Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1995-05-03
May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000001 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 3, 1995, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin (arrived at 9:05 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County ExecutiVe, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 A.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Walter F. Perkins. 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. Mr. John Carter appeared to question the lack of a current contract between Albemarle County and the Charlottesville Transit Service° Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Item 5.la. Appropriation: Drug Free Schools and Communities Act Grant, $43,663, (Form #940057). It was noted in the staff report that Albemarle County has participated in the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act for the past nine years. The purpose of the grant has been to establish, enhance and increase programs of illicit alcohol and other drug use education and preven- tion in order to achieve drug-free schools and communities. This grant has enabled the County to pursue the following programs: DARE, prevention counseling (in coordination with the Region Ten Community Services Board), Peer Mediation programs, staff development programs, activities for youth such as PULSAR, YADAPP, and Youth Leadership conferences. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was approved: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DRUG FREE SCHOOLS GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1310761101312500 PROF SVCS - INSTRUCTIONAL 1310761101312700 PROF SVCS - CONSULTANTS 1310761101601300 EDUC/RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES 1310761101580000 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 1310761311550400 TRAVEL - EDUCATION 1310761311580000 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 1310761311580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES TOTAL AMOUNT $1,000.00 36,260.00 500.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 500.00 2,403.00 $43,663.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2310724000240233 DRUG FREE SCHOOLS GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $43,663.00 $43,664.00 Item 5.lb. Appropriation: Automart USA Frontage Road Performance Bonds, $16,970 (Form #940058). It was noted in the staff report that in October of 1994, the County called a road/subdivision bond in the amount of $14,000 and an erosion control bond in the amount of $2870 for the Automart USA frontage road. These bonds were called since attempts to notify the developer of work required on the site were unsuccessful (i.e., certified letters came back marked "refused" or "move not forwardable".) This frontage road was to be a state-maintained road and has not been completed in accordance with the approved plan. These funds will be used to complete the necessary items for road acceptance. The erosion control work will be done during the spring seeding season. May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 000002 By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of approa priation was approved: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: USE OF DEVELOPER'S BOND TO COMPLETE ROAD AND SOIL EROSION AT AUTOMART EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100041000950023 AUTOMART ROAD/SOIL EROSION TOTAL AMOUNT $16,970.00 $16,970.00 REVENUE 2100014000140120 2100014000140121 DESCRIPTION STREET BOND FORFEITURES SOIL EROSION FORFEITURES TOTAL AMOUNT $14,000.00 2,970.00 $16,970.00 Item 5.1c. Appropriation: Health Insurance Fund, $8500 (Form #940059). Staff noted that the County experienced an exceptionally good year for the employee's health insurance in FY 1993-94 which resulted in a surplus of $710,236 as a result of increased premiums to offset the previous year's deficit and the anticipated increase for FY 1993-94 combined with a year that had a relatively minor increase in actual medical expenses. Due to the increasing cost of health insurance, County staff felt the need to obtain specialized assistance for future renewals of health policies. The area of health insurance has experienced some major changes such as HMO's, Gatekeeper's, Point of Service, etc., that require substantial time and knowledge to evaluate. Consultants were retained and currently are reviewing the proposals for FY 1995-96 insurance. The cost anticipated is $8500 which can be funded from a portion of the 1993-94 refund. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was approved: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM HEALTH INSURANCE FUND TO SCHOOL FUND TO COVER COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE CONSULTANTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1242062140312700 HEALTH CONSULTANTS 1102093010930002 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL FUND - PERSONNEL TOTAL AMOUNT $8,500.00 8,500.00 $17,000.00 REVENUE 2200051000512013 2102018000189914 DESCRIPTION TRANSFER FROM HEALTH FUND TRIGON REFUND TOTAL AMOUNT $8,500.00 8,500.00 $17,000.00 Item 5.1d. Appropriation: Emergency Operations Center, $18,305 (Form #940060). It was noted that on March 21, 1995, the Emergency Operations Center (EEC) Management Board approved the use of $18,305 fr6m their fund balance for one-time purchases (primarily for upgrading da~a processing equipment) for operation of the Eec. Since these are one-time purchases, the Eec elected to fund these items from their fund balance rather than the FY 1995-96 operating budget. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was approved: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 FUND: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF ONE-TIME PURCHASES FROM THE FUND BALANCE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1410031040312710 1410031040600100 1410031040601100 1410031040800200 1410031040800301 1410031040800700 1410031040800710 DESCRIPTION ANNUAL SOFTWARE COST OFFICE SUPPLIES/DISPATCH CARDS UNIFORMS AND APPAREL FURNITURE AND FIXTURES COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT-REPLACEMENT DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $5OO.OO 3,075.00 3,000.00 1,300.00 830.00 8,100.00 1,500.00 $18,305.00 May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) 2410051000510100 Eec Fu D BALANCE TOTAL 000003 AMOUNT $18,305.00 $18,305.00 Item 5.1e. Appropriation: Housing Counselor, $17,500. Staff noted that during the budget process, the Board approved a part-time housing counselor position for the Housing Office using funds transferred from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program which no longer has a housing counseling component. Since the budget was adopted, additional funds have become available that would allow the County to expand the position to full-time with no additional local funding. Costs of the program are estimated at approximately $35,500. Of this amount, $18,000 has been transferred from AHIP leaving a balance of $17,500. This amount is needed t© bring the position to full-time and cover operating expenses. To assist with the shortfall, Jefferson National Bank, through their Community Reinvestment funds, has generously donated $5,000 to initiate this full-spectrum housing counseling program. To fund the remainder ($12,500), staff proposes to use local funds that have been freed due to a recent grant award from HUD for a Family Self- Sufficiency Worker (FSS) position. HUD has awarded $35,850 in administrative fees to the Housing Office to cover the costs of this FSS Counselor's position (a position which is already in place and funded in the current and the next fiscal year by local funds). This grant will free $35,850 in local funds to be used for other housing program costs. At this time, staff is requesting approval to use $12,500 of those freed funds to cover the remainder of the position and operating costs for the new Housing Counselor program. Although the funds will not be used until the next fiscal year, staff is requesting approval in order to advertise and hire for the full-time position by July 1. Staff is recommending approval of this request, and suggests the $5000 contribution be added to the FY 1995-96 Appropriation Ordinance which is to be presented for approval on June 7, 1995. By the recorded vote set out above, %he request was approved. Item. 5.2. Proclamation proclaiming May 13, 1995, as Letter Carrier Food Drive Day. Mr. Perkins read the proclamation and then presented same to Mr. James Smith, President of the Letter Carriers Local. Not Docketed: Mr. Perkins also read into the record a proclamation proclaiming May 1 through May 5, 1995, as "Give Air-A-Brake Week". Mrs. Hannah Twaddell and Mr. Juandiego Wade were present to receive the proclama- tion. Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 4, April 11 and April 18, 1995, received as information. Item 5.4. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for March 26, 1995, received as information. Item 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for March 27, 1995, received as information. Item 5.6. Copy of Acme Design Technology, Co., 1995 Strategic Plan (on file in Clerk's office), noted as information. Item 5.7. March 1995 Financial Report, received for information. It was noted that projected General Fund revenues were revised as of March 31. These revenues are projected to exceed appropriations by $1,781,465, an increase of $363,521 over the last revision. Local revenues are projected to exceed appropriations by $1,873,984. Projected to be less than appropriated are State revenues in the amount of $71,202 and Federal revenues in the amount of $21,317. The local revenue projected increase is primarily due to addi- tional anticipated property tax, sales tax, and interest collections. Item 5.8. 1994-95 Work Plan for the County Development Departments, received as information. It was noted that this is an attempt to document the items which occupy the time and resources of the departments of Engineering, Inspections, Planning/Community Development and Zoning. It is intended as a means of assessing and prioritizing the County's work load and does not represent a mandated schedule. Item 5.9. Copy of letter dated April 25, 1995, Ms. from A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mr. Ralph L. Feil, re: May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000004 Route 250 West and the ROU~ ~ ~'~ 6f~ ramp - Bellair Entrance Task Force, received as information. Item 5.10. 1994 Annual Report for the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, received for information. It was noted that during 1994, JABA provided services to 7716 persons in Planning District Ten. Item 5.11. Letter dated April 25, 1995, from Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, Department of Transportation, regarding Citizen Information Meetings on the U. S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study (Proj: 6029-967-F01,PE-100, counties of Albemarle, Greene, Orange, Madison, Culpeper, Rappahannock and Fauquier, towns of Culpeper, Orange, Madison, Remington, Warrenton, and city of Charlottesville), received as follows: "Citizen Information Meetings will be held for the subject project on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Culpeper Middle School, located at 14300 Achievement Drive in Culpeper, and on Thursday, May ll, 1995, between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Madison County High School, Route 29 South, in Madison. The purpose of these meetings is to introduce this project to local citizens and interested parties. The 29 Corridor Develop- ment Study is a major undertaking that will help plan for the future transportation facilities, including rail, air and automo- bile travel for people and freight. Item 5.12. Letter dated May 1, 1995, from Mr. J. H. Shifflett, Jr., Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that Route 691 between Route 636 and RoUte 635 will be closed to through traffic from Monday, May 8, through Friday, May 12, 1995, to replace a large diameter drainage pipe under a section of the road, received for information. Item 5.13. Letter dated May 1, 1995, from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construc- tion in Albemarle County, received as follows: ROUTE LOCATION STATUS ESTIMATED NO. COMP. DATE 29 From Hydraulic Rd (Pt 743) Consmsction 73 % Complete Dec '95 to N of Rio Rd (pt 631) 240** Rt 240 Bridge Replacement Construction 1~¢ '95 near Int Rt 250 Started May '95 1-64'* Bridge Repair - Construction Sep '95 Various Locations Started April '95 ::::::::: :::: :::::: :::::::::: :::::::::::::: ::::::: :::: :::::: i:i::::: i:i: i:::i:i:i:::i :i:i ::::?:i :::::::::::i::: i:!:!:! :i:!:!:i :!:!:! i:!:i:i:!:! :i'i:~:i:i :: :i:i:i :i: i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:! :!:i:i:i:!:!:!:!:!: i: i:!: i:!:!:!:!:i:i:i:i:i:i :i:i :i:i:i:i :i:i:i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i:!$i:i: i:i$i :i:i :i:i:i :i:i:!:i:! :!:i :!:!:! :!:i:i :i: :i:i:i:i:i Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) - changes to Whitewood Road/Albert Court bus stop on Route 9. Mr. Cilimberg noted that on January 4, 1995, the Board approved the replacement of the Albert Court bus stop at The Colonnades and Old Salem apartments along with two other changes to Route 9. On April 5, the Board revisited the issue and requested that staff provide information on adding The Colonnades/Old Salem while keeping the Albert Court stop. CTS has provided staff information as to why they would not recommend adding The Colonnades/Old Salem bus service and at the same time continue the Albert Court stop on Route 9. CTS does not believe they can accommodate Route 9 service provisions within acceptable time constraints and retain desired reliability. Staff continues to recommend the addition of The Colonnades/Old Salem bus stop and eliminating the Albert Court bus stop. Mr. Mike Carroll, Assistant Transit Manager for CTS, was present. He said adding The Colonnades/Old Salem to the bus route requiring cutting off service from Albert Court in order to keep the route on schedule. Route 9 is at the maximum level of mileage (a 15 mile loop at 15 miles per hour) at this time. Although Albert Court is only four-tenths of a mile loop, it will add four minutes to a loop which is already at a maximum. Mrs. Thomas asked if there is any other area on the run that can be changed. Mr. Carroll said they have looked at other alternatives, but the May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Me~)~' ~'~" ...... ' 00000~ (Page 5) Albert Court loop seems to be ~ i~l one in terms of current route structure. Although it is a walk Of fOUr-tenthS of a mile to the nearest bus stop if Albert Court is eliminated, it all along sidewalks. That is not the case along Barracks Road at The Colonnades. The population they hope to serve there are the elderly. Also, it is hoped that should CTS put a bus stop at The Colonnades, some of the people who now ride JAUNT buses will switch; it is cheaper per trip than JAUNT. Mrs. Thomas asked if the one-hour length of the line can be changed to something like one hour, five minutes, or one hour, ten minutes. Mr. Carroll said that in the afternoons, because of traffic congestion, the bus may arrive at its stops a little later than expected, and the cumulative effect of that by five o'clock in the afternoon is that the bus can run fifteen minutes late. In order for passengers to connect with other buses, if one bus runs late, then it affects all of the other routes. Also, one hour bus schedules are the longest length the industry recommends; ideally they would be shorter. CTS feels that making the longer route will cause them to use riders. Mr. Marshall asked if the buses are full. Mr. Carroll said they are at times. Mr. Marshall suggested that CTS might use smaller, more maneuverable buses. Mr. Carroll said this was discussed with City Council recently, but there is no cost savings to running a smaller bus, nor will the speed limit change. Mr. Bowerman said the change makes sense, but he is concerned about the message this Board will send to the people who live in Whitewood Village. He fears it may be misinterpreted that the service is being removed because they are in a low-income project. That is not the case, but they originally got Albert Court added to the route. He understands there are only 12 people in Whitewood Village who use the bus every day, but he would like to see this stop left on the route. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman. It appears to him that the poor people are the ones who "always take the beating." These people need reliable transportation, so why add The Colonnades, which is supposed to have their own vehicle to move their residents. He does not think public funds should be used to supplement a private business. Mr. Carroll said CTS is tied by Federal law (Americans with Disabilities Act) which mandates that there be complementary transit service (for any stop three-quarters of a mile from the bus route), either JAUNT which complements the fixed-route CTS bus service at a fare that does not exceed double that of the fixed-route fare. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has three choices. Change the route deleting the Albert Court stop, continue to pay an additional minimum of $18,000 per year for JAUNT service and not picking up the Old Salem passengers which seems to be a fruitful route. Mr. Marshall said he understands that, but he feels the poor man is caught in the middle. Mrs. Humphris asked if it is too much to ask people to walk two blocks. Mr. Carroll said the survey CTS took last Fall indicated that people walk from one to three blocks to the bus stop. Eleven percent walk four to ten blocks. Mr. Bowerman said he had an obligation to bring this matter back to the Board because he was contacted by Whitewood Village residents when the stop was moved. They were concerned that service which is very important to them was being taken away even though it is not used by a great number of people. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to ask CTS to make the schedule work somehow keeping Albert Court on and adding The Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments. He knows the route has already been redesigned. Mr. Carroll said they have redesigned the route to take advantage of the extension of Berkmar Drive coming out of Rio Hill. The elimination of Berkmar Drive between Rio Road and Route 29 is temporary during the construction phase on Route 29. He said CTS would have difficulty in maintaining schedule reliability by providing service to both areas. Mr. Bowerman suggested that CTS try it and come back to this Board if it doesn't work. He said, in that way, the Board will have shown a commitment in trying to keep everything in the schedule. If it doesn't work, he will have to accept that. He asked if CTS could start the service before it is an- nounced and just run the bus to see whether it can be kept. Mr. Carroll said there is no reason why it cannot be done. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman to add Albert Court back to Route 9 to see if CTS can make the schedule work. A report should be made to the Board as soon as that is known. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. 000006 May 3, 1995 (Regular (Page 6) Agenda Item No. 6b. Dis6Ussi0n: Truck Traffic Restriction on Routes 231/22. Mr. Tucker said that several months ago, the issue of truck traffic along Routes 22/231 was before the Board. Mr. John Moore has submitted an additional request to the Board on behalf of the citizens in the area asking that the Board adopt a resolution supporting a restriction of truck traffic on these routes to be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Tucker said at the earlier meeting, the Board requested the Police Department to do some selective enforcement in that corridor. That has been done, and since January they have issued six summonses along that corridor, but none of those involved tractor trailer trucks. Mr. Tucker said he has corresponded with the administrators in Orange and Louisa urging them to talk to the various industries and CEO's in their counties to make them aware of this issue. Mr. Tucker said he spoke with Mr. Harry Van Beek at Kloeckner-Pentaplast and learned that last year they had directed their trucks not to use that corridor, but to use other routes. Mr. Van Beek did some investigation in that area and found that there are three common carriers, not from this area, that are serving some of the industries in the area. He knows the administra- tor in Orange County has discussed this with his Board, and they have ex- pressed a concern about any restriction of truck traffic in the area. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, is prepared to discuss this matter with the Board today. Also, Mr. Moore is present, and he did present a lengthy petition, which is on file in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Marshall said he thinks it is a moot issue. He had the same concerns expressed to him about logging trucks on Route 20. He was told that it is a primary highway and nothing can be done. Mr. Tucker said he talked to Ms. Tucker about that and she was going to look into that question further. Ms. Tucker said primary highways are built to support all traffic. Truck traffic can be restricted, however, the report put together by Mr. Dan Roosevelt in September, 1994 indicated that statistically, any safety concerns along Route 22 and 231 were not directly attributed to the truck traffic. It was suggested that the speeds be monitored and enforced stronger first. Ms. Tucker said she had requested an update of those statistics through the most recent data available, and should have those before the June day meeting. Mr. Perkins asked for a traffic count of just trucks on those routes. In 1990, it showed that 4.8 percent of the traffic was truck traffic (two axle, six tires or larger) on Route 22. The count taken for this report in mid-1994 did separate the general vehicle traffic from the truck traffic and showed that the percentage of trucks was 4.95 percent. Mr. Perkins asked where the trucks originate. Ms. Tucker said she does not know. Mr. Perkins said there are a lot of farming and log operations along those roads. He believes a lot of the trucks are local. Because of the condition of the roads, he does not think trucks are taking Route 231 as a short-cut, but he believes they would use Route 15 to get to 1-64. He asked if VDOT is going to do a survey where someone actually sits and counts the vehicles as they pass. Ms. Tucker said "yes". Mr. Martin said he understands that in the past primary roads have not been closed to through truck traffic except on a temporary basis, but there is no rule saying that it is not allowed. If this Board was to make such a request, what would happen? Ms. Tucker said it would be similar to the procedure followed for Georgetown Road through truck traffic restriction. Mrs. Thomas noted that trucks are not allowed on 1-66 inside the beltway, so she knows it can be done. Ms. Tucker said it is the general nature of the primary system to provide through routes as opposed to the secondary system which is more of a local nature. Mr. Marshall asked what happens 'to hay bailers and tractors which need to use the roads, and how do you know if a truck is a through truck or local? Mr. Martin said it is an enforcement issue. Ms. Tucker said in order to determine which are through trucks as opposed to local traffic, it may be necessary to have a "stop and ask" survey in order to determine origination/destination points. Mrs. Thomas said it has been mentioned that a lot of the traffic is at night. She asked if VDOT ever does its traffic counts at night. Ms. Tucker said they generally do not, but it could be done. Mr. Martin said he has a group of constituents who are concerned about the volume of truck traffic on the road. If this Board needs more informa- tion, he is willing to wait, but at some point he intends to ask this Board to vote on whether or not to request VDOT to ban through truck traffic. Ms. Tucker said she will have the 1994 report updated for review at next month's day meeting. Mr. John Moore expressed his appreciation at the Board's continuing to examine this issue~ He said the residents also appreciate the efforts of VDOT. These residents have made some informal observations regarding the types of trucks that are traveling the 22/231 corridor. Most of the tractor 000007 May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) trailers they have observed do n6t~h~e'~ny C°rPOrate markings on them. They are independent truckers, but they are large tractor trailers. They travel at all hours of the day. He has made a couple of conjectures as to why the trucks might be traveling this route. He believes that if these are "over- the-road" truckers, it is likely that they are cutting the triangle between Richmond and Fredericksburg across 1-64 and 1-95. He handed to the Board a map illustrating this point. He said it is one-half the distance, but with all the stop lights, he thinks it must be longer to drive this route. Some of the residents have jotted down names of some of the trucks over the last couple of days, and he handed a list of these to the Clerk. In terms of truck traffic at the last count, it was almost five percent of 7200 vehicles which would be 350+ trucks a day. He does not want the Board to wait until the next big accident before some type of action is taken. Mr. Moore said it is incumbent on this Board to take into consideration the safety of the people under its care as opposed to the commercial aspects. There are plenty of routing opportunities other than 231 and 22. If you look at a map you can see that both Orange and Louisa counties are not economically depen- dent on Routes 231 and 22 for inlet and outlet. The trucks can use other routes such as 15, 33 and 522. With no further discussion of this matter, the Board went on to discuss the next agenda item. Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Daniel Day was present to speak about the condition of a bridge on Route 633 just off of Route 29 South. Also, he believes Route 633 can be better aligned even though it is not hard-surfaced. He also mentioned the railroad bridge on Route 745. He said it is a new bridge, but the tonnage is still three tons. Ms. Tucker said work was recently completed on that bridge, and it is being sounded and tested at this very moment for the appropriate final posting. The results will be known within the week. It will remain, however, a restricted structure. Mr. Day said, as a school bus driver for the County, he would like to mention the narrowness and danger of the very narrow road at South Garden. Since they have not been able to cross the bridge from Route 633 onto Route 29, he has to go back and use that road which has an "S" bend. He said there are other roads like that in the County. There is another like it between Batesville and Western Albemarle High School. On the road at South Garden there are numerous rock outcroppings near the edge of the black top. In a bus, it is impossible to turn and avoid all of these rocks. He asked why these rocks cannot be cut out of the way. Ms. Tucker said there is to be a meeting between the railroad and VDOT soon as to when and how the bridge can be upgraded. She will check into the rock outcroppings to see if some of that can be removed. Mr. Perkins said there are a number of those places throughout the County. Mrs. Thomas said earlier this year it was suggested that VDOT get together will Mr. Willie Smith, the County's Transportation Director, and it must have been done since the school bus drivers say some improvements have been made in cutting brush. These bus drivers are a real resource since they drive every bad road in the County. She wondered if that could be an on-going program. Ms. Tucker said she did direct the brush cutting and limb trimming this year under the priority that the school bus needs be addressed first. areas where VDOT had prescriptive easements and met with resistance from property owners, they skipped that frontage unless it presented an extreme safety hazard. Also, her office often receives faxes from the School Trans- portation Office about items they want to have addressed. They are attending to some of those items. She knows there are many more needs. Ms. Tucker said that last year, she and her maintenance manager went and rode a school bus with Mr. Smith and some of his staff. It was quite an adventure. From that outing, they made a list of very small spot improve- ments. Some of them are not worthwhile unless they are of a scope that falls under the secondary improvement budget. Mrs. Humphris asked about the Hydraulic Road widening project which she understands includes work down Lamb's Road to the entrance to Greer and Jouett. She asks if this improvement will take into consideration the bad curve further along Lamb's Road. Ms. Tucker said "no". This is an improve- ment to Hydraulic, and VDOT has only a certain amount of leeway in tieing in the approaches. Mr. Tucker said the Lamb's Road curve project is already a part of the Six-Year Secondary Road plan as a spot improvement. Mr. Martin asked Ms. Tucker if a Mrs. Nellie Jarvis had spoken to her about Route 784. Ms. Tucker said the contract administrator is working on some right-of-way issues, so she will make the call herself. Mr. Bowerman said that on Monday, May 1, 1995, he had distributed to the Board members a memorandum regarding an issue the Board needs to address, that of the Board's continued support of interchanges on Route 29 North in light of 000008 May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) the action of the commonweal~fi~$~i0n Board (CTB), and in light of the action taken by City Council. Since the Board is desperately trying to get funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway (MCP), it is his belief that this Board should withdraw its support for the interchanges and reiterate its support for the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bowerman said he discussed the memorandum with Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas yesterday, and they both have issues with his proposal. Mrs. Thomas then handed to the Board a piece of paper containing her proposed wording, which basically put the proposal into resolution form. She said the italicized words at the end of the first paragraph suggest specifi- cally what the Board would be doing. She is a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and that has to do with the CATS plan, so the resolution sets out the things the Board would be agreeable to doing. She said it puts it in a positive mode, and says precisely what the Board will do. It is essentially what the Board said in its statement at the preallocation hearing (on March 29). Since there seems to be some confusion about that (she has not seen a copy of the fax to the CTB for that meeting), she would like to set it out positively, rather than in a negative way. She would like to put this motion on the table. Mrs. Thomas' motion read: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors gives it full support to designing a Meadow Creek Parkway that is both cost effective and realistic. We ask the Commonwealth Transportation Board to designate the Meadow Creek Parkway as a Primary Highway and place it in the current Six-Year Primary Road plan for funding. The Board of Supervi- sors states its intention to move the Parkway ahead of the grade- separated interchanges in the CATS plan, in the Three-Party Agreement, and in any other actions we will take at this time regarding primary road planning and construction in the County. We note that the Meadow Creek Parkway is critical to solving the transportation needs of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and Central Virginia. We note that Albemarle County has many other documented road needs and the designation of Meadow Creek Parkway for Primary Road funding would free Secondary Road funding for these other essential road priorities. We realize that the Commonwealth has limited funds available which should be spend on projects with the greatest benefit to its residents. To reemphasize, the Meadow Creek Parkway has the highest primary road priority for meeting the needs of this region at this time. Mrs. Humphris gave second to the motion. She went back over the statement this Board made to the CTB at its March 29 preallocation hearing on the interstate and primary systems. She said the statement says what this Board needs to say. In the surface transportation program, the Meadow Creek Parkway is the County's primary goal. It was only under the National Highway System (NHS), which is the Route 29 corridor itself, that the Board asked that the interchanges be kept in for consideration in the future. The reason is that the $3.729 million study says that for this locality (Albemarle, Char- lottesville, and the area), those interchanges are still the only thing that will solve the local transportation problem. This Board's presentation to the CTB acknowledges that the interchanges are a dead issue at this time, and the Meadow Creek Parkway in the surface transportation program is this Board's priority. That is clear. It seems that the importance of the Meadow Creek Parkway to this part of the state should be conveyed to the CTB in a positive way); that is what they need to hear. Mrs. Humphris said if this Board moves to pull out the interchanges so that in essence a record is created stating that this Board did not think they were necessary, that is a mistake. What the Board needs to do is learn from the experience the Board is having now. People are saying that somebody promised them 20 years ago that the County would not expand the landfill beyond a certain dimension or beyond a certain time period. None of the members of the present Board had anything to do with that, nor does anybody know that that was ever said. Nevertheless, the Board is being handicapped in its decision-making by having that be said. People are saying now about the decision on the high school site that they were told 20 years ago that the next high school would be built in their area. None of the present Board members had anything to do with that, but they are being presented with a difficult problem because of what is being said. Mrs. Humphris said if this Board were to say now that it withdraws from its knowledge that the interchanges are going to be necessary to the movement of traffic on Route 29 at sometime in the future, whether it is the year 2010, 2015, or whenever, some future Board will be handicapped in its decision- making. It is not necessary to say that those interchanges will not, at sometime, be in the solution to 29 North. What the Board needs to do is make the clear statement that Mrs. Thomas has provided saying that the Meadow Creek Parkway has this Board's full support, but it recognizes that there are limited funds, but the Meadow Creek Parkway is the highest primary road priority for this Board at this time. That seems to be the message that needs May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 000009 to go to them, and this resolUti6n is based°n the Board's attendance at the CTB work session several weeks ago where the Board heard what the members of the CTB are concerned about. Mr. Marshall said he met with Mr. Bill Roudabush and Mr. Carter Myers (he believes all Board members have). He was told in no uncertain terms that if the Board did not back off from the grade-separated interchanges and support the City and the University and the CTB, that it could forget about trying to get any money for the Meadow Creek Parkway. He asked if any of the other Board members were told the same thing. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks that is what her resolution does. It does not mention the grade-separated interchanges except to say that the County is moving the Meadow Creek Parkway ahead of these. The resolution does not suggest that primary road funds be used for this purpose. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Myers want the Board to make a statement, and Mr. Bowerman put it adequately, "It is politically naive and counterproductive for this Board to continue to insist that both the grade- separated interchanges and the Meadow Creek Parkway be funded in the primary road plan." Mr. Marshall said if this Board expects them to get out and work for the funds for the Meadow Creek Parkway, this Board has to make the statement, take a vote on the grade-separated interchanges and put the issue to rest, or the Board can forget the other. Mrs. Thomas said she realizes that they said they will not work for the Board unless it makes that statement. Mrs. Humphris said she needed to correct Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Myers said he would not work for the County. Mr. Roudabush said that Mrs. Humphris' position was perfectly acceptable to him. Mr. Marshall said they did not tell him that. Mrs. Humphris said Mrs. Thomas and she met with the two gentlemen at the same time. The message from Mr. Myers was that he would not work for this community to help get the Meadow Creek Parkway funded in the primary system unless the Board gave up totally on the interchanges. She explained that she could not do that because this Board has to be concerned about what is best for this locality. The Board's concern needs to be for the locality first~ whereas Mr. Myer's might be the state's interests first. Mr. Roudabush said three different times during this conversation that he understood Mrs. Humphris' position that the County's highest priority can be the Meadow Creek Parkway without giving up on the fact that at sometime in the future the interchanges will have to be brought back for consideration. Mrs. Humphris said the Board's job is to stand up for what is necessary for this locality. Mr. Martin said basically the two pieces of paper say the same thing. Ail the Board members had meetings with two members of the CTB. He feels that those meetings probably went in different directions, same topic, but differ- ent directions. There is no way to sit here today and act as if all had the same meeting when they didn't. The bottom line is what all know. The City, as well as the CTB, have basically said they are not interested in the interchanges at this time. Now, that is where the Board gets bogged down, "at this time". Some of the Board members want to say "at this time" but it still be a priority for the future. Others, and what the CTB would like for the Board to say, is not just "its not at this time", but, "its not at this time and it is not a high priority at this time", not have it the second highest priority so if the County gets the first, the very next project to come up would be the grade-separated interchanges. All that needs to be done is some rewording and that objective is accomplished, and all can vote for it because all Board members know what the deal is. Mrs. Thomas said she would be happy to say it is at the bottom of the list if that is any help. Mr. Martin said the letter sent out by Mr. Bowerman says "withdrawal of support", and maybe the Board does not want to use those words because that forecloses the future. Maybe the Board does not want to do that because at some point in the future those grade-separated interchanges may be needed. On the other hand, in the first paragraph of Mrs. Thomas' wording, it states "its intention to move the Parkway ahead of the grade-separated interchanges" implies that the second next priority will be the interchanges, that is what it implies. It is a little away from where the Board needs to be, so this should not be turned into a back and forth seesaw thing. Simply come up with some wording that is a little less strong than "withdrawal of support", and a little stronger than "ahead of the grade-separated interchanges." He suggest- ed that the County Attorney come up with some wording. Mrs. Humphris said she made it very clear to Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Myers because they did not seem to understand that she is a realist~ and will not spend one minute of time or one ounce of her energy on the grade-separated interchanges. For her, for now, that is a totally dead issue. Mr. Martin said the Board members all know that, so why not just say it. 0000 '0 May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Mrs. Humphris:sa~d she~'w~ll spen~ all of her time and effort on the Meadow Creek Parkway, and she simply does not want to compromise any future Board and put a handicap on them. Mr. Bowerman said before the Board goes farther, he would like to say that he appreciates and respects the comments made by Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas, however, the Board is dealing with more than just two members of the CTB. It is actually dealing with the entire board of 15 to 17 people. There are many projects in the immediate six-year plan competing for primary funds. Many jurisdictions are of one mind completely about what their funds should be used for° As long as this Board promotes something that has been rejected by themselves and the City, it seems the Board is just working against itself for no real gain. This Board talked about boards changing their minds, but he feels that if the interchanges are needed ten years from now, a new traffic count will have to be done. If the County gets to the year 2008 and traffic on Route 29 and the Meadow Creek Parkway and a western bypass can't move, the issue will have to be dealt with, but it shouldn't be used as an impediment now to get something that is much needed, the Meadow Creek Parkway. He does not believe this will foreclose the opportunity in any way to revisit the issue. Mr. Bowerman said he participated in the Meadow Creek Parkway studies in the early '80s and those studies showed "T" connectors into Forest Lakes. He thought they made sense, but the public told him that they did not make sense, and now they are no longer being talked about. Things change over time. He is just recognizing that and, recognizing that right now the interchanges are a dead issue. That should be recognized so the Board can move on and work for one purpose, the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mrs. Thomas said she was at the work session when the CTB dealt with, and was presented with, the issue of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Juan Wade was there, and so was Ms. Sarah Cagle. She thinks the interchanges were never mentioned in that discussion. The CTB's question had nothing to do with whether this community wants interchanges or the Meadow Creek Parkway. The question was totally whether this community knows whether it wants the Alternative 10 Bypass, or the Meadow Creek Parkway. Several times the question was asked, what does this community want? No one there answered that question. There was a tremendous amount of waffling to dance around that issue because it was not to anyone's interest (Mrs. Thomas said she does not need to suggest what their motives were), but people did not answer that question. The CTB is not concerned about whether the County is still pushing for the interchanges. They had an entire work session and at least a third of them asked questions. No one there asked that question. She realizes that Mr. Bowerman has been told something different, but she was there and heard what they were asking, and this is not where their confusion was. Mr. Bowerman said behind the scenes he was told that there had been correspondence to members of the CTB that reiterated this Board's position and the statement in Culpeper. It said the Board continues to believe the inter- changes are a necessary item and every member of the CTB got that letter which raised the issue in their minds, and the only reason he knows that is because Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush told him that. Mr. Marshall said he also saw the letter. Mr. Bowerman said the letter was also sent to the Board members, and there has been further correspondence since then. It seems to him that when this Board is dealing with a public issue, and two segments of the public are saying different things, if everything is equal and one side is more unified than the other, the Board usually tends to recognize what the public wants. He thinks the CTB has to be sensitive to the communications it receives from this community, and they have to be aware that this has been going on for twenty years. The interchanges have been used many times as a method of saying, "look, with the interchanges and improvements to 29, and the Meadow Creek Parkway, we don't need the western bypass, at least we don't need it for 20 years." Mr. Bowerman said he was part of that, and he agreed