Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-12March 12,1980 (Day Meeting A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, ~ on March 12, 19.80, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, CI tesville, Virginia. BOard Members Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Ia, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:03 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash (arrived at 9:~ and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: County Attorney. Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and George R. St. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Board Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: December 5, (Night) 1979. September 19 (Night), November 21 al September 19, 1979 (Night): Mr. Lindstrom said he did not understand the sentence on page 94: "Mr. Fisher said this is from the right-of-way and does not where the road itself was". Also on page 95, a sentence at the beginning which re~ also did not that", should have some other word before the word "that" The Clerk requested to check this and put these minutes on a future agenda after clarificati< received. December 5, 1979 (Night): Mr. Lindstrom noted no corrections or changes were November 21, 1979 (Night): Mr. Roudabush noted on page 8, agenda item #11, il third paragraph, change the word "codify" to "clarify". Mr. St. John said he felt word "codify" was correct since that sentence refers to the County Code. Upon motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, minutes of November December 5, 1979 were approved with no changes. The motion carried by the followi~ recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush None. Agenda Item No. 3. Highway Matters: a) Abandon Road Off Of Route 602. No one was present regarding this abando~ and Mr. Fisher suggested going on to other highway matters and then returning to tl later in the meeting. c) Other Highway Matters. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of } and Transportation said the request for industrial access funds for State Farm Roa( being held at the request of Mr. Don Zimmerman of State Farm Insurance. Mr. Zimme~ requested ~ meeting with the Highway Commissioner's staff prior to this request be~ presented to the Commission. Mr. Roosevelt said it was his understanding that the missioner's staff is prepared to recommend rejection of this request for industria[ funds. Mr. Roosevelt next discussed Dr. Iachetta's letter to Commissioner King regar( Marc~ 12 1980 (Da. ~eet~~ ~gnor said he has received from the City a copy of their Design Committee's the McIntire Road extension. The City has asked for comments from the County ~ghway Department on this decision. This report has been given to the County )epartment to review. Mr. Agnor reported two major changes, first a realignment ~d near Preston Avenue, where it is recommended that the road be located nearer ~lroad tracks, which would cut through the proposed County parking lot. Secondly, from Preston Avenue two-lanes from Melbourne Road, and then four-lanes from to Rio Road at the Voc-Tech Center. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Agnor planned to ~ommendations from the Planning Staff and the Highway Department and then bring ~mmendations back to the Board. Mr. Agnor said this was his plan. Sa Item No. 3a. Abandon road off of Route 602. Mr. Fisher noted the arrival of lum, and suggested returning to this agenda item. Mr. McCallum noted that the documents to abandon this road, are with Continental Can Company, and he is the return of the documents. He requested the Board to defer this item until the ~y meeting in May. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. L±ndstrom, this item until May 14, 1980. Rill was called and the motion carried by the recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~e. da Item No. 3¢. Other Highway Matters. Miss Nash asked Mr. Roosevelt about the ion of~ Routes 734 and 795 in relation to Agenda Item No. 5, Land Acquisition for Program. Miss Nash asked Mr. Roosevelt's opinion as to the exit from this development onto Route 734. Mr. Roosevelt said he looked at that situation at the site plan was presented to the Board, and it was his opinion at that time amount of additional traffic would not cause any problems. da Item No. 3b) Public Hearing: An ordinance to abandon a portion of Devon Fisher presented the ordinance as advertised (Daily Progress, February27, and 1980) as follows: AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A PLAT OF EDNAM FOREST SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON A RECORDED PLAT AS A PORTION OF A PUBLIC STREET KNOWN AS "DEVON ROAD"; THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 366, PAGE 527. WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Albemarle County, Virginia, been heretofore subdivided under the name of Ednam Forest, the original plat of h is in Deed Book 366, pages 523 through 527; and WHEREAS, Frank E. Taylor and Sarah S. Taylor, husband and wife, and Robert A. and and Peggy M. Rutland, husband and wife, are the owners of two certain lots in said subdivision, namely, Lot 1, Tract F, Section 1, as shown on a plat recorded eed Book 366, page 527, and Lot 1, Tract E, Section 2, as shown on a plat recorded eed Book 438, page 625, respectively; and WHEREAS, the said owners have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle ty that the plat recorded at Deed Book 366, page 527, be vacated insofar as it cts the dedication of a public street; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) Next to speak was Mr. Robert Rutland who said when he purchased his property, portion of Devon Road was shown as an easement for no particular purpose. Then th Birdwood property, behind his, was purchased by the University for development. H the residents of Ednam Forest maintain their Own roads, they are not maintained by State Highway Department, and therefore residents do not want to see additional th~ traffic using Ednam Forest roads. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinal Mr. Fisher deciared the public hearing closed. Mr. Henley asked if the right-of-w~ is part of the deeded right-of-way or just a part of the subdivision plat. Mr. Ru~ said it is part of the subdivision plat. Mr. Fisher asked if the vacated portion. will revert back to the adjacent property owners. Mr. St. John said unless the Bo~ specifically takes action to reserve County ownership, the vacated portion of land automatically revert back to the adjacent property owners in equal portions. Mr. Roudabush asked if there were any public utilities located within the eas~ Mr. St. John said that is specifically spoken to in State Code Section 15.1483 ".. vest fee simple title to the centerline of any streets, alleys or easements for pul passage so vacated in the owners of abutting lots free and clear of any rights of ' public or other owners of lots shown on the plat, but subject to the rights of the of any public utility installations which have been previously erected therein..." · Mr. Fisher said he would like it made part of the record, that the owner of ti adjacent property, the University of Virginia, was notified of this hearing by cop~ notice mailed by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, and to his knowledge, ther~ statement from the University regarding this vacation of plat. Mr. Fisher then re~ mended to the Board that this ordinance be adopted, effective today. Motion was o: by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the ordinance as read, effective March 12, 1980. The mol seconded by Dr. Iachetta who added that it is his feeling that the Board of Superv: will have very little influence over what will occur on the Birdwood property. Thc no further discussion, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. ~ Mr. Fisher said he felt it necessary to state, in reference to Dr. Iachetta's ment about Birdwood, that this Board will do its best to make its recommendations t as to what it feels is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfa~ Agenda Item No. 3c) Other Highway Matters. Dr. Iachetta asked the status of for correcting the drainage problem on Commonwealth Drive and Route 29 North. Mr. said he wrote to Mr. D. B. Hope, District Engineer, and stated that the County's pc of the money will be included in the County's Capital Budget. Mr. Hope said his s~ will review the location and size of structures and give a firmer estimate. Mr. Rc said those estimates should be received within the next two weeks. Dr. Iachetta az when this project could be expected to be started. Mr. Roosevelt said the project first be placed in the Primary Highway budget (hearings to take place in April), ar assuming this project is funded, the work could begin immediately after that. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Roosevelt to view a road with him just off Route 250 ~ Glenmore Farms. Mr. Roudabush said he had been requested by the property owners tc and get that road into the State Secondary System. Mr. Roudabush said he informed property owners that the road would have to be up to standard, and that dedication right-of-way was essential, to qualify for acceptance. March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) da Item No. 6. Resolution and Appropriation re: Robert C. Fitzgerald. Mr. id the following resolution had been drafted by the County Attorney, regarding ement of Robert C. Fitzgerald, Esquire in relation to dealings of annexation. BE IT RESOLVED that Robert C. Fitzgerald, Esquire, is hereby engaged he County's Attorney to represent and advise the Board of Supervisors onnection with all matters relating to the County's possible involve- in proceedings of annexation, partial or total immunity, the negotia- of an agreement with the City of Charlottesville under Virginia Code ter 26.1 of Title 15.1, and any allied matters. Mr. Fitzgerald is to be compensated as follows: His hourly rate shall 100.00 per hour for in office work and consultation, $125.00 per hour appearances; Myron C. Smith, $85.00 per hour for in office work and ultation, $110.00 per hour for appearances. Associate members of the may be used from time to time at rates lower than the above. Mr. Fitzgerald shall be paid a retainer of $7,500.00 for the calendar 1980 which sum is hereby appropriated. His work shall first be ired against this retainer at the above hourly rate until the amount of retainer has been earned, after which he shall be paid upon submission tatements at the same rate, for all additional work. If the retainer ot fully earned, however, it shall not be refundable to the County. In tion, Mr. Fitzgerald shall be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses. Fisher said there has been a lot of interest in this item in the news media. He is a straight forward action on the part of the Board to be sure the Board does any mistakes in the negotiations with the City. (see minutes of February 28, .r. Henley said he was concerned about the retainer and spoke to Mr. St. John is meeting. Mr. St. John indicated that Mr. Fitzgerald would have a good deal of o in analyzing negotiations made between the County and the City of Charlottes- lotion was offered by Mr. Roudabush and seconded by Miss Nash to adopt the above n. Mr. Henley said based on Mr. St. John's explanation, he would support the Mr. St. John said in order for Mr. Fitzgerald to prepare himself on questions . annexation or revenue sharing, Mr. Fitzgerald will have to spend a great deal of ewing background information such as audits, tax structure and tax base. Mr. said he is hesitant to vote favorably on the motion and the Board must be .or to allow a $7,500 retainer tie the County into an active legal position. Dr. said he is not entering these negotiations with the idea that it will end up in a battle. He said he hoped that a workable solution can be found and that there .o litigation necessary with respect to annexation. was then called and the motion to adopt the resolution was adopted~by the recorded vote: ,ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ,ne. Lda Item No. 4. Appeal: Mary Patricia M. Brown Lots 1 - 7 Final Plat. (Located ,uth bound lane of route 29 North agjacent to Berkeley.) Subdivision Plat of Lots ~ 7, a division of Parcel 119, Tax Map 61, near Charlottesville, Virginia. Plat William S. Roudabush, Inc. and dated January 9, 1980. Roudabush said he wished to abstain from the discussion and vote on this agenda lis firm prepared the plat. Dr. Iachetta said he called this plat to the Board as- March 12~ 1980 (Day Meeting) the northbound lane crossover. The crossover sight distance is not adequate the south and grading of the median will be required. This plat will meet La~ Subdivision and Development Ordinance requirements and staff recommends appro~ subject to the following: Recommended Conditions of Approval: -(Also approved by the Planning Commissiol their meeting of February 26, 1980 with the following conditions) This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, if needed; b. