Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-14April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on April 14, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler (arrived at 11:17 A.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Attorney. Messrs. Guy B.. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M., by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher, who announced that Mr. Butler is attending a meeting of the Highway Commission in Culpeper representing this Board. He will be at this meeting later in the day. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting of eight items for the Board's consideration. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Item No. 2.1. Lottery Permits. Lottery permit requests were received from St. Anne's Belfield School for a raffle to be held on May 8, 1982; Woodbrook Elementary P.T.0. for games on May 1, 1982; The Bayly Museum Support Group for games on May 1, 1982; the Crozet Moose Lodge #2164 for games each Thursday and SaturdaY; and The Black Voices of the University of Virginia for a raffle on April 3, 1982. Same were approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of such permits~ Item No. 2.2. Statements of expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth' Attorney ~and Regional Jail for the month of March, 1982 were presented; said statements were approved as presented. Item No. 2.3. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of March, 1982, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification officer; said statements being approved as presented. item No. 2.4. Take road into State Secondary System. Mr. Gilliam W. Alvis, Owner/ Developer of Auburn Hill Subdivision, requested by letter dated March 30, 1982, for Ville Verde Road in Section 2 of Auburn Hill to be taken into the State Secondary System since all the necessary requirements are in order. The following resolution was adopted by the Board: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart- ment, the following road in Section Two of Auburn Hill Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+10 on Ville Verde Road, a point common to the edge of pavement of Auburn Drive (State Route 1122), station 10+04.90, and the centerline of Ville Verde Road; thence with Ville Verde Road in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction for 2,302.39 feet to station 23+12.39, the margin of Auburn Drive and the end of Ville Verde Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and ~ransportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of- ~ay and drainage easement along thi.s requested addition as recorded by p~lats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County iln Deed Book 623, page 445 and Deed Book 697, page 543. ~tem No. 2.5. Consent Agenda, Letters received as Information: ~tem No. 2.5a. Letter dated March 29, 1982, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of th~ Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, regarding Route 717, recon- struct~ion of the Sand Road (Project #0717-002-196, NS01) "~he Department~has recently removed the limitation on state force con- ~truction and my office is again free to continue work on the Sand Road ~mprovement. At this time of year, however, maintenance activities such as ~atching and ditching must take precedence over construction. It will, ~herefore, be late June before construction can be restarted. Barring any  nforeseen circumstances, I would anticipate this project being completed ithin two and a half to three months after work begins. I anticipate distributing dust control palliatives in accordance with Department policy on gravel roads in May. Route 717 will certainly be among those roads treated. I would hope this would control dust until we can again undertake construction. As a part of our construction operation dust will be controlled through the use of water." April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 2.5b. Letter dated March 24, 1982, from Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Com- missioner and Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, regarding Red Hill Elementary and Scottsville Elementary School Road Additions, was received as information as follows: "As requested in your resolutions of October 14, 1981, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective March 24, 1982. ADDITIONS LENGTH Entrance to Red Hill Elementary School - From Route 760 To Route 9006 0.07 Entrance to Scottsville Elementary School - From Route 20 S.E. for 0.21 mile" 0.21 Item No. 2.5c. Letter dated March 24, 1982, from Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, regarding Willoughby Section III Subdivision, was received as information as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated February 10, 1982, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective March 24, 1982. ADDITION LENGTH WILLOUGHBY, SECTION III~ SUBDIVISION Loma Lane - From: Route 1130 to S. W. Cul-de-sac 0.09 Mi." Item No. 2.5d. Letter dated March 24, 1982, from Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, regarding Bishop Hill Subdivision, was received as information as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated November 11, 1981, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective March 24, 1982. ADDITION BISHOP HILL SUBDIVISION LENGTH Bishop Lane - From Route 734 to N.W. Cul-de-sac 0.17 Mi." item No. 2.5e. Letter dated March 8, 1982, from Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, regarding Franklin Subdivision, was received as information as follows: "As requested in your resolution of August 12, 1981, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective March 8, 1982. ADDITIONS Franklin Subdivision - Franklin Drive - From Route 20 easterly 0.24 Mile LENGTH 0.24 Franklin Subdivision - Franklin Drive - 0.24 Mile E. of Rouve 20 to 0.69 Mile E. of Route 20." 0.45 Item No. 2.5f. Letter dated March 30, 1982, from Leo E. Busser,.III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, regarding abandonments from and additions to the Secondary System, was received as information as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated November 11, 1981, the following abandonments from and additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective March 30, 1982. ABANDONMENTS LENGTH Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of old location Route 601 between Station 23+00 and Station 70+24.17, Project 0601-002-150, C501, C502 0.70 Section 6 of old location Route 678 from old Route 601 to new Route 678, Project 0601-002-150, C502 ADDITIONS Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of new location Route 601 between Station 23+00 and Station 70+24.17, Project 0601-002-150, C501, C502 Section 12 of the new connection Route 829 and Section 13 of new connection Route 678 within limits of Project 0601-002-150, C501, C502" 0.14 LENGTH 0.67 0.12 ' 1.t56 April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting). Item No. 2.6. Report of the County Executive for March, 1982, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of March, 1982, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund Capital Improvements Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund. $ 5,234.79 600,894.46 1,949,819.39 59,356.33 43,630.40 246.46 78,904.42 342.27 3,791.03 4,356.11 331,897.54 $3,078,473.20 Item No. 2.7. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of January, 1982, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Item No. 2.8. Letter re: Public Utility. a letter was received as information from Columbia Gas regarding an application to the State Corporation Commission for a 4.5 million dollar annual rate increase, dated March 24, 1982. A hearing on this application will be held on June 15, 1982, at 10:00 A.M. in Richmond, Virginia. Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: February 15, July 8, July 15 (Afternoon), July 15 (Night), August 5, August 12, September 2, September 14, September 15, September 16, September 28 and OctOber 5, 1981. Mr. Henley reported that the minutes of February 15 and September 2 were correct as read, but he had not yet read the minutes of July 8, 1981. Miss Nash said the minutes of July 15, 1981, both afternoon and night, were correct as read. Miss Nash also noted that she had not yet read the minutes of August 5 and August 12, 1981. Mr. Fisher said.the minutes of September 14, September 15, September 28 and October 5, 1981, were correct as read. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if it were necessary to state for the record for the minutes of September 15, 1981, that the Charlottesville City Council was present. Mr. St. John commented that it was not required to list other Boards, Commissions or Councils present at meetings. Mr. Fisher said for the minutes of the meeting of September 16, 1981, he' had one addition he wished to insert on page 387; that being in the fourth paragraph, the last sentence, the words "and feels" should be added as follows: "Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the calculations since he is skeptical and feels that construction.;.." Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes of February 25, July 15 (afternoon and night), September 2, September 14, September 15, September 16 (as amended), September 28 and October 5, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4a~. Highway Matters: vacate remaining right-of-way on plat. Request to abandon portion of Route 652 and Mr. William S. Roudabush was present and stated his request to vacate the existing location of a portion of Route 652 in Fieldbrook Subdivision with relocation of that fifty foot right-of-way also to vacate the portion of the right-of-way which has never been constructed as a road. Mr. Roudabush said this action could be done in two steps, first to abandon the old right-of-way and then accept the new right-of-way dedicat-ion. Mr. Fisher asked the purpose of 'this road relocation. Mr. Roudabush said this relocation of Route 652 will'allow Fieldbrook Subdivision to connect to Westmoreland Subdivision. