Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-10 AfternoonDecember 10, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 10, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., Room 320, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from December 5, 2001. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 1:45 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley. Others present in the audience were: Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg; Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley; Director of Engineering and Public Works, Mark Graham; Budget Manager, Roger Hildebeidel; Executive Assistant, Lori Spencer; Housing Director, Ron White; and, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne White. Agenda Item No. 1. Introduction. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas who then introduced staff members present in the audience. The Board members introduced themselves to the following State legislators present today: Delegate Watkins M. Abbitt, Jr., Delegate Robert B. Bell, III, Delegate R. Creigh Deeds, Senator Emmett W. Hanger, Jr. (arrived at 1:45 p.m.), Ms. Connie Jorgensen who was present for Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres, and Delegate R. Steven Landes. Ms. Thomas said the Board would like for each of the legislators to speak about what he plans to focus on during the upcoming General Assembly Session. Mr. Bell thanked the Board for having him at this meeting and said he looks forward to listening. This is his first session with a board of supervisors. He has sessions planned with Fluvanna and Greene counties. He will focus on criminal justice issues during the session. Otherwise, he looks forward to being a freshman in the House of Delegates. Ms. Humphris noted that she is about to retire after serving 12 years as a board member. She will be leaving everything to Dennis Rooker who has already met the legislators. Mr. Bowerman said he would be interested in the legislators being mindful of any legislation coming down to localities that requires funding without any funding being attached to that legislation. He said he knows every governing body tells the legislators this same thing. Ms. Thomas introduced Senator Hanger who had just arrived at the meeting. She said the Board members know that Senator Hanger is a member of very important committees, the Agricultural; Conservation and Natural Resources; Local Government; and, Social Services. She looked at what each legislator introduced at the last session of the General Assembly. Senator Hanger was the person the Board worked with concerning farmland preservation. She said the Board does not want the Purchase of Development Rights program disinherited before there is any money to insure its implementation. She noticed that Senator Hanger had a proposal concerning recycling markets development. This is something that has been talked about at times. The Board appreciates his putting in the 50/40/10 income tax distribution. She realizes that proposal did not get very far, and this year there is no income tax to divide. She also noticed that he put in a study that had to do with skilled care for seniors. She asked that he speak. Senator Hanger said there is still discussion going on as to when he starts to represent portions of counties on this side of the Blue Ridge. He has worked with Ms. Thomas on a number of issues. In the committee meeting he just left, Tim Lindstrom was a part of that subcommittee and he appreciated working with him, particularly on conservation issues. Senator Hanger said there will be continuing work on the committees of which he is a member. He is chair of the committee on Rehab & Social Services. One issue to be addressed has to do with foster care. He hopes something can be started to more adequately address that issue. Tieing in with that in the way of mandated services is the Comprehensive Services Act. He hopes that by next year CSA will be in a better posture as far as containing costs. He would like for the state to take over full responsibility for funding the CSA. He lives in Mt. Solon and has served in the House for nine years. He was Commissioner of Revenue in Augusta County before he became a member of the State Legislature. He has been in the Senate for six years. Ms. Thomas said Delegate Abbit serves on the Transportation Committee which is important to Albemarle County. She does not know about bear hunting which was one of the things he was interested in last session. She is personally interested in the Medical Assistance bill. Mr. Abbit said he is from Appomattox County, about an hour from Albemarle. He is interested in protecting his district, and making sure it gets the necessary funds. He is present today to hear what the Board thinks he should concentrate on. He said there is always talk about unfunded mandates. In a year when the state is facing the shortfall it is facing, the Board needs to be careful because it is possible the legislature will only fund what is mandated. Mr. Perkins introduced himself. He said his district was affected by the redistricting too. Ms. Thomas said that for some reason during the 2000 redistricting, Albemarle County became the little piece of property necessary to balance a whole lot of districts. She said that Mr. Creigh Deeds has joined this meeting although he is a candidate (election next week in the City of Charlottesville to fill the seat of Senator Emily Couric). She said he has introduced a lot of interesting bills, from health insurance for teachers to campaign finance reform. One that she was fascinated by, and one which she knew nothing about as it went through last years session, as it did