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. ~County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement. c. Service Authority approval. ~ d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entra~ approval for both proposed entrances as stated in the Site Review 1~ February 7, 1980. e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the i turn lane and taper plus sight distance at the northbound lane cros: f. Show stream on the plat, if needed. g. Grading permit; with the Soil Erosion Committee being mindful of pr~ the existing trees as much as possible. Especially the tree line al the Berkeley Subdivision and the proposed access easement. This ma~ for tree wells for protection. Mr. Tucker said, as Dr. Iachetta noted, the reason for the appeal was the con~ with the "Crossover Ordinance". Mr. Tucker noted the entrance to the subdivision ~ directly across from an existing crossover on Route 29 North. Z~ ~he Route 29 Nortl Study, adopted several months ago, showed a relocation of that particular crossove~ because at that time it did not meet sight distance requirements, and was to be re] further to the north. Mr. Tucker said that within the last six months, the Highwa~ ment changed the sight distance requirements, and now the crossover does meet the ~ standards. Mr. Tucker said the reason Dr. Iachetta called this site plan before t! was the sight distance of the crossover, which no longer seems to be a problem. D~ Iachetta commented that in addition to this entrance and the crossover being reali~ this change also influences what was tentatively planned for the Branchland~s propel Mr. Fisher said it appears to him that the Brown Plat will lock the Branchlands de~ ment into using~the existing crossover, even though this may not be the best locat~ a crossover carrying a high volume of traffic. Mr. Fisher noted that the Branchla~ development is designed for a large number of people, and questioned its entrance ~ governed by a development so much smaller in size. Mr. Roosevelt said he received a call from the people who have an option on ti Branchlands property who seemed relieved that a new crossover would not have to be in the near future. Mr. Roosevelt said the minimum sight distance on a road such 29 North with a speed limit of 45 m.p.h., is 520 feet at crossovers. This crossow sight distance of 540 feet. Mr. Roosevelt said by the time the Branchlands develot completed, the Highway Department is to have erected a traffic signal at this loca~ will interconnect this signal with those to the north and south, and hopefully ins~ signal at the crossover at Sperry. Mr. Roosevelt said a signal at this intersecti~ make-it safer as far as access to the crossovers. Mr. Roosevelt said, in response question from Mr. Fisher, that moving the crossover to a site further down the hil] only add about 30 or 40 feet of additional sight distance, and would not contribut~ to the safety factor in relation~to the expense involved. Dr. Iachetta asked if any other crossovers on Route 29 North would be effecte¢ March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) Zarl Andrews said he owns property adjoining Mr. David Wood's, and asked how will at of this property how will it affect the water runoff onto his property. Dr. said the Highway Department is in the process of analyzing reports from the ~ngineering staff, on how to remove excess water from the intersection. The spartment's analysis should be completed in the Spring. Dr. Iachetta said the will also have to meet the requirements of the County's Stormwater Detention which required that no more water be put into that stream than it now receives. ~bush returned to the meeting at 10:30 A.M.) Iachetta said he had forgotten to present, for the record, a letter received from her King in response to Dr. Iachetta's letter of February 12, 1980: ruary 20, 1980 F. Anthony Iachetta marle County Board of Supervisors ty Office Building lottesville, Virginia 22901 Routes 29 and 852, Albemarle County Flooding Problem Mr. Iachetta: is in response to your letter dated February 12, 1980 concerning drainage problems on Route 29 and 852, at the crossing of an med branch of Meadow Creek, north of Charlottesville. District Drainage Engineer, in Culpeper, is making a study of e flood problems. Upon receipt of a report on this study from the rict Engineer, along with his recommendations, I will advise you her. preciate your interest in our mutual problems concerning Virginia's .ways. erely, ined) Harold C. King, Commissioner" .da Item No. 5. Land Acquisition for Self-Help Program. Mr. Agnor reviewed the f the Self-Help Program for the Board, saying that in November, 1978, a grant in ~t of $120,000 was awarded by HUD to purchase land for this program. The pursuit ~lection of sites began. AHIP was contracted to administer the program, and AHIP ~d Mr. Rory Carpenter as Director of the program to be responsible for the following: Preparing and submitting a Technical Assistance-Grant Application. Selecting eligible families as participants. Locating Land for the project. location was based on the following criteria: Follow the Comprehensive Plan, and locate in a village or community area. Limited to already existing or approved subdivision lots. March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) Mr. Johnny Wood said he lives on Route 734, and noted that two cars could not each other ~t~same time. He also felt that there should be zoning laws to help p~ historic landmarks such as Ash Lawn and Monticello. Mr. Fisher said the protectiol historic sites is one change the Board wishes to make in the zoning ordinance, but such restrictions were presented last year, owners of historic areas were 1opposed. Johnny Wood then asked if there was a certain dollar value for the Self-Help homes constructed. Mr. Fisher said there was no dollar value figure set as a requiremen' that program. Mr. Rory Carpenter, Director of the Self-Help Program, said there are two lot; Bishop Hill Subdivision which border Ash Lawn. He said it could be placed in the that a tree buffer must be retained in order to maintain the scenic beauty of Ash i Mr. Andr& Marr, representing the families who will participate in the Self-Help pr. said the families have a very strong desire to go forth with the project at Bishop Mr. Marr said he and the rest of the families hope to build homes which will be eq~ if not more, attractive than individual lot owners might build. An unidentified area resident said there is a very definite problem with potal water in the area. He said many wells have been drilled which ran dry after a sho~ while, and asked if the County had any plans to provide public water lines in that Mr. Fisher said there were no plans to provide public water to that subdivision, o~ other rural area of the County; that homes in these areas would have to depend on well and ground water they could obtain. Mr. Russell Otis said before any funds al invested in the land, the area would be thoroughly checked. Mrs. Rosa Hudson aske~ price of each lot. Mr. Otis said there were no definitive prices yet, that negoti~ had not yet begun. Mr. Fisher asked if the developer was going to be responsible road. Mr. Otis said yes, and that the costs of the road construction would be add~ the purchase price of each lot. Miss Nash stated her concern for the condition of the.existing roads in the al well as the possible lack of water. Miss Nash asked how the developer plannod to a two-acre lot and yet build a road to state standards. Mr. Otis said all of the presently in excess of two acres, and that with some rearrangement of the present layout, a State standard road should fit. Mr. Roudabush said it was~his impressioz there were going to be several of these projects scattered throughout the County. Fisher said this is just the first of two or three. Mr. Otis said seven lots are for this location, leaving a total of eleven more to be placed in two other locatic the County. Mr. Roudabush then agreed with several of the earlier speakers that ot water in this subdivision might be a difficult task, as he grew up in this part of County, and his family had to obtain water from a spring as wells did not produce. Mr. Fisherlsaid he supports the program since he feels that people WhO build 1 own homes have a great deal of pride in their finished product. He said he was ve~ concerned about the potential water problem. Mr. Otis said a possible condition f~ purchase of these lots by the County would be that sufficient water be obtainable~ lot. ~ Dr. Iachetta asked about the Brookwood site in Crozet. Mr. Otis said that si~ totally undeveloped and the developer did not wish to be committed to the building roads and sewer; there is a question about distance to potential employment (mainl~ Charlottesville area); the lots are much smaller; but there is public water. Mr. said the Brookwood site may be considered for a project in the future, but he felt not a good choice for the initial project. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not happy with the Bishop Hill subdivision whe~ first was brought before the Board, but at that time, the way the laws were set up~ was no choice but to aoorove it. M~. T.1m~t~nTM ~dd~ ~h~ h~ ~ ~f ~h~ ~a~ ~c March 12, 198_ _ 0 (Da~ M_ eeting~) a Item No. 7. Policy on Reserved Use of County Parks. Mr. Agnor said that-in o citizen concern on the impact to adjacent residents of large groups using ks, the present policy on private parties using the parks has been reversed. He wed the current policy and noted that the changes requested would include: Policies would be the same for both Mint Springs and Chris Greene Lake Parks. Reservations be limited to the picnic shelter areas and groups of 150 maximum. Groups not be allowed to reserve the beach or the entire park area. Use of sound amplification equipment will no longer be permitted. indstrom asked about the control of alcoholic beverage consumption. He asked if been problems at the lakes controlling the public. Mr. Matt Smith, Manager of ne Lake Park, said there has never been a situation at the parks that the tendants could not handle. Mr. Agnor said the ABC laws do not cover consumption ic beverages in public parkaThere was a prohibition against drinking alcoholic except in the shelters reserved for picnics, etc. This prohibition was deleted ounty Code was revised in 1976, but was added into the administrative policy. said he felt the proposed, policy changes seem very reasonable. .ob Critzer of Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity, said his fraternity has put in an ~n to reserve the park on "Easter's Weekend". He said his fraternity has a very ~icy on sale of tickets to limit the number of people, clean up crews, and in the ~ears there have been no complaints of roudiness. Mr. Critzer added that al- organization could possibly come under the 150 person limit, he hoped that the .d not disallow the use of amplification. Mr. Agnor said that has been the most ~ource of complaints from residents in the area. Mr. Critzer also pointed out ~ugh one group may reserve the shelter for 150 people, there is nothing to re- ~er large groups of people showing up at the park and using the facilities even ~ve no reservation. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any way to limit the number allowed access to the park on any given day. Mr. Smith said there presently was limit the attendance; that this would take very strict gate control to acco- ~indstrom then offered a motion to adopt the Administrative policy as presented Lrd, making a few necessary changes in grammar. The motion was seconded by Dr. Lnd carried by the following recorded vote: ~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. le. POLICY REGULATING THE RESERVED USE OF COUNTY PARK LANDS FOR PRIVATE PARTIES SPRINGS VALLEY AND CHRIS GREENE LAKE PARKS Lon 1: Lon 2: [on 3: .Sound Amplification - Bands are permitted; the use of sound amplifiers is prohibited. Reservations of Picnic Shelter - Groups up to 150 may reserve the picnic shelter. Sanitation - The water systems in the parks are turned off in the late fall and reactivated in the early spring; hence toilet facilities are unavailable during this period. Portable toilets must be provided by the group making the reservation as determined by the Director of Parks March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) Both activities were at one time very popular and it is the feeling of some people with the Center that they would again be popular if the equipment was properly rep~ and maintained. If the County does wish to take over the operation of the Center, Department, with additional funding, could expand on the recreational opportunitie: in the western part of the County. The roof over the bowling alley is in need of in the very near future and the bowling and roller skating programs would require repair and replacement work before becoming functional. There would be program sul vision necessary and the weekly or bi-weekly routine grounds maintenance could pos: performed by the Mint Springs crew. Above average vandalism costs could also be e: at the beginning. By having a County-owned facility, there would be additional fle: in regards to the times certain programs could be offered and there would be no co~ with school activities. Mr. Agnor noted that the facility had been in debt for a long time, but at pr~ debt free. It is the hope of the present Community Center Board to give the Cente~ County, free and clear for the County to own and operate. Mr. Agnor recommended 1~ the building at no cost for one year, which would give time to get a feel for the ~ and establish if there is significant response to the Center. The County would mal necessary repairs in lieu of paying for the lease, and keep the Community Center B~ an advisory group. Mr. Agnor said he spoke to Mr. Sam Clark of the Greenwood Comm~ Center Board, who suggested the Board of Supervisors appoint Mr. Agnor and Mr. Henl meet with the Center's Board to work out the one year lease as a trial to possible ownership. Mr. Agnor spoke next about funding the project. He said there are func the Parks and Recreation budget which will not be expended. Those funds would com~ unexpended salaries for the late Mr. Earl Sudduth, Parks Director, and a grounds, c] worker. Mr. Henley said Mr. Agnor's proposal sounded like a good approach. Dr. If said it seemed to be worth a try. Mr. Fisher asked if a full-time director would t be hired by the County to supervise the facility. Mr. Agnor said a director for tl center would have to be found, hopefully, someone who lived in the Greenwood commul Mr. Fisher asked if all the activities proposed by the County have been agreed to ~ people in the Greenwood community. Mr. Agnor said this is one factor which must b~ out in the agreement. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetl accept the recommendation of the County Executive and designate Mr. Agnor and Mr. t to meet with the Greenwood Community Center Board and bring their findings back to Board for final approval. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16a)~ Bids: Parking Lot - Chris Greene Lake Park. Mr. Agnor this agenda item be taken up next, since Parks Department personnel were present. Agnor said bids have been received for the overflow parking lot at Chris Greene La~ The low bid of $29,559.00 was received from J.P.A. Systems for construction of the flow parking lot, including the alternative of placing railroad ties as a paramete~ along the edge of the lot. Mr. Agnor recommended.the Board accept this low bid, a~ within the budgeted amount for the project. He also noted that J.P.A. Systems is ~ contractor. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to app~ bid as received in the amount of $29,559.00. Roll was called and the motion carri~ the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush~ None. March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) 208 South Rivanna Reservoir Study Program: Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to r. Robert R. Humphris of 109 Falcon Drive, Colthurst, to this Committee (see f February 13, 1980 for list of duties.) The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. ag no discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~e. da Item No. 11. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff and lth's Attorney for February, 1980, were presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, by Miss Nash, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ne. da Item No. 12. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of 1980, was presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, this was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ne. da Item No. 13. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation gional Jail for the month of February, 1980 along with summary statement of days and salary of the jail physician and paramedics, were presented. On motion chetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as presented. The rried by the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ne. da Item No. 14. Report of the Social Services Department for January, 1980 was in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. .da Item No. 15. Report of the County Executive for February, 1980, was presented oard's information. .ms against the County, which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment rector of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of February, 'e also presented as information: ~onwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account ~rat Fund ~oi Operating Fund ~teria Fund ,ol Construction-Capital Outlay Fund ~book Rental Fund Lt Security Complex Fund $ 6,789.29 480,541.36 1,487,766.13 33,153.48 97,608.47 636.35 56,1.28.60 22~.07 March 12, 1980 (DaY Meeting) Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher repo the zoning work-shops. He said the Scottsville session was cancelled because of s Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash were present at the hearing held at Meriwe Lewis School, where there was good public turnout. Mr. Fisher said the goal of th sessions is to explain that development is being encouraged in some areas of the C and discouraged in other areas. He noted that there were 80 to 100 people present meetings and that Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, made excellent sentations. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Henley chaired the meeting held on March 10th at He School, which almost turned into a public hearing of likes and dislikes aboutlthe zoning ordinance. Mr. Fisher said these work shops are designed to inform the pub noted that the next session will be held at Jack Jouett School tomorrow. Mr. Lindstrom said since the last hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, he has b asked by a number of citizens regarding the County's policy of notifying Charlotte City Council about actions on the watershed. He asked that the staff notify City about anything to do with the watershed or the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said he also received telephone calls regarding the watershed area. He then requested the Planl staff to investigate the extent of development in the watershed area, by preparing of the parcels, acreage of each parcel, number of developed lots, and number of un which presently exist and whether they are residential, commercial or industrial. At 12:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a recess for lunch. 1:43 P.M. The meeting reconvert Agenda Item No. 17. Lake Hills SUbdivision Plat Appeal. Mr. Fisher noted re the following letter dated March 13, 1980, from Mr. James W. Gercke: , ~ "I wish to withdraw my application and void prior approvals of the resubdivis~ lots 2 and 3 in Lake Hills Subdivision into three new lots. However, I wish retain approval of the resubdivision of lots 8 and 10 into lots SA, 8B, and 1 It is my understanding that on account of this letter the appeal lodged by th, neighbors in this area, represented by J. Benjamin Dick, will be withdrawn." Mr. Fisher said that in light of this new information received just this minu· felt it may~be best to carry this matter over to the April meeting. Mr. Tucker ag~ and said that he would like some time to review Mr. Gercke's letter. Mr. David M. Roijen a property owner in the Lake Hills subdivision, noted his letter dated Marci 1980 to the Board, and agreed that a final decision should be deferred. Mr. Fishe~ Mr. Tucker to determine the exact action requested by Mr. Gercke and reschedule th~ the April 9, 1980 meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. I~ to defer this item to the April 9, 1980 meeting. Roll was called, and the motion , by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush None. Agenda Item No. 9. JAUNT: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter : Miss Linda Wilson, Executive Director of JAUNT, dated March 5, 1980: "At its meeting.on Monday, Marc~ 3, 1980.the Charlottesville City. Council.agr~ March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) ~quest that Albemarle County make a decision on the signing of the Section Warranty and inform us of that decision by the requested date, March 14, JAUNT's board and staff appreciate the support we have continued to Lye from Albemarle County. We hope this matter can be resolved in a manner will benefit us all." said Charlottesville City Council has resolved that either the County of sign the Section 13(C) Warranty, or the City will stop sponsoring their share of ~arch 14, 1980. This would leave the County and JAUNT in a difficult position. ~hn said he was informed that the Attorney General's opinion requested on the the Section 13(C) Warranty is not yet ready, and'that this opinion is of key ~. Mr. St. John added he hoped the Board could delay the deadline at least a ~pes of getting the Attorney General's opinion in