Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-04June 4, '1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was held on June 4, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Board Members Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthohy Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen ¥. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. At 7:32 P.M., the meeting was called to order by Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-22. Russell F. Breeden. Request to locate a mobile home on 10.53 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the east side of Route 740, approximately .2 mile north of the intersection of Routes 22 and 740. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 102A, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 22, 1980) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: Request: Acreage: Zoning: Mobile Home 10.53 acres A-1 Agricultural Location: Approximately 0.2 miles north of the intersection of Route 22 and Route 742 on the eastern side of Route 740, near Cismont. Character of the Area: The area immediately surrounding the proposed location is comprised of level to slightly rolling land, the majority of which is heavily forested. Clearings do exist where development has occurred in the past. One small stream runs along the rear of the property and flows south. Staff Comment: Development along Route 22 is limited to scattered single-family detached residential, with one church located at the intersection of Routes 22 and 740. Development along Route 740 is somewhat more dense, with approximately 10 units located within one quarter mile of the proposed location. There are three existing mobile homes along this stretch of Route 740. The complainant's property is located on Route 22 to the rear and south of'the proposed location. There does not appear to be a view of the applicant's site through the forest between the two locations. The applicant proposes to maintain the present location of the existing mobile home and not disturb the substantial vegetative buffer between his property and those on Route 22 to the south. As stated above, the mobile home that is proposed is already located on the site. It was previously granted a temporary permit for use as a construction dwelling. The applicant now needs a permanent special permit in order to occupy it as a part time residence now, and a full time residence sometime in the future. Should the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors choose to grant this request, the staff recommends the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker noted that at the Planning Commission of June 3, 1980, a unanimous recom- mendation for approval was given with the one condition. .First to speak was Mr. Johnny Wood, son-in-law of the applicant. Mr. Wood said Mr. Breeden resides in South Carolina, and wished to have this special permit issued so Mr. Breeden's granddaughter (Mr. Wood's daughter) could reside in the mobile home rent free. Mr. Fisher asked if it was Mr. Breeden's intention to ever reside in the mobile home himself. Mr. Wood said he was not sure at the present time. Mr. Fisher then read the following letter dated May 5, 1980 stating o~jections to the mobile home: "539 W. 150th Street New York, New York, 10031 May 5, 1980 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Director of Planning Dear Mr. Tucker: In reference to the request made for a special permit to locate a mobile home (Map 65-102A) Rivanna, is objectable. I am one of six children of the deceased B. D and Martha Burrel!, and I have paid taxes on our property since 1938. Many property owners have homes (new or remodeled) in this County and we plan to build houses there in the future. I do not approve of mobile homes in our neighborhood, therefore my family and I regretfully oppose this request. Sincerely, (signed) V. Mozelle Keyes Victoria Mozelle Burrell Keyes" June 4, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Wood said the existing mobile home has been kept up since 1975, and already has a well and septic system.~ Mr. Henley offered motion that this request be approved for a period~of five years only as a temporary residence. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the public hearing had not yet been closed. No one else was present who wished to speak either for or against this request, rand Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Roudabush said he would like to see a condition that the permit be issued only to the applicant, and that it would not be transferrable. Mr. Henley said he would accept such an additional condition to his motion. Motion was then seconded by Dr. ~Iachetta. Mr. Fisher summarized that the conditions to this permit would read as follows: Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the County Zoning Ordinance. This permit is valid for only five years from the date of approval. Permit is issued only to the applicant, Russell F. Breeden, and the permit does not run with the land. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda'Item No. 3. Public Hearing to change the name of 01d Route 20 North to Elk Drive. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1980) Mr. Fisher noted that this request was received from the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Charlottesville Lodge No. 389. He declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Roudabush, a member of the Elks, noted that he thought it was the intent of the organization to perform beautification projects along this road. Mr. Fisher said he was surprised that homeowners along this road have not spoken out regarding the proposed name change. Mr. Roudabush said there are not many homeowners along this section of road. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to rename Route 1421 (from Route 250 to new Route 20) "Elk Drive". Mr. Fisher asked if the motion intended that the State install road signs to that effect. Dr. Iachetta said yes, that the following resolution should be forwarded to the State Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation to install road signs as follows: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify State Secondary Road 1421 in Albemarle County from Route 250 to Route 20 and be ~esignated Elk Drive: WHEREAS the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Charlottesville Lodge No. 389 has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested tO install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Work Session: McIntire Road Improvement and Extension. Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: The County of Albemarle has been requested by City Council to review and comment specifically to four questions concerning the McIntire Road Im- provement Project. The questions are as follows: the number of lanes proposed for the portion of McIntire Road to be located in Albemarle County. the CommitTee's proposed alignment of the road between Harris Road and Preston Avenue. means of limiting access and development along the portion of the road in Albemarle County. 4. other design features which impact on County plans. Staff has reviewed the project proposal and the above questions and offers the following comments. Since the City's McIntire Road Design Committee has recommended that the road be a two-lane facility rather than four lanes, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has evaluated ~he City's Design. Committee recommendations and reiterated its earlier recommendation that the ~'corridor will require a minimum of four lanes, with turning lanes at specific intersections, in order to provide a re- asonable level of service for the projected traffic and to accommodate public transit in this corridor." The staff concurs with the Highway Department's recommendations based upon the CATS (Charlottesville-Albemarle Tramsportation Study) traffic projections which necessitate a four-lane facility. June 4, ~980 (Regular Night Meeting) With regard to the realignment of McIntire Road between Harris Road and Preston Avenue, the staff is concerned with the proposed alignment's impact on the new County Office Building Complex at Lane High School. Estimates indicate that the proposed realignment would utilize 2.46 acres of the 2.76 acre reserve of land proposed for future County office and parking ex- pansion the County may need. Staff proposes an alternate alignment which seeks to accomplish the desire of the City to remove and reduce the impact of the new road from the existing residential development along present McIntire Road and at the same time maintain the County's reserve acreage at the proposed County Office Building Complex. During discussions with the Virginia Department of'~Highways and Transpor- tation, it appears that the question of limiting access and development along that portion of McIntire Road in Albemarle County has already been decided upon by the Virginia Highway Commission. The Highway Commission has approved the McIntire Road Project as a limited access facility and any amendment to this type of access would necessitate further action by the Highway Commission with a recommendation from the County. Staff supports a limited access facility for the County portion of this extension, i.e., from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. The Board of Supervisors, in 1979, suggested renaming McIntire Road Ex- tended as MeadP~creek Parkway. The staff favors a parkway corridor and supports the City's Design Committee recommendations for extensive land- scaping along the corridor and median. Staff supports curb and gutter along the roadway with a sidewalk 9n at least one side. We also favor a bikeway location contiguous, with the travel lanes. While an at-grade intersection at Melbourne Road and McIntire is feasible initially, staff recommends that adequate land be required for a future grade separation of a diamond interchange design. With the implementation of these design criteria, staff feels a viable corridor for transportation can be protected but at the same time utilized to the maximum benefit of the entire community. Mr. Tucker said at its meeting on May 13, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the questions submitted by City Council and made the following recommendations concerning McIntire Road: For the County portion of McIntire Road, it is recommended that a four lane facility be constructed as soon as possible, however, should monetary constraints alter this objective, then immediate execution of a two-lane facility with design and grading for four lanes should be implemented. It is felt that staff's alternate alignment which preserves County property, reserved for future County Office Building and parking expansion, as well as protects and buffers existing dwelling units along McIntire Road, should be recommended to City Council in lieu of the City's Design Committee recommendation. The Planning Commission felt the limited access question for that portion of McIntire Road Extended within Albemarle County has been previously determined by the Virginia Highway and Transportation Commission. Finally the Commission felt the corridor through McIntire Park and the County should have a parkway character with extensive landscaping along the corridor and median curb and gutter along the roadway with a sidewalk on at least one side; a bikeway located contiguous with the travel lanes and that adequate land be acquired for a future grade separation of a diamond interchange design at Melbourne and McIntire, with an at-grade intersection being constructed initially." Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present. He stated that he would support the alternative road align- ment suggested by the County staff. He added that the alignment proposed by the City is fitted very tightly between the railroad and the creek, and would require a very expensive retaining wall next to the railroad in order to accomplish. He noted further that if the elevation of the proposed road is raised to better align with Harris Road, it will create a steeper intersection with McIntire as well as a less effective buffer. Dr. Iachetta said if the road is placed too close to the railroad, it could weaken the support struc- ture. Mr. Roosevelt said that as far as he knew, this retaining wall is still only an idea, and no structural analysis has been done. Mr. Fisher asked if the County's engineering staff had looked at these proposals, and could describe the-impact this would create on possible future expansion by the County into some of the additional land near the present ball field. Mr. Agnor said the original plan submitted to the City showed only the first two phases of deVelopment at the Lane Building. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned because when the property was purchased from the City, it was agreed to donate a full 50 feet of right of way so no property would need to be taken from private residences on the opposite side of McIntire Road. He said the original layout left adequate space for building needs, but the new proposed road align- ment takes away the possibility of future expansion. Dr. Iachetta asked if the proposed parking area would lend itself to the use of "stack parking". Mr. Agnor said that idea was never part of the design plans, but was given as a possibility for future development of the site. Mr. Fisher then said he felt the first choice of the Board would be to leave the road alignment where it was originally, a second choice would be that of the Planning Staff and Commission, and the last choice would be that of the Design Committee. Dr. Iachetta said he would not like the possibility of the County having to move its office June 4, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) building again in twenty years because there was no room to expand at the Lane site. .Mr. Fisher said he understands the City wants the Board's comments about this proposed road alignment as soon as possible. He reiterated that he did not like the proposed alignment from the City's Design Committee, and that the County should hold the City to its original commitment at the time of purchase. Mr. Roudabush said he felt the 50 feet dedicated at time of purchase was supposed to be more than adequate to take care of the road realign- ment. Mr. Agnor agreed and added that it was also to keep the impact of the road from the residential area on the opposite side of the road. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to inform the Charlottesville City Council that the Board of Supervisors will accept recommendations 1, 3, and 4 of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, but to reject the proposed alignment suggested by the Design Committee, as well as an alternate alignment proposed by the Albemarle County Planning Staff~ Dr. Iachetta added to his motion that the present alignment of McIntire Road would be acceptable, using the alignment proposed at the time Lane High School was purchased and the 50 foot right of way dedicated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Amend Transportation Contract. Mr. Fisher noted that the contract originally approved on April 23, 1980 has been amended by the City of Charlottesville and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Bob Stripling, Assistant City Manager was present, and discussed the proposed bus stop Signs, logo for the cover of the route schedule brochure, media advertising and vehicle markings. Mr. Stripling said it would be most logical and convenient to use the same bus stop signs and bus markings as presently used by the Charlottesville Transit System. This would allow the interchange of buses between the systems, without causing confusion. It would also allow the public to make the association of the new bus system with the Charlottesville Transit System and call the City for information and/or complaints. Mr. Fisher said the proposals just made by Mr. Stripling were directly contrary to what the Board of Supervisors had indicated it desires. Mr. Fisher said he hoped for a bus painted distinctively to indicate that this was a Route 29 Corridor bus being operated under the authority of the County of Albemarle. Dr. Iachetta said if an interchange of buses is necessary, possibly the use of magnetic signs could solve the problem of identification. Mr Lindstrom said it might seem like a small matter to Mr. Stripling, but he felt Albemarle County should have primary identi- fication with this service. Mr. Fisher agreed saying that he could see painting the bus the same cream color, but he could not go along with the use of the "sunburst" design or the name of the Charlottesville Transit Service on the side of the bus. Mr. Fisher sug- gested putting a lettered sign on the side of the bus saying Albemarle County Bus Service, funded by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, contracted with the Charlottesville Transit Service. Mr. Lindstrom added that the grant money is for an Albemarle County bus system for the Route 29 North Corridor, and to use any of that money in a way not connected with that service is inconsistent with the purpose of the grant, .and painting the Charlottesville TranSit logo on the side of the bus is inconsistent with the expected service. He added that he could not understand the grant paying to have the CTS logo painted on the bus, when the main provider of the service and recipient of the grant (Albemarle county) would have to pay the contractor additional money to have their name painted on the bus; he felt this was very unconventional. Mr. Stripling next asked the Board's preference regarding bus stop signs. The Board was in unanimous agreement that plain signs indicating only "BUS STOP" be used, and that nowhere on the sign would it indicate a sunburst or the words Charlottesville Transit Service. Mr. Stripling next asked about the bus schedule brochure. Board members agreed with the basic design drawing, but again requested removal of the sunburst design and CTS logo. Mr. Stripling said the Charlottesville City Council has reviewed changes made in the agreement by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and has approved same. Mr. Agnor noted the changes as follows: Paragraph l(c) add the words "and the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation shall in no way, other than through normal project grant procedures, incur liability for this cost." at the end of the paragraph. Paragraph l(e) added to read: "The City shall comply with all provisions, requirements and regulations between the County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation as set forth in a document entitled "Agreement for the Utilization of State Aid for Experimental Public Transportation and Ride-sharing Projects, dated October 29, 1979, consisting of pages 1-16, plus Appendices A and B, which document is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement." Paragraph 10 add the words "and the Department of Highways and Transportation" between "County" and "and their officers" ~ Mr. ~nor then recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve these changes and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the agreement as presented and authorize the Chairman to sign same. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.~.~O~ NAYS: None. The contract as finally approved follows: This Agreement, made this 4th day of June, 1980, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (the "City"). WITNESSETH: Factual Background. (a) Albemarle County has proposed that a demon- stration project be established for fixed route transit services on U. S. June 4, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Route 29 between University Hall to the south and the Lake Saponi a~ea to the north (the "Project"). The purpose of the Project is to determine a demand for mo~e permanent bus service on this route (the "29 North Route"). The County will pay for the Project partially through a gra~t administered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and partially through the collection of fares. (b) The City of Charlottesville, through its Charlottesville Transit Service, proposes to carry out the demonstration Project as shown in a document entitled "Proposal for Providing Route 29 North Service Charlot- tesville Transit Service," dated March 31, 1980, pages 1 through 8 (the "Proposal"), which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises contained herein, the County and City do agree as follows: t. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY. The City, through its Charlottesville Transit Service, shall take all steps necessary to provide the Project for fixed route transit service on U. S. Route 29 North, generally in the area between University Hall to the south and Lake Saponi to the north. The City's initial proposal contem- plated the use of the intersection of Millmont Street and Arlington Boule- vard as the southern terminus of the rout~. The City reserves the right to use that location if the use of University Hall causes significant schedule delays or other operating problems. In this regard, the City hereby cov- enants and agrees to the following: (a) The mass transportation service provided in the Project will be open to the general public and not restricted to a single group of clients. (b) The City has the requisite physical, managerial, and legal capability to carry out the Project. (c) The City shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all requirements imposed by the United States Department of Transportation in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, or handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under programs or activities included under the mass transportation service provided by the City. However, if such requirements are hereafter interpreted or altered to require that the vehicles used to provide service hereunder be equipped with wheel chair lifts or ramps, the County shall pay all costs incurred in furnishing such equipment and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation shall in no way, other than through normal project grant procedures, incur liability for this cost. (d) The City shall comply with all regulations and requirements specified by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for this Project, including, but not limited to, all requirements set forth in a document entitled "State Aid for Experimental Mass Transportation and Ride-Sharing Projects -- Program Information and Administration--Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation--Public Transportation Division," dated October, 1979, consisting of pages 1-18, Appendices A-K, which document is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. (e) The City shall comply with all provisions, requirements and regulations between the County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as set forth in a document entitled "Agreement for the Utilization of State Aid for Experimental Public Transportation and Ride- sharing Projects, dated October 29, 1979, consisting of pages 1-16, plus Appendices A and B, which document is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 2. STAFFING AND LOCATION OF OFFICES. The staffing for the Project shall include the administrative and operations personnel of the City's Charlottesville Transit Service. Drivers shall be employed by the Charlottesville Transit Service. The Charlottesville Transit Service shall be responsible for providing schedule information and receiving and responding to complaints and/or requests for service. The Charlottesville Transit Service shall work with the County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in coordination of the Project and shall have responsibility for providing the necessary reports as specified by these two entitities. 3. EQUIPMENT TO BE USED FOR THE PROJECT. In order to provide vehicles for the Project, the City shall add three vehicles of at least 15 passenger capacity to its present fleet. Two of these vehicles shall be used during peak hours to maintain 30-minute head- ways and the third vehicle shall be used for backup in the event of a mechanical breakdown. In addition, the City shall provide buses from the present Charlottesville Transit Service fleet as needed from time to time to provide backup service. .June 4, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) If ridership demands exceed expected levels, the City shall provide larger vehicles or use additional vehicles on the 29 North Route; provided that the County at the time such need arises agrees in writing to provide funds to meet any deficit between revenue from ridership and operating costs for this additional service. 4. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSIT SERVICE. The City shall provide the following daily transit schedule for the term of this agreement: (a) Weekday Service. Charlottesville Transit Service shall operate on 30-minute head- ways during morning (6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) and afternoon (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak hours from University Hall to the Lake Saponi area. During midday (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) hours, the Charlottesville Transit Service shall operate on 60-minute headways between Airport Road and University Hall. The City shall operate two 15 passenger vehicles during peak hours and one 15 passenger vehicle during off-peak ~ours. (b) Saturday Service. Charlottesville Transit Service shall operate on 60-minute head- ways from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. between University Hall and Airport Road. (c) This is a demonstration project. The County, after consul- tation with the City, shall have the right to fix the routes that buses shall travel between University Hall and the Lake Saponi area/Airport Road, set the stops on such routes, and make changes in the rout~es as rider demand so dictates. 5. FARES. The~ City shall charge the following fares for the transportation' services provided during the term of this agreement: (a) Fifty cents (505) regular fares; (b) Twenty-five cents (25~) elderly and handicapped fare. (c) The City shall be entitled to keep all fares collected. 6~. COMPENSATION TO CITY. The City shall be compensated for the Project as follows: (a) The City shall keep a daily log of all miles traveled by each of its vehicles on the 29 North Route. The City further shall keep a daily log of all fares collected by each of its vehicles on the 29 North Route. The City shall submit such mileage and fare figures to the County on a monthly basis. (b) The City shall receive from the County the sum of 65t for each mile traveled by its vehicles for the purpose of providing such service. The County shall advance to the City not later than July 1, 1980 the sum of $5,000 to cover the City's initial costs, which sum shall be credited against subsequent monthly billings. On or before the tenth day of each month, during this contract, the City shall bill the County for mileage traveled during the preceding month, less a credit for fares col- lected on the route during such month. Such monthly bill shall be Pa±d by the County on or before the last day of the month in which it is rendered. 7. MARKETING PLAN FOR 29 NORTH ROUTE. The City shall provide an adequate marketing plan for the 29 North Route as set forth on page 7 of the Proposal. 8. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall be in effect for a period of twelve (12) months from the date Project operations commence or until such time as Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation demonstration grant funds for the Project are exhausted, whichever shall occur first. The commencement date will be formally identified in a letter from the City to the County, and upon approval by the County, shall be incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 9. USE OF GRANT FUNDS. If any portion of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation grant funds disbursed to the City by the County are used by the City as "local matching operating funds" to obtain a federal grant, the City agrees that all proceeds, over and above those used to cover any operating deficit for the service provided under this contract, will be used to continue or expand the public transportation services provided under this Project and not absorbed into the City's Charlottesville Transit Service budget. The City also agrees that if Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation funds are used for local match for administrative costs reimbursement for the two budget line items (insurance and marketing) eligible under the Section 18 program, these funds will be used to continue or expand the public transportation services provided under this project. The City will retain any federal grant funds for reimbursement of the overhead costs listed in the project budget. June 4, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) 10. INDEMNIFICATION. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and the Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation and their officers, agents, and em- ployees acting within the scope of their official duties against any claims or liability, including, but not limited to, liability for personal injury or property damage including liability for costs and expenses resulting from the operation of all Project equipment or the use of all Project facilities. Mr. Fisher noted that opening day ceremonies have been set for July 10, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. at the Fashion Square Mall, and that all members of the Board and City Council are invited to attend. Mr. Agnor also presented a contract for the ride-sharing project to be operated by JAUNT. Mr. Agnor recommended the Chairman be authorized to sign this agreement. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. THIS AGREEMENT, made this 4th day of June, 1980, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and the Jefferson Area United Transpor- tation, Inc. ("JAUNT"); WITNES SETH : Factual Background. (a) Albemarle County has proposed a demonstra- tion ride-sharing project for Albemarle County and surrounding areas (the "Project"). The County will pay for the Project through a grant adminis- tered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. (b) JAUNT proposes to carry out the demonstration Project as shown in a document entitled "Proposal For Ride-Sharing Program -- Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc.," dated March 31, 1980, pages 1 through 7 with accompanying Exhibits A through J, (the "Proposal"), which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises contained herein, the County and JAUNT do agree as follows: 1. General Responsibilities of JAUNT. JAUNT shall take all steps necessary to provide the Project for ride- sharing for Albemarle County and surrounding areas of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. In this regard, JAUNT hereby covenants and agrees to the following: (a) The ride-sharing Project will be open to the general public and not restricted to a single group of clients. (b) JAUNT has the requisite physical, managerial, and legal capability to carry out the Project. (c) JAUNT shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all req.uirements imposed by the United States Department' of Transportation in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, or handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under programs or activities included under the ride-sharing services provided by JAUNT. (d) JAUNT shall comply with all regulations and requirements specified by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for this Project, including, but not limited to, all requirements set forth in a document entitled "State Aid for Experimental Mass Transportation and Ride-Sharing Projects -- Program Information and Administration -- Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation -- Public Transportation Division," dated October, 1979, consisting of pages 1-18, appendices A-K, which docu- ment is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. (e) JAUNT shall work with the County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in coordination of the Project and shall have responsibility for providing the necessary reports as specified by these two entities. (f) JAUNT shall carry out all of its responsibilities and duties as set forth in the Proposal. (g) JAUNT shall comply with all provisions, requirements and regulations between the County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as set forth in a document entitled "Agreement for the Utilization of State Aid for Experimental Public Transportation and Ride- Sharing Projects", dated October 29, 1979, consisting of pages 1-16, plus Appendices A and B, which document is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. June 4, 1980. (Reguta__r ,N~ig~ht Meetin~g~) 2. Compensation of JAUNT. As compensation for providing the services set forth in this agreement for the Project, JAUNT shall be compensated as follows: (a) JAUNT shall keep a careful accounting of all. its, expenses incurred in carrying out the Project. JAUNT shall submit to the County on a monthly bas~s an itemized list of its Project expenses for the previous month, with supporting documentation. (b) Upon receipt of JAUNT's bill in proper form and adequately documented, the County shall pay JAUNT the sum owed. 3. Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be in effect for a period of twelve (12) months from the date Project operations commence or until such time as Virginia Department of Highways and ~Transportation demonstration grant funds for the Project are exhausted, whichever shall occur first. The commencement date will be formally identified in a letter from JAUNT to the County, and upon approval by the County, shall be incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 4. Indemnification. JAUNT shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and the Department of Highways and Transportation and their officers, agents, and employees acting within the scope of their official duties against any claims or liability, including, but not limited to, liability for personal injury or property damage including liability for costs and expenses resulting from the operation of all Project equipment or the use of all Project facilities. Agenda Item No. 6. Appropriations. Mr. Agnor presented a request for appropriation in the amount of $181.05 to pay legal consultation fees in connection with the Fleming vs. Albemarle County suit. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $181.05 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 1Al03 in payment of William B. Poff, Consultant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor prese~nted a request for appropriation in the amount of $609.00 to complete a $30,000 Capital Outlay project for the parking lot at Chris Greene Lake. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $609.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Outlay - General Fund and transferred to Code 19.10-L.3 for Chris Greene Lake Parking Lot. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said this request for appropriation is for the vehicular maintenance garage bid by the School System at $1,025,000. A previous appropriation in the amount of $120,000 was made, leaving a balance of $905,000 additional appropriation to take care of the entire project budget. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $905,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated fr~m the General Fund and transferred to the School Construction Capital Outlay Fund and coded to 19.28A, for the Vehicular Maintenance Garage. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta,'Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes for September 5, 1979 (Night). Mr. Fisher said three Board members had been assigned to read these minutes. Mr. Roudabush said he read them several weeks ago, and could not remember if there were any corrections neces- sary. Mr. Lindstrom said he was prepared to review his portion. Mr. Fisher said rather than approve the minutes piecemeal, he would prefer to carry this item over to next week's meeting. Agenda Item No. 8. be discussed. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. There were no other matters to Agenda Item No. 9. At 9:25 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss, Nash to adjourn this meeting to June 9, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the County Exec- 7,2 J~ne_ 4_. 19~_ular Night Meetin_~ utive's Conference Room in the County Office Building. carried by the following recorded vote: Roll was called,, and the mo~ion AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley., Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Chai~fan