Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-18 adjJune 18, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) , 073 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 18, 1986, at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting Rooms 5/6, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from June 12, 1986. PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 4:15 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 4:12 P.M.) and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 4:12 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session - Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for 1986/87- 1990/91. Mr. Fisher said that the staff has revised parts of the CIP. He asked Mr. Agnor to present the following memo outlining these revisions to the Board: "For your final work session on the CIP, the following adjustments in the program as received from the Planning Commission are recommended: REVENUES: Page 5 1) Shift Literary Fund Loans to being received one year earlier, thereby moving $2.0 million from the FY 87-88 column to the FY 86-87 column, and $4.0 million from the FY 88-89 column to the FY 87-88 column. 2) Add the $4.0 million Literary Fund Loan into the Total column, thereby correcting the error shown of $2.0 million, and correctly showing it as $6.0 million. 3) Add the $4.0 million into the Total Revenues line, correcting it from $7,783,072 to $11,783,072. 4) Add the $4.0 million also into Total Funds Available, correcting it from $14,621,072 to $18,621,072. 5) Revise the column totals as shown on the attached Revenues sum- mary. PROPOSED FUNDING Administration and Courts - Page 6 Project 2 - Jail Expansion - Move $50,000 into the FY 87-88 column leaving $250,000 in the FY 88-89 column to provide funds, if needed, to commence design work. Project 3 - Exterior Renovations - Move project from FY 87-88 to FY 89-90 to more accurately coincide with the McIntire Road widening project. Education Project 3 - Crozet Elementary School - The consultant's report and the Facilities Committee report on this project do not distinguish safety costs or classroom expansions in the estimated project costs. Safety improvements in the electrical and mechanical systems should be accom- plished while the building is being renovated and parity improvements are added (gymnasium, kitchen). It is recommended that $100,000 be allocated in FY 86-87 for study and design, $2.0 million be allocated in FY 87-88 for safety and parity improvements, and $600,000 be added in FY 88-89 for classroom expansion if the 86-87 study indicates it is needed. The $600,000 can be shifted or removed from the CIP during~the 1987 review. Police, Fire~ Rescue - Paqe 8 Project 2 - Advance Allocation Program - Change FY 88-89 through FY 90-91 numbers to agree with revenue estimates shown on Page 5 - Fire Department Repayments. This will effectively provide the fifth payment of $200,000 to a $1.0 million revolving fund, and show the fund revolv- ing on its own revenues beginning FY 87-88. Miscellaneous Project 1 - Computer Upgrade - Restore funding to requested amounts for the public hearing, amending them later upon recommendation of the Audit Committee. The Commission did not consider the consultant's report. The requests mirror the Board's approved amendments to the consultant's recommendations. Parks and Recreation Project 1 - City/County Urban Park - Transfer $13,000 from 1990-91 to 1986-87 to complete design work for Phases II and iii, as well as Phase I, under one contract in FY 86-87. June 18, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Project 2 - Southern Regional Park - Allocate $500,000 in FY 86-87 to purchase property and complete a master plan design. Leave $550,000 in FY 87-88 as recommended, and reduce FY 88-89 from $590,000 to $330,000 thereby leaving the total project cost at $1.4 million. Project 6 - Crozet Park - Restore the funding to the amounts and years requested to allow the improvements listed to proceed as explained on page 30 in the narrative section. The FY 86-87 improvements are needed to make the building u~able for winter programs. Project 7 - Red Hill Field - Restore the funding to the year requested. The project is needed now for school use and recreation programs, and is a project that is part of a continuing program to upgrade school fields that have been funded for the past five years. Revisions of Page 5 (Revenues) and Page 10 (Category Project Summary) are attached, reflecting: the Executive staff recommendations." SOURCE: General Fund Appropriation Rescue Squad payments Fire Department Repayments Sale of McIntire School Literary Loan M/L Project TOTAL REVENUES FUND BALANCES: Capital Improvement Fund General Fund TOTAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1986-91 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 126,143 126,143 126,143 104,643 48,143 55,000 55,000 55,000 2,000,000 4,000~000 TOTAL $5,000,000 104,000 531,215 165,000 6,000,000 $3,146,943 $5,146,943 $1,201,943 $1,180,443 $1,123,943 $11,800,215 $ 308,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 308,000 6,530,000 0 0 0 0 6,530,000 $6,838,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,838,000 $9,984,943 $5,146,943 $1,201,943 $1,180,443 $1,123,943 $18,638,215 Mr. Agnor said he would begin his presentation with a discussion of revenues. He said that the Literary Fund Loans have been shifted forward to change the balance of the columns of revenue resources available. This shift involved giving the Board a new Page Five which moves $2,000,000 from the FY 1987-88 column to FY 1986-87 and $4,000,000 from the FY 1988- 1989 column to FY 1987-88. He said that this money is for educational projects, and it may fluctuate some, with some of the amounts increasing, if it is determined that more projects are eligible for Literary Funds. Mr. Agnor stated that only the larger projects were selected for the Literary Fund Loans. He said the new total figure for the "Total Funds Available" for the Capital Improvement Program is $18,638,215. Mr. Fisher asked if the Literary Loan Project should be listed as the "Literary Loan M/i Project." Mr. Agnor answered that "M/L" represented the Meriwether Lewis School Project, but now there are other projects involved, so "M/L, should be taken out of the title. Mr. Agnor then explained that the cover memo was written before Page Five was reworked, so the numbers are slightly different. For clarity, Mr. Agnor asked if the Board members would look at Paragraph Three on the first page of the memo. He said that the last number, $11,783,072, should be $11,800,215. He called attention to Paragraph Four, also, and said the last number is a typographical error. The number should be $18,638,215. Mr. Agnor then talked about expenditures, beginning with Page Six of the Capital Improvement Program. First, he discussed Project Two, the Jail Expansion, which is listed under the "Administration and Courts" category. He noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that $300,000 be deferred into FY 1988-89. The Jail Board had asked for the funding, however, in 1987-88. Mr. Agnor announced that the staff recommends a compromise which would put $50,000 in FY 1987-88 as study and design funds, because the Jail Board woul¢ prefer to get started that year. The $250,000 would then be funded in FY 1988-89 for the County's share of construction, if the project proceeds. Project Three, which is also included in the category of "Administration and Courts," involve exterior renovations to the County Office Building on McIntire Road. The staff recommends that the full amount of $125,000 be moved from the 1987-88 column to the 1989-90 column. He said that the idea was to do those renovations once the McIntire Road and Meadow Creek Parkway project was under way. Mr. Agnor explained that since this project will probably be delayed for several years, the staff felt as though the renovations could also b~ delayed. Mr. Horne asked Mr. Agnor if he wanted to do anything about the gas pumps prior ~to FY 1989-90. Mr. Agnor answered that the staff who put gas into the vehicles would like to have a canopy over the gas pumps for protection during inclement weather, but he said that from a practical standpoint, the whole parking area has to be renovated, so it would be more econom- ical to do it all at one time. Mr. Agnor then talked about the changes in the Education projects. He mentioned Projec' Three, which involves Crozet Elementary School. He stated that the staff has looked at both the consultant's report and the School Facilities Committee report concerning the Crozet School, and there was no way to distinguish safety costs or classroom expansions in the estimate. He said that the staff did determine that $2,700,000 was the correct estimate, however. He said that the safety improvements will have to be done when the building is remodeled, because they involve practically the whole replacement of the electrical system, and tremendous renovation of the mechanical system. The staff recommends that $100,000 be , 075 June 18, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) put into the FY 1986-87 budget for the study, design and determination of whether additional classrooms are actually needed. The $2,000,000 would then be put into FY 1987-88 to be used for the remodeling and safety projects. The $600,000 balance, which is the estimate for classroom expansion, could be an item in the latter part of the project, and could either be moved forward, cancelled or transferred to another school in the 1987 review process. Mr. Fisher said he was still concerned about whether or not it is cost-effective to spend $2,700,000 in renovations for a school that old. Mr. Way commented that he realizes that there are safety features that have to be done. He pointed out, though, that for $1,500,000, parity, renovations and four additional classrooms at Stone-Robinson can be accomplished. He next said that parity, a gymnasium, and air conditioning can be done at Yancey Elementary School for $750,000. The same things will be done at Stony Point for $800,070. His concern is that it will cost $2,700,000 to accomplish these same things at Crozet, without adding classrooms. Mr. Agnor answered that the reason the money is so much more for the work to be done at Crozet is because the school was built in the 1920's. Mr. Henley asked what the difference is in the size of the school compared to the other schools that will