that time. Mr. Fisher ques- interim progress in resolving the Section 13(C) Warranty problem. Mr. Agnor ~enate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs will present transit ~n on the Section 13(C) Warranty shortly to try and work out the problems. Mr. information must be presented to the Senate Committee's attorneys as soon as Mr. St. John said the Senate Committee attorney already has the information ~t that he would contact him and discuss the information further. Mr. Agnor then bids on the Route 29 North corridor bus route were opened, and both JAUNT and sville Transit Authority requested extensions beyond the March 14th deadline. It ~nsensus of the Board to grant a two week extension for receipt of those bids as ~d by Mr. Agnor. ?isher said the County should pursue all possibilities to legally obtain funding · Mr. Fisher said the City of Charlottesville is presently funding the deficit which has been created in the City, and the County has the option to do the ~ deficit could be covered until the Federal funds come, which would halt the 1980 deadline. Mr. Fisher said the needs for transportation are greater in the ~n in the City. Dr. Iachetta asked ho~w much money the City is giving to JAUNT. ~ said $5,000 for one month. He added that financial support from the County is YAUNT had asked for, but it is a way to buy time until the Section 13(c) Warranty s resolved. Mr. Henley asked how much money JAUNT presently has received from y. Mr. Agnor said $6,000 which is non-recoverable, and another $15,000+ through ~hich can be recovered from the Federal grant. Dr. Iachetta asked if one month's support would give the County and JAUNT enough time to work out the Section ranty problem. Mr. St. John said a month should be enough time to get the ~eneral's opinion. Mr. Roudabush said County support for one month would not eat deal, but added that there was not enough business in the County for JAUNT to olely in the County. Dr. Iachetta said he felt JAUNT was already a "bare-bones " Mr. Lindstrom said there was enough at stake here to warrant extension of til next month. Mr. Roudabush questioned why the City would not sponsor JAUNT e March 14th deadline. Mr. FiSher said he felt the City would like the Char- le Transit Authority to take over JAUNT's routes to eliminate competition. Mr. d if JAUNT looses the $5,000 per month support from the City, they will not Mr. Henley said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's idea to support JAUNT for one 1 month. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to authorize the staff to 5,000 from previously authorized funds (See Minute Book 17, page 386 July 11, he motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ne. da Item No. 18) 1980-81 County Budget, Final Review. Mr. Agnor noted that to ~ ..... ~ ~ .... ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o~ated to add $~70.8~2. New March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) REVISED REQUEST REQUEST RECOMMEADED REVISED RECOMMENDED C~ RECO~ GENERAL OPERATIONS EXISTING PROGRAMS Sheriff Dept. Volunteer Fire Depts. T. J. Planning District Tourism Bureau Health Dept. Youth Employment Service O.A.R. M.A.C.A.A. A.H.I.P. $965,397 -- $901,817 $925,060 159,700 -- 133,700 -- 14,820 -- 13,100 -- 15,000 -- 12,500 -- 273,198 -- 262,810 -- 5,000 -- 3,000 -- 16,000 -- 13,200 -- 20,879 -- 14,433 16,162 99,694 -- 74,220 -- GENERAL OPERATIONS NEW PROGRAMS Shelter for Help In Emergency Office on Youth Senior Citizen's Attorney Project Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Emergency Medical Services 5,190 -- -0- 6,037 -- -0- 3,854 -- -0- 10,000 -- -0- 2,286 5,212 -0- EDUCATION DivisION GENERAL OPERATIONS CHANGES APPROVED 19,450,136 19,623,943 18,151,241 (Awaiting General As~ Piedmont College M.A.C.A.A. (listed above) Elections Scottsville Rescue Squad 4,545 -- 4,545 5,045 51,472 -- 49,706 50,526 2,810 -- 7,500 5,500 Changes in Recommendation to Date Changes Approved to Date Mr.'Agnor noted that in order to make recommendations for balancing the FY-81 with the $372,753 available for allocation, several assumptions had to be made in. of the Board of Supervisors final review. These assumptions were: No change in the property tax rates will be made· No significant changes in allocations to General Operations will be made The $372,753 will be allocated toward the School Division shortfall. Recognizing that these assumptions may not be correct, but anticipating that mendations for balancing the school budget will be requested, the following.steps presented for consideration in dealing with the $1,298,895 shortfall to meet the Board's original request. Recommend favorable consideration by the School Board of the fringe pack; pay plan, reducing budget costs by $739,700. Add to General Fund revenues from the Fy-80 carry-over balance $84,500, the following; March 12, 1980 (Day_ ~Meeting~) ~al Operations: Operations: M.A.C.A.A. +$ 1,729 Scottsville Rescue Squad - 2,000 Sub Total -$ 271 Workmen's Compensation +$ 17,820 Fringe Benefits,Employer Share + 155,987 Sub Total +$173,807 ~ollowing additions have been approved to date by the Board of Supervisors: ~ont College +$ 500 ~ions + 820 Sub,Total Total Changes to Date +$ 1,320 +$174,856 ~ionally the following revised recommendation was submitted for th~ Board's ~ion: Lff (Restore 1 additional deputy) Total Possible Changes ~evenues [ble Appropriation Changes Lable for Allocation $570,852 +$198,099 +$372,753 +$ 23,243 +$198,099 Ygnor .noted that he had added an appeal from the Emergency Medical Services the agenda today. ~isher said the Volunteer Fire Departments have requested funds for some new called a fold-a-tank which they plan to demonstrate some Wednesday evening in ~. Mr. Fisher suggested Dr. Iachetta see the demonstration and recommend to the ~her the additional request for $10,000 for portable tanks should be approved as ~n to the budget. Dr. Iachetta said he spoke with Mr. Ted Armentrout of the Frail Volunteer Fire Department who said portable tanks would be of particular ~ral fires. Mr. Armentrout said the portable tank is left at the fire scene, tanker goes for a refill. Dr. Iachetta said he Would recommend earmarking the [1 the demonstration in April. Sheriff: Mr. Fisher said the Sheriff had originally requested funds for three [ deputies. The County Executive recommends funding only two of these positions, ~ates that funds will be available to fund one more position. If the Compen- ~rd approves the additional three deputies, the County would be able to fund the [ $23,243. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to ~e addition of $23,243 to the Sheriff's Department Budget, contingent upon ~f the additional deputies by the State Compensation Board. Roll was called and ~ carried by the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. RoudabuSh. ~e. Volunteer Fire Departments: Mr. Roudabush asked if the proposed agreement with sville Fire Department to advance funds for cOnstruction of a new fire house will ~ffect on this budget. Mr. Agnor said~he did not know when repayment of that ~uld begin, but felt it would not be until 1981 or 1982. No.motion was offered th~ recommended budget amount of $133,700. · March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) t8h) Offender Aid and Restoration: Mr. Agnor said he recommended a 10% incr over last year for a total for FY-81 of $13,200. Mr. Lindstrom said the loss of C funds would hurt this agency. Mr. Henley said this is a worthwhile organization, it is his opinion that some of the O.A.R. volunteers can do more harm than good. was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to fund 0~A.R. for the total requested amount of There was no second to Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Mr. Henley said he would prefer' su this group for the $13,200 as recommended by the County Executive. Motion was the offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to accept the recommendation of County Executive and support 0.A.R. in the amount of $13,200. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Lindstrom. 18i) Monticello Area Community Action Agency: This item was deferred so tha Agnor could bring new information to the Board about the Head Start Program. Mr. asked if the requested increase was for the funding of a bus. Mr. Agnor said the had no bearing as to the purchase of a bus. He referred to page 272 of the budget showed a breakdown of funding, and no local funds were shown for the purchase of a Dr. Iachetta said no agency should be sponsored for buses except JAUNT. Mr. Linds agreed with Dr. Iachetta. There was no motion to change the recommended amount of 18j) Albemarle Housing Improvement Program: Mr. Agnor said he was not sure Board should increase funding support for this program. He said there is a real n also a possibility of Federal grant money. Mr. Agnor recommended funding this pro the $74,220 as proposed, and encourage AHIP to pursue Federal grant money. There motion to change the recommended amount of $74,220. Mr. Fisher noted that the next five items were all for new programs and that i financial.support was recommended by the County Executive. 18k) Shelter for Help in Emergency: Mr. Agnor said he had not recommended f' this new program. The Board had requested that this item be discussed again at th budget sessions. Miss Nash offered motion to approve the requested amount of $5,1 said the Task Force for Abused Women has existed on a Federal grant for the past tl years. Those funds have diminished, and SHE now relies entirely on local funds. was no second to Miss Nash's motion. Miss Nash then offered, a new motion to suppol program in the amount of $2,600. She said this program could help save delinquent future problems. Dr. Iachetta said this area was also handled by the. Office on Yo' Mr. Lindstrom said the Law Enforcement Assistance Act has funded this program with local cash match. Mr. Henley noted that the County was not requested to fund last when SHE had more reason for the money. Mr. Lindstrom suggested folloWing the Cou: Executive's recommendation for no funding recommended unless matchingfun~e~b~m~' There was no motion to change the County Executive's recommendation. · 181) Office on Youth: Mr. Fisher suggested approving the requested amount o: if the City Council makes this a viable program. Mr. Henley said he felt there wa; of area covered under this program. Dr. Iachetta said the Youth Employment Servic. laps this agency. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley to ~ the County Executive's recommendation for no financial support. Roll was called al motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) Emergency Medical Services: Mr. Fisher noted that there was no one present to Emergency Medical Services organization. Mr. Fisher noted that the request was ~ lost Federal funds and he could not support this "umbrella" organization, but ~er put the money into the volunteer rescue squads. Miss Nash said she heard ~a Ctapp speak at a Planning District Commission meeting and she stated at that money would go toward training personnel of the rescue squads for handling of ~oblems. There was no motion to change the recommendation of the County Executive ~ncial support. 10 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 3:19 Education: Mr. Agno~ noted that when the budget was sent to the Board on -5, 1980, the recommended amount was short of the requested amount by $1,298,895. ~hanges that have occurred during work sessions and earlier in the meeting today, ;354,996 left for allocation, which could be applied to this shortfall, leaving In order to balance the education budget, Mr. Agnor met with Mr. Ray Jones and ice McClure, and it was decided to fund more items from the General Fund carry- ice; items are non-repeating, expenditures. The carry-over balance this year is ~cause of the .interest earned on investments. Mr. Agnor proposed that $84,500 be Dm the carry-over balance for two items: 1) In the School budget, a need of Dr the unemployment insurance program. Mr. Agnor noted that as of January 1st, ~ had gone to self-insured, and this $66,500 would begin to establish a reserve ~elf-insurance program. Mr. Agnor noted that in the general operations budget ~pproximately $17,000 for the same purpose, and that was funded from the carry- ice. 2) Three police cars in the Sheriff's Department associated with the three Les, amounting to $18,000. This money would be recovered over a number of years ~ payments that the State makes to the Sheriff's Department. If the $84,500 is D consideration, then the budget is $859,399 away from balancing. ]achetta asked if that is based on the School Board's proposal for their salary ~h general government County employees having 3% plus the F.I.C.A. package. Mr. ~ that was correct. Dr. Iachetta said he felt this was unequal treatment of the ~. Mr, Agnor said to correct that disparity, the payroll costs of general govern, ~yees would have to be changed by approximately $176,000 Dr. Iachetta said the ~ld then be short over a million dollars if all employees are put on the same ?. Lindstrom asked if the salaries of all County employees are put under the FICA ~here the budget would stand, Mr. Agnor said this would reduce the $859,399 by $739,700. [achetta asked how it would affect the tax rate to raise $1,000,000. Mr..Agnor ~uld take appoximately 85 per $100 for $1,000,000 or a 12% increase on the real ~ rate. Mr. Lindstrom said the real question before the Board is: 1) does the ~r the magnitude of increase which has been suggested by the School Board, 2) if ~ the Board go with a straight salary increase or the fringe benefit package. ~rom said he was not supportive of a straight percentage salary increase because ~ike to see the largest percentage of increase go to the people at the lower e~d ~ary scale. ~gnor said he had previously reported that the Senate had recently passed a bil1 ~ged the Virginia ~p)~m~lRetirement System ~?,?