successfully, but is of interest to any county that has a = December 10, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) major state institution located in it, is the one that requires the state to analyze the impact of state agency regulations and projects on the conversion of farm and forest lands to non-farm and non-forest lands. Mr. Deeds said that came out of the 2000 Session from a subcommittee which he and Senator Hanger had worked on for a long time. He said the genesis of that bill is too long of a story to tell at this time. For a long time, there has been a thing called important farmlands. It essentially requires agencies A@ to make an analysis of their actions on important farmlands. That law was changed to require that this law specifically include VDOT since it was the agency having the most impact on the destruction of open spaces, and they were not following the law. He said that Senator Hanger had that bill in the Senate and he had it in the House. They did it that way because he thought VDOT would find a way to kill the bill. He has been getting to know Charlottesville and Albemarle County the last few weeks, and hopes he will get to know both better. He has been in the Legislature for five terms, and has focused on education and conservation issues. He is also interested in hearing what the Board of Supervisors is interested in. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Landes is on the following committees: Conservation and Natural Resources; Education; Health, Welfare & Institutions; and, Transportation. She said he had some bills on fire and emergency medical services departments which she was supportive of. There was also the House Resolution dealing with clean air quality. Mr. Landes thanked the Board for inviting him to this meeting today. He has previously met with Ms. Thomas, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Tucker. He said he will probably not be on all of those committees again, there is a move to consolidate committees. Hopefully, he will still be involved with Education, Health, Welfare & Institutions, and maybe the new Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. He knows this Board is concerned about education and the electorate, in general, shares that concern. He will be involved this Session in the Rural Prosperity Commission recommendations. Senator Hanger is also involved with that, and they will have a number of bills coming out of that Commission. They are basically trying to help the rural parts of Virginia which are falling farther and farther behind the urban/suburban areas. Mr. Dorrier said the Charlottesville/Albemarle community depends heavily on the University of Virginia and the Piedmont College, the education industry. He is very concerned about funding for that, as well as at all levels. There are two other areas he is interested in. Land Use - Albemarle County has been very creative in developing innovative approaches to land use. It approves conservation easements. He is particularly interested in discovering new ways to fund those, and to come up with ways for people to put their land in conservation easements, get tax breaks, and keep some farm land. Another area he is particularly concerned about is the area of social services and mental health. Mental Health has never been adequately funded, and there are more and more people who need help. These people get in trouble with the law. The Board heard a report last week that said there is a pilot study being done in the mental health area and with family counseling it is showing some good results. That needs to be funded. Ms. Thomas introduced Ms. Connie Jorgensen who was present for Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres who is attending a Finance Committee meeting in Richmond today. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Van Yahres has been a patron in previous years for the Photo Red legislation, for preservation of historic property, and the tree trimming legislation for VDOT. Ms. Jorgensen said his priorities, as in previous years will be to focus on education, continue to try and find a way to make the SOLs work better, and focus on early childhood education. He wants to put some effort into the Child Insurance Program and find a better way to do outreach. He will be paying attention to the New Tax Structure studies, particularly the Morris Commission report and the Baliles Commission which should report soon. He will support Photo-Red legislation again. Finally, if he serves on the Crime Commission Task Force on the Restoration of Voting Rights for former offenders, he will be supporting legislation from the commission. Mr. Dennis Rooker said he was recently elected to the Board of Supervisors to represent the Jack Jouett District and he will succeed Ms. Humphris in January. He has been a member of the Planning Commission for four years, and is its Chairman. He appreciates just sitting in on this meeting today. Mr. Tucker introduced himself. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Legislative Program, Overview. Ms. Thomas brought everybodys attention to the large packet of information from the Planning = District. She said only those items which Albemarle County would like to focus on will be discussed today. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Requests for Legislative Sponsorship and/or Support of Albemarle County requests. A. Photo-red traffic light program. Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, said this request is worded We support legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate traffic light signal A photo-monitoring systems. He said Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville are particularly @ interested in this legislation. Two years ago, a bill made it through both houses, but was vetoed by the December 10, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) Governor. Last year, bills passed the Senate, but did not get out of House committee. Right now, Sec. 46.2-833.01 allows a demonstration program which is taking place in several Northern Virginia localities, and a couple in the Tidewater area. Since the idea behind the legislation is to help with traffic safety and public safety in general, it is suggested that the word demonstration be dropped from this section. A@ Suggested language to be added to this section would require that a locality implement a public awareness program before implementing the program. Also, there is language included which says the program cannot be used for the sole purpose of raising revenues. Concern was expressed about technicians who monitor the intersections reading the photos, so it is suggested that the word technician be deleted, and A@ the words law enforcement officer be put in its place. A@ Mr. Bell said he understands the summons is mailed, and if the person does not appear in court, the summons is executed. He asked if they did not appear on the summons what the penalty would be. Mr. Blount said the penalty is a civil penalty. Mr. Bell asked what happens if they do not pay or appear in court. Mr. Blount said it is up to the locality to pursue compliance for the infraction. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens now if there is a traffic violation and the defendant does not pay the fine, and does not show up in court. Ms. Jorgensen brought everyone attention to the language in = Sec. 46.2-833.01.G which sets out how a summons for a violation is handled. Mr. Deeds said that is a criminal procedure. He thinks that if one were summoned by letter, and did not appear, the next step would be for a sheriffs office to handle this through personal service. He does not know what happens if the = person does not appear after receiving that notice through personal service. B. Protection of scenic areas regarding the visual impact of buildings and development. Ms. Thomas said that under the category of Land Use and Growth Management, there is the wording: The General Assembly should preserve existing authority for localities to regulate land use, ... 2) A enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts. She said this may not come @ to the legislators in this session. Ms. Callahan introduced it last year, and it did not get very far because administration was not in favor of the legislation. It is supposed to be looked at early in January by Senator Hangers Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. It came out of a study that Commission = did. They said the visual quality is very important to the economy as well as the quality of life of Virginia. A@ In Virginia, local governments have fewer ways of protecting visual quality than most states allow their localities. Today, local governments can protect visual quality in designated historic districts and in entrance corridors leading into historic districts. If there is some other place in the community which its comprehensive plans says is a crucial place visually for its tourism, or its economic development, there is no way to make the visual impact of what developers do important in public decisions. This proposal would take the ability of local governments today in their historic preservation districts and their entrance corridors and apply that same ability to an area that they have designed in their comprehensive plan as an important area for their economy or their tourism. In an era when the tools available to local government are being decreased by the General Assembly, this is a controversial request. Ms. Thomas said this is legislation which Albemarle County is very interested in, but the legislators may not see it this session. She said that last years version of the bill (H.B. 1630) has been somewhat = amended to try and get administrations approval, but it was pulled by the patron. She said it came from = requests by constituents who said they would prefer this approach to other actions the Board would have to take. C. Budget Amendment regarding alternative space costs for Countys Social Services Department. = Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said this is reimbursement for rental of office space for Social Services. Last year, due to increasing demands for County Office Building space, Social Services was asked to move out of the County Office Building into a new facility. They are now located several miles away in rental space with a greatly increased cost of rental, plus required renovation costs. Albemarle County put in a request last year to the state, so this is just a repeat of that request which was not funded. The County recognizes that it may be futile to do this again in a year of budget shortfalls, but it is important that the General Assembly be kept aware of what localities are doing in the way of supporting additional rental costs. The County is subsidizing a state responsibility. She said the Department of Social Services did a study of office space requirements in 1996. It shows that Albemarle County needed over 21,750 square feet of space, and it gave a square foot allowable cost of $19. Social Services office space is to be reimbursed to the locality on an 80/20 percent split, with the state paying the 80 percent. The County has had no increase in rent since 1988. That is now 14 years that the County has been absorbing that increased cost in rent. She said that there is an issue with state reimbursement of Social Services