Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-04000069 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 14, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arriving at 7:01 p.m.), Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris (arriving at 7:01 p.m.), Mr. Charles S. Martin (arriving at 7:02 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas (arriving at6 7:02 p.m.). ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by the Chair, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to certify a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting require- ments of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in this afternoon's executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Phil Waigand was present to request the Board's support for communi- ty fishing in the County. He said there are five outstanding lakes within this area, and he wants to put all resources together to make their use more effective. If the Charlottesville Fathering Initiative, Family Support groups, Social Services, Boys' & Girls' Club, Kiwanis Clubs, etc. all ban together and take youth fishing on a rotating basis to the different lakes, it would be beneficial. He said it is a new concept, but it is supported by the Department of Fisheries. He thinks it would be a worthwhile thing for the community to consider. Mrs. Beverly Waigand said as a child she grew up on the Eastern Shore so was fortunate to have the ocean and the bays available for fishing. She began fishing at the age of five with her mother and father, and she feels this created a life-long bond with them. It has enabled them to have a close relationship all through their lives. She said there are many wonderful lakes here and it would be good, and is possible, to have fishing here. Mr. Perkins said he had asked Mrs. Beard to come tonight to tell the Board about a program they have called Christ Works Ministries. They are trying to get a site plan approved in order to relocate, and he had told her he would bring before this Board the possibility of this Board donating the fees for their site plans. He asked the County Attorney if that was the correct wording. Mr. Davis said that is correct. It would have to be in the form of a donation to a non-profit organization. Mrs. Beard said that in 1994 they had a formal beginning for Christ Works Ministry. They had privately given food, which was donated, to people over a period of several years. They were not able to meet the needs any February 14, 1996 (Regular Night ~ting) (Page 2) 0O0070 longer in a small setting so they have moved in two tractor-trailer bodies to help with storage. When she called the County, she was told that was all right if they were temporary. Their operation then grew and the County decided it was not a temporary use, so they had to look for other property. They have a three-acre parcel of land at a reasonable price. Mrs. Beard said they continue to get requests. They handled over 900,000 pounds of goods last year, and so far this year have handled over 100,000 pounds. They have to turn down requests because they cannot handle the needs. They need this piece of property with the small warehouse and storage facility, so they turn food over faster. Their budget is not as much a month as the fee for processing their site plan. They are totally non- profit. Their board is only four people. They are Christ Works Ministry, but they are not a church. She and her husband started this operation. Food is given to anyone who asks for it. They do not require anything other than to have the person say they need food. They believe what they are doing is a valid community service. They have no money coming in other than a few small donations. She asked the Board members to come by and see their operation at any time. Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board should deal with this request. Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney might be able to draft something for the Board to consider at the February 21 meeting. The site plan is already moving forward in the review process, so this discussion will not hold up review of the site plan in anyway. Mr. Davis said he would have something available for the February 21 agenda. Agenda Item No. 5. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Item 5.1 (a) through (d), and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Item 5.1(a) . Appropriation: Sheriff's Van for FY 1995-96 (Form #95035), $19,370.27. At the November 1st meeting, the Board approved funding up to $20,000 to replace the Sheriff's van that was involved in an accident. The attached form appropriates $19,370.27 for the cost of the van plus lights, cages, etc. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95035 in the amount of $19,370.27. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95035 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING TO REPLACE VAN IN SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DUE TO ACCIDENT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100031020800501 VEHICLE-REPLACEMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $19,370.27 $19,370.27 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2100051000510100 FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $19,370.27 $19,370.27 Item 5.1(b) . Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant for FY 1995-96 (Form #95051), $3,469.00. The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant. The grant provides funds to purchase brochures and other supplies to inform the public about fire and rescue agencies. The State February 14, 1996 (Regular Night M~g) (Page 3) has awarded $3,469.00. There is no local match. 000071 Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 95051 in the am0~nt of $3'469.00 for the EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95051 Fl/ND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION MINI GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1155051050350000 1155051050600100 REVENUE 2155024000240425 Item 5.1(c) . PRINTING & BINDING OFFICE SUPPLIES TOTAL DESCRIPTION CATEGORICAL AID-STATE TOTAL Appropriations for Year End Adjustments. AMOUNT $3,091.00 378.00 $3,469.00 AMOUNT $3,469.00 $3,469.00 Duplication Fund - A number of years ago the County established a reserve fund to monitor the usage and cost of operating the various duplicat- ing equipment. This fund was also intended to accumulate surplus funds to replace equipment as needed. All expenses related to duplication are charged in this fund and individual departments/activities are charged based on their usage. This fund has been expanded in recent years to include the use of fax machines. This fund, as of June 30, 1995, had a surplus balance of $60,764.92. In previous years the auditors have merged this activity with the General Fund for reporting purposes, however, due to a change in accounting standards they now feel it should be reported as a separate activity and budgeted accordingly. Attached Appropriation #940075 details, for your approval, the FY 1994/95 activity and Appropriation #95053 will establish the budget for FY 1995/96. E911 Fund - Due to the restrictions related to the use of the E911 service charge, a reserve fund was created at the time the County began collecting the fee. All revenues collected (service charge and interest) are deposited in this fund. Transfers are made to the Capital Improvement Fund where actual expenditures are incurred, as needed. This fund, as of June 30, 1995, had a balance of $1,695,665.71 of which $1,234,330.81 is currently appropriated in the Capital Improvement Fund for expenditure in FY 1995/96. The auditor feels the reserve fund should also be budgeted primarily to recognize the total revenue received, not just the portion being expended. Attached Appropriation #940076 details activity from FY 1994/95 and Appropriation #95054 will establish the budget for FY 1995/96. Health and Welfare Grant (United Way Scholarship Program) - Due to the complicated funding formula this program is normally not submitted for your approval until year end when the actual amounts are known. Appropriation #940077 details FY 1994/95 activity for your approval. Based on the auditor's recommendation, a budget has already been approved for FY 1995/96. Summer Feeding Program - This program was new for FY 1994/95. It was initiated in June of 1995 based on the request of the Charlottesville Public Schools that Albemarle prepare school lunch for their summer school. Albe- marle Food Services agreed to do this on a fee basis. Appropriation #940078 details the FY 1994/95 activity for your approval. A budget for FY 1995/96 is currently being reviewed by school staff and will be provided in the near future. Educational - The Educational Assessment Program had an unexpended balance of $2,465.64 from FY 1993/94 which was not reappropriated in FY Results of the FY 1994/95 audit revealed several activities which require year-end adjustments and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Original or supplemental appropriations are required for the following: February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Me,ting) (Page 4) 1994/95. This balance was, however, expended in FY 1994/95. %940085 will approve the expenditure of these funds. OOO0?2 Appropriation Visitor Center Fund - This fund was established to track the activity related to the purchase of the Visitor's Center. This property is leased to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. Their lease payments are made directly to the bank who, in turn, applies it to the loan on this property. Appropriation %940079 details the FY 1994/95 activity for your approval and Appropriation %95055 provides a budget for FY 1995/96. Comprehensive Services - Expenditures for this program exceeded the appropriation by $14,181.90 for FY 1994/95 which can be funded from the Comprehensive Services Fund balance. Appropriation %940080 details the supplemental appropriation for your approval. Migrant Education - Expenditures for this program exceeded the appropriation by $12,298.13 for FY 1994/95 which can be funded from program revenues. Appropriation #940081 details the supplemental appropriation for your approval. ED Program - Expenditures for this program exceeded the appropriation by $11,676.50 for FY 1994/95 which can be funded from program revenues. Appropriation %940082 details the supplemental appropriation for your approval. AHS Food Services Expenditures for this program exceeded the appropriation by $28,088.53 for FY 1994/95 which can be funded from program revenues. Appropriation %940083 details the supplemental appropriation for your approval. PAL Grant - Expenditures for this program exceeded the appropriation by $322.27 for FY 1994/95 which can be funded from program revenues. Appropriation #940084 details the supplemental appropriation for your approval. Staff recommends approval of the appropriations as described above. By the recorded vote set out above, the following fourteen resolutions of appropriation were adopted: Duplication Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form #940075), $218,241.14; APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940075 FUND: DUPLICATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FISCAL YEAR FY 94-95 OPERATIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1191010010331604 1191010020601700 1191010021800720 1191010030601700 1191010035601700 1191010036601700 1191010040601700 1191010041601700 1191010042601700 1191010043800720 1191010044800720 1191010045800720 1191010046601700 1191010050800720 1191010051800720 1191010052601700 1191010060601700 1191010070601700 1191010071601700 1191010073800720 1191010080601700 1191010081800720 DESCRIPTION COPY CENTER XEROX 5100 XEROX 1090 A B DICK 1 A B DICK 9 XEROX 2515 XEROX CTY FIRE/RESCUE REGISTRAR PARKS-CANON GEN DIST CT SHERIFF CNTY ATTORNEY XEROX 5028 ACCOUNTING PURCHASING STAFF SERVICES POLICE POLICE POLICE MINOLTA EP SOCIAL SERVICES AMOUNT $2,110.23 96,604.77 20,539.49 952.80 33,665.42 1,346.60 2,550.31 105.78 529.15 2,939.45 5,236.27 3,499.35 174.51 6,787.52 1,301.28 486.20 179.54 2,167.33 621.06 4,875.00 2,216.92 3,652.11 February (Page 5) 14, 1996 (Regular Night M~ting) 00007 3 1191010090601700 1191020010800720 1191020011601700 1191020040800720 1191020045601700 1191020050800720 1191020070601700 1191020080601700 1191020090800720 1191020100601700 1191020103800723 1191020110601700 1191020120332100 REVENUE 2191010020161811 2191010021161811 2191010030161811 2191010035161811 2191010036161811 2191010040161811 2191010041161811 2191010042161811 2191010043161811 2191010044161811 2191010046161811 2191010050161811 2191010051161811 2191010052161811 2191010060161811 2191010070161811 2191010071161811 2191010072161811 2191010073161811 2191010080161811 2191010081161811 2191010090161811 2191020010161811 2191020040161811 2191020045161811 219102005016~811 2191020070161811 2191020080161811 2191020090161811 2191020100161811 2191020101161811 2191020102161811 2191020110161811 2191020120161811 2191020124161811 2191051000510100 INSPECTION PERSONNEL SUPPORT SERVICES PLANNING ENGINEERING REAL ESTATE HOUSING ZONING INFORMATION SERVICES FAX MACHINE REGISTRAR FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE TOTAL DESCRIPTION XEROX 5100 XEROX 1090 A B DICK A B DICK 93 XEROX 2515 XEROX CTY FIRE/RESCUE REGISTRAR PARKS-CANON GEN DIST CT CNTY ATTORNEY XEROX 5028 ACCOUNTING PURCHASING STAFF SERVICES POLICE POLICE POLICE POLICE MINOLTA EP SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTION PERSONNEL PLANNING ENGINEERING REAL ESTATE HOUSING ZONING INFORMATION SERVICES FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE ENGINEERING-FAX FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE HUMAN RESOURCES DUPLICATION FUND BALANCE TOTAL 143.48 8,499.44 169.26 6,665.48 460.41 3,054.18 370.16 723 33 4,092 49 442 42 694 98 377 95 6 47 ,241 14 $218 AMOUNT $63,802 65 13,684 89 150 00 4,983 14 746 80 2,341 08 439 08 326 40 551 97 62 97 346 71 3,211 32 886 26 322 29 199 71 4,191 78 310 26 261 66 302 49 3,626 10 608 82 765 99 5,127 00 3,263.02 1,186.50 3,127.99 528.81 1,123.38 434.46 2,418.15 1,261.05 3,055.85 3,440.50 2,303.70 112 . 