increase the pay, beginning with the Presidential primary on March B, 1988, to $85 for chief officials and $65 for election officials. Roll Vas called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 574 Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Lickin,ghole Creek Impoundment. Mr. Agnor said the staff received a letter from Mayor Frank Buck indicating that the City would not share in the construction costs of the improvement. There had been discussion oboutlthe Board and City Council meeting to discuss the issue a second time. He believes there was some pertinent information omitted in the City's analysis of the basin which was the potential for recovery of funds from landowners as development occurs in the Crozet growth area. The funds would come. from landowners who would agree to contribute to the regional basin rather than having individualized basins on their property. Mr. Agnor then provided some of the history on the project for the benefit of Mr. Bain and Mr. Perkins. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels strongly that the Board should proceed with the project and transmit this additional information to the City for consid- eration. Mr. Agnor suggested transmitting the information to the City and ask them to reconsider the information and then schedule another joint meeting. Mr. Bain suggested scheduling the joint meeting now. Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, said the report acted on by City Council was originally intended for Mrs. Judy Mueller, Mr. Mike Armm and himself to use as a working docUment to resolve the issue of whether the basin would get four percent, three percent or five percent removal and then to use that as a "spring board" to make a joint recommen- dation to both bodies, which never happened. The material was given to Mr. Armm and Mrs. Mueller. Mrs. Mueller presented her version of it to City Council and a decision was made at that point~= There was no additional interaction between the group at that point. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the problem is on the last page of the report where it is stated: "Is it worth $1.81million to remove four percent of the total phosphorous loading on the SouthlFork Rivanna Reservoir .... " If this is reviewed out of context, it does not ~eem reasonable. Mr. Norris said the report was never intended to use to base ~ decision on, but totally as a working docUment. Mr. Way suggested getting back in touch With the City and giving them the additional information and setting a date for ~a joint meeting. Mr. Perkins asked if there are other benefits of the project such as flood control. Mr. Agnor replied no. Mr. Bowie said he wants to get on with a decision one way or the other. Mr. Agnor suggested scheduling the meeting for April 6 at 3:30 P.M. There was no further discussion at this time. Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriations: Soil Erosion Bond. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandUm dated February 4, 1988: "A soil erosion bond (Erosion Plan 390) for completion of seeding an excavated area was called in June, with the security for the bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $300 beihg cashed and deposited in the General Fund. It is requested that an appropriation of the $300 deposit be approved to cover the costs incurred in completionlof the project." Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded bY Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution: ~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $300.00 be, and the same h~reby is, appropriated from the General Fund for completion of Soil Erosion Plan #390. AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. 575 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 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. 13b. Appropriations: Victim/Witness Grant. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated February 4, 1988: "The program in the Police Department entitled Victim/Witness to coordinate the rights, responsibilities, and involvement of victims and/or witness' of crimes that are being prosecuted in the judicial system has been funded, in part, by grants each year from the State Department of Criminal Justice services, and the balance from General Fund appropriations. For FY 87-88, the program totals $30,375 with $26,065 provided from local funds, and $4310 from a State grant. The State grant has recently been approved and needs to be appro- priated to the program. The local funds were appropriated last April in the FY 87-88 Police Department budget. The following summarizes the program budget. Local State Total Personnel Expenses $24,065 $ -0- $24,065 Operating Expenses 2,000 4,310 6,310 Equipment -0- -0- -0- Total $26,065 $ 4,310 $30,375 Appropriation of the $4,310 State grant is requested." Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution approving an appropriation in the amount of $4,310 to reflect a grant received from the state. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors ofAlbemarle County, Virginia, that $4,310 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated to the Victim Witness Program from the Grant Fund; and AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effect this date. 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. 14. SP-87-51. Woodbriar Associates, request for change in condition. This matter was brought to the Board by the following letter: "February 8, 1988 Reverend Peter Way Chairman Board of Supervisors 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: SP-87-51Woodbriar Associates Dear Mr. Chairman and Board: Last August we came before you for approval of the above special use permit for a crossing of the North Fork of the Rivanna River with a six inch sewer line. Approval was given with a condition of com- pletion by September (before fall rains). At that time we already had received approvals for the crossing from Marine Resources Com- mission and the Corps of Engineers (see attached letters); however, February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 576 due to revisions requested on the local level we were unable to obtain State Water Control Board Approval until December, 1987. Marine Resources and Corps of Engineers agree that now