which is supposed to be at an 80/20 split, but overall, it is more like 35 or 45 percent from the state. The costs of the locality have just gradually increased over the years. Ms. White said the budget amendment requested by Albemarle for the first year of the biennium is $148,743, while the request for the second year is $156,180. Ms. Thomas said the County will be asking for help with this request. D. Enabling legislation to grant the County flexibility in administration of its affordable dwelling program. Mr. White said he would speak about the Development Area Initiative Steering Committee (DISC) which has been working for a number of years. They used all types of forums for getting input into how the County could preserve some of its open space. One of the items which came out of that was the December 10, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) Neighborhood Model which would guide development in identified Development Areas. It has a number of principles involved, and Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, can answer questions about those. One of the principles is the inclusion of a variety of housing types and ranges of prices and rents. Unlike growth- controlling initiatives other localities have undertaken where their approaches almost exclude affordable housing, Albemarle County has taken the opposite approach and will try to include that in smart growth. Mr. White said that last spring, the DISC proposed Neighborhood Model concept was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The next step is to try and implement the affordable housing principle, as well as some of the other principles. It is not known at this time whether Albemarle County needs an Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance to implement these strategies. It is known that existing legislation is problematic, and most likely, is not workable in this community. He said the County can now develop an ordinance using existing Sec. 15.2-2305, but it is very restrictive, but there are some requirements in that section which may be useful. The County is asking for some flexibility, and the legislators have been furnished with two different recommendations for changes to the legislation (one is based on Albemarle County being under the County Executive form of government, and the second is based on population). He said if the County is included in the legislation, it would have the flexibility to draft an ordinance which would work for the county. It is the Countys desire to work with developers, both non-profit and for-profit, and others in the real estate = industry and citizens in developing any type of ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks of this request as being non-punitive in the sense that if the development community does a development with mixed housing types, and there is a low-cost segment, without some sort of legislation that housing is likely to rise in value to match the surrounding properties, and therefore, is no longer affordable housing. That is the way he looks at this legislation, rather than from a restrictive point of view, trying to have the means to continue the program. Mr. Landes said there had been some discussion as to whether population will be allowed in House bills in the future. He said he will work with the Board, but he wanted the Board to be aware of this. Ms. Thomas asked about using the County Executive form of government as the defining factor. Mr. Landes said his information indicates that this type of definition will also be eliminated in the future. He has no problem with working with Senator Hanger on the request. He asked if the Board generally tries to do a bill in both houses, or just have one bill. Ms. Thomas said things have been changing the last few years. At one time, they tried for both houses, but now the Board just wants the request presented. Whoever takes the lead is fine with the Board. Mr. Landes said he will work with Senator Hanger on it. He has gotten word from the leadership on the House side that they want to reduce the number of bills being considered, but he will defer to whatever the Board prefers. Ms. Thomas suggested that Mr. Blount talk with Mr. Landes about which approach is best. She said the Board does not have a firm policy. Senator Hanger said there is a desire to reduce the number of bills, but in some instances on a policy issue, if there are two bills filed, the relevant committee deals with the issue up-front in their house. When the other comes over, it is just like the other bill, so it is not a time issue. It is a matter of managing time, and some of the reduction in the number of bills has to do with public perception. They have dealt with this question internally. When bills cross over from the other house, they start getting a lot of bills which they have not seen because there is not duplication of bills on certain policy issues. That causes a lot of frustration. E. Support our efforts to encourage VDOT to work with urbanizing counties to create separate standards for urban streets in secondary road systems and associated amenities (e.g., bike lanes, sidewalks, street trees). Ms. Thomas said this matter concerning subdivision road standards rose out of the Countys = attempt to find a way to encourage population growth in the areas where there are already public facilities (water and sewer) and to discourage population from sprawling across the countryside. That is what Ron White referred to as DISC. The committee that formed the DISC proposals included developers, people in the building trades, environmental groups, neighborhood associations and a great variety of people. That is one reason it took