70 58,835.66 $218,241.14 Duplication Fund for FY 1995-96 (Form APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 NUMBER: 95053 FUND: DUPLICATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FISCAL YEAR EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1191010010601700 1191010020601700 1191010021601700 1191010030601700 1191010035601700 1191010036601700 1191010040601700 DESCRIPTION COPY CENTER XEROX 5100 XEROX 1090 A B DICK 1 A B DICK 9 XEROX 2515 XEROX CTY %95053), $232,900.00; FY 1995-96 BUDGET AMOUNT $2,200.00 98,000.00 21,000.00 1,000.00 34,000.00 1,400.00 2,700.00 0000?4 February 14, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (Page 6) 1191010041601700 1191010042601700 1191010043601700 1191010044601700 1/191010045601700 1191010046601700 1191010050601700 1191010051601700 1191010052601700 1191010060601700 1191010070601700 1191010071601700 1191010072601700 1191010073601700 1191010080601700 1191010081601700 1191010090601700 1191020010601700 1191020011601700 1191020040601700 1191020045601700 1191020050601700 1191020070601700 1191020080601700 1191020090601700 1191020100601700 1191020101601700 1191020102601700 1191020103601700 1191020110601700 1191020120601700 1191020124601700 REVEN!JE 2191010100161811 2191010020161811 2191010021161811 2191010030161811 2191010035161811 2191010036161811 2191010040161811 2191010041161811 219101.0042161811 2191010043161811 2191010044161811 2191010045161811 2191010046161811 2191010050161811 2191010051161811 2191010052161811 2191010060161811 2191010070161811 2191010071161811 2191010072161811 2191010073161811 2191010080161811 2191010081161811 2191010090161811 2191020010161811 2191020011161811 2191020040161811 2191020045161811 2191020050161811 2191020070161811 2191020080161811 2191020090161811 2191020100161811 2191020101161811 2191020102161811 2191020103161811 2191020110161811 2191020120161811 FIRE/RESCUE REGISTRAR PARKS-CANON GEN DIST CT SHERIFF CNTY ATTORNEY XEROX 5028 ACCOUNTING PURCHASING STAFF SERVICES POLICE POLICE POLICE POLICE MINOLTA EP SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTION PERSONNEL SUPPORT SERVICES PLANNING ENGINEERING REAL ESTATE HOUSING ZONING INFORMATION SERVICES FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE REGISTRAR FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE HUMAN RESOURCES TOTAL DESCRIPTION COPY CENTER XEROX 5100 XEROX 1090 A B DICK 1 A B DICK 9 XEROX 2515 XEROX CTY FIRE/RESCUE REGISTRAR PARKS-CANON GEN DIST CT SHERIFF CNTY ATTORNEY XEROX 5028 ACCOUNTING PURCHASING STAFF SERVICES POLICE POLICE POLICE POLICE MINOLTA EP SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTION PERSONNEL SUPPORT SERVICES PLANNING ENGINEERING REAL ESTATE HOUSING ZONING INFORMATION SERVICES FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE ENGINEERING-FAX REGISTRAR-FAX FAX MACHINE FAX MACHINE 500 00 1,000 00 3,300 00 5,500 00 3,700 00 500 00 7,000 00 1,500 00 600 00 500 00 2,500 00 1,000 00 1,000 00 5,500 00 2,500 00 4,000 00 500 00 9,000 00 500 00 7,0O0 00 700 00 3,500 00 700 00 1,000 00 4,500 00 1,000 00 500 00 500 00 1,000 00 600 00 500.00 500.00 $232,900.00 AMOUNT $2,2oo.0o 98 000.00 21 000.00 1 000.00 34 000.00 1,400.00 2 700. O0 500.00 1,000.00 3,300.00 5,500.00 3,700.00 500.00 7,000.00 1,500.00 600.00 500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 5,500.00 2,500.00 4,000.00 500.00 9,000.00 500.00 7,000.00 700.00 3,500.00 700.00 1,000.00 4,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 1,000.00 600.00 500.00 February 14, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (Page 7) 2191020124161811 HUMAN RESOURCES TOTAL 000075 500.00 $232,900.00 Appropriation: E-911 Reserve Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form #940076), $232,161.68; APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940076 FUND: E911 RESERVE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 OPER3~TIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1410193010930000 E911-TRANSFER TO CIP TOTAL AMOUNT $232,161.68 $232,161.68 REVENUE 2410112000120605 DESCRIPTION TELEPHONE SERVICE CHARGE TOTAL AMOUNT $232,161.68 $232,161.68 E-911 Reserve Fund for FY 1995-96 (Form #95054), $1,234,330.81; APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95054 FUND: E911-RESERVE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1410193010930000 E911-TRANSFER TO CIP TOTAL AMOUNT $1,234 , 330 . 81 $1,234,330.81 REVENUE 2410112000120605 2410115000150101 2410151000510100 DESCRIPTION TELEPHONE SERVICE CHARGE INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $600,000.00 60,000.00 574,330.81 $1,234,330.81 United Way Program Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form #940077), $232,885.12; APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 N-JMBER: 940077 FUND: UNITED WAY PROGRAM PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 OPERATIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1155053110390055 ADMIN FEE TO ALB CO 1155053110390056 ADMIN FEE TO UNITED WAY 1155053110567910 DAY CARE GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $3,072.53 19,844.47 209,968.12 $232,885.12 REVENUE 2155033501160502 2155033501160503 2155033501330014 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE HHS PASS THRU GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $67,058.00 31,200.00 134,627.12 $232,885.12 Appropriation: Summer Feeding Program Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form #940078), $4,662.46. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000076 NUMBER: 940078 FUND: SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 OPERATIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1300263105301210 CONTRACT SERVICES 1300263105600000 MATERIAL & SUPPLIES 1300263105600200 FOOD SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $334.80 934.65 3,393.01 $4,662.46 REVENUE 2300216000161204 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CAFETERIA SALES $4,662.46 TOTAL $4,662.46 Appropriation: ED Assessment Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form #940085), $2,465.64. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940085 FUND: ED ASSESSMENT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OVER EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1311361311115000 SALARIES-OFFICE CLERICAL 1311361311160900 SALARY RESERVE 1311361311210000 FICA TOTAL AMOUNT 378.44 1,912 . 00 175.22 $2,465.64 REVENUE 2311351000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $2.465.64 TOTAL $2,465.64 Appropriation: Visitor Center Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form #940079), $67,734.48. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940079 FUND: VISITOR CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 OPERATIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1980072050910024 BANK LOAN 1980072050920024 INTEREST TOTAL AMOUNT $25,208.43 42,526.05 $67,734.48 REVENUE 2980015000150229 DESCRIPTION RENT-VISITOR CENTER TOTAL AMOUNT $67,734.48 $67,734.48 Appropriation: Visitor Center Fund for FY 1995-96 (Form #95055), $67,734.48. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95055 FI/ND: VISITOR CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 BUDGET EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 000077 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 1980072050910024 1980072050920024 BANK LOAN $26,000.00 INTEREST 41,734.48 TOTAL $67,734.48 REVENUE 2980015000150229 DESCRIPTION RENT-VISITOR CENTER TOTAL .AMOUNT $67, 734.48 $67,734.48 Appropriation: Comprehensive Services Act Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form ~940080), $14,181.90. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940080 FUND: CSA PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT OVER EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1155153120571212 CSA-RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE MANDATE TOTAL AMOUNT $14,181.90 $14,181.90 REVENUE 2155151000510100 DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $14,181.90 $14,181.9o Appropriation: Migrant Education Fund for FY 1994-95 $12,298.13. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940081 FUND: MIGRANT EDUCATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 MIGRANT EDUCATION OVER EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1310361101112100 SALARIES-TEACHER TOTAL REVENI/E 2310333000330102 DESCRIPTION MIGRANT EDUC-FEDERAL TOTAL (Form #940081) AMOUNT $12,298.13 $12,298.13 AMOUNT $12,298.13 $12,298.13 Appropriation: ED Program Fund for FY 1994-95 $11,676.50. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 N-UMBER: 940082 FUND: ED PROGRAM PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 ED PROGRAM OVER EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1320261102112100 SALARIES-TEACHER TOTAL REVENUE 2320218000189906 DESCRIPTION ED PROGRAM TOTAL (Form #940082), AMOUNT $11,676.50 $11,676.50 AMOUNT $11,676.50 $11,676.50 February 14, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (Page 10) 000078 Appropriation: AHS Food Services Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form #940083), $28,088.53; APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940083 FUND: AIRS FOOD SERVICES PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 FOOD SERVICES OVER EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1300160301600200 FOOD SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $28,088.53 $28,088.53 REVENI/E 2300160301161204 2300160301161226 DESCRIPTION CAFETERIA SALES CATERING SALES TOTAL AMOIINT $18,476.74 $ 9,611.79 $28,088.53 Appropriation: Pal Grant Fund for FY 1994-95 (Form ~940084), $322.27. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940084 FI/ND: PAL GRANT PIIRPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1994-95 PAL GRANT OVER EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1320361101601300 EDUC & REC SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $322.27 $322.27 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2320333000330208 PAL GRANT $322.27 TOTAL $322.27 Item 5.1(d) . Appropriation: Planning Department for FY 1995-96 (Form #95O58), $15,700.00. The FY 1994/95 budget included funding for a centralized filing system that would serve the development departments. Installation of the system was delayed when it was discovered that the weight of the selected system exceeded the load limits of the floor. Currently a system is being designed that will more evenly distribute the weight over the floor area. Due to an oversight, the funding for this project was not included in the annual reappropriation request. Total funding in FY 1994/95 was $16,000 of which $300 was expended for design work. This request is to reappropriate the remaining $15,700. Staff recommends approval of this request as detailed on Appropriation #95058 in the amount of $15,700. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95058 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT FILING SYSTEM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100081010800100 EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $15,700.00 $15,700.00 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) REVENIIE 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $15,700.00 $15,700.00 Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for December 12, 1995, received as information. Item 5.3. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the County of Albemarle for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995, received as information. It was noted in the staff's report that the 1994/95 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. The General Purpose Financial Statements and the Comparative Report Transmittal Forms were delivered to the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) by December 5, 1995 as required. Since that time, County and audit staff have worked to convert the County's audit from a General Purpose Financial Statement to a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The primary differences are the inclusion of a letter of transmittal which is a brief narrative report on the County's financial activities, several schedules on the County's fixed assets, and some minor changes in format. This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excel- lence in Financial Reporting. This award is coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six months. Government Accounting Standards Board - This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report reflects a change in reporting standards required by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 10. This Statement requires Public Entity Risk Pools to report Health Insurance Funds as Internal Service Funds. Component Unit - The County School System is required to be reported as a component unit and as such has a significant impact on the way information is reported when compared to previous years. Prior to the 1993/94 fiscal year, data on the Debt Service Fund and Capital Improvement Fund were reported in the financial statements inclusive of both general and school operations. These activities are now required to be segregated and reported as part of their respective operations. This is the second year of component unit reporting. General Fund - The General Fund experienced better than anticipated revenues as well as significant savings in various departmental budgets. General Fund revenues exceeded budget by $2.3 million. The primary sources of the additional revenues were: General Property Tax $1.3 million, Sales Tax $500 thousand, and Interest $800 thousand. General Fund experienced expenditure savings under budget of $780 thousand. The primary sources of savings were: Public Safety $149 thousand, Public Works (Landfill) $278 thousand, and Community Development $145 thousand. SCHOOL FUND - The School Fund revenues exceed budget by $153 thousand. The School Fund experienced expenditure savings under budget of $683 thousand. The primary sources of savings were: Executive Services $119 thousand, Building Services $128 thousand, and Self-Sustaining Funds $195 thousand. Fund Balance - The Fund Balance Report show balances at June 30, 1995 to be $14.8 million for the General Fund, $1.5 million for the School Fund, and $4.5 million for the Capital Improvements Fund. Staff recommends acceptance of the 1994/95 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as presented. Mr. Perkins requested that a formal presentation be made by the Auditors at the March 6 meeting of the Board. February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) ~. 