is an accep- table period for installation; however, they want it completed prior to spawning period beginning March 1. As we understand it, our Special Use Permit is still in effect but the condition of time clouds the issue. The crossing can be com- pleted in five days and can be constructed to satisfy the County Engineer's standards. We request that we may be able to complete the installation of this crossing during the month of February. Sincerely, WOODBRIAR ASSOCIATES (Signed) Wendell W. Wood" Mr. St. John said the referenced special use permit was issued for crossing of the North Fork of the Rivanna River with a sewer line. A con- dition of the permit was that it be done during warm weather and prior to September 30. The condition was made at the suggestion of several state agencies as they wanted the work done during low water. Normally amendment of a special use permit requires holding another public hearing, but he does not think that is necessary in this case because he does not believe any citizen has a standing to complain. Mr. Wendell Wood said this request is fo~ the Camelot sewer plant that has been in the process for six years. The new 360,000 gallon plant is within days to two weeks to flipping the switch. The building of the sewer line is more than half complete. The crossing involves going under the North Fork of the Rivanna. He thinks the whole issue is interpretation of "low flow". Because of delays, the previous condition could not be met and he would now request that the condition be amended. There! have been meetings with the County Engineer's staff on the method of how~this would be done. Although he has not received written permission, he has received verbal agreement to allow this work to be done at this time. The contractor has estimated that it will take no more than five days to do this work. This is a $1.3 million project which will be turned over to the Albemarle COunty Service Authority upon completion. The entire project will be complete within 30 days. He does understand that this is just a request for a~change in the condition for time and the other conditions would stand. Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, said he has met with Mr. Wood and discussed the request. In addition he has had discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia!Marine Resources Commission, the reviewer of the permits. The one governing condition of the Army Corps permit is that the work be done during "low flow" conditions. According to the Corps that is a subjective interpretation that is made using U. S. Geological Survey Water Data Reports and normally occurs during June, July, August and September. The time schedule incorporated in the numerous permits is from the Game Commission and the Commission still feels that time frame should be adhered to. For prior permits the County ha~ used the Game Commission's recommendations. Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, said~he also agrees that the issue is the determination of "low flow". The Engineering Department is concerned with performing the work at this time because of the unpredictable weather, although the Department does have the right to determine what method he uses. Mr. Bain asked if the reason the work was not done during the summer was because of delays in obtaining necessary appCovals. Mr. Armm Said in a letter received from Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarl? County Service Authority approval was granted on July 24, 1987, which!still allowed ample time for completion of the work. The condition allowed until September 1, and at the County Engineer's discretion, if the weather<still seemed adequate, the work could go into the month of September. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Engineering Department has the authority to determine ho~ the work is going to be done in order to mitigate any problems that could occur by having a higher flow. Mr. Armm said he believes so, but there is a certain amount of risk at this time of year. Safety is an issue to consider. 577 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Mr. Bain asked if this would complete the project. Mr. Armm replied that is his understanding. This project is made up of a sewer collector line, a pump station, a force main ~nd various components all the way down to the expansion of the treatment plant. The item being referenced is the force main. Mr. Bain asked when something is proposed to begin using the facility. Mr. Wood replied there are existing buildings now in the industrial park that want access to.the sewer plant. Mr. Lindstrom asked the reason for the delay considering the letter (on file) dated July 24 from Mr. W. L. Rossie of the Albemarle County Service Authority gaving approval for the project a month and one-half before the deadline. Mr. Wood said final approval was not received until October 27 for the rest of the line and the contractors did not want to start on the project and then stop to wait for the remaining approvals. Mr. J. W. Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority said the Service Authority does not take objection to Mr. Wood's request to proceed with the construction of the sewer line across the river at this time. His primary reason in being present is to establish the fact that the Service Authority did not delay the construction of the sewer line during the time in which it was supposed to be completed and he does not kno~ which agency did. Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends the project be completed so that it may be turned over to the Service Authority. Mr. Way asked if the project will be allowed to proceed if the flow goes higher in the next couple of days. Mr. Armm said his department should be given the authority to monitor the project and if there is an impending storm he would then be in a position to stop the work. He would also ask that Mr. Wood be required to give 24 hour notice before any constr6ction equipment goes down into the river bottom. Mr. Lindstrom said the suggestion then is to amend the date to allow until March 1 for completion of the work with the condition that the County Engineer's staff have the authority to hold up commencement of the project if they feel the weather warrants that even if the project goes beyond the March 1 deadline. Mr. Armm said for safety reasons he would like to have that as the condition. Mr. Lindstrom said he can agree with the condition, but is still concerned as to what wili happen if there is a major storm. Mr. Armm said there is not much that can 5e done if that happens. '~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to amend SP-87-51 by adding the following language: ~' AYES: NAYS: Agenda Item No. 15. "Allow the project to begin from February 11 to March 1, 1988, the project to be done and completed by March 1; the County Engineering staff is to monitor this project closely, and also monitor whatever weather information they have available to them, and that the County Engineering staff have twenty-four hours notice from the developer of commencement of this part of the project, and that th~ County Engi- neering staff have the authority to veto that commencement date if the weather or other conditions warrant that veto." i~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,!Perkins and Way. None. ~ Resolution - Senior Center, Inc. ~ Mr. Agnor said this resolution, originally adopted January 6, 1988, must be readopted. New State law requires that the Board make a recommendation as to the tax exempt classification. In this case, it is benevolent and charit- able. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie~ to adopt the following resolution: February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 578 RESOLUTION ENDORSING LEGISLATION TO GRANT A TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE SENIOR CENTER, INC% WHEREAS, the Senior Center, Inc. has asked this Board to endorse an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting the Senior Center, Inc. exemption from certain state and local taxes; and WHEREAS, the Senior Center, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation organized to provide a community focal point on aging; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered, at a public hearing duly advertised as required by Section 30-19.04B of the Virginia Code, held on January 6, 1988, whether property of the Senior Center, Inc. should be exempt from taxation; and WHEREAS, this Board finds that the Senior Center, Inc.: 1) Has been exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2) Holds no current license from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; 3) Pays no compensation to any ~fficer or director in excess of reasonable allowance for services rendered; 4) Does not distribute any part!~of its net earnings to any individual. Ail funds come from the United Way, fund raising activities and dues; 5) Provides services for the common good of the public; 6) Does not carry on any political activity; 7) Has no rule, regulation, policy or practice discriminating on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby endorses, supports and approves the adoption of an amendment to Title 58.1~:of the Code of Virginia exempting property of the Senior Center, Inc. located in the County of Albemarle from state and local taxation; and FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordande with Virginia Code Section 30-19.04C, property of the Senior Center, Inc. is recommended to the General Assembly for classification as benevolent and charitable; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is directed to convey certified copies of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly representing Albemarle County. 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. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board Members. Mr. Agnor noted that Michie Company has reviewed the County Code of Laws for revision and a work session is now needed with the Board in order to make final decisions on changes before galley proofs are presented. It has been agreed to have this work session on February 17, 1988, at 3:00 P.M. 579 February 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. Lindstrom said he just realized that he cannot be present on April 6 for the meeting with City Council. It was agreed to try and arrange this meeting for April 13, 1988. Mr. Perkins said when the Board adopted the Pay and Classification Plan last week he was concerned with not having input from the private sector and therefore suggests the creation of a board of representatives from local companies to serve as an advisory board to review such pay plans and the fringe benefits. Mr. Bowie said he has spoken with the Personnel Director concerning comments he received and is considering referring the Plan back to the Commit- tee for further recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be interested in Mr. Perkins' suggestion. Mr. Perkins said the companies would not be required to give out specific information, but just review different plans. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with the suggestion, if he thought the information received would be reliable. Without that he does not know if the effort would be of ~alue. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks it is a good idea, but also does not know, if the information would be reliable. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with~proceeding with the suggestion as a concept and finding out if there is any interest. Mr. Lindstrom said he also agrees with Mrs. Cooke and thinks the data received needs to be neutral. He would think that the University Would have data from industry as to pay scales and that it might be able to provide most of this information. Mr. Bowie said, for information, when he was involved in the health club the first thing he did was draw up a financial plan and he had no problem in getting the pay scales from the private sectorlof every job he planned to put in the organization. Since he heard no objections, Mr. Bowie said he would request the Pay and Classification Committee to reconvene and discuss these issues and various comments received. Mr. St. John noted that the Judge of the Circuit Court just signed the annexation papers for Pen Park yesterday. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 5:20 P.M., with no,further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn until February 17 'at 3:00 P.M. 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.