so long before the committee made its recommendations. Out of that came a realization that it is VDOTs road standards that brought together developers, county planners, neighborhoods and = many other diverse groups to say we cant do the kind of compact, walkable, friendly neighborhoods that A= are envisioned if they have to follow VDOT road standards. VDOT requires roads to be bigger, wider and @ have gentler curves the higher the traffic count. If the County wants something other than cul-de-sacs, their road standards cannot be met. Ms. Thomas said from a political realization, this is an issue which has the High Growth Coalition and the Shelter Industry talking from the same viewpoint. The strategy is that this may not turn into legislation this year, particularly since it is the assumption that VDOT will be undergoing a lot of changes and challenges. It may be something VDOT could work out with communities and developers on their own. They definitely can do so project by project, but that is such a long process that developers are loath to start it, so they design their communities in such a way that it does not allow for interconnectivity, or neighborhood-friendly streets. She said the County wants to give developers incentives for doing that, rather than disincentives. One way or the other this is an issue which will have to be handled in the next year or two. The Board has been told different things, but was told that VDOT will need legislation in order to change its standards. The County would not want the legislature to write the standards, but there may be December 10, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) some legislation needed. Albemarle County does not think it is alone in this request. Urban counties are finding that because annexation is no longer allowed, they are having increasingly city-like situations in their counties. There just need to be different road standards, and possibly road-funding categories. Ms. Thomas said two additional items have been added to the agenda. Mr. Tucker said the first is the Four-for-Life Program. He said all are familiar with the Superlock A Program which has provided funding to EMS services. Staff just learned late last week that Senator @ Reynolds and Delegate Orrock will introduce legislation to increase that Four-for-Life which comes from a surcharge on vehicle registration fees. He wanted to say the County supports that legislation. The money has been used to purchase defibrillators, other training equipment, advanced training for the EMS, and generally to improve the infrastructure of EMS. The County asks that the legislators support this legislation if it does come forward. Ms. Thomas said the last request is to say that the Board supports anything that gets more money to the County for its Purchase of Development Rights program. There used to be talk about this being a major item in the budget, but has now shifted to talk about having a bond referendum and a bond issue. She said Albemarle is the second entity in the state to have a Purchase of Development Rights program, the first county. The Board is trying to fund the program by putting in $1.0 million a year. This year that will probably save about five family farms. There are a good number of applicants for next year, but at that rate, the problem is not being attacked quickly. Anything proposed in the way of land conservation will probably get this Boards support. = Mr. Landes asked who had proposed legislation of this type. Senator Hanger said this was discussed by a subcommittee this morning. They went on record supporting again a dedicated funding source for these programs. In the past, they tried to dedicate a portion of the Recordation Tax. It is recognized this year that is not realistic given the budget shortfall. That is more of a strategy for next year when the tax structure in the Commonwealth is to be addressed. This morning they worked on a proposal which initially called for $200.0 million for land conservation issues, and pared that back to $100.0 million and will take that recommendation to the whole commission (Committee on the Future of the Environment). A number of years ago, they thought that $40.0 million would be needed each year, so the $200.0 was to cover five years. This morning they decided to try for $100.0 million with $85.0 million of that being allocated to the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation, and the other $15.0 million being allocated to Purchase of Development Rights programs at the local level, which is what Albemarle is doing. They thought that if a couple of years of need can be covered, hopefully next year, or in the 2003 Session, they will be able to address in a positive manner the continuing need with some kind of dedicated funding source. Mr. Deeds said that several years ago he worked with a subcommittee which put together a bond package of about $120.0 million; one-third was for parks, one-third was to preserve the states battlefields; = and, one-third was for a one-time cash infusion into the land conservation program. It went through the House, but not the Senate. He said something needs to be passed because there are real needs. Using the Recordation Tax makes sense because other states use that device as a way to raise money for land conservation. He said that during the late 90s, the recordation tax was at about $132.0 million a year coming directly to the State Treasury. Of that $132.0 million, $40.0 million is set aside for Route 58; $40.0 million is set aside for the Northern Virginia Planning District; but that still left $52.0 million to go into the General Fund. Up to $40.0 million of what was left could have been