be renovated. Mr. Agnor replied that he could not compare the sizes of the schools, but the $2,100,000 is for complete renovation of the electrical and mechanical systems for a school that is 65 years old. He pointed out that other schools that are not nearly that old do not require such extensive renovations. Mr. Henley added that he believes Crozet is bigger than the other schools that are slated for renovations, and Mr. Agnor agreed. Mr. Fisher asked if this is the right way to go to solve the community's needs. He said that this is his and Mr. Way's concern. Mr. Agnor said that the consultant's report indi- cates that the school is a major asset on its site, and can serve the school system well. He said that the school is viewed as being part of the Crozet community. Mr. Henley commented that if land had to be purchased and a new school built, a lot more money would be involved. Mr. Fisher said he would feel better if the first expenditure included an analysis of the best way to solve the school problems in that community without starting immediately designs for the old building. He said that it might be more cost- effective not to rebuild the building. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Fisher if he would like for this issue to go back to the School Facilities Committee for examination. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the School Facilities Committee is basing its recommendation on the consultant's report. He stated that if the Board is not comfortable with this consultant's report, then he believes that another consul- tant should examine the situation, rather than sending the questions and problems back to the Committee. He said that the Committee has no new information to consider, except that the Board has raised an issue that it feels wasn't addressed by the consultant. Mr. Bowie added that he thinks the questions have developed because of the amount of money involved and the age of the school. He reminded Board members that at the last meetin¢ it was pointed out that this school is not even in a growth area. He thinks the question is~ which is the best place for the school. He does not want to build a school in the wrong place. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the consultant based his comments upon the actual inspec- tion of the building. He believes that the Board should move quickly to come to some conclu- sion about this school, because of the safety issues. He does not think it would be worth- while to study the issue for another year and then decide that a new building is needed. If this happens, it would probably take another four years to complete the project. During this period of time, the community will have to manage with the old building and its problems. Hc agrees that the amount of money is something that should be considered carefully, but he thinks a decision needs to be reached quickly by the Board. Mr. Henley told the Board members that he does not believe that even half of the build- ing is 65 years old, because the building has acquired a lot of new structure over the years Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Henley that the majority of the classroom structure of the Crozet School was not built when the original school was built. He said that his concern is with the dollar figures in comparison to the costs for the same things at the other schools, and he believes that a mistake has been made. Mr. Fisher reminded Board members that Mr. Agnor's staff has checked the estimate for this work-at Crozet School and found the dollar amount to be correct. Mr. Agnor said that the staff did not have details of how the estimate was figured. Mr. Bowie said that the Board needs a report showing separate costs for parity, safety improvements and any addi- tions. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board develop a list of questions. He thinks that the school staff and planning staff together, can address the issue of the growth area versus tht Crozet and Brownsville redistricting. His concern is that the building not be located where it will stimulate more activity than is desired. He also suggested that someone who is acceptable to the Board, check the estimate and inspect the building again. He believes that the School Facilites Report does indicate some uneasiness about relying on the consultant's report. He also stated that the Board needs this information as quickly as possible. Mr. Bowie commented that when he read the consultant's report, he got the impression that the consultant really liked the Crozet School. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a person who is already on staff, could give the Board a report on the cost of the work required at Crozet Elementary School. Mr. Lindstrom also believes that the consultant had provided some detailed information with the report. Mr. Tucker answered that the actual report only had the total figures listed. Mr. Lindstrom said that in the back of the consultant's report there were work sheets reference to Crozet School. He said these sheets could have been the statements that Mr. 078 June 18, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Paq~ Agnor mentioned at this meeting. Mr. Agnor answered that Mr. Lindstrom was correct, but Mr. Tucker emphasized that the dollars were not broken down as to separate improvements for Crozet School. Mr. Agnor stated that he could get the mechanical inspectors that the County uses for construction inspections, to take a look at the mechanical system in the Crozet building. Mr. Lindstrom asked if these inspectors could also handle the structural inspection of the Crozet School. Mr. Agnor replied that these inspectors could do both inspections to some extent without knowing specific details. He said that for detailed information, the set of plans would have to be used. He said that he did not think that the Board was interested in such an extensive examination of the building, but that the Board was more interested in an inspection such as the one done by the consultants. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this part of the Capital Improvement Budget could be deferred until this information is received. Mr. Fisher commented that he is not suggesting that anything be done to the budget at this time. He said that between now and the time that the Public Hearing is over, and the budget adopted, he would like to have some plan to evaluate the Crozet School expenditure. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Fisher if he agrees with what he is suggesting relative to having the school and planning staffs look at the district and growth problems. Mr. Fisher said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom said that there was not a time schedule for this project, but other pro- jects could be held up if this matter is not handled soon. Mr. Agnor commented that the Crozet project could be taken out of the Capital Improvement Program, and then added back later, or, the project could be left in the Capital Improvement Program on the condition that nothing be done until the report is finished. Mr'. Lindstrom said he would like to have a clear understanding of what is needed at Crozet School as quickly as possible. He said he did not remember the nature of the safety projects, but he does remember that the consultants had some concern about safety at that school. Mr. Tucker said that poor drainage is one of the worst problems at Crozet School. He said that part of the school's basement is used for classrooms. Whenever it rains heavily, the desks and other furniture must be removed from the basement, and the classes must be taught somewhere else. Mr. Fisher then commented that the Board would expect to get a report from the staff by the time of the Public Hearing, or at least by July 9, 1986. Mr. Agnor then moved on to a discussion of the "Police, Fire, and Rescue" category, the Advance Allocation Program shows $200,000 for each of the five years. He said that the staf~ is recommending that $200,000 be retained only for 1986-87, and for FY 1988-89 through FY 1990-91 the numbers will need to be changed to agree with revenue estimates shown on Page Five - Fire Department Repayments. He pointed out that this action changes the program from a total cost over five years of $1,000,000 to $605,000. He reminded the Board members that this recommendation is an effort to make the fund revolve and be self-supporting beginning in 1987-88. Under the "Miscellaneous" category, Mr. Agnor discussed the Computer Upgrade. He said that the Planning .Commission's recommendation was based on current obligations of lease payments. The staff's request was based on the amended consultant's report. Mr. Agnor stated that his understanding was that the Audit Committee would study this matter. He aske¢ that for the Public Hearing, the Board approve the requested amounts rather than the Plannin( Commission's recommendations. He reminded the Board that the Commission did not consider anything at all in the consultant's report. Subsequent to the Hearing or before the July 9 adoption, the Audit Committee can make a recommendation to the Board concerning this project Mr. Agnor next discussed Project One, the City/County Urban Park, under the "Parks and Recreation" category. He recommended that $13,000 be taken out of the 1990-91 column and put into the 1986-87 column in order to get the master plan completed for all three phases at one time. He said that the distribution of money only included designing and constructing Phase One. The staff realizes now that a maSter plan is needed for all three phases. The next project under this category deals with the Southern Regional Park. Mr. Agnor said that scheduling for this park may be faster than the Planning Commission's recommenda- tions. He went on to say that the cost of the project would not be increased, but the staff is recommending the reallocation of funds. The recommendation is that $500,000 be allocated for 1986-87 for property purchase and master plan design. The FY 1987-88 column will be left alone, and the 1988-89 column could be reduced down to $330,000. He cautioned the Board that the $1,400,000 for the total cost of the project was predicated on an estimate of the pur- chase of land, and it is not totally accurate because of recent developments. He said, though, that rather than changing the amount of money now, he recommends that the property be purchased and the master plan