~? so that payments by employers of employees would inure to the individual accoUnt of the employee? That was of the legislation, but there was a sentence added in the House, which VSRS ~a~t_ a~d are ~oin~ to ask for an interpretation by the Attorney General or March 12, 1980 (Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor said the $9995 base is used for teachers just entering the educational ~ with no experience; there is still the vertical and horizontal movement within thc depending on experience and credentials. Dr. Iachetta asked what will happen if t County switches to the fringe benefit package this year, and then next year the Fc legislation changes so this cannot be used. Mr. Agnor said he.feels local and sta governments will be exempt from any changes, but if a change is made, he feels thc of the County would feel that the Board took advantage of this law while it was i~ and when the law changed the County had to comply. He said this would necessitate increase in the tax rate, but there will be a general reassessment of real propert on the books next year which could absorb some of this increase. Mr. Hen~ley said fringe package will give employees approximately a 13.7% increase, which is substa If the law is changed next year, that cost the County money and the employees will want a salary increase. Mr. Agnor said the only thing that would change would be social security, retirement and life insurance are State benefits and would not be ted by Federal legislation. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the fringe benefit package fair and legal way to give all employees a generous increase, but added that if it required next year, he would be willing to support a tax rate increase to maintain effect of the net increase. Mr. Lindstrom added that as for the $120,000 shortfal school budget, he feels there are sufficient areas in the school budget where this can be deducted and not be taken from salaries. Mr. Henley asked if the FICA portion of the proposal could be dropped and the still pay retirement and life insurance benefits. Mr. Agnor said that can be done did not have any figures available for such a change. He said he hoped those figu would be~available before the public hearing. Dr. Iachetta asked if adoption of t pagkage would affect the County's ability to hire employees on a competitive basis said most people look at the actual gross income figure; not always benefit packag Agnor said it could put the County in a difficult hiring 'position; the benefit pac would have to be thoroughly explained. Mr, Agnor added that there are already a n counties, cities and agencies that are using the fringe benefit package. Dr. Iach asked what about wage scales published in educational journals for teachers. Mr. said since the figure is not the same as other localities, it Would be footnoted s observer could determine the difference. Miss Nash stated her concern that employees would lose their social security Mr. Agnor said that although the FICA salary would be lower and have some effect security benefits, it is not worthy of being considered in the decision to adopt Mr. Fisher said he would recommend that the Board set the public assumption that the fringe benefit package will be used~ for all employees and that revenues not presently allocated will go toward the Education budget, and that the tax rates will be retained. Motion to that effect was offered by Miss Nash, secon~ Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom expressed his concern about the lack of clarity of the benefit package. Hr said he was not concerned about the legality, but he was conc~ about the morality Of using the System. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Lindstrom if it w~ possible effects of the F.I.C.A. plan that he was concerned about. Mr. Lindstrom just the obvious effects, but also the long-term ramifications. Mr. Henley said h~ support the 13% increase in take-home pay this year, but not in years to follow. Dr, Iachetta said this is the fifth budget that he has worked on since he bec~ member of the Boardl and he is very confused about what the Board is trying to do, it will cost, and how much the employees will benefit. He realizes that using the package will save the taxpayers money in the short-term, but is not convinced thiS best criteria to ap~ly. He said he does not necessarily disagree, but is uncomfort with this process ~Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following vote: ~a~rc~ ~2, 1~0 ( u r iht Meeting]~ _on be calculated on the basis of population. The revised request of $5,212 ~ Albemarle County's share based on population. ~n was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the amount of ~2,286 as r~quested. was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said this will not solve their the other localities appropriate an amount based on population. Dr. Edlich Board could see the kind of information that is required on Federal grants, ~ed that the Council is dealing with 18 rescue squads, five hospitals, and is Ln planning for the 911 'system, they would know it is unrealistic to think this ~n be run on a voluntary basis. Dr. Iachetta' said due to the uncertainty of the ~uired, he would like to amend his motion to approve $5,212 on the theory~that can always be cut down. The amended motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. id he would support the motion. RolZ was then called, and the motion carried by ¢ing recorded vote: [sher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~eo ?isher thanked Dr. Edlich and the other members of the Emergency Services Couhcil ~tstanding work they perform in the area. Mr. Fisher said the location of the public hearing on the budget must be ~nd this Board order the advertisement. The Clerk noted that Jack Jouett School ~eserved for April 2, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Fisher asked if that was acceptable nembers. There was no objection to the location. Mr. Fisher asked about the nent; response was given' that this was handled in the previous motion. Motion sffered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to set the public hearing for 1980, at 7:30 P.M. at Jack Jouett School. Roll was called and the motion carried llowing recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~eo da Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor requested the reserve March 27, 1980, from 4 to 6:00 P.M., to attend a reception at the Bi- 1 Center, given by the Visitors Bureau for a State meeting of travel agents ere in Charlottesville. This reception will serve to introduce those travel the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau, and to show loca~i governing bodies the operations of the Visitors Bureau. da Item No. 20. The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 P.M. Chamrman March 19, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) iular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held ~. ~80 at 7:~0 P.M.~ in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.