used for land conservation, but it will not happen this year. The goal is to develop that permanent source of funding because any one-time cash infusion is just that. He said there needs to be continuity if the State is going to be really serious about preserving open spaces. Mr. Blount said that another part of the Bolling package is about $37.0 million for landfill closures. Ms. Thomas said the County has a landfill which is being closed, and it may have to raise the tax rate just to take care of this closure. She said the amount of money needed is about one penny on the Countys tax = rate, and one penny or more on the Citys tax rate. She said that is why there is a request in the TJPDCs == packet for the state to ensure that the closure schedules for landfills reasonably and realistically reflect the A site-specific risk analysis for the locality. It also should provide adequate funding for landfill closure and post-closure costs ($1.2 million for Fluvanna landfill; $4.8 million for the Ivy landfill). @ Senator Hanger asked if there had been an appeal to the DEQ recently. Mr. Tucker said it was completed the end of August. The landfill must be closed. Ms. Thomas said the garbage/trash portion had already been closed; this is for construction debris. The profit for that was going to the joint city/county authority to pay for the expense of environmental remediation. This is the only landfill she knows of which is pumping out groundwater and treating it, and extracting gas and destroying it. The landfill was not required by DEQ to do either of those things. The Authority was asking for permission to get a new cell for the construction debris, but they were not allowed to do that yet the profits from that were paying for everything else. Now, the costs will fall back on the taxpayers. Senator Hanger said he was given the impression last week when they reviewed the list of landfill closures that no localities were still kicking and screaming about it, but Charlottesville. Mr. Bowerman A@ said the change at the state level was so abrupt. Ms. Humphris said since she is leaving the Board she can say that something political happened because the Board had been told it was doing so great, and then all of a sudden it was told that it was not doing great and it had to get out of business. It was purely political, and this Board and Albemarle Countys taxpayers are the victims because the Board was protecting = groundwater and air quality. December 10, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any chance that the Dillon Rule will be appealed any time soon. Senator Hanger said there is always discussion about it, and some modifications are needed. He feels strongly that there needs to be a common denominator in Virginia because at one point the legislature specifically allowed a lot of substantive things to happen in parts of Northern Virginia that cause the whole area to take on a glow unlike the rest of the state. He thinks that should be addressed. He thinks a common denominator is needed, but not to go too far and relax the understanding that everyone has. Ms. Thomas mentioned that under Education, funding for the Standards of Quality is listed first. She said many have read about the $1.3 billion that is no longer available for education not only for this year, but next year as well. She hopes that recognition from the JLARC Study as to what is not happening in terms of funding of education will have some effect as soon as possible. Senator Hanger asked how Albemarle County came out on the composite index. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County improved a little. Senator Hanger said he believes there will be substantive improvements that can be made by the 2003 Session. He thought the JLARC report on SOQ funding was a good report. They made about 23 recommendations, and he can endorse at least 17 of those, but it all comes back to the issue of money which cannot be addressed this year. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Albo introduced a bill at another session having to do with allowing clustering of houses. She said the High Growth Coalition is working to see if there is some bill that all can live with. Albemarle County allows clustering, encourages it, but only up to a certain size so that in the rural area there will not be inappropriate suburbs developing. As proposed, the bill would not allow Albemarle to continue to limit the size of the clustering by-right. Hopefully, it will be as simple as grandfathering the provisions that are already in existence. She said the Coalition agrees that clustering is a great way to approach a lot of development issues in terms of preserving some of the land. Developers like it because it means less asphalt has to be laid down, but the Coalition does not want to be told that clusters must be allowed of every size. They feel this would be very inappropriate. The title of the clustering bill is Rural A Land Preservation option. That is a bill which may surface during this session. @ _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Blount said he would like to remind everyone of the invitations which are going out today and tomorrow about the Planning District Commissions annual legislative dinner on = January 3, 2002, 6:00 p.m., at the Immigrant Soul in Downtown Charlottesville. Ms. Thomas said in response to a request from a member of this group, a walk-about of the County Office Building has been scheduled to take place immediately after this meeting is adjourned. She invited all who where present to participate. She thanked all who had attended the meeting today. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 02/06/2002 Initials: LAB