0000s0 Item 5.4. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Charlottes- ville-Albemarle Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1995 (on file in Clerks office), received as information. Item 5.5. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1995 (on file in Clerks office), received as information. Item 5.6. November, 1995 County Financial Report, received as follows: Item 5.7. Letter dated January 19, 1996 from Julie L. Vosmik, Manager, Division of Survey & Register, Department of Historic Resources, to Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, re: Earlysville Union Church, Albemarle County, received as information. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on a request to grant a temporary easement to Jayel Industries, Inc., and John E. Campbell, developers of Lake Relrnovia, and to grant a permanent easement to the Albemarle County Service Authority for a waterline to be located in a right-of-way across County-owned property in the Lake Reynovia Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 6, 1996.) Mr. Tucker discussed the background of the County-owned property located between Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek where a connector road was once intended. He said the County took possession of this property for use as an emergency access way. He noted the developers of Lake Reynovia desire to place an eight inch waterline across this property, but they did not reserve an easement for this purpose when it was dedicated to the County, although the location has been approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. Upon completion and acceptance of the waterline, it will be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. He explained that a public hearing is required prior to the Board granting this easement. The staff is recommending that the Supervisors authorize the County Executive to execute a temporary waterline construction easement for Jayel Industries, Inc. and John E. Campbell, the developers of Lake Reynovia, and a permanent waterline easement for the Albemarle County Service Authority for an eight inch waterline. This public hearing is being held to hear any comments regarding this easement. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing, but no one came forward to speak. Mrs. Humphris then closed the public hearing. Motion by Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to authorize the County Executive to execute a temporary waterline construction easement for Jayel Industries, Inc. and John E. Campbell, the developers of Lake Reynovia, and to authorize the County Executive to execute a permanent waterline easement for the Albemarle County Service Authority for an eight-inch waterline. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on FY 1996-97/2000-01 Capital Improvement Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.) Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, gave a brief overview of the handout which was given to the Board members and also made available to the public. She noted that the total CIP projects for the five year period total approximately $80,000,000 which amounts to $69,000,000 for the school system's CIP fund and $10,600,000 for General Government's CIP fund. The school division's projects represent approximately 86 percent of the total CIP budget. She called attention to the revenue portion of the handout which February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 0000 shows how the CIP budget will be funded. She stated that 95 percent of the revenues are coming from General Fund appropriations for General Government and the biggest revenue for the school system's CIP is 70 percent from VPSA bonds. She added that approximately 24 percent of the revenues is coming from split billing. Board members had no questions for Ms. White, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. She went on to explain the Board rules for the public hearing which allow individuals to speak for two minutes on an issue. She said representatives of an identifiable group will have four minutes to speak. She stated that Mr. Bowerman is the timekeeper for tonight's meeting so speakers will take their signals from him. Mr. Bob Mohler, President of the Charlottesville Youth Aquatics Club, stated that he lives at 832 Harris Road. His children have been involved in year around swimming for approximately five years, and he represents 88 County families and 30 City families. His team has approximately 180 swimmers and currently they swim at Smith's Pool, which is a City facility. The team can count on City sponsorship for its activities, as well as the YMCA's sponsorship. He would like to speak out in favor of the new pool included in the projects for the new high school. He understands the pool construction may be one of the last projects, and he suggested that the project be moved forward perhaps as early as 1997. He explained that his team knows the area has limited facilities for year around access. There are a number of clubs open during the summer, and swimming is very popular in the area. He said, though, a considerable fraction of the summer swimmers would also like to swim during the winter months. Everyone agrees that swimming is a very wholesome sport, and it should be supported. The population in Albemarle County is increasing, but there is some perspective for the future that certain private pools and, even a large University of Virginia pool, may close down. The demand is already exceeding the supply, and the future needs to be considered. He asked that some balance be established between the sports when a new school is built. He noted that there will be a football field, a soccer field and a basketball court, which he feels should be supported but, comparatively speaking, they are favored over swimming. He said the very fact that County children are swimming at a City pool indicates the County has not matched the City in this progressive thinking. Pool space is already lacking. There would be more swimmers in the water, if they could be better accommodated. He then requested that some consideration be done in regard to moving forward with construction of the pool at the new high school. No one else came forward to speak, so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. She pointed out that the Board would not be making a decision tonight, but it would be a good time for members to ask questions of the staff members. Mrs. Thomas called attention to Page 29 of the CIP relating to the Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade. She said the project is being moved back to the year 2000, but it indicates that if the project is not funded, County police will not be able to function safely and effectively. She stated that this wording sounds very important to her. Ms. White responded that this timing is at the Police Department's request. She said it involves phasing in the project with the State's NCIC system. Next, Mrs. Thomas referred to Page 40 of the CIP involving the Route 29 North landscaping project which is being moved back a year. She said there is a lot of interest in the community about this project, and she wondered if it was simply not going to be ready before then. Mr. Tucker answered that the County's funding needs are not required as early as originally planned. He said the County officials requested the state to fund any carryover money for landscaping and lighting, and there was quite a bit of money available for landscaping which was not needed for actual construction in other areas. He stated that the North Charlottesville Business Council will also be funding part of this project through some in-kind services and actual plant material. Mrs. Thomas said she was just making certain the project had not been delayed, and the delay related only to when the County's portion of the funding would be needed. Mr. Tucker replied that he knows of no reason the project has been delayed. Mrs. Thomas then mentioned the Parks and Recreation Department's improvement at Walnut Creek Park. She said the community is very much behind this project, and she called attention to the Cove Garden Ruritans' offer to provide labor to renovate the old house located there. She noted that the February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 000082 project is not taking place for a number of years, and she requested that everything possible be done to keep moving the project forward. A lot of people are interested in it and would appreciate the completion of the project. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the Planning Commission questioned the County Land Athletic Field Study. She thinks the Study is needed earlier than 2001, and she thinks it needs to be done in-house, if at all possible. She referred to the amount of calls she has gotten on this subject during the last year, and said there is a tremendous need for athletic fields. She believes it is too long to wait for such a survey when it relates to something that is in fact already in need. No other Board member had any comments or questions. Mrs. Humphris said the Supervisors would deal with the CIP, as far as approval is concerned, at the time they are considering the Operating Budget. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, Section 2.1-4, subsection (n) Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District, by recreating the district for an additional seven years. ADOPTED the attached ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that there has been a request for reapproval of the Ivy Agricultural/Forestal District originally approved in November of 1988 for a period of seven years. The district actually expired on November 2, 1995, but it could be reauthorized and reapproved by this Board's action. He noted one withdrawal from the district during the seven year period, which occurred in April of 1993. He pointed out that the original Ivy Creek District contained 579 acres and 18 parcels, and this request is for 495 acres and 16 parcels. He said the Planning Commission, staff and Advisory Council have all recommended reapproval of this district. Mr. Davis advised that there is a revised ordinance in front of the Board members which provides that the district shall be reviewed no later than seven years from February 14, 1996. He said this date is different from the information included in the Board members' packets, and the ordinance in front of the Supervisors is the one they need to consider. There were no questions or comments from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris immediately closed the public hearing since there was no one present who wished to speak. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Section 2.1.4, Districts Described, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Marshall. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1.4(n), Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (n) The district known as the "Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties; Tax map 44, parcels 20, 20A, 20B, 20C, 000083 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 20D, 20E, 20F, 20G, 21, 21D, 35, 35A; tax map 45, parcels 3C, 5F, 5F4, 7A. This district shall be reviewed no more than seven (7) years from February 14, 1996. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-95-38. Ruth & Russell Shifflett. Public Hearing on a request to locate bridge across Doyles River within the flood plain of river on E sd of Rt 810 between Mount Fair & Browns Cove. TM15,P12. White Hall Dist. This property is not located in a designated growth area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.)) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a permanent part of the records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 12, 1995, unanimously recom- mended approval of SP-95-38, subject to six conditions. Mrs. Humphris referred to the top paragraph of Page Two of the staff report relating to a recommendation by staff that access easements for Parcel 28A and Parcel 13A be made a condition of approval for this bridge and, similarly, future divisions of the subject parcel should be required to use this crossing for access to Route 810. She said Condition Number Six states that all future divisions of Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, shall use this stream crossing for access to Route 810, but she pointed out that Parcels 28A and 13A were not mentioned in this condition. Mr. Cilimberg responded that after writing the staff report and taking the matter to the Planning Commission it was found that legally such a condition for access to adjacent properties could not be required. It can be required for any further division of this property. Mrs. Thomas asked if the adverse impact situation will be handled by the Engineering Department. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. The Shiffletts were present but did not wish to speak. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-95-38 subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final bridge plans and details. The plans must include grading plans for the road and abutments in the flood plain with details of culverts through the embankment. Bridge plans must be sealed and signed by a profes- sional engineer; 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic, hydraulic and structural computations prepared by a professional engineer. Computations shall include an analysis of the impacts to the one hundred year flood plain; 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan if the disturbance is more than 10,000 square feet; 4. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wet- lands and watercourses. This will involve a Joint Permit Applica- tion through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; - 5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment; 6. All future divisions of Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, shall use this stream crossing for access to Route 810. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 000084 AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-95-43. Claudius Crozet Park. Public Hearing on a request to relocate existing pool & construct addt'l recreational facilities on 22.4 ac zoned RA known as Claudius Crozet Park. TM56A2,Sec 1,P's72&72A. White Hall Dist. This site is recommended for public/semi-public use in the Community of Crozet. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 12, 1995, unanimously recom- mended approval of SP-95-43 subject to six conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said at the Planning Commission there was concern expressed about the open-ended nature for uses under Condition #1 in the staff's report. The wording of that condition was changed by the Commission to read: "The use of the property shall be limited to the new pool complex, new parking and new walking trails, in addition to the uses which presently exist." Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Board also take action on one other item in addition to the special use permit. There is a property line which runs through the existing pool. Because of the way the building permit regulations and the Zoning Ordinance apply, that creates complications that would require unnecessary construction. After consulting with the County Attorney and with the Parks and Recreation Department, they have determined that the best way to avoid any of those complications would be to do a property line alteration that would go around the pool. That can be handled administratively, but staff asks that the Board take action to authorize staff to vary the section regarding setback from adjacent residential areas to accommodate the proposed pool under the require- ments of the Building Code. Mr. Cilimberg said this petition will come under the application of the mandatory connection changes to the ordinance recently made. It has been determined that the new pool house and the existing community building would be hooked to public sewer; the existing pool house septic system which will still exist on the site will be refit to allow it to be used for recreational vehicles (a dump station for the occasional recreational vehicle). This matter should also be considered as part of this approval. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the decibel level of 40 as stated in Condi- tion ~5 is extremely low. It is not much louder than a whisper. He suggested that it be changed to 65 or 70. Mr. Cilimberg said this number was used because it is the number shown in the supplementary regulations at this time. Mrs. Humphris wondered how the Supervisors will know the appropriate noise level. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he is unsure if he has any advice on this matter. The noise regulation has been at the heart of some of the discussions the Supervisors have had, and the Zoning Department staff members have been working with this issue. The staff did not do an analysis of an alternative decibel level. Mrs. Humphris recalled some letters of complaint from neighbors about a concert held at this park recently. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this was an event activity the staff felt could be addressed through the conditions. This has not existed under any special use permit previously, so the condition regarding noise would be one way to address this issue. He reiterated, though, that he cannot comment on the noise level of 40 decibels versus 60 decibels. Mrs. Thomas asked if there was any type of comparison which could be used as far as the noise levels are concerned. Mr. Martin inquired if a comparison could be made between this project and the noise level allowed at the tent at Boar's Head. He recalled that the maximum level at the Boar's Head tent is 45 decibels. Mr. Tucker suggested the staff look through the ordinance for this information while the public hearing is taking place. Mrs. Humphris agreed to Mr. Tucker's suggestion and immediately opened the public hearing on SP-95-43. Mr. David Anhold, President of the Claudius Crozet Park Board, said the project is making progress, which is due to a large part to the Board of SuPervisors' financial, as well as its overall support of the Crozet Park. 000085 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) He wanted to publicly thank the Supervisors for this support. The Park Board voted this past week to go into debt to get the final funding for the project. He noted that the pieces are starting to fall into place, and if things go fairly smoothly and details can be worked out with the County staff, as well as the VDoT staff, it is hoped construction can begin either the middle or end _ of March. He hopes the pool will be open by the end of May or the middle of June at the latest. The Park Board members are very excited to be moving ahead to this new facility. He handed out a copy of the preliminary plan for the pool showing how the project is being pulled together, and he noted the tot pool, as well as the fountain on the plan. The project is being oriented toward families and children, and he thinks it will be a topnotch facility. He said the Park Board is currently in the process of going through the final engineering and architectural stages. He would be glad to answer any questions. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Anhold had anything to offer concerning the decibel level question. Mr. Anhold concurred with Mr. Perkins' comments. It seemed to him that the decibel level is low, although he knows there have been some complaints from neighbors about the Country Music Festival. He noted that this event is actually brought in by the local Mental Health Association, and the event is not run by the Park Board. The Park is rented to the Mental Health Association for this event, and it is one of the Association's biggest sources of funding. He mentioned other events held at the Park such as the Indian Pow Wow which has been very popular over the last couple of years, as well as use of the Park for a week by the local Fire Department during the summer for its carnival which is one of its primary sources of fund raising. His concern is that if the decibel level is set too low, it may cause a problem for other people who use the Park for fund raising purposes. He would hate for the decibel level to be set so low that the people for the organizations he mentioned would have to be told that they can't use the Park, because of the noise. Mrs. Humphris inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak relative to the Claudius Crozet Pool project. No one else came forward. Mr. Perkins pointed out that there were a number of people in the room who were members of the Park Board. Mrs. Humphris asked the people, to which Mr. Perkins referred, to raise their hands. She thanked them for coming. Mr. Tucker informed the Board that the staff had no luck finding any examples of those types of uses and noise levels and how they would compare to an actual decibel reading. He said it is not specifically spelled out in the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. He went on to say that since there are no other problems with the conditions, it might be better to defer this matter until next week's Board meeting, rather than setting an inaccurate noise level. He said by that time, the staff can suggest a proper decibel level. Mr. Bowerman asked if this matter could be put on the Consent Agenda for next week. Mr. Tucker replied that it could be put on the Consent Agenda, unless the Board members want to discuss it at some length. He thinks the staff has a sense of what the Supervisors are looking for, and he thinks the staff can use some judgment as to the decibel level. He agreed with Mr. Perkins' earlier suggestion of a 60 to 65 decibels level, which he believes will probably be appropriate. Mrs. Thomas wondered if this is the decibel level suggested for the Putt-Putt project. Mr. Martin recalled that the Putt-Putt project had a 65 decibel level at the property line. Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks it is appropriate for the matter to be put on the Consent Agenda rather than having a formal hearing on it again. Mrs. Humphris inquired how this item would be handled legally on the Consent Agenda, since a roll call vote has to be taken on special use permits. Mr. Tucker responded that approving the Consent Agenda, with this item included, will be sufficient. Mr. Bowerman asked if there should be a Condition Number Seven with the wording suggested by Mr. Cilimberg relative to authorization by staff concerning setback restrictions. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this can actually be a separate action. He said it does not need to be a condition. February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Martin mentioned that it would be helpful to inform the Crozet residents whether or not there is general approval among the Supervisors of this special use permit, and the only thing being considered later is the noise decibel level. Mr. Bowerman stated that this is the reason he suggested the matter be put on the Consent Agenda, This will be sufficient unless there is a problem arising at that time with the decibel level. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer this petition to February 21, 1996, so that an appropriate decibel level can be placed in Condition #5, and also that a condition #7 as recommended by Mr. Cilimberg can also be inserted. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Mr. Perkins said he would also like for the County Attorney to look into donating the fees to the Park Board for site plan review. He said the County is providing money for the Crozet Park in its CIP, so he believes the County will pay the fees one way or the other. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Supervisors could be getting into a difficult situation by donating these fees. Mr. Perkins pointed out that the Park Board is a public, nonprofit group. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he has no problem with the County Attorney examining the matter, but he suggested that there will be a lot of difficulties. Mr. Davis noted that the Park Board is one of many organizations which would qualify for a donation from the County. He stated that it falls into a class where the County could legally make a donation to it, so the decision is whether or not the Board wishes to do so. He went on to say the County is prohibited from giving donations to churches and religious societies, but the other nonprofit corporations are generally eligible for County donations. Mrs. Humphris commented that if the Supervisors make this commitment to the Park Board, they will probably be asked to do the same thing for the JABA Board and other organizations which are also in the process of building. Mr. Davis responded that there could be hundreds of organizations which would be eligible for donations. Mr. Martin stated that the first people who came to this Board with such a request basically had no operating budget, and they represented a nonprofit organization. He mentioned the Park Board's operating budget, and he said this is a different situation. Mr. Perkins again requested Mr. Davis to consider the matter and come back to this Board with specifics of the law. He said the Supervisors can take action after that. Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-95-18. Lloyd Wood. Public Hearing on a re- quest to rezone approx 5.5 ac from C-1 to HC on N sd of Rio Rd N of & adjacent to existing Putt-Putt miniature golf course. Site is recommended for Communi- ty Service in Neighborhood 2 by Comprehensive Plan. TM61,P124E(part of). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a permanent part of the records of the Board. He noted that the final proffers had just been received tonight, so he had not had time to review them in detail. He remarked that these proffers address the questions and issues raised at the Planning Commission Meeting regarding the relationship of this use to adjacent property, and he noted that he has a signed copy for the file. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the applicant was present for this hearing. Mr. Cilimberg replied that Mr. Wood knows the public hearing is being held tonight. He added that Mr. Wood, in fact~ brought the proffers in to the office today. February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~7 (Page 19) A gentleman from the audience announced that he could answer the Board members' questions. Mr. Bowerman asked if this gentleman was representing the applicant. The gentleman responded that he is representing the contract purchaser. He said Mr. Wood knows about this hearing, and he will be here. _ Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Cilimberg could continue his presentation while waiting for Mr. Wood. Mr. Cilimberg continued with the staff report, and he mentioned that there is a total of five proffers. He said the proffers address only the matters before the Planning Commission and the things expected to be rectified by the time this application got to the Board. He went on to describe the proffers. He stated that the Commission has recommended, that with these proffers, the application can be approved. Mrs. Humphris inquired if there is any regulation or policy about when proffers need to be delivered to the Board of Supervisors before they can be considered. She is finding it increasingly difficult when the Supervisors get these very complex things at the last minute. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the proffer has to be signed, before this Board can take action. Mr. Davis stated that the law requires that a proffer be delivered in writing prior to the public hearing. He said many jurisdiction officials establish guidelines as to when 5hey want to receive proffers so they can be properly reviewed. Usually, in such cases, the Board proceeds with the public hearing and then defers action on the petition in order to consider the proffers. He said Albemarle County officials have not established such guidelines here. Mrs. Thomas asked if this could be done tonight. Mr. Davis answered affirmatively. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the first form of this proffer came in late last week and was provided to the County Attorney's Office. He noted that it has been back and forth for a couple of changes between the County staff and the applicant, and this form of the proffer was unavailable until this afternoon. He stated that the original form provided earlier was very similar to this one, but the staff had some suggested changes that the applicant had to undertake. Mrs. Humphris referred to the changes in the by-right allowances, and she wondered if they were done at Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the staff went over with the applicant those uses consistent with C-1 zoning in addition to the mini-warehousing. These were uses identified by the County staff with the applicant, but it was the applicant's choice as to what was actually proffered. This list of uses is the same as was listed in the staff report. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that she had found some differences when she examined the material. She said at least one use was added and at least two were deleted. She stated that this makes it a little confusing. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff asked the applicant not to include Use Number Seven relating to convenience stores, because of the potential for traffic associated with this use. He said the staff felt convenience stores are more of a highway oriented use, and it was not as appropriate for an internal location. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that Use Number Sixteen, pertaining to food and grocery stores, is missing from the proffer in the original request. Mr. Davis said the funeral homes use was added in its place. Mrs. Thomas inquired if everything on the list is what will continue to be considered as appropriate for the property. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." ~ He said, as an example, the modular building sales has been included, but it has actually been taking place on this property for some time. Mr. Bowerman commented that, if the light warehousing use is not - considered, there are fewer uses left, than are included with C-1 zoning. He said this proposal is more restrictive with the exception of the light warehousing use. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that this is a fair statement. There were no further questions from Board members for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing on ZMA-95-18. She inquired if Mr. Wood was present. wanted to speak. He was not. She then asked if members of the public February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 0000 $ NO one came forward. Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing and announced that the Board would continue discussion on ZMA-95-18 following Item Number 13 on the Agenda. She then asked if Mr. Davis would examine restrictions on the receipt of proffers. She said the problem of proffers coming in just before meetings are held is happening regularly. Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Davis should at least have the opportunity to review proffers at his discretion prior to the meeting, so that he has ample time to make sure they are complete and in the proper form. Mr. Davis replied that his office had reviewed Mr. Wood's proffers in several generations. He said the problem is that revisions usually come in very late. He said, at the Planning Commission level, there is the chance to look at the proffers and make comments. This is where the slowing down starts, because the proffers do not come back in time for the staff to get them into the Board members' packets. If there are additional changes with the last review then they generally come back the day of the meeting and that causes this Board, as well as the staff, problems. Mr. Tucker explained that he believes the Board members are saying if this happens, they may hold the public hearing, since it has already been advertised, but they may not take action at that time. Mrs. Humphris stated that this Board may have to adopt a policy that it will not take action when this problem occurs. She said this allows the Supervisors a chance to ensure themselves, and it will also give Mr. Davis a chance to ensure the supervisors, that everything is in order. (The Board returned to this item after approval of minutes.) Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-95-20. C. Ray Beard. Public Hearing on a request to amend existing agreements of Briarwood PRD to allow construction of single-family attached units at end of St Ives Rd on N & S sds. TM32E,P2. Site recommended for low density residential (1-4 du/ac) in Village of Earlysville by Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a permanent part of the records of the Board. He said staff recommended denial of the application, but the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 12, 1995, unanimously recommended approval subject to the amended agreements. Mr. Cilimberg noted concerns by Camelot residents during the initial review of Briarwood regarding the potential of a change in the character of the area due to the development in Briarwood. The Commission members recommended this approval because of their interest in infill for development of residential areas and the fact that this particular request was to go to six attached units from four single family detached units. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the change needing to be clarified is that single family attached homes would be across the street from single family detached homes. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the parcel in question is part of the Camelot Subdivision or Briarwood Subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the parcel is part of the Briarwood Planned Residential Development, and it is not owned by the same owner as the rest of Briarwood. Mr. Bowerman clarified that the Camelot Subdivision did not include that particular parcel. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this parcel has been given a lot number which is not part of the Camelot section. He explained that the parcel is part of Lot Two, but there is also a Lot Two in the Camelot Subdivision. He does not know how the division originally occurred, but Mr. Beard had ownership in Camelot originally. He assumes this was additional property that was incorporated as part of Briarwood rather than the Camelot development. Mr. Bowerman next inquired as to when this additional property was incorporated. Mr. Tucker pointed out that Lot One is all of the vast uncolored area on the map. He said Lot Two is the rectangular shaped area. Mr. Cilimberg also noted the location of Lot 1-A. Mr. Bowerman asked if this was part of the proposal when Mr. Wood made his petition to build Briarwood. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes it was part of the Briarwood petition. Mr. Tucker added that if this section February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 000089 was part of a PRD, it would have to have been part of the original petition. He said Mr. Beard can explain how he was involved at the time this occurred. Mrs. Thomas mentioned the North Rivanna Filter Plant being located at the end of St. Ives Road, and she wondered if this is something that needs consideration. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the Filter Plant is located on Lot 1-A. This request has no effect on any access or use of the property for the Filter Plant. This plan will also continue to preserve the necessary access to this area for recreation in the future. He stated that the Briarwood PRD calls for this recreation area. Mr. Martin asked if the access to the particular units is through Camelot. However, in the future there could be access through Briarwood. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there will actually be a road which will connect in Briarwood, and this access will be aligned on the other side of that road to go into the recreational area. There were no further questions from the Board for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing for ZMA-95-20. Mr. Beard corrected Mr. Cilimberg's statement that there were going to be six attached houses. He said there would only be four attached, because there are already two single family detached homes there. Mr. Beard stated that he bought the property nine years ago, and it was part of the Briarwood Subdivision, originally. When Briarwood was zoned, the records stated that there could only be single family detached homes on Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road. He noted that when he purchased the property, County representatives were asking for a 25 foot right-of-way through the property. He indicated, though, that when he petitioned to have three additional single family detached homes in this area, the County representatives indicated that a 50 foot right-of-way was needed. He said that is when he decided on putting in four attached homes. He would be glad to answer questions. No one else wished to speak, so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve ZMA-95-20 with the following amended proffers as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Approval is for a maximum of 663 dwellings subject to condi- tions contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved. Primary recreation areas to be owned and maintained through a homeowners association approved by the County Attorney. Off street parking and access shall be limited to the rec- reation area designated on "Plan A" and the means to limit such access shall be part of the site plan review; No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in any area until final site plan and subdivision approval for that area has been obtained; Albemarle County Service Authority verification of adequate sewer capacity owned by Woodbriar Associates and allocated to serve the Briarwood development before approval of each phase; Ail road plan and entrance plan approval shall be obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision approval. All roads shall be designed and constructed to Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation specifications and dedicated for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System except the private roads shown on the Briarwood PRD Amended Application and Phasing Plan with a (PR) label; February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 000090 5o No grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or great- er except as is necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a buildable lot and/or added to common open space subject to Planning Commission approval; Fire Official approval of fire protection system including, but not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant locations, and emergency access provisions. Such system shall be provided prior to issuance-of any certificate of occupancy in the area to be served; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for water lines, sewer lines, pumping station, and manholes and appurtenances which are to be constructed at the expense of the developer; 8 o Staff approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase lB; the dedication of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5 for the passive recreational area which shall include con- struction of walking/jogging trails; and, the primary recre- ation area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its construction prior to final plat approval of Phase 4. This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase 4 and shall consist of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two basketball courts, playground equipment and picnic facilities. All recreation facilities shall be installed by the developer; Sidewalks shall be provided along the southern side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood Drive; 10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners' Association agreements prior to final approval of Phase lB or 3C to include provision for maintenance of private roads. Such maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowners in Phase lB and 3C respectively; 11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 12. No more than two phases with signed site plans or subdivi- sion plats shall be under simultaneous development. This phasing limitation shall not be interpreted as limiting the construction of infrastructure (roads, utilities, drainage, etc.). The development shall proceed in the following order: Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of Phase 7, iA, 6, 5, and 4. Phase lB may be developed following completion of Phase IA. Phase 8 shall not be subject to the phasing order. A phase shall be considered complete for purposes of satisfying phasing requirements when the following is com- plete: Ail public roads shown in the phase have been given final inspection of the Virginia Department of Trans- portation (VDOT) Charlottesville Residency. A com- plete assembly package has been submitted to the residency. The maintenance fee has been paid and the one-year VDOT performance bond has been posted; All private roads shown in the phase have been com- pleted to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and all road bonds have been released; Ail ~ecessary water and sewer lines shall have been installed and dedicated with the exception of individ- ual-connections; February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 000091 13. Lots along Camelot Drive are to be developed with single- family detached dwellings and shall have a minimum lots width of 65 feet. All other lots shall be developed with single-family attached units unless otherwise specified in condition #15; 14. Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat approval for Phase lA. Briarwood Drive shall be completed to its intersection with Route 29 prior to approval of Phase lB. The eastern portion of Briarwood Drive through the commercial area shall be designed to Category VI standards with a four-lane cross-section; 15. The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown on the Briarwood PRD Amended Application and Phasing Plan; 16. Site plan approvals for phases four and beyond shall be contingent upon evidence that dwelling units in the earlier phases have substantially met the County's goals and the developers' assurances that moderate income housing has been provided; 17. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8 along the front of townhouse units which constitute double frontage lots; 18. Administrative approval of future site plans and plats to be in accordance with the Briarwood PRD Amended Application and Phasing Plan provided no waivers or modifications of ordi- nance regulations are required; 19. Lots along St. Ives Road may be developed in accord with the attached plat by S. L. Key dated September 27, 1995. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing to receive comments on the concept and corridor alignment recommendations for the section of the Meadow Creek Parkway between Rio Road and Route 29 North. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and February 5, 1996.) Mrs. Humphris announced that the public hearing on the concept and corridor alignment recommendations for Meadow Creek Parkway would be handled as other public comments have been handled in the past when there are a number of people who wish to speak. She said each individual is allowed two minutes to speak and four minutes are allowed for the representative of a group. She stated that Mr. Bowerman would be the timekeeper. She mentioned that if representatives want people to raise their hands to indicate the size of the group they are representing, it would be appropriate when they are talking. She then asked how many people wished to speak at this public hearing, and 14 or 15 people responded. Ms. Mary Anne Kasevich, a resident of 1001 Dunlora Drive, stated that the point of this meeting is to study the concept of the Parkway, as well as its general corridor. She said, though, that concepts are built on details, and she would like to address a detail relating to alignment. The Dunlora community was developed under the auspices of this Board, and she believes it deserves the Board members' most serious consideration of the impact this particular alignment might have on Dunlora. She also brought with her 25 signed statements from families of Dunlora indicating they were unable to come to this meeting. Their comments indicate that if the concept of the Parkway is approved, they would support an alignment running along the railroad tracks west of Dunlora, but absolutely would not support an alignment running closer to the Dunlora property, which would negatively impact this rapidly growing community. She handed the statements to the Clerk of the Board. Mr. Scott Williams stated that he is President of the Dunlora Community Association, which is Dunlora's homeowners association. He said there are currently 97 families living in Dunlora, there are 20 homes under construction, and by the end of 1996 there will probably be 135 families located there. He noted that over the last two years, approximately 36 families are added each year. The ultimate build-out of the community is approximately 275, based on the plan. He believes he can say for certain, the February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 000092 residents of Dunlora do not support Plan B-2, which comes closer to the Dunlora entrance and property. He added that B-1 is the alignment running along the railroad track. If this Board moves forward with this project, the Dunlora community would support a B-1 alignment with the opinion that the intersection with the McIntire extension be moved closer to the railroad _ tracks and further from the Dunlora entrance. The way it was shown in the handout presented to the Planning Commission, Dunlora residents support shifting the alignment and the corridor further away from their community. It makes sense to have transportation areas in one place, and with the B-1 alignment, the Parkway would be close to the railroad tracks and concentrated into a single area. He said it lessens the impact on Dunlora and the undeveloped property around Dunlora. He next mentioned some criteria in a handout that the Board was going to present to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for study. He said there were five points of interest which were unevaluated, and he asked if any of these have been resolved. Mr. Cilimberg responded that these things have not yet been answered. Mr. Williams stated that there are nine points of interest or criteria, and based on what he has seen, only two of those can be answered affirmatively. If funding is going to be requested, he thinks these points should be answered first. He then asked if the North Fork Research Park was taken into consideration when the traffic analysis was done. Mr. Cilimberg answered, ~yes." Mr. Williams next commented that he thinks it is appropriate for the Supervisors to pursue the connection to Proffit Road. He said this makes sense, and it is good planning when future growth is considered. Dr. Ted Keats, a resident of 421 Key West Drive, spoke as a concerned citizen livinH on the Rivanna River Basin. His comments are more fundamental in nature, and he would like to raise four points about the whole concept. This proposal seems to him to be the nullification of the oriHinat concept of this road which was to provide an easy access from the developments to the north, such as Forest Lakes and Northfields, to the City. He said this proposal does not do that. The people there rejected that idea so it disappeared for awhile. He then asked what is this road for and whom does it serve. Secondly, Dr. Keats questioned the completed City portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway and the widening of Rio Road which seems to serve a similar purpose. He wondered if it would not have made good sense to wait and see what the impact of this completed road is before developing still another road. Thirdly, he asked if the cost of this road is justified by its proposed utilization. His figures suggest this is not so. He commented that this is an enormous amount of money which can be diverted from projects needed more desperately by the County. Next, Dr. Keats mentioned the impact of this construction on the neighborhoods to which it will go, as well as the environmental impact on the Rivanna River and the wetlands around it. Mrs. Pat Keats, a resident of 421 Key West Drive, displayed pictures, and indicated that the Supervisors had these pictures included in their packets. She noted that the Meadow Creek Parkway is not in her backyard, and the people who she is with are not an organized group, but they are connected by a geographic area which they call the Rivanna River Basin. She then displayed a map showing their joint area of concern. They are all property owners on the Basin, and the Rivanna River is pinched between Key West and Pen Park causing the shallow basin to fill very quickly. She recalled that on January 19, the river rose approximately one to two feet per hour until it was over its banks at noon. She stated that the fields in one of the pictures were completely covered by 2:30 p.m., and the speed and power of the river when this happens is truly awesome. She said this is not an unusual occurrence, and she has seen it happen so many times, she has stopped photographing it. These events are called, by the local people there, the annual 100 year floods. She referred to October of 1993 when the Planning Commission voted five to two against all alignments of the Meadow Creek Parkway which were under consideration at that time. The following February of 1994, the Board of Supervisors asked the Planning Commission to again review the Parkway. In May of 1995, Mrs. Keats said the Task Force was established to try to lower the cost and include additional access points at the affected properties along the corridor to determine the willingness of property owners to cooperate in the rights-of-way acquisition and/or the construction of the Parkway, and to complete the study in time by this spring to possibly go for funding. She mentioned that everything is already a month behind because of snow. She also stated that contacting property owners along the corridor was not done and only developers with vested interests were 000093 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) apparently approached. She called attention to the Executive Summary where it states, ~The primary purpose of the Meadow Creek Parkway will be to serve local commuting, shopping and recreational traffic. The Parkway will also serve through traffic although the Parkway is not being proposed as a bypass." She then quoted from Attachment B in the Board members' packets which stated, _ .~While the largest single benefit of this facility will be reduced traffic on Route 29 North, Meadow Creek Parkway is not being developed as a Route 29 bypass." She stated that by using the same rejected alignments from October of .1993, the Task Force has in fact just re-priced Alternate 10 of the bypass issue. She next referred to Number Four on the work sheets relating to the sPecific cost elements. Mr. Bowerman informed Mrs. Keats that she had a minute left to speak. Mrs. Keats stated her reluctance to stop speaking and indicated that she could not say everything she wanted to say in a minute. Mrs. Humphris asked if what Mrs. Keats wanted to say to the Supervisors was included the information she gave to them. Mrs. Keats answered affirmatively and asked if the Supervisors would have time to read the material before they acted on the issue. Mrs. Humphris assured Mrs. Keats that the Board members were not going to act on the matter tonight. She explained that this is a public hearing to get recommendations and input. She said that between the pictures, Mrs. Keats' information to the Board and the petitions, the Supervisors understand what she is trying to tell them. She stated that Mrs. Keats' information was beautifully done. Ms. Irene Soderquist remarked that she lives on the Rivanna River near the bend of the confluence of the north and south forks. In 1980, the Sverdrup Study included information based on site visits. She was personally involved in one of these visits that was conducted along the flood plain in the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway area. During flooding the river in the basin rises on the average of 20 to 25 feet above the normal level. She also conducted a dense clouds fog study, and over a three month period, she has observed heavy fog covering the river basin 70 out of 101 days. She explained that the condition would start around 5:00 p.m. and not let up until approximately 9:00 a.m. the following morning. When she gave this information i to the consultant, she was told this might indicate the need for elevated highways and airport runway lights. Her first thought was what a monster of a road this would be, as well as the cost. An additional cost might be the cleanup and repair or possible replacement of this road and these bridges after a flood. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, between 1934 and 1969, there were 36 floods in 35 years. The suggested elevated road and bridges over the wetlands are supposed to let the water flow freely. After every flood, there are mounds of debris left behind. She has personally observed a mountain of debris left on the field in the bend of the river about 15 feet above the water level. This pile of debris measured 100 by 100 feet wide and averaged between three to six feet in height or enough trash to cover a football field by a foot and a half with debris. Included in this debris was dozens of full trees, huge hay bales weighing about 1,000 pounds, farm equipment, lawn furniture, tires and a refrigerator. Mr. John Schwab said he has lived in Key West most of his life, and he has had the pleasure of fishing in the Rivanna River for years. He stated that fish have been rather abundant in the River, and he has caught as many as 20 to 30 fish per trip in the Key West Reservoir. Last summer he came to the river ten times, caught two bass and both were infested with parasites. He said the river is dead. There is no grass in the river, and the silt has built up two feet since the year before. He next mentioned the several articles in the Daily Progress about the suspected pollution, and he thinks the immediate problems should be solved before adding to them. Ms. Jan Schwab, a resident of Key West, remarked that she has two major concerns about the Meadow Creek Parkway. Her first concern relates to the concept because the road must justify itself. It must fill the purpose for which it was intended, and it must be financially feasible. The original Meadow Creek Parkway was connected to the Proffit Road at the northern end and to the City at the southern end. Now it is no longer a through road, nor is it connected to the Proffit Road. She commented that the residents of Forest Lakes and Hollymead do not seem to want it, and she wondered if its original purpose has been lost, since the road has gone through so many fundamental changes. She asked if the road is simply progressing on its own momentum such as a snowball rolling down a long, winding hill. Her second concern is ecological. The Highway Department officials agree there is temporary damage, but in the long run it is not permanent. She does not know if fish can be