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to advertise this request to abandon and vacate portions of Route 652, for public hearing to be held on May 12, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. ~ 157 April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 4b. 637. Highway Matters: Resolution: Revenue Sharing'Funds for Route Mr. Agnor read the following memorandum to the Board from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated April 7, 1982: "In June, 1975, the County of Albemarle contracted with the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways to improve the road to the Ivy Landfill. A sub-agreement (dated November 27, 1974) was entered into by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle to split the costs of the improvements. Since my last communication to with you on subjectatter, the cost of the project has increased from $1,877,963.62 to $1,905,011.42. The changes from Invoice #7 to Invoice #8 are as follows: INVOICE #8 (Dated 2/16/82) INVOICE #7 (Dated 7/27/81) Increase Preliminary Engineering Right-of-way Construction Design Engineering and Inspection $ 39,768.44 $ 39,768.44 161,406.27 188,454.07 1,538,410.16 1,538,410.16 138~378.75 138~378.75 $27,047.80 $1,877,963.62 $1,905,011.42 $27,047.80 However, the amount due was reduced from $547,264.22 to $425,890.22. This reduction of $121,374 was due to crediting the correct amount of State match in Revenue Sharing. Of the remaining amount due of $425,890.22, above, the City of Charlottes- ville's share is $423,632.11. The City has issued a check in the amount of $200,000 payable to the County of Albemarle to be applied on their share of the project. They plan to pay the balance in the next fiscal year. After discussing this matter with Jack Farmer and Dan Roos.evelt, I am of the opinion that the County is in a position to deposit the $200,000 City payment above to the Capital Improvements Fund and make a payment of $150,000 to the State from the County's Revenue Sharing Fund. Then we should request the State to match it pursuant to the Code of Virginia. This would reduce the amount due by $300,000 or down to $123,632.11. I take this position because the County has paid more from Revenue Sharing funds than the State has credited us with in prior years. To date, the State has only matched $300,000 of our payments from Revenue Sharing; that is correct. However, the County has paid over $680,000 from Revenue Sharing money. Due to the fact we have not made a pyement on this project in the current fiscal year, we should be eligible to handle this trans- action as I have described above. When the City pays the County the remaining balance of their share ($225,890.22), I will finalize the payments to the State and deposit the balance to the Capital Improvements Fund. The end result dollar-wise will be as follows: PAYMENTS $425,890.22 -150,000.00 -150~000.00 $125,890.22 Amount Due Proposed payment made by County (Revenue Sharing Fund) Matched by State Balance Due 6/30/82 $423,632.11 -150~000.00 $273,'632.11 -125~890.22 $147,741.89 City Share Immediate Cost to County Future Payment (Above) Net Gain To County In order for me to finalize the above transactions, there are two official actions which need to be taken by the Board of Supervisors. 1. Adopt a resolution requesting the State to match the $150,000 payment. 2. Make the following appropriation from the General Revenue Sharing Fund Balance to Code 9800-7080.40, Ivy Landfill Road-State Route 637 in the amount of $26,367.89. (There is an unexpended balance in the expenditure code of $123,632.11 to bring the total up to $150,000). Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution requesting matching Revenue Sharingfunds from the Commonwealth of Virginia for construction of Route 637 WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is participating with the City of Charlottesville in the construction of Route 637 to the Ivy Landfill; and WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that the State Highway and Transportation Commission shall make an equivalent matching allocation to any county for designation by the governing body for such projects of up to fifteen per centum or $150,000, whichever is greater, of funds received by it during the current fiscal year from Revenue Sharing Funds; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has allocated from Revenue Sharing Funds for the current fiscal year the sum of $150,000 for the subject property and will disburse this amount in April, 1982, a sum of $150,000; April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the State Highway and Transportation Commission be and is hereby respectfully requested to allocate matching funds in the amount of $150,000 for the 1981-82 Fiscal Year for Project No. 0637-003- 169, c501. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution to appro- priate funds for the Ivy Landfill Road (State Route 637): BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $26,367.89 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Revenue Sharing Fund and Coded to 9800-7080.40 for Ivy Landfill Road, State Route 637. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4d. Highway Matters: Request regarding Lakeside Subdivision Road. Miss Nash said she had received a request from Reverend Daniel Lowe to have Brookhill Road in Lakeside Subdivision taken into the State Secondary System under the rural addition law. Motion was offered by Miss Nash to continue discussion of this road at the time of the annual road hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said there is no money in the secondary road budget until after June 30, and that priv8te money from the property owners most likely will also be required. Miss Nash said this road is experiencing erosion and runoff problems, which sometimes affect Route 20. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4b. Public Hearing to consider abandoning the southernmost 210 feet of Pen Park Road (Route 768) as a public road. This 210 feet of Route 768 lies wholly within property owned by the City of Charlottesville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24 and March 31, 1982.) Mr. Eugene M. German, Director of the Charlottesville Department of Parks and Recreation, was present. Mr. German presented a map to the Board showing the location of Route 768. Mr. German indicated that the City of Chatlottesville owns the property on both sides of the 210 foot section which the City wishes to abandon, and that the basic reason for this request is to provide off-street parking for the Field Office of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. German said he did not feel a necessity for a cul-de-sac or construction of additional turn-arounds because of the availability of driveways along the road before reaching the portion to be closed. Mr. Fisher asked why the addition of off-street parking required the abandonment of this section of Route 768. Mr. German said a section in the State Code did not allow "head-in" parking, which is what the City wished to construct. Mr. German added that there is adequate visibility to allow for such parking. Next to speak was Mr. D. S. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Roosevelt said this request for abandonment is the result of a disagreemer between the Highway Department and the City over the proposed parking area. Mr. Roosevelt said the "head-in" type of parking proposed, will block sight distance, and that the location of this parking area will cause traffic problems. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Roosevelt if there is an existing or potential problem for turning state trucks around on this road. Mr. Roosevelt said his trucks are presently using a driveway and are having problems. Mr. Roosevelt said he would like to see a cul- de-sac, but in lieu of a cul-de-sac, a guaranteed right to use the existing driveway on which to turn state trucks around. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against this proposed road abandonment, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher stated that the abandonment of a road presently in the State Highway System is a serious matter and he questioned this action. Mr. Lindstrom stated his concern that i.f the City should ever change the use of the land, that the State would lose the available turn-around. Mr. Henley said he would like to see something in writing to guarantee the Highway Department a permanent turn-around, even if the use of the land changes sometime in the future. Mr. Fisher suggested that a condition be placed in a legal document to guarantee the Highway Department a permanent turn-around. Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom felt it should be the responsibility of the City of Charlottesville to prepare such a document. Mr. Roosevelt said a permanent turn- around area could be set aside and built if needed in the future. Mr. St. John said wording could be written into the chain of title on this property that the turn-around area must be retained for State trucks use. April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Henley said the City Attorney's office should draw up such a document and he then offered motion that the City of Charlottesville provide the Highway Department with a turn-around and bring documents back to the Board of Supervisors for approval at the May 12, 1982, day meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4f. Highway Matters: Georgetown Road Walkway. Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, read his memorandum of March 24, 1982, written to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, as follows: "As per your instructions, I reviewed again my estimates for the easements along Georgetown Road for the walkway. I worked with our appraisers to inquire about values they could give me on frontage. I also talked to the Highway Department about their recent acquisitions along Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road. Finally, I talked to Jim Nunnally, a local real estate appraiser, about his professional opinion of the expected values of getting these easements. First, our in-house appraisers did not have a good feel for easement values per se. Their training and work is in appraisal of real property for sale. Also, the values from the Highway Department were for right-of- way acquisition and not for easements. Jim Nunnally did give me some direction by indicating easements of this nature with a walkway may be considered to be an improvement to the property. Also, with the type of construction we are proposing, there should be very little damage from grading after the walkway is installed. This in effect means a small amount of damage to residue is anticipated. Mr. Nunnally suggested, without having looked specifically at this project, that this type of easement should be acquired for a nominal amount. A nominal amount to him was from $200 to $500 per parcel. He also felt this would be a reasonable amount to offer if condemnation was the route to be taken. Using Mr. Nunnalty's advise and suggestion, the estimated easement costs including the appraiser fees would be $5,250. I believe that Mr. Nunnally's appraisal of this project is probably the best we can get without actually engaging the services of an appraiser. My recommendation is for the County to engage the services of an appraiser to get the actual cost of the easements. He would contact the property owners and make the offers. If these offers were not acceptable, then we would know which properties would have to be condemned. This is the surest way to get an accurate cost of the easements." Mr. Fisher said the County should engage Mr. Nunnally to appraise the property for the walkway and make offers to the property owners. Mr. Lindstrom stated his concern as to whether or nov there is adequate time to obtain the property and bids this year. Mr. Williams estimated that the appraisal could be completed sometime in May. Mr. Lindstrom said a decision should be made soon and he feels the Board should be willing to consider condemnation. Mr. Fisher said he would be reluctant to condemn property, especially since there will be no major damage to the property. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Mr. Jim Nunnally to appraise the Georgetown Road properties and have him inform the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible with cost figures in order for the County to make offers to the property owners and get the project started. Mr. St. John said Mr. Nunnally will not negotiate with property owners, only make an offer. Mr. Lindstrom said the results of Mr. Nunnally's appraisals could be reported to Mr. Agnor and Mr. Williams, and only if amounts were excessive, brought back to the Board of Supervisors. Roll was then called and the motion to have Mr. Jim Nunnally appraise easements for the Georgetown Road Walkway carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4g. Highway Matters: Hatton Ferry. Mr. Fisher noted that a de- cision on this item was deferred until after the public hearing on April 7. He said he would like to keep the ferry operating through the month of September in order to give the Hatton Ferry Committee a chance to study the situation. Mr. Lindstrom asked who is presently operating the ferry. Mr. Roosevelt said the man who actually operated the ferry for many years has retired, and he is now using three or four regular highway department employees as substitutes which leaves the work crews shorthanded. Mr. Henley suggested charging for use of the ferry. Mr. Roosevelt said such fees would have to be enacted by the General Assembly. Mr. Roosevelt then requested that the Board adopt a resolution supporting continued operation of the ferry and requesting that the freeze on hiring be lifted so as to hire an additional employee by the Highway De- partment to operate the ferry. Mr. Roosevelt also recommended that the Board continue to finance the ferry from the secondary road improvement funds, and noted that any reduction April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) in operating hours would drastically cut the operating costs. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. FiSher agreed that the hours of operation for the ferry should remain the same until a recommendation is received from the Committee. Miss Nash asked how much money will be required to operate the ferry through the end of September. Mr. Roosevelt said since the budget year runs from July to July, it would be easier to allocate funds for the entire year, then if any revisions are made, reallocate any excess in funds. Mr. Henley~said he could not see a need to finance this ferry, since it is being used exclusively for tourists and he felt the tourists should pay. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to fund the Hatton Ferry operation from Secondary Road Funds for the entire 1982-83 fiscal year, and that future funding policies be de- termined upon receipt of recommendations from the Hat.ton Ferry Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Henley. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Mr. Roosevelt next asked for action from the Board regarding a resolution to the Governor for an additional employee to operate the ferry. Motion was offered by Miss Nash to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Hatton Ferry, being significant to the history of Albemarle County and the Commonwealth of Virginia, may well be the only poled ferry still in operation in the United States; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing held by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on April 7, 1982, there was resounding public support to keep the Hatton Ferry in operation, as well as trepidation that if service is discontinued for any period of time, it will never resume; and WHEREAS, the operator of the Hatton Ferry, an employee of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, has recently retired; and WHEREAS, due to a hiring freeze imposed by the Governor of the Common- wealth of Virginia on all government agencies, the position vacated due to the retirement of the Hatton Ferry operator cannot be filled. Now, there- fore, be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request that an exemption from said hiring freeze be authorized, and the Resident Highway Department be allowed to employ a person to operate the Hatton Ferry. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded"vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None.' Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4d. Request regarding Lakeside Subdivision Road. Although this matter was already discussed by the Board, property owner, Reverend Daniel Lowe arrived with a letter he wished to present to the Board. Mr..Fisher agreed~to allow Mr. Lowe to present his letter dated April 14, 1982, as follows: "We, the property owners on Brookhill Road in Lakeside, respectively request that you, our Albemarle Board of Supervisors approve-our road to be taken into the (Virginia) State Secondary Road System. We feel that this is both a reasonable and justifiable request which should be honored for the following reasons: 1) The road is in an old type subdivision and the road bed was not pro- perly prepared to shed the water and route the water properly. The road is not maintained. Mr. Robert Shoffner did occasionally drag the road, but since his death last year, even this has not been done. . 2) The road is used often by tourists who miss the Monticello and Ash Lawn turn, and they use this road as a turn-around point and some proceed up the road causing additional traffic and dust. 3) The road, due to improper grading, causes a major problem of road erosion of the road itself. The road, therefore, has erosion ditches forming in the road, as well as making the road rough and very bumpy. Also, some of the shedding water causes a water problem nuisance to some of the property owners. 4)i This road is within one mile of the city limits of Charlottesville. It is adjacent to Piedmont Virginia Community College and very near to the Information Center. And, yet, it is one of the worst roads-in Albemarle- County. '~ We, therefore, respectively urge your consideration and approval of this road for the state secondary road system at your April meeting. Property. Owners of Lakeside (Brookhill Road) Represented by Daniel Lowe and Joseph Garland" 'April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Following the reading of Mr. Lowe's letter, motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to continue the discussion of Brookhill Road during the Annual Highway meeting. Mr. Fisher explained to Mr. Lowe that there are presently no road improvement funds available. Mr. Fisher also noted that even when funds become available it may still require funds from the property owners to complete the road. Roll was then called and the motion to continue the discussion of Brookhill Road during the annual highway hearing oarried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4g. Other H±ghway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom reported receiving a complaint from residents of Georgetown Green that they received no snow removal or road maintenance on their roads. Mr. Roosevelt said he would look into the matter. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing to amend the project areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 61, Parcel 5, site of United Parcel Company, in the Service Authority's water utility system. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1982.) Mr. Fisher said this public hearing is based on a request received from Mr. George Gilmer, Jr., received at the March 10, 1982, Board meeting at which time a resolution of intent was adopted to amend the project areas map to include this parcel. Mr. Tucker presented background information regarding this request. Mr. Tucker said this property is located on Lambs Road and directly behind the R.E. Lee property which is in the jurisdictional area. Mr. Tucker said there is substantial water usage because United Parcel Company also uses this water to wash their trucks. Mr. Lindstrom stressed that he wished to see service provided for the existing structure only, and not for any future structures which might be built. Mr. William Brent of the Service Authority said service could be provided to this structure. The public hearing was then declared opened by Mr. Fisher. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against this request, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority's project areas to include the existing structure on Tax Map 61, Parcel 5, for water service only. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 7. Request from William Rieley, Re: Water Service. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. Jeffrey H. Frank, Landscape Architect for the William D. Rieley Company, on behalf of Ms. Nettie Marie Jones, dated~March 9, 1982, as follows: "The planning commission has recently granted approval for the Solar I site plan, located on Old Ballard Road in Ivy. The Solar I project, owned by Ms. Nettie Marie Jones, involves the development of two passive solar duplexes on a 144 acre parcel of land. Two sides of the property lie adjacent to the Service Authority's limit of jurisdiction, located along the center of Old Ballard Road and Ivy Creek. An 8" water line presently crosses the southern portion of the property servicing the Candlewyck Subdivision across from Old Ballard Road. The owner is seeking the right to connect to the existing water line to service the proposed duplexes. A 6" water line will be necessary in order to accommodate a proposed fire hydrant. We are requesting that approval for this connection be granted by the Board of Supervisors." Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if having a water line on the property automatically gives the property owner the right to connect. Mr. St. John said it does not give the property owner the right to connect. Mr. St. John added that his office could not locate any contractual agreement between the Service Authority and the property owner giving connection rights in exchange for placing the water line on the property. Mr. Fisher asked Board members whether they wished to set a public hearing on this request. Mr. Fisher said he could not see expanding the jurisdictional areas for every request, especially for new development, because it goes contrary to Comprehensive Plan recommendations as to where to encourage new high density development. Mr. Lindstrom agreed stating that it is a fundamental principal that where public utilities are located, these encourage higher density development. Mr. Lindstrom said expansion of the water line into this parcel would undermine the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom added that to grant water to an already existing structure which is experiencing water problems is different from encouraging further growth by providing water service to new development. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot support going to public hearing with this request. Mr. Henley said he did not agree with denying water service to this parcel. Mr. Henlsy said the connection would serve only four homes and since the line is already on the property, he could not see any basis for denial. April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) i62 Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher said if the Board approves connections for these four units, it will set a precedent and the Board would have great difficulty denying any future requests for water service no matter what the size. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to set May 12, 1982, as the date for public hearing on this request for amending the service areaboundaries for the Service Authority to include these two duplexes on 01d Batlard Road. There was no second to Mr. Henley's motion. Miss Nash said the addition of a fire hydrant is for more of a project than just two duplexes. Mrs. Cooke asked if future development of the additional acreage would be entitled to water service also. Mr. Fisher said he felt if service were approved for these two duplexes and the fire hydrant, it could not be denied in the future for the remainder of the 144 acre parcel. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to set no public hearing on this request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Henley. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 6. Request from Mr. Ed Amato, regarding water service. (NOTE: Mr. Lindstrom abstained from discussion and vote on this matter because Mr. Amato is being represented by the law firm by which Mr. Lindstrom is employed.) Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated April 6, 1982, from Mr. Edward W. Amato: "This is a request for a .determination of a jurisdictional boundary of a property (Parcel 4 on Tax Map 61) being served adjacent to the Albemarle County Service Authority. The water line is located on the front of the property. This water line is presently serving R. E. Lee and Sons next door. Five weeks ago, Curtis Mundie, Builder, called the Water Service Authority and they stated that there was a water hookup charge of $410.00 per house, and at no time did they represent the fact that this was not in their jurisdiction. Last Thursday, Mr. Mundie went by the Service Authority office to pay the hook-up charges and Mr. Brian Smith told him they would no5 allow a hookup to the present water line until permission was received from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rossi, head engineer of the Service Authority stated that his office had made an error in not eluding to the fact about this property being out of the jurisdictional area. In addi- tion, there are two houses that have been erected on this 5.0 acres of land in R/A zoning. We have timbered the property and in three weeks intend to reforest the entire area in lobolly pines (A program administered by the Forestry Service). These two houses are two weeks away from completion and we have tentatively rented them both. We certainly would have put a well for both properties if we had known from the Service Authority about jurisdictional boundaries. My clients will certainly suffer serious losses from any delay or any extra cost. I would hope that the Board of Supervisors would rule that we can hookup to the present water system." Mr. Edward H. Bain, attorney representing Mr. Amato, was present and said the main difference between this request and the other two presented this morning, is that the builder contacted the Service Authority prior to construction and received information that water hookups would be available when the structures were complete. Mr. Bain said the homes were built with the intention of hooking to the Service Authority's water line and then when the builder went to pay the connection fee, he was told the property was outside pf the project areas and that special permission would be required from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bain said his client was told that water would be available to both the front and rear five acre parcels, and that the water would come from the line on Hydraulic Road. Mr. Amato was present and reiterated the statements made by Mr. Bain and in his letter of April 6th. Mr. William Brent, Director of the Service Authority, was present and said he was unable to deny any of the statements made by Mr. Bain or Mr. Amato, but is also not able to document the fact that water service was promised these two parcels back in March, 1982. Mr. Brent said he interprets the service authority boundary map to state that any parcel platted prior to adoption of this map is eligible for water service if it abuts a "solid line" along the roadway along which the water line is located. Mr. Brent said he felt water service could be granted to the parcel with the original tax map and parcel number, but since the original parcel has been subdivided, the new, divided portion could not be granted service. Mr. Fisher said since all three properties discussed this morning are located in the South Fork watershed, they are controversial and he is worried'about setting a precedent for future high density development. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to interpret the rights of the present property owner under the present service areas. Mr. St. John said that in his judgement, the language written on the map supports Mr. Brent's interpretation of the rights of the owners of these parcels. Mr. St. John read the statement on the map "Where a solid line follows a roadway on either or both sides, of the roadway, the service so denoted may be granted to parcels contiguous to the roadway on that side, provided said parcels have been recorded prior to ~doption of this map." Mr. Fisher said he thought 163 April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) that related specifically to the Route 29 North waterline and the waterline in Scottsville. Mr. Henley said if it was the intention to include only Route 29 North and Scottsville, then that should have been a part of the wording on the map. Mr. St. John said that Mr. Brent is applying the principal of the statement to all areas on the map, not just the Route 29 North and Scottsville areas. Mr. Brent agreed with Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John noted that what the Board is discussing is not an expansion of the service areas, but an interpretation of the existing boundaries. Mr. St. John said it is not up to the Board~to interpret it's own rulings. Mr. Henley said he remembered that no matter what the acreage, each property owner was entitled to one connection. Mr. Fisher said he strongly disagreed with the interpretation made by Mr. Brent. Mr. Fisher said if the Board wants to settle the boundary question, it should set a public hearing. Mr. St. John said that is. the only way of settling ths boundary question. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to deny the request to amend the service project areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 61, Parcels 4 and 4A as requested. No second was offered for Miss Nash's motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to set May 12, 1982, as the date for a public hearing on Mr. Amato's request to have the boundaries of the Service Authority amended to include Tax Map 61, Parcels 4 and 4A. No second was received to Mr. Henley's motion. Mr. Fisher said both motions have died due to lack of a second and he informed Mr. Bain that the Board of Supervisors did not wish to take any action on Mr. Amato's request. Mr. Bain said it is his interpretation that, according to Mr. Brent's interpretation of the map, his client will be allowed to hook up Parcel 4 to the water system. Mr. Fisher said the nonaction vote of the Board was in regard to this request. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: STA-82-1. An amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for expiration of final plats and ZTA-82-4, to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance related to fees, locating all fees in one section titled 35.0 FEES - and also to allow for payment by applicant of costs of notice exceeding the base fee. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission is not scheduled to hear these two amendments until April 15, 1982, and he requested deferral to May 5, 1982. Mr. Fisher requested a motion to defer this public hearing to May 5, 1982. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer this public hearing to the meeting of May 5, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 9. Compalint Re: Trash piles, trespassers, etc. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Preston A. Coiner, dated March 24, 1982, as follows: "We need the help of the Board of Supervisors. As you may know, Broadway Street runs from Franklin Street in the City toward the rear of Security Storage (The Old Woolen Mills). Because this area is somewhat isolated, the lovers, beer drinkers and trash haulers have turned it into a Lover's Lane, Outdoor Bar and Trash Dump. The three businesses on the street, Overhead Door Company, Roadway Express and us have tried to monitor the problem with no success. It is not receiving the police patrol that is necessary because the street is off to itself as far as patrols are con- cerned. I have discussed the problem with Sheriff Bailey several times and although he has promised that the area would be patrolled I'm nov sure it has been. Virginia Land Company owns the undeveloped property that is being abused and they have tried several corrective measures which have not been successful. I feel that some investigation of the trash piles may produce some names and addresses of the violators and perhaps they could be prosecuted. I also feel that the Sheriff's Department needs to patrol the area very heavily to let the people know that someone is around." (NOTE: At 11:05 A.M., Mr. Fisher left the meeting and Mr. Lindstrom returned.) Mr. Coiner was present and summarized his letter. Mr. Coiner presented several photographs to the Board showing the trash problem being experienced. Sheriff Bailey was present and stated that he and Miss Nash toured the area and did find large amounts of trash along the roadside. Sheriff Bailey said he did not find the extreme amount of trash as indicated in the photographs presented by Mr. Coiner. Sheriff Bailey said he has been sending patrol cars along this road three times a night and has discovered that it is a "lovers lane", but has no evidence that they are the same people who are dumping the trash. Board discussion then revolved around whether or not the trash was on public land or the highway right-of-way, and Mr. St. John stated that County ordinances covering dumping of trash are for public land and road areas only, that it is the responsibility of the property owner to witness the violation, obtain a warrant against the violator and pursue the process through the courts. (NOTE: Mr. Butler arrived at 11:17 A.M.) Mr. Henley said he felt that if the trash pile is on property owned by Dr. Charles Hurt, which is adjacent to Mr. Coiner's property becomes a health hazard, the County can require Dr. Hurt to remove the trash. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Setback Requirements for Well and Septic Systems. Mr. Tucker referred to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler's letter dated March 4, 1982, to Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, as follows: 164 April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) "On February 10, 1982, the Board voted to request the Planning Commission to study the possibility of amending the Zoning Ordinance to require a fifty foot setback from property boundary lines for all well and septic systems. On March 2, 1982, the Planning Commission discussed this matter. A letter from Jeffrey McDaniel of the Thomas Jefferson Health District, dated February 4, 1982, was presented to the Commission as well as Planning staff analysis in the form of drawings. (NOTE: Health Department letter of February 4, 1982 and drawings are on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) The staff had reviewed the matter primarily in terms of dimensional re- quirements for RA, VR and the previous A-1 zones (i.e., frontage, lot width). Staff concluded that in many cases such a requirement would not be workable, since the area remaining outside the setback would be inadequate to accommodate a well and two drainfield locations. Many existing lots would be rendered unbuildable unless a "grandfather clause" were provided. As for future subdivisions, such a requirement would likely occasion the need for a wholesale reworking of dimensional requirements for lots in the RA and VR zoning districts. In order to avoid design problems, staff would anticipate developers to tend toward the use of central well systems to avoid the setback requirements within a development. The staff also made the Commission aware that the pending revisions to Health Department regulations would increase the Health Department's authority over individual wells, though the extent of such increased authority is unclear at this time. After discussion and with one Commis- sioner expressing a desire for further study, the Commission voted to have determinations on septic system and well locations remain under the juris- diction of the Health Department." Mr. Lindstrom explained that he originally expressed his concern about wel~ and septic system setbacks because of a problem mentioned by a property owner adjacent to the Ivy Farms Subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said this property owner is being severely restricted on location sites for well and septic systems on his property because of the location of wells and septic systems on adjoining lots in Ivy Farms. Mr. Lindstrom said since the Health Department and Planning Commission recommend against enacting this as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, he would request that the Planning Commission remember this potential problem when approving site plans; the Planning Commission might help create more equitable situations between adjoining property owners. Mr. Tucker said he would write a memorandum to the Planning Commission about this discussion. Agenda Item No. 11. Greenwood Community Center. Mr. Agnor reviewed a memorandum from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, dated March 12, 1982, as follows: "The current lease agreement for the Greenwood Community Center will terminate on April 30, 1982. Please find enclosed the annual report of the Center Director and a copy of the proposed Greenwood Community Center budget (NOTE: The annual report and budget information are on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) in the event that the Board of Supervisors decide to continue with the operation of the Center. As you know, we have been very happy with the participation in the activities at the Center and with the support we have received from the community. The Center itself seems to be very sound structurally and although it is impossible to guarantee, we have received no indication from our past two years experience that there will be a need for any large investments in the building's mechanical systems in the near future. It is our feeling that the two year trial operation of the Greenwood Center has been a success and, if approved by the Board, our Department would be very pleased with the opportunity to continue operating the Greenwood Center." Mr. Agnor said it is his recommendation and the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation staff that the County accept the offer made in the original lease agreement for the deeding of this property to the County of Albemarle and that it continue to be operated as a community center by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department. Mrs. Cooke said she feels this is a very positive asset to the community and commended Mr. Lorenzoni and Mr. Mullaney on a very fine job. Mr. Henley .agreed that the efforts put forth by the Parks Department employees has been exceptional. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: .Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 12. Bids, Scottsville Library. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a memo- randum from Mr. J. Ashley Williams,~Acting County Engineer, dated April 9, 1982, as follows: "Bids were received on Tuesday, April 6, 1982, for the construction of the new Scottsville Library on the site of the former library, on the corner of Page and Bird~Street. 