completed. He said that if it is possible to purchase the property and have an option on it, there would be the opportunity to determine if the costs are realistic for that specific piece of land. Mr. Fisher commented that the land has still not been purchased, and Mr. Agnor agreed. The Crozet Park, Project Six, was the next project discussed by Mr. Agnor. The staff's recommendation is that funding be restored to the amounts and years requested to allow the improvements listed to proceed. Mr. Agnor explained that the reason for the recommendation is to make the building at the park usable in the winter months. Now the building has to be closed in cold weather. Mr. Agnor next discussed the Red Hill baseball field, and he said that it is a $5,000 project. He pointed out that 13 ball fields have been rebuilt in the County over the past five years, and this is the last one that needs improvements. The staff believes that funding is available and would like to complete a continuing program of upgrading fields. June 18, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Paqe 5) Mr. Agnor said that revisions of Pages Five and Ten of the Capital Improvement Program were attached to the memo that was given to the Board. These two pages were the two that were affected by the changes that Mr. Agnor discussed at this meeting. He mentioned that the grand total of the Capital Improvement Program budget is now $19,633,788 and the resources available amount to $18,638,215. He said that there is an approximate $1,000,000 difference between the projects and resources. He went on to say that the Capital Program does not haw to be balanced to the exact dollar, but there should be resources for the recommended projects. He said that there is over $14,000,000 in school projects, and some of the amount~ for these projects will change. He also said that the staff studied the accumulation of funds for the first three years and found that there were $16,600,000 in project recommenda- tions and $16,300,000 in resources. His recommendation was to leave the $1,000,000 disparity with the expectation that in 1987 the project amounts will be further refined and in 1988, the amounts should be even more accurate. He indicated that, at that time, it may be neces- sary to drop a project if resources are not sufficient. Another aspect mentioned by Mr. Agnor was that the revenues show that the General Fund continues a level of $1,000,000 every year, and that is not projected to change. He said that this could be increased as needed sc that the shortfall would not be so great over a five year period of time. He said, however, that he would not recommend increasing the General Fund at this time. The second resource, that Mr. Agnor mentioned is the expectation each year that the County should operate in "black ink." He said that whenever the County does operate in this manner, there is an unallocated balance which fluctuates but which is not calculated to continue beyond the current year. Mr. Agnor believes that the unallocated balance will continue, and that there will likely be some money there that could be used for capital purposes. The last resource that Mr. Agnor mentioned was the splitting of tax collections. He said that if the Board should choose to do this, it would create a significant amount of money. Mr. Way asked how many major projects the school system could handle at one time without having to hire additional people. Mr. Agnor estimated that the school system personnel should be able to handle three projects without hiring additional people. Mr. Fisher stated that he believes that more than one project would be hard for the school system to manage. Mr. Agnor said that the school system has handled as many as two projects without having anyone specifically assigned to the projects. He has mentioned his concerns to Mr. Overstreet, and Mr. Overstreet indicated that he would assign a member of his staff to oversee the projects, rather than adding a new person. Mr. Way added that at least three projects will be going on at one time. Mr. Agnor answered that Mr. Way is correct. He said that Meriwether Lewis, Stone-Robinson and Burley Schools will be having projects going on at the same time next year. If the Crozet project is approved, it will take place the following year. Mr. Agnor explained, though, that the Meriwether Lewis project should be almost finished when the Crozet project begins. Mr. Way then pointed out that the year after the Crozet project starts, two more pro- jects will begin. Mr. Fisher stated that the school system probably could handle three majo~ projects at one time', but he believes that mistakes will be made in the process. He feels that mistakes always happen in construction projects, and it is hard to keep up with every- thing. He is concerned because if something is done wrong in a school, it is not easy to rectify. Mr. Agnor pointed out to the Board that the school system has a full-time inspector thai has been with the system for several years whose only assignment is to inspect. He said he realizes that the Board is concerned about the coordination of the projects. Mr. Agnor adde( that he believes the Board would like to have a construction manager, and he understands thai an existing staff member will handle this assignment. Mr. Fisher asked if only one person will be involved with all of the projects, or will there be one person for each project. Mr. Agnor answered that there would be one person for all of the projects. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is someone already on staff who is qualified for this assignment. Mr. Agnor replied, "yes." He said that it is a person who has handled some earlier projects, but it is a secondary responsibility for that person. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that it takes considerable expertise to oversee major construction projects. Mr Agnor explained that another important factor is the efficiency and staffing of the architec- tural firm that is hired. Mr. Bowie commented that anything that can be done to move a project to an earlier time will amount to a savings of money for that project. He thinks that rather than having one person for three or four major projects, he supports hiring someone on a temporary basis and getting the projects done. He said that if the money is in the budget, there should be some way to have four or five projects done in a year. He would like a recommendation on how thi~ could be handled. Mr. Fisher stated that he does not want to recommend that four or five projects be done in a year. He thinks it would be a disaster, and he will not recommend it under any circum- stances. Mr. Bowie answered that the projects are already listed in the budget. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the money is not all there for all of the projects at this time, but he thinks there is some merit to what Mr. Bowie is suggesting. He said the probl~ is that the ultimate responsibility of the projects, especially in the planning phase, belongs to the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom's concern is that there will be only one person handling three projects. He mentioned that even minor projects require that someone be at the site almost all of the time. Mr. Agnor answered that the current staff person will be able to do the on-site work. The coordination and construction management activity can be done by someone in the office. Mr. Lindstrom is concerned that there will be three different projects spread over the County, and the school system will be trying to manage them without any outside help. He 078 June 18, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) said that he does not mean being physically on site, but just keeping track of three differ- ent projects will be difficult for one person. Mr. Fisher pointed out that there will be a $7,000,000 expenditure for the three school projects next year. He thinks the Supervisors should encourage the School Board to make sure that there is enough qualified manpower to oversee these projects. Mr. Agnor said that construction managers can be employed to come in and manage the projects and when the projects are over, their job is finished. Mr. Fisher asked Board members how they feel about the staff's recommendations. Mr. Way said that he has no problem with the staff's recommendations. Mr. Bowie asked if work on the park or purchasing some of the computer software could b( delayed if the Board wanted to put some of that money on the school projects. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." He said that one way this could be done is that when a project needs funding, the Board appropriate money specifically to that project. The last two years, the funding has been appropriated for the first year only, and no money can be spent in the future until other appropriations are made. Mr. Bowie pointed out that his suggestion of delaying some of the other projects could reserve approximately $2,000,000. Mr. Agnor agreed. He said that the Board would only be committing to the 1986-87 figure, because the balance of the figures are planning numbers. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Agnor is suggesting that the Board hold the Public Hearing with the amendments that Mr. Agnor presented at this meeting. Mr. Agnor replied, "Yes, if the Board agrees." Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to advertise for a public hearing on July 2, 1986, on the CIP as proposed by the executive staff. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Fisher asked if there was Other business on the Capital Improvement Program, and Mr. Agnor answered, "no." Mr. Fisher then told the Board members that there is a letter in their packets about the Capital Improvement Program from the Stone-Robinson School PTO President. Mr. Fisher has written a response for the Board indicating that two work sessions have already been held, and the Public Hearing will be on July 2, 1986. Mr. Bowie indicated that he had also responded to the letter from the Stone-Robinson PTO President. Agenda item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. At 4:55 P.M., Mr. Way moved that the Board adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters concerning Greenwood Chemical, property acquisition and personnel matters. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 4. immediately adjourned. Adjourn. The Board reconvened into op~ ~ession at 7:20 P.M. and