February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 000094 temporarily dead or how long temporary is, but she has a great deal of concern about the river basin. The Meadow Creek Parkway will be a four lane road plus a median strip, and there will be a very narrow strip between the railroad and the river. She referred to two front page articles which have appeared in the Daily Progress during the last six weeks. One was a state report and both discuss high levels of contamination such as unacceptable levels of nitrogen, nitrate, sulfate and cyanide in several areas of the Rivanna River. She stated that one of these areas borders Key West where she, her husband, their children and grandchildren have been swimming and fishing for 34 years. She said they are not scientists, but long before they read the articles they had noticed a deterioration in the water such as a peculiar foam bubbling up, an unattractive odor, far fewer fish and globs of something unidentifiable. She went on to say these things have continued, and the experts have not pinpointed the causes. She noted that apparently there will be a large expanse of bridge on this road. Far too frequentl~ in this very rich country, prudence is deferred to expediency. There is just one major river in this area, and it has brought beauty, wildlife, recreation, a special history and now drinking water. She asked what sort of legacy will be left the grandchildren in this area, if erosion and pollution continue. She inquired when will disregard do permanent irrevocable damage or has it already, and she wondered where is the need to extend the roadway beyond the McIntire/Rio section. She said the additional cost seems prohibitive in comparison to the gain. Finally, in view of the possible irrevocable ecological damage, the expense, the lack of pressing need, the abundance of other pressing road needs and the fact that this road is so different from the original concept, she wondered if it was justified. She was echoing Dr. Keats' remarks when she asked for whom was the road being built and at what cost. Mr. Jay C. Levenson stated that he lives on Belvedere Farm which is located on the B-1 Alternative route. He said five years ago when the B-1 route was supposedly eliminated in favor of B-2, the predominant reason was a simple one of economics. The original creation of a B-1 Alternative had been made from out-of-date and inaccurate topographical maps. He, at that time, called Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Benish. He reported that they walked the area and discovered that the amount of flood plain to be crossed on the railroad alternative was approximately three times as long as on the other alternative making the cost prohibitive. He went on to say the length has not shortened in the interval, and the vacillation only makes it clearer that every alternative for Meadow Creek Parkway has insuperable defects. Mr. John Guinn, representing the homeowners in Dunlora as a member of the Board of the Homeowners Association, stressed his support of Mr. Williams' and Ms. Kasevich's position. He said there are a number of Dunlora homeowners present at this meeting, and he asked the Supervisors to acknowledge them when they stand. Approximately 35 to 40 people responded to his request. Ms. Ann Zimmerman stated that she lives at Bentivar. She said people in the Bentivar area are lesser in number, but the concerns are as great. It is apparent the people in the large communities such as Forest Lakes and Hollymead, who this road was planned and intended for, rejected it. She emphasized that this should say something. It is also apparent that the use of the improved Route 29 and the western bypass, which is supposed to help diffuse traffic, has not been allowed to see if this can be done. It also seems apparent to her that the roads behind Sam's Club and Kroger's could be enlarged, improved and lengthened to go to Airport Road. She commented that this would diffuse traffic which seems to be the problem being discussed now. It seems to her that no responsibility is being shown as to what the cost would be for the County, State, and everyone else. She said it seems that paving the gravel roads in this County and straightening out severe curves would be less expensive and would certainly serve everyone in the County to a greater and safer degree. Mr. Charles Tracta stated that he is representing the Woodbrook community. He said Meadow Creek Parkway has been on the books for so long, and it has never really been put into effect. He remarked that the residents of Forest Lakes and Hollymead have rejected it. The people who the road is supposedly going to help do not want it. Since the western bypass will be done, he thinks the Parkway should be rejected. Mr. Donald Heineke, a resident of Bentivar, stated that he would re- emphasize what has already been mentioned about the environmental conditions of the roadway along the Rivanna River. He has been a pilot for 21 years, and he has driven back and forth to the Airport along Route 643. He has February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) 000095 frequently found the bottoms area of the Rivanna River to be particularly hazardous to vehicle traffic, and having to be cognizant of fog problems, he notices this problem frequently in the area. He does not think this particular river valley is the right place for a road that handles vehicular traffic. He noted that the elevations at the Airport are considerably higher than the Rivanna River valley. He reported that fog generally accumulates in the Rivanna River valley starting in early November and lasts until late April usually between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. Ms. Margaret Fowler remarked that she lives on undeveloped land next to Dunlora, and she has lived there 53 years. She would be totally affected by this proposed construction, because the plans are to cut diagonally across her 28 acres to come up behind her house. She has been looking at this plan for more than 25 years. She has heard about it, read about it, listened and wondered how long before it happened. She read that City officials were not going to allow trucks on their portion of the road, but the road will still be quite a heavy financial burden, yet it will limit the trucks. She stated that a $3,600,000 fund supplying this County has to be split between 15 to 20 other secondary projects such as bridge work after floods, resurfacing, repairs after winter freezing, and damage such as this cannot be spread to cover the cost of a private four lane road with limited access. She emphasized that there are only three areas to enter this four lane road. She recalled that studies through the years have shown that 90 percent of the traffic from Route 29 North is local to the University, malls and trucks delivering back and forth from these businesses. She asked why consideration should even be given to building a four lane road with three connection points just to allow people to get from Route 29 to downtown Charlottesville, two or three minutes sooner, and have the remainder of the County residents paying for this type of service when the money is not that plentiful to be divided. When VDOT workers complete the construction on Route 29 North, there will be ten lanes available there, and the downtown commuters should be able to pick up their two or three minutes of traveling time. She thinks there is no need for this private parallel Parkway. She recalled a well-known old expression which she thinks fits this situation very well -- ~Know when to hold them. Know when to fold them." She said everyone has been held hostage for more than 25 years, with this road cutting diagonally across her woodland, with three streams. She does not want to see the wild turkeys, deer and bear driven out of there. She noted that no money has been collected for this project in 25 years, and the big fund for it has not been built up, so she asked the Supervisors to just give it up. She stated that it was a bad idea 25 years ago, with many more costly studies adding up. Dr. F. A. Iachetta agreed with Mrs. Fowler that it is time to put this project to bed and forget it. He was part of the Board of Supervisors who planned it in the late 1970s. There was then a simple right-of-way involved costing approximately $11,000,000, there was no Bentivar or Dunlora in the way, and there was a lot less housing all along the path. The project was supposed to start construction in 1984, and it is still just being discussed in 1996. If consideration is given to what has already happened, as well as the time it will take trying to accumulate the dollars, there will be still more houses built. He believes the time has been reached when the Supervisors need to admit that this is no longer a viable project for the money it will cost. He said with all due respect to Jo Higgins, County Engineer, he does not believe the road can be built for $42,000,000 even in its presently reduced size. He went on to say it would be a serious error to build it with grade crossings at Routes 643 and 29 and invite the kinds of problems with left hand turns that are taking place on those roads now. He suggested that the Supervisors forget the project. Ms. Valerie Shepherd stated that she and her sister own 965 East Rio Road, which is adjacent to the Dunlora entrance, and the beginning of the Parkway would go across their front lawn. Her land is undeveloped, and they like it that way. They like the wildlife on their property, and they have never been in favor of this Parkway. She asked if the Supervisors have thought about the fact that building highways leads to more development which leads to more congestion. There is an odd thing about building highways -- it does not really reduce congestion. She mentioned studies she has read recently, and she asked that the Supervisors consider all of the undeveloped land the road will cross. She next referred to someone's proposal to trade a right-of-way for access. She emphasized that this would be a piece of property which would then be developed, and all of these people would not just be using the Parkway. They would be going up and down Route 29 also, and the congestion will increase for whatever small value it would be for a small 000096 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) group of people. She asked the Supervisors to think about the comments from all of the people who have spoken tonight. Mr. Ron London, a new resident of Dunlora and Virginia, remarked that he came from California. He and his wife lost $50,000 in their house six months ago in order to move here, and with the development of this Parkway, they feel it is deja vu all over again. He came to this meeting to recommend that the Supervisors simply move the entrance to the Parkway a little farther to the west, toward the railroad. He and his wife have a fairly high tolerance for noise, since they previously lived three miles from an air force base. He personally as a citizen of the area, finds the uprising of the public fairly deafening, because no one seems to like the project. He recommended that the Supervisors listen to the people speaking tonight. Mrs. Humphris said, if no one else wished to speak, Mrs. Keats could return to the podium. Mrs. Keats said that before the Supervisors spend another $4,200,000 of the County citizens' money for design, the speakers have come tonight to share some of this information for free. She reminded the Supervisors about the pictures and maps she had previously handed out, and requested that they look at them while she is speaking. She said the preliminary cost estimates in the Supervisors' packets do not include enough money to cross the Rivanna River Basin. She called attention to Attachment B which she said acknowledges the bridges necessary to withstand a flood plain, as well as the South Fork of the Rivanna River, Powell Creek and the Southern Railroad. The worksheet on bridge costs indicates the river and flood plain areas to the bridge include wetlands which typically involve poor soil for pier foundations. In this budget, the span lengths and pier heights have not been investigated. She recalled a phone conversation where Ms. Higgins said it was her intent to span all of this water in one expanse, which is why Mrs. Keats brought the picture to show the actual span. Mrs. Keats remarked that this explains why there is only one figure in the preliminary cost estimate, but this one figure needs to be examined. The figure represents a bridge of 67,500 square feet over the Rivanna River. If she used the right-of-way for the width and figured out the length of the bridge in this budget, it would be 562 ~ feet long, which is less than a tenth of a mile. She added that the water represented on the map cannot be crossed in a tenth of a mile, but this is what is budgeted. If her map is considered from any point to get across the water in one span, it would take a one span bridge two miles long to 9'et across all of the structures. Her second concern relates to the numbers about the traffic projection. She tried hard to understand the table, but she could not. She then mentioned the projected 16,000 cars by 2015. If a four lane road is considered, it would amount to 4,000 cars per lane per day. She suggested that a 20 hour day be considered, taking out the time between 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. She added that the traffic on this road would be 200 cars per lane per hour, which is three cars per lane per minute. This road would not even be a short cut. She emphasized that she clocked it, and from the entrance points on Rio Road to where the Parkway would come in is 3.3 miles. She stated that 6.2 miles, divided by 45 miles per hour, would be approximately a six minute trip with no access. There are three signal lights in this budget, and she assumes there is one at each end, but she wonders where the third one will be located. She asked if there will be stop signs at the other two access points, which means the time during rush hours has got to be greater than six minutes. She again quoted from the Executive Summary that, ~With the planned improvements and projected growth, Route 29 is not expected to be over capacity by the year 2015." She said the question is not can this road be built. She stated that of course it can be built, but the questions the citizens tonight are asking is should this road be built, and for whom and at what cost. This modified Meadow Creek Parkway no longer serves the majority of the citizens of Albemarle County. The need for this road cannot even be calculated until Route 29 North is completed, Charlottesville officials have completed their end of the McIntire portion and VDOT officials have completed the western bypass. After all this, if Route 29 North is still a problem, the Supervisors will hear about it. Until a clear need can be demonstrated to the citizens of Albemarle County, the citizens will ask that the Supervisors reject this corridor. Secondly, she advised that the County's Land Use Plan not be modified, nor the CATS study revised. She asked the Supervisors to vote Uno" for this project. Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing on the Meadow Creek Parkway, since no one else wished to speak. She informed the group that the Board February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) 000097 members would be taking all of this into consideration, and they would not be making any decisions tonight. She asked if any of the Supervisors wished to say anything. Mr. Martin commented that there were a lot of good points brought up in the public hearing tonight. He travels the route of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway every day beginning with the portion of the Parkway coming from the City, and where it is proposed to come into Rio Road where it turns into a four lane road, over to Route 29 and across the Rivanna River. He stated that it does not take him a long time to travel this route now, although he hears people complaining about the traffic on Route 29. He always says he does not run into this problem because he does not go that far into town on Route 29 unless there is an accident, etc. He thinks the significant thing said tonight is whether or not the cost of the road is going to prove what the citizens get out of it in terms of three or four minutes saved each morning in travel time. He is not saying this is his ultimate decision, but it is something that significantly sticks in his mind. Mrs. Humphris recalled that the current Supervisors are running into the same things with the Meadow Creek Parkway project that this Board did with the Western Bypass project. The two roads would carry approximately the same amount of traffic, and she recalled that the Western Bypass cost is approximately $135,000,000 without any of the changes being considered. It is the same thing over again such as cost effectiveness, how many vehicles will the road carry, and is it worth the time and environmental damage and cost to the taxpayers. She said there will be more study on this matter. Mr. Bowerman stated that since he was on the Planning Commission fourteen years ago, the Meadow Creek Parkway was one of the things being considered, because it was looked at as a benefit to the people who lived here in terms of having better access and shorter driving times between where they lived, worked and shopped. It seems a lot of people really do not want this roadway. He emphasized, though, that one of the most effective ways of planning growth is not to build roadways such as this one. He said vehicle traffic will be trying to use less resources to get where it wants to go, but if this is the feeling of the community, then maybe this is what the Board should consider. Mrs. Thomas asked the staff to respond to the comments made tonight that the Rivanna River is dead. She stated that a report is supposed to be coming to this Board from David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, and she requested that this point be addressed in it, also. She remarked that the County's Watershed Protection Ordinances in effect above the dam are not in effect in this area. She said perhaps such a change should be made. She emphasized, though, that she does not want the public to think the Rivanna River comments are all she heard tonight. Mrs. Humphris thanked the public for its participation in this public hearing. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the Board have a meeting only for the Meadow Creek Parkway topic so the people will have more time to give the Supervisors their point of view as clearly as they want to express it. Mrs. Humphris agreed that this is a point well taken. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: November 17, 1993; July 12, September 19(A), September 20, October ii(A), November 15(A) and November 29(A), 1995; January 17 and January 18(A), 1996. Mr. Martin said he had read the minutes of September 19, 1995, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of January 18(A) and noted one correc- tion - the legislation to be introduced by Mrs. Couric concerning the paving of roads by VDOT, there would be a public hearing within 30 days, and that is not included. Mr. Bowerman said the hearing would, have to be held within 30 days. Mr. Bowerman said he had read September 20, 1995, and found them to be in order. He also had read the minutes of January 17, 1996, and noted one change. 000098 February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) Mrs. Humphris had read November 15(A), 1995, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the minutes as read, with corrections noted. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (At this time the Board continued its hearing on Item #11 ZMA-95-18.) Mrs. Humphris stated that the public hearing for ZMA-95-18 was opened and closed, but Mr. Wood, the applicant, was not present at the time. Mr. Wood had since returned to the meeting, and she asked him if he would like to speak now. She also informed the members of the public that they could respond to anything Mr. Wood said, since he was not present earlier. Mr. Wood thanked the Board members for going ahead with the public hearing. He was told that it was going to be a long time before the Board held his public hearing, and because there were so many people present, he thought he was going to be late on the agenda. He was sitting around the corner when a friend came running out to get him, but it was too late. He informed the Supervisors that he has nothing new to add. He has worked closely with the staff, and he thinks this is a good use which will really protect the neighborhood. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that four of Mr. Wood's five proffers start with the word, "if." He wondered what is the likelihood of the storage units actually being built. This is the reason for the request for the rezoning, and the reason it is proffered, which is a less intensive use than the current C-1 zoning. Mr. Wood answered that there is 100 percent chance the storage units will be constructed. Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Wood has a contract purchaser. Mr. Wood replied affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman asked if this rezoning is just protecting himself for these other uses in the event this deal could fall through. Mr. Wood stated that under the current C-1 zoning, he can do more things than he can with the proffers. In working with the County staff, the ~ifs" were included to protect the C-1 property as well as the neighborhood. The main reason for the proffers is to protect the adjoining property owners. He has worked very closely with these property owners, and they actually helped draft the proffers. Mrs. Thomas inquired if the residents of the Rio Hill Apartments were some of the people with whom he has worked. Mr. Wood answered that he has worked with these residents, as well as Don Wagner of Great Eastern. He said Mr. Wagner is here and he can speak to this matter. Mr. Wagner helped draft the proffers, so he is protected. He emphasized that going from C-1 zoning to a Highway Commercial use sounds as though it is more intense, but it is a much less intense use. If for some reason the purchaser disappears, he would like for the property to still be zoned for C-1 use, or he would at least like ~o be able to come back to this Board with a new proposal for a new use. He thinks everybody is protected, such as the County, the Zoning Ordinance, ~he adjoining property owners and the neighborhoods. He thinks he has done all he can do, and he thinks the staff has done a super job working with him to get to this point in a lesSer use for a higher intent such as Highway Commercial zoning. Mrs. Humphris asked if anyone else wanted to speak. Mr. Donald Lyon, President of the Raintree Homeowners Association, stated that his neighborhood is close to Mr. Wood's property. He missed the presentation, but with the volunteer proffers Lloyd Wood has given to this property, he does not think his Association members have any problems with it. It is a benign use, .and he does not think it will generate any noise whatso- ever. His Association endorses the proposal. February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) 000099 Mr. Don Wagner stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a waiver on the setback requirement with his support. If something other than the storage facility is built, it Would have to be further from the property line, because the BZA allowed only the storage facility to be within three feet of the property line. He commented that anything other than the storage facility would require greater setback requirements, which is another reason for the proffers. No one else wished to speak, so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said he is prepared to make a motion for approval, but would like for Mr. Davis to have an opportunity to review the proffers. Mr. Davis commented that, in this particular matter, he is satisfied that he has appropriately reviewed the proffers. Mrs. Humphris asked that the County Attorney look at language the Board could adopt which would put some limit on the time that proffers could be submitted, or policy language as to when the Board would take action on a petition when proffers are submitted so late, that staff and the attorneys have not had time to review them. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin to approve ZFLA-95-18, with Amended Proffer dated February 12, 1996, received this date - February 14, 1996. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Marshall. PROFFER Date: February 12, 1996 Tax Map Parcel(s)#: TM 61, Parcel 124E 5.45 Acres to be rezoned from C-1 to HC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) Use of the property shall include only: Uses contained in Section 24.2.1: 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 24, 28, 35, 36, 37, and 43 and uses contained in Section 24.2.2 provided a special use permit is obtained, all as contained in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on February 14, 1996, a copy of these sections which are attached hereto. (2 If a self storage facility (*Light Warehousing per Zoning Ordinance Section 24.2.1, use 21) is built on the property, it will be of the configuration shown on the October 17, 1995 rezoning application plan, provided as a part of the rezoning application, a reduced size copy of which is at- tached hereto. (*As contained in Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on February 14, 1996, a copy of this section which is attached hereto.) (3 If a self storage facility is built on the property, the exterior walls will be of textured block (split face, ribbed, etc.) of a pastel or earth tone color, and the wall shall incorporate architectural features to create shade and shadow in order to prevent monotony. Approved by Board /7.5 Date Initials February 14, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 000!OO (4) If a self storage facility is built on the property, the roof of the facility will be either flat or nearly flat roof, not visible from *Tax Map 61 Parcel 124C by an observ- er with height of eye of 6', or if another type of roof which is visible, be a standing seam metal roof or other type of roof approved by the owner of *Tax Map 61 Parcel 124C at the time of construction of the storage facility. (*As this parcel exists on February 14, 1996, a copy of the map which is attached hereto, and any successor parcel or parcels.) (5) If a self storage facility is built on the property, the 3' strip between the eastern wall of the storage facility and adjacent parcel will be planted with tall columnar plantings or with plantings such as pyracantha which are espaliered to the wall and maintained by the owner/user of the storage facility. Agenda Item No. 15. BOARD. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Mrs. Thomas said the Mountain Protection Committee (she is the Board's liaison on this committee) is doing something different in that they have their report to a draft stage and would like to circulate it to organizations which often take an interest in this type of thing; people who they think will take the time and effort to actually read it and respond, such as the Farm Bureau, environmental concern groups, and the Blue Ridge Home Builders. The report is not ready to be sent to the Board unless the Board members would like to see it in this stage. Several Board members indicated that they would like to see what is available at this time. Mr. Cilimberg said it is also being circulated to departments and agencies. Mrs. Thomas said she had one other item to bring up, but believes it will take toO long to explain at this hour, and that has to do with the Ivy Landfill. She can do it at next week's meeting. Mrs. Humphris said she would appreciate an update because she is dismayed at the tone of the letters she has been receiving. Mrs. Thomas said a lot of the letters indicate that nothing is happening, but in fact, quite a lot is happening. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.