165 April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) This process is a culmination of two approvals from previous Board meetings. On October 7, 1981, the Board of Supervisors approved preliminary plans and gave permission for John Farmer to prepare final drawings and a cost estimate. At the December 16, 1981, Board meeting, Mr. Farmer presented the final drawings for the 3,940 square foot library. He had calculated a construction cost of $219,367 ($55.68 per square foot). A project estimate of $255,000 was also presented. The Board approved the final drawings and gave permission to prepare construction drawings and preparation for bidding. The Board also gave Mr. Farmer the directive to provide in the specifications for a deduct alternate for the activity room. The bids were received with two alternates: Alternate No. 1: Delete the triangular bay window on the west end of the building and substitute a type "A" window in the plane of the wall. Change the roof covering from metal to asphalt shingles. Alternate No. 2: Delete the Activity Wing on the east end of the building. Continue the cornice and the brick veneer along the east wall, and provide a knock-out panel in the brick wall for the future addition of an activity wing. Retain the metal roof covering and the triangular bay on the west end of the building. Of the original appropriation that the Board made, we have expended to date $14,887. This includes the survey, demolition, a part of the advertisement and a portion of the architect fees. The recommendation that both the architect and I have is to accept the base bid less alternate #1. We believe the roof design may not be as significant a change in the overall structure as the deletion of the activity room in alternate #2. Future use of this room could be for expansion of the library and it is quite obvious this room could not be built at a later date for the amount of the deduction. The project cost of $250,265 is within the estimated cost of December 16, 1981. We request that the Board of Super- visors accept the base bid, but less alternate #1." Mr. Agnor then summarized a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, dated April 9, 1982, regarding the funding of the Scottsville Library Project as follows: "If the Board of Supervisors decides to proceed with the Scottsville Library Project and selects Alternate #1 low bid, I recommend the following appropriation: From the General Fund From the Capital Improvement Fund To Code 9700-7060.57 $ 51,115 184,263 $234~378 The County has received two insurance payments to date which amount to a total of $51,115 and which have been placed in the General Fund. An additional payment, estimated to be approximately $50,000, will be forthcoming once the building is completed. Also the County expects to receive a $86,905 reimbursement on the Vinegar Hill site within the next week. A summary of the funding is: Project Cost Less: Insurance Payments to date Future Insurance Payments Reimbursement on Vinegar Hill site Net Amount from Capital Improvement Fund $250,265 (51,000) (S0,000) (86,9o5) $ 62,360" Mr. John Farmer, Jr., architect for the project was present. Mr. Farmer said the apparent low bidder on the base bid was Adom, Inc., of Staunton, Virginia. Mr. Farmer said he would like to see the base bid approved, but if the Board cannot approve that cost figure, then alternate bid #1. Mr. Farmer said he would not recommend the second alterna- tive because it would restrict the uses of the library. Discussion then took place among Board members r~garding the type of roof the structure should have. Mr. Farmer noted that initial cost of a metal roof is $18,000 and an asphalt roof is $8,000; long term maintenance costs would require approximately $2,000 every six years to paint a metal roof and the asphalt roof would need replacement about every twenty years. Mrs. Shirley Dorrier said she would hope the Boardlwould not accept alternate bid #2, and added that she felt the metal roof was more asthetically coordinated to the other structures in the Scottsville area. Following some additional discussion on the type of roof the library structure should have, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the base bid as submitted by Adom, Inc. of Staunton, Virginia, which includes the metal roof and the triangular bay window. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and Carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 166 Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following amounts be, and the same hereby are, appro- priated from the following fund, and transferred to the Capital Improvement Fund for funding of the Scottsville Library Project. From the General Fund $ 51,115 From the Capital Improvement Fund 195~862 $246,977 To Code 977-7060.57, Scottsville Library Project Number $246,977 The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Mrs. Helen Wieneke, member of the Library Board from Scottsville thanked the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Agnor for their assistance is having the Scottsville Library rebuilt. Mrs. Wieneke said the building will be greatly appreciated and used by all the citizens of Scottsville. Agenda Item No. 13. Sale Of Property, Re: Scottsville Flood Control Project. (NOTE: Mr. Fisher returned to the meeting at 11:57 A.M.) Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter dated January 15, 1982, from A. Raymon Thacker, Mayor of the Town of Scottsville, as follows: "Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, who represents the Town in the capacity of Attorney will discuss with you the acquisition by the Town of a portion of the property on which is situated the Scottsville School at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bird and Page Streets in Albemarle County adjacent to the Town of Scottsville as shown on the attached plat, which our records indicate is owned by the County of Albemarle. The acquisition portion of this property is required for the construction and maintenance of flood control facilities. We have had the property appraised by a competent and unbiased appraiser and this report has been analyzed by a competent appraisal analyst. Based on the appraisal and review, the Town hereby makes you a firm offer in the amount of $1,520.00 for purchase of that portion of the property shown on the attached plat. Attached is a copy of our Basis for the Determination of Just Compensation. We feel that the above offer is most equitable and we urge your favorable consideration and acceptance of it. If this meets with your approval, please contact Mr. Dorrier ~t your earliest convenience so that he can prepare appropriate legal documents and assist you in finalizing the acquisition." Mr. Agnor next noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Glen Branham and Ms. Natalie Ross, regarding the appraisal of the property in question, (NOTE: Copy of this letter dated January 21, 1982, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that he and Mr. St. John and Mr. Ray Jones negotiate with the Town of Scottsville to attempt to increase the purchase price. Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Agnor was assuming the Board wished to sell the property to the Town. Mr. Fisher said he would not want to sell the property unless it is specifically stated in the federal grant regulations that the "spillway" property must be purchased. Mr. Fisher said he would prefer giving the Town of Scottsville an easement or possibly trading the property for property of equal size on another side of the old school. Board members agreed with Mr. Fisher and requested Mr. Agnor to present those views to rep~-esentatives of the Town of Scottsville during their meeting. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session. At 12:10 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn into executive ~session to discuss legal matters regarding revenue sharing and annexation. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened back into open session at 1:41 P.'M. Mr. Fisher did not return, and Mr. Henley chaired the remainder of the meeting. Agenda Item No. 18. Appropriations. priations for consideration by the Board. Mr. Agnor presented the following seven appro- Agenda Item No. 1SA.' Appropriation--Central Dispatching Study. In a memorandum from Miss Lettie Neher, Cle~k!~ Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, dated March 31, 1982, an appropriation in the amount of $508.87 was requested to complete payment for the Central Police Dispatching Study. This amount, as confirmed by Linda Peacock, represents the remaining one-third share for the County of the total of $2,175.87. The original appro- priation for this study was only $1,667.00. 167 April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $508.87 be, and the same hereby .is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 1101-3002.06, Professional Services for the Central Police Dispatch Study. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 18B. Appropriation--Instructional Equipment. The following memorandum from J. William Barton, Assistant Superintendent for Finance/Business Management, to Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, dated March 25, 1982, was presented to the Board: "At its regular meeting on March 8, 1982, the School Board approved a recommendation to request the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $17,000 to Title IV-B, Account 17RK-405, Instructional Equipment, for the 1981-82 school year. Expenditures are reimbursed 100% by the federal government. At the same meeting, the Board approved a recommendation to request the Board of Supervisors to approve the following transfers: $.95 from 19.19, Albemarle High School Physical Education Facilities, to 19.19C, Albemarle High School, Phase III $57.16 from 19.17K, Miscellaneous Repairs, to 19.28A, Bus Shop" Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $17,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operating Fund to Code 17RK-405--Instructional Equipment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to make the following transfers: $.95 from 19.19, Albemarle High School Physical Education Facilities to i~Ig.l~;-~lbemarle High School Phase III $57.16 from 19.17K, Miscellaneous Repairs, to 19.28A, Bus Shop Roll was called'and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 18C. Appropriation--Library and Community Attention Home. Agnor read a memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones, dated April 9, 1982, as follows: Mr. "Two appropriations are needed in the current year to prevent over-runs in the accounts for the above two services. Therefore, I respectfully request the following appropriations from the General Fund to: 9103.3-5635 Community Attention Home 7302-5628 Library $ 3,075 13,750 $16,825 Library: You were presented a financial analysis of the Library operations for the past three years on April 5. The appropriation of $13,750 is recommended to maintain the current level of services through June 30, 1982. Community Attention Home: Back in January, an appropriation was made to cover all outstanding bills. At that time, you were advised that an additional appropriation might be necessary to meet the County's obligation through June 30. Since February, there has only been one youth from the County in the Attention Home. The above appropriation will provide money to fund this person through May plus paying the outstanding charges for January - $1,338; February - $1,020.84; and March - $669. June costs will be received in July and paid from next year's budget." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following two resolutions to appropriate funds for the Community Attention Home and the Library: April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $13,750.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund to Code 7302-5628--Library for maintaining the current level of services through June 30, 1982. AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that $3,075.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund to Code 9103.3-5635--Community Attention Home to cover the County's obligation through June 30, 1982. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 18D. Appropriation - Sheriff's Department. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a memorandum dated April 12, 1982, from Mr. Ray Jones, noting confirmation of a grant to the Sheriff's Department from the State Highway Safety Commission for the purchase of three radar units. These units have been priced by the Purchasing Agent at $6,150 and due to the fact that recent reviews of the Sheriff's budget for the current fiscal year indicate a possible over-expenditure of the $1,080,167 appropriation, an appropriation from the General Fund is requested in the amount of $6,150. When the grant money is received, these funds will be returned to the General Fund. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $6,150.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund to Code 3102-7003.1--Purchase of Radar Units. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 18E. Appropriation--Refunds. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones, dated April 9, 1982: "The following appropriations are requested from the General Fund: t. 9201-5803.12 Land Use Deferrals for $16,257.54. This request is to eliminate the current over-expenditure in this line item due to the fact that the 1981 Land Use Deferrals exceeded the budget estimate. 2. 9201-5803.05 Business & Professional Licenses for $10,000.00. This request is to eliminate the current over-expenditure in this line item of $2,096.81 plus an additional refund of approximately $8,000.00 which will have to be made based on a Virginia Department of Taxation ruling recently handed down. This involves the refunding of the current year's license plus three prior years on a taxpayer who is engaged in inter-state commerce and is therefore exempt from our local license ordinance on the majority of his operation." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following two resolutions regarding the above requested appropriations: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $10,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 9201-5803.05-~Business and Professional Licenses; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that $i61257.54 be, and the same hereby is,~ appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 9201-5803.t2--Land Use Deferrals. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the above resolution carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 15. Certificate of Appreciation. Mr. Butler made the presentation of a certificate of appreciation to Miss Jeanne M. Fournier of the VPI-SU Extension Service Office for her forty years of service to the County of Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing to amend and reenact Section 14-11 of the Albemarle County Code concerning rates and charges for the entry to parks, recreational areas and swimming facilities under the County's jurisdiction. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24 and March 31, 1982.) Mr. Agnor presented the ordinance with the proposed amendments, stating that the ordinance is basically the same, except that fees will be charged for entrance into the parks rather than just for swimming. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the City had comparable fees. Mr. Agnor said the City does not charge for entrance into McIntire or Penn Park, but does charge increased fees for non-City residents for activities such as golf, swimming, etc. 169 April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Henley declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Allan Kindrick who said he favored the enactment of this proposed ordinance. Mr. Kindrick said he hoped the gate fee would decrease abuse of the park grounds and reduce the number of park users to a more managable number. Mr. Clarence Roberts said he has discovered that the main overcrowding problem of the County Parks occurs on weekends and is due mainly to residents of Greene, Madison, Orange and Nelson Counties coming to Albemarle County parks. Mr. Roberts suggested implementing the fee at the gate for weekends only and that it not be charged to County residents. Mr. Roberts stressed that possibly the fee for non-County residents should be raised sub- stantially higher in order to discourage them from using the park. Next to speak was Mr. Roy Patterson who said a gate entry fee defeats the purpose of an open park atmosphere. Mr. Patterson said he agreed that the parks must be controlled, but requested this be referred back to the parks staff to come up with a different method. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance and Mr. Henley declared the public hearing closed. In response to a question from Mr. Butler about the overcrowding problems noted by Mr. Roberts, Mr. Agnor explained that three times last season the park at Chris Greene had to be closed due to overcrowding and that the percentage of users of that park are about 50% Albemarle County and 50% other areas. Mrs. Cooke said it was unfortunate that the problems at the parks had to be solved through rate increases. Miss Nash suggested that the entrance rate for County residents be reduced. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the rates remain the same for the remainder of the summer season so a comparison can be made as to the effect on the park. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be in favor of increasing the rate for non-county users and also a reduction in season pass rates at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom suggested bringing the discussion of park admission rates back before the Board some time in the autumn when a comparison study of park attendance can be made. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the ordinance as advertised as follows: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 14-11 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE ENTRY TO PARKS, RECREATIONAL AREAS AND SWIMMING FACILITIES UNDER THE COUNTY'S JURISDICTION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 14-11 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows to Provide rates and charges for the entry to parks, recreational areas, and swimming facilities under the County's jurisdiction: Sec. 14-11. Same--Fees. (a) Pursuant to the authority granted by section 15.1-526 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, there is hereby imposed by the county the following rates and charges for the entry to parks, recreational areas and swimming facilities under the county's jurisdiction. (1) Daily rates: a. Adults (13 years and older), one dollar and seventy-five cents per day for county residents; two dollars per day for noncounty residents. b. Children (4-12 years of age), one dollar per day for county residents; one dollar and twenty-five cents per day for noncounty residents. c. Children (under 4 years of age), free. d. No rates charged after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. (2) Season rates: a. Adults (13 years and older), twenty-five dollars for county residents; thirty dollars for noncounty residents. b. Children (4-12 years of age), fifteen dollars for county residents; twenty dollars for noncounty residents. c. Family (parents and children residing in the same household), fifty dollars for county residents; sixty dollars for noncounty residents. d. After July 15, these rates are reduced by one-half. e. No rates charged after Labor Day and before Memorial Day. (3) Picnic shelter reservation fees: a. Groups under fifty, ten dollars per event. b. Groups fifty to one hundred, twenty dollars per event. c. Groups one hundred to one hundred fifty, thirty dollars per event. d. Reservations will not be made for groups in excess of one hundred fifty. e. No fee charged for picnic shelter reservations from Memorial Day through Labor Day. However, shelter still must be reserved on first come/ first served basis. April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) (b) The foregoing rates may be changed from time to time by the board of supervisors. A copy of rates shall be posted at points where such fees are to be collected. Fees for rental of county-owned boats, and recreation programs or activities, shall be determined by order of the county executive. (c) No person shall be permitted to use facilities for which fees are charged as aforementioned without first having paid the same; however, the foregoing charges may be suspended by order of a county official so designated by the county executive. No fees paid under this section shall be refunded. Passes issued on payment of such fees shall not be transferable. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Miss Nash said she would like to see the seasonal rates reduced. Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, was present and stated that the majority of crowd control problems experienced by Parks personnel have been from nonpaying park users. Mr. Mullaney said he recommended the same rates for the gate fee as were used for swimming last year, was because those rates were accepted by the public with no problems. Mr. Agnor said the theory behind the gate fee was that people looking for free access would not come into the park and those willing to pay to swim in the past years, would still be paying the same amount, only now it would be at the gate. Miss Nash said she was concerned for the people who used the parks on a very regular basis, such as those who would Jog or walk dogs through the park every night. Miss Nash then offered a new motion to reduce the season rate for adults to $20.00 and children to $10.00. Mr. Lindstrom said he would accept that. Mr. Henley said he would like to see the rates from last year remain in effect so that a comparison of attendance can be made. Mrs. Cooke said she has found that the only way to control people is through their pocketbook, and felt that the gate fee was the only way to eliminate the overcrowding condition and troublemakers who are presently using the park for free. Mrs. Cooke said she would support the original motion to adopt the ordinance as advertised. Mr. Henley agreed with Mrs. Cooke that he would prefer to support the ordinance as advertised. Mr. Henley then asked for a decision by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he would prefer to go with his original motion of adopting the ordinance as advertised. The motion was again seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 17. Selection of Auditors for Fiscal Year 1981-82. Mr. Agnor referred to a memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, to the Board of Super- visors, dated April 7, 1982, recommending the firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox as County Auditors for the 1981-82 Fiscal Year (NOTE: This memorandum is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, authorizing Mr. Ray Jones as Director of Finance, to accept the proposal to retain the auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox as auditors for the County's Fiscal Year 1981-82 Audit. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 19. Statement from Mr. R. Lynwood Coffman. Mr. Coffman was present and presented copies of a statement which he then proceeded to condense. (NOTE: Copy of this statement dated April 14, 1982, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Coffman's statement noted that a telephone poll had been conducted of some Albemarle County registered voters and results indicated an overwhelming rejection of the proposed revenue sharing agreement with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Coffman, representing an organization named "Citizens Who Care", said the County must challenge the "Michie-sponsored-Murray-supported 1979 State annexation law" because it ignores the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mr. Coffman said the County should obtain the services of a lobbyist to' help gain support for Albemarle County supported bills in the General Assembly. Mr. Coffman said those presently serving in the General Assembly who were elected to represent Albemarle County are aggressively supporting bills which would help the City of Charlottesville and hinder the County of Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 20a. Appointments: Albemarle County Service Authority. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mrs. Elizabeth Tewksbury and Mr. Robert R. Humphris to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors with said terms to expire on April 16, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 20b. Appointment: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Mr. James M. Heilman to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with said term to begin on March 30, 1982 and expire on March 30, 1984. Mr. Heilman will replace Mr. John 0. Higginson on this Board. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 20c. Appointment: Hatton Ferry Committee. Miss Nash said she has prepared a list of names for consideration by the Board of Supervisors to comprise the Hatton Ferry Committee. Miss Nash said she would recommend Mr. Joe Jenkins of Piedmont Virginia Community College; Betty McLemore of the Visitors Bureau; Raymon Thacker, Mayor of Scottsville: Russell Otis; Douglas Perkins; and Patrick K. Mullaney. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt such a committee should have a~written.list of concerns before being appointed. Miss Nash said she drafted a charge which would require the committee to determine how best to continue the operation of the Hatton Ferry, how to operate and finance the ferry in the future, other appropriate operations which might be run in conjunction with the ferry, and finally, the means necessary to carry out the objectives. Mrs. Cooke suggested that another instruction to the committee should be to make certain that the Hatton Ferry is made a Virginia Historic Landmark. Miss Nash also noted that Mr. Daniel Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation should be consulted by the Committee because the ferry is presently being financed by the Highway Department. Mr. Henley suggested Miss Nash have the list of committee members and the proposed charge typed for presentation at the April 21, 1982, Board meeting Agenda Item No. 20d. Appointment: Director of Engineering. Mr. Agnor presented the name of Mr. Maynard Elrod for the position of Director of Engineering. Mr. Agnor read Mr. Elrod's qualifications and suggested the appointment be effective May 1, 1982. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 20e. Appointment: Planning District Commission, Executive Committee. Following a brief discussion of the responsibilities of this committee, motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss Nash, to nominate Mrs. Cooke to the Planning District Commission Executive Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Butler, Henley, and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 20f. Appointment: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Henley said the Board should be trying to find someone to replace Mrs. Treva Cromwell as the joint City/County appointee to the Authority. Agenda Item No. 21. Request for a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding Certificates of Occupancy. Mr. Agnor summarized a memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning dated March 19, 1982, which read as follows: "In January of this year, as you know, the responsibility for assuring compliance with site plan conditions was shifted from the Department of Planning to the Department of Inspections. Due to this change, I feel it would be appropriate to amend the section of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with Certificates of Occupancy. Specifically, the amendment would simply authorize the Zoning Administrator to accept appropriate bond surety prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. At present, that authority lies with the Director of Planning. I feel this amendment would be more efficient procedurally, since the bond approval would be within the department responsible for assuring condition compliance. Please request the Board to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 31.2.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows: 31.2.3 CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ... The ~&~ee~e~-e~-~&a~&~ zoning administrator is authorized to accept instead ... " Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution of intent: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend Section 31.2.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by changing the authority to accept appropriate bond surety prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Director of Planning to the Zoning Administrator; and FURTHER REQUESTS the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. April 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 172 Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, dated April 14, 1982, written in response to the Board's discussion this morning about the Service Authority project areas boundary map~ Mr. Agnor read the memorandum as follows: "In order to specifically clarify the boundary note shown on the Service Authority Jurisdictional (service) Areas map as discussed this morning by the Board of Supervisors, I would recommend that the Board adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend that note on the Service Areas map. The amended note would specify the area along 29 North and Route 726 in Scottsville as being those areas which could be served by water only if contiguous to a water line. (NOTE: The note on the map now reads: "Where a solid line follows a roadway on either or both sides of the roadway, the service so denoted may be granted to parcels contiguous to the roadway on that side, provided said parcels have been recorded prior to adoption of this map.") Board members were in agreement that before such a resolution of intent is adopted by the Board they wished to review the minutes of the meeting at which this note was ori- ginally adopted. Mr. St. John noted that the Service Areas map which was current at that date should also be examined by the Board prior to any change. Mr. St. John asked the Board to clarify what they intend to do once the minutes and map are reviewed. Board members agreed that they wished to define the exact meaning of the note at the time of adoption of the boundary map. Mr. Warren Van Dale was present and requested the Board to investigate an erosion problem along Rio Road between Stonehenge and Melbourne Road. Mr. Van Dale said he has spoken to Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Highway Department who informed Mr. Van Dale that it is the intention of the Highway Department to install guard rails along this section of Rio Road. Mr. Van Dale said even a small knowledge of geology would tell you that a guard rail would not hold in the shoulders along this curvy part of Rio Road because of the lack of bedrock and loose soils. Mr. Henley suggested that Mr. Van Dale talk with Mr. Butler, who represents the Rivanna District in which Rio Road is located,,and that Mr. Butler could then speak to Mr. Roosevelt and possibly work out a solution. Agenda Item No. 23. At 3:15 P.M., there being no further matters for discussion, Mr. Henley declared the meeting adjourned.