with that. Mr. Bowerman said the State is going to build the western bypass now, and that is no longer an issue in his mind. They are not going to build the interchanges with the information the Board currently has, so why not recog- nize that. Let the community deal with one issue which is the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the other issue would be designing whatever they come forward with on Alternate 10 so it meets the needs of this community in the best way possible, and "stop beating our heads against the wall." That is what the Board is doing. Mrs. Thomas said she realizes that Mr. Myers wanted the Board to tell the citizens that they cannot write to the CTB Mr. Bowerman said that is not what he said. Mrs. Thomas said that is what was said to herself and Mrs. Humphris. Mrs. Humphris said that is what was said. Mr. Martin said that is why the Board needs to get away from behind the scenes because it does not count. The bottom line is the last part of what Mr. Bowerman said, which is the reality of the situation, and the Board needs 0000 '1 May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) to just face it. It all boils dOwn t°~a matter of wording. If the BOard can't come up with wording that all can agree to, then just take a vote up or down on either one of these proposals because all of the Board members know what the deal is. All may have a slightly different reason for how the deal came about, or what the political ramifications are behind the scenes, but all know what the deal is now, so let the Board make a decision. If the Board can't come up with favorable wording, then take each proposal and vote it up or down. Mrs. Thomas said she is willing to say that something like the grade- separated interchanges are a dead issue which is just recognizing reality. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Davis if he had some wording to propose. Mrs. Humphris said she has to clarify something. It should not be left just hanging out there. When she and Mrs. Thomas met with Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush the other day, one of them put the Charlottesville Transportation Coalition letters on the table, and complained about them saying they did not want citizens to continue to bother members of the CTB and Secretary Martinez with this kind of input. As she remembers, those letters complained about the public hearing process, and they questioned the way the citizen input was dealt with at two public hearings that were held here recently to do with the interchanges. It was the process that those letters were dealing with. She explained to these gentlemen that this is still a representative democracy. Members on this Board have said that they believe one thousand percent in citizen input. The Board members ask for it, beg for it, like it, and would never think of telling any citizen or citizen's group to stop giving input to their public servants. She regards Secretary Martinez, members of the CTB, and the two local representatives, as citizen public servants the same as the Board members. She said that what Mrs. Thomas said about the CTB work session two weeks ago was exactly correct. The pertinent questions asked there were: so they want them both? The "both" was the bypass or Meadow Creek Parkway, nothing to do with interchanges. What do they want first? She said the final question to the two representatives was, "you all live there, have we done it right?" referring to the bypass and Meadow Creek Parkway. The interchanges are dead as far as this CTB is concerned. It is going to serve no good purpose for this Board to withdraw its support because that support is based on a legitimate need for the community and a legitimate report to VDOT and the CTB. She agreed with Mr. Martin that the purpose can be achieved without withdrawing support and without declaring that the Board has a second priori- ty. Mr. Bowerman said the words "dead issue" works for him. Mr. Martin said the words "dead issue" works for him. Mr. Marshall said "dead issue" works for him up to a point. He asked to discuss the letter further because there is a lot more in it than what Mrs. Humphris said. He said the individual who wrote the letter went so far as to tell the members of the CTB that this Board had taken no action on those grade-separated interchanges, and because this Board had taken no action it is believed that the Board still has some support. That is what the letter said. Based on that statement, the members of the CTB and Secretary Martinez think that this Board is still supporting it. This Board needs to put the issue to rest. Mr. Martin asked that the Board members give Mr. Davis a chance, and if that doesn't work, he will just call for the motion and let the Board vote. Mr. Davis said he tried to capture the compromise by using the proposed alternative of Mrs. Thomas and replacing her italicized wording at the end of the first paragraph by saying "The Board of Supervisors states its intention to make the Meadow Creek Parkway its number one priority in the primary road plan for funding, notwithstanding the grade-separated interchanges identified in the CATS plan and in the three-party agreement. It is recognized that the grade-separated interchanges are not projects to be funded in the Six-Year funding plan." That states that it is not the present intention of this Board to ask for funding in the six-year funding plan, which, of course, carries for a period of six years. Mr. Marshall said it leaves this individual wide open to write another letter. Mr. Bowerman said it is not the individual, it is the issue of the Board continuing to say one thing, and taking action saying another. The Board has two positions, and the public has every right to use those two positions to confuse the issue. Mrs. Humphris said this Board did not have two positions. Mr. Bowerman said the Board did because it was in the Board's statement in Culpeper. Mrs. Humphris said the statement said "for NHS projects", which is for Route 29 projects the interchanges remain the priority. It said for the other projects, the standard projects, the Meadow Creek Parkway is the highest priority. They are two different things. May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) At this point, Mr. Martin' called for the question. Mrs. Thomas said she would accept the amended version of the resolution as read by Mr. Davis, or she will accept some other version. Mr. Martin said he had already called for the question. Mr. Marshall said he would second it. Mr. Perkins requested a roll call on the motion to call for the ques- tion. Roll was called, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins immediately asked that the Clerk call the roll on the motion. The Clerk asked for an official copy of what was being discussed. Mr. Marshall said the Board was discussing Mrs. Thomas' motion. Mr. Bowerman said that is with the amendment added by Mr. Davis. Mrs. Thomas said at this point, roll call is on the original motion. Mr. Martin said every time he tried to get a compromise, everybOdy started getting into who's to blame, who's at fault, and that is not what the Board needs to be dealing with. Roll call (on the original motion) was: AYES: Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bowerman, Marshall and Martin. Mr. Perkins said the motion fails 4/2. Mr. Bowerman immediately moved that the motion he presented to the Board in the memorandum of Monday, which he will provide to the Clerk, be adopted by this Board and become its policy regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the interchanges. Mr. Marshall gave second to the motion. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman would be amendable to any amendments. Mr. Marshall said "no". The Board will get back into the same discus- sion it just left. Mr. Martin said if the Board can't agree to something, he will call for the motion again. Let Mr. Davis read his options, and if the Board can't agree to one, there is no sense in going back to how it got to this point, it's useless. Mr. Perkins asked for a roll call. The motion carried bY the following recorded vote: Messrs. Perkins, Bowerman, Marshall and Martin. Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris. The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway is critical to solving the transportation needs of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and Central Virginia; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has many other documented road needs and the designation of the Meadow Creek Parkway for Primary Road funding would free Secondary Road funding for other essential road priorities; and WHEREAS, the Meadow Creek Parkway is the County's highest priority road need and withdrawal of support for grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 North would recognize that the Common- wealth has limited funds available and that these limited funds should be spent on the projects with the greatest immediate benefit to this community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors gives its full support to designing a Meadow Creek Parkway which is both cost-effective and realistic and asks that the Commonwealth Transportation Board designate the Meadow Creek Parkway as a Primary Highway and place it in the current Six-Year Primary Road plan for funding; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby withdraws its previous support for Grade- Separated Interchanges on Route 29 at Hydraulic, Greenbrier and Rio Roads. AYES: NAYS: oooO a May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meetihg) (Page 13) At 10:39 A.M. %he B°ard receSSed, and reconvened at ,10:51 A.M. Note: Since the meeting was running behind schedule, the Board skipped Agenda Item No. 7 temporarily. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to abandon a public road not in the State Highway System beginning at the common intersection of State Route 664 and the southernmost common boundary on State Route 664 of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29A, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, thence in a northeasterly direction along the common boundary of said Tax Map 19, Parcel 29A, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, to the southernmost point of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, thence continuing in a northeasterly direction on the common boundary of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, to a point where Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, and Tax Map 20, Parcel 6A, all intersect. Thence in a northwesterly direction along the common boundary line of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, and Tax Map 20, Parcel 6A, to Tax Map 19, Parcel 32C, where said road ends. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1995. ) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the request which is set out in the minutes of March 1, 1995. No public purpose was found to retain this as a public road, so staff recommended approval of the request. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard Carter said he represents Mr. and Mrs. Smedley Butler who own Tax Map Parcel 29D. The road comes close to their home and then turns and ends as shown on a physical survey. They did not find out that this road bed is a public road until after they built their home. They have a private right-of-way over the property in front of them from the public road so they are not concerned about access. Mr. Carter said a developer on the next door property was concerned that access might try to be obtained to the public road. They worked out an agreement with that person and purchased some land for protection and in return got a promise not to use the road over the Butler's property for access. Since this is technically a public road although it has not been used for years, this is the next step in the process. He asked that the road bed be abandoned pursuant to statute. He has discussed the statutory language with the County Attorney and he asks that the Board find that there is no public necessity for the use of this road, and for the County to abandon same. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thomas asked if abandonment of this road will hurt any nearby parcel of land from having an access. Mr. Cilimberg said the rear parcel has other access to at state road. There is a second part to the action to be taken. Mr. Davis said the action at this point is to abandon the road as a public road. It does not transfer the fee interest that the county owns in the road. Later, there could be a request for the county to transfer its title to the property back to the original landowners. Until that action is taken, people who reside on the road continue to enjoy the use of the right- of-way for their convenience and necessity. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution approving the abandbnment request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. R P. S 0 LU T I 0 N WHEREAS, the Board was petitioned by a citizen to abandon a section of an old road not in the State Highway or Secondary System; and WHEREAS, the Board, on March 1, 1995, ordered that this matter be advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virgin- ia Code Section 33.1-157; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on May 3, 1995, the Board finding that the said section of road serves no public necessity; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virqinia, that an old road right- of-way shown on the attached exhibit be abandoned as a public road per the following description: A public road not in the State Highway System beginning at the common intersection of State Route 664 and the southern- most common boundary on State Route 664 of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29A, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, thence in a north- easterly direction along the common boundary of said Tax Map 19, Parcel 29A, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, to the southern- most point of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, thence continuing in a northeasterly direction on the common boundary of Tax Map May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000014 19, Parcel 29D, and Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, to a point where Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, Tax Map 19, Parcel 29C, and Tax Map 20, Parcel 6A, all intersect. Thence in a northwesterly direction along the common boundary line of Tax Map 19, Parcel 29D, and Tax Map 20, Parcel 6A, to Tax Map 19, Parcel 32C, where said road ends; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 33.1-163.1 of the Code of Virginia, a certified copy of this order of aban- donment be recorded and indexed in the name of the County as grantor in the deed book in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 9, Fire Protection, Article III, FIREWORKS, of the Code of Albemarle in Section 9-19, sale, discharge, etc., prohibited in certain locations. This amendment will set forth that it is unlawful for any person, firm, corpora- tion, organization or group to sell, offer for sale, store, display, manufac- ture, possess or discharge any fireworks within 100 feet of any gasoline pump, propane distribution tank, or other inflammable liquid distribution pump or apparatus, except in a fully enclosed building where fireworks are permitted for such sale or use. A description of a "fully enclosed building" is also provided. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1995.) Mr. Tucker summarized the need for this ordinance revision (see minutes of April 5¢ 1995. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Marvin Hamish, owner and operator of the Crossroads store in North Garden. Last year there was a minor disaster in that the ordinance which had been on the books for years was enforced a week before the 4th of July. He does not want to go through the same hassle as he did last year. Fireworks have always been sold there, and for at least the last 20 years, there were no incidents. He asked the Board to approve the ordinance. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 9, Fire Protec- tion, Article III, Fireworks, of the Code of Albemarle County, Virginia. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, FIRE PROTECTION, ARTICLE III, FIREWORKS, OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Fire Protection, Article III, Fireworks, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 9-19, Sale, discharge, etc., prohibited in certain loca- tions, as follows: Sec. 9-19. Sale, discharge, etc., prohibited in certain loca- tions. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, organization or group to sell, offer for sale, store, display, manufacture, possess or discharge any fireworks within one hundred (100) feet of any gasoline pump, propane distribution tank, or other inflammable liquid distribution pump or apparatus, except in a fully enclosed building where fireworks are permitted for such sale or use. Fully enclosed building shall not be construed to include any outdoor stands or other similar structures that have been set up to sell, offer for sale, store or display any fireworks. Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-95-1. Mill Creek. Public Hearing on a request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for 80.34 ac from Industrial Service to Low Density Residential for property immediately N of Southern Parkway on N sd of Mill Creek residential development & S of 1-64. TM76M1,Ps10&10B. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant proposes to extend the Mill Creek Residential Development to the north into an area of approximately 80 acres currently designated for Industrial Development, providing approximately 150 single family homes. This site, described above, is in Neighborhood 4 of the Urban Area and is mostly wooded. The surrounding area contains a wide variety of land uses, with Interstate 64 immediately to the north and the University 0000 5 May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Corporate Center across the Interstate (undeveloped, but designated for Industrial Service uses), Light Industrial uses to the east, residential uses (including existing Mill Creek) to the south and west. Biscuit Run, with associated flood plain and steep slopes, runs through the western portion of the site, and an unnamed creek runs along the eastern edge of the site. This proposal is in line with the Comprehensive Plan goal of containing the vast majority of residential development within designated growth areas and low-density residential appears to be an appropriate land use for the property. The property does appear to have limited usefulness for Industrial Service uses and limited usefulness for other nonresidential uses. Staff opinion is that there would still be a sufficient inventory of Industrial Service land in the County and Neighborhood 4 if this 80 acre portion were taken out of the inventory. There appears to be adequate infrastructure available to support a residential use of this property, and with an adequate level of buffering from adjoining uses to the north and east, the site appears reasonably suited for residential development. Therefore, staff finds that this request has merit for amendment into the Comprehensive plan. Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 28, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Carr, the applicant, was present, and offered to answer any questions the Board might have. Mrs. Andrea Craig, Craig Builders, said it is their interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan that it is preferable to meet the market's need for affordable housing to building homes within the designated growth areas rather then in the rural area. They have shown that this subdivision can meet the market need within that designated growth area. Mill Creek, which will be this subdivision's prototype has contributed ten percent of the market in the last ten years. Therefore, they feel the market need for such homes is a strong one. Mr. Kevin Cox was present to say that he supports this rezoning. He said there is no question, but that the County's land use policies and zoning policies have effected the cost of housing and there is a need to zone more land for residential growth close to the urban area and infrastructure so people do not have to move out into the rural areas to get a house they can afford. There is a market factor, people want to live close to town so they are close to services. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall said he talked to Stuart Gardner and Mike Matthews of the Mill Creek Homeowners' Association, and he walked the property with Hunter Craig and he believes this is the best use for the piece of property involved. He then offered motion, which was secon4ed by Mrs. Humphris, to approve CPA- 95-01 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Larry Land, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator Virginia Association of Counties (VACo). Mr. Land said VACo exists to support county officials and to effectively represent, promote, and protect the interest of counties to better serve the people of Virginia. VACo is committed to maintaining direct contact with each member of the association. They feel it is particularly important to attend a meeting of the Board in order to learn about some of the major items confront- ing the County. He skimmed over a list of activities carried on by VACo. Mr. Land said he was interested in the earlier conversation concerning the designation of routes for large trucks. In the recent past, VDOT estab- lished an advisory committee to help with a process of reevaluating the procedure they have in place for that designation. He is a member of that committee and will forward information to the Board that is presently avail- able. He did ask the Board to submit their 1996 legislative requests to VACO at an early date, and asked the Board to send to VACo any suggestions for changes in their services. Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation on Welfare Reform. Mrs. Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, was present to give an overview of the Virginia Independence Program (VIP)/the Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW), which was passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1995. May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 00~0~ (Page 16) She listed seven changes to the AFDC program (the VIP portion) which are to be implemented state-wide on July 1st assuming waivers at the Federal level are passed: 1) expanded ADC-UP program to 12 months; 2) added compliance with compulsory school attendance laws; 3) must cooperate in establishment of paternity within six months or up to entire grant may be suspended; 4) provides for a diversion program; 5) requires minor noncustodial parent to pay support if not in school; 6) provides for a minor parent residency require- ment; and 7) provides for a family cap provision. The VIEW items are to be implemented over a four-year period. Original- ly, they had thought that Albemarle County would not be committed to that phase until the second year, but the Governor and the Secretary want at least thirty agencies involved the first year. Because of the low unemployment rate in Albemarle County, it is likely that this program will be phased in during the next fiscal year. 1) Requires all recipients of AFDC to participate except those exempted. 2) Local departments of social services are "authorized" to provide the following: day care; transportation; job coun- seling, education and training, and job search assistance. 3) Transitional services offered upon voluntary or involuntary termination of assistance. 4) Provides for the Commissioner to set an earned income disre- gard up to one hundred percent of the federal poverty level. 5) Increases the fair market value of a vehicle to $7500. 6) Personal responsibility statement must be signed by recipi- ent. 7) All recipients not meeting an exemption and who are not employed within 90 days shall participate in a work activity for six months. After six months participants may receive education and training in conjunction with continued work experience to make them more employable. 8) An order of priority for job placement. 9) Sanctions can be imposed up to the full amount of the AFDC grant and Food Stamp allotment for noncompliance. 10) Must be able to accrue paid sick leave or some equivalent in the CWEP. 11) Unless otherwise exempt, families may receive AFDC for 24 months only. 12) Hardship exceptions to the 24 month law are to be developed by the State Board of Social Services. Mrs. Morris said it is interesting to note that in Item No. 2 the law uses the word "authorized". Day care and transportation are the two most critical factors for people who are attempting to leave the ADC program and secure employment. Currently, the law says that the department "will" provide these items to the extent that funds are available. Mrs. Morris drew the Board's attention to Item No. 5 and said the staff feels this is a positive factor. Currently, if a person owns a vehicle worth $1500 they are not eligible for ADC. That has been a stumbling block for a small number of people; a person who loses their job and had just bought a car recently. Mr. Marshall said he did not think $7500 is a high enough figure. Mrso Morris said it is much better than the current figure. Mr. Marshall said he does not think that is a fair figure, it should be $15,000. He asked what the Board can do. Mrs. Morris said the State law would need to be changed. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board add something to its legislative packet for next year. Mr. Marshall asked for a consensus of the Board members on this issue. Mr. Martin said it could be a matter of someone selling their car, and getting a cheaper car. Mr. Tucker said the public's perception of someone driving up in a brand new car and getting payments from Social Services is not good. Mr. Perkins said he does not own a car worth $7500. Mrs. Thomas said transporta- tion for people in the rural areas is one of those things that keeps them from getting a job. Mr. Marshall said he disagrees and thinks the cap should be changed. Mr. Bowerman said there are cars to be bought on the low end of the scale, and perhaps $10,000 would be a more reasonable figure. Mr. Tucker said if the Board wants staff to investigate what the figure should be, that can be done. Mrs. Morris said her department can track the number of people who are affected. Mrs. Morris said another important component is Item No. 7, for work experience. If a person has not gained employment within 90 days of being approved for assistance, they will have to participate at a work experience site. Mr. Martin asked if the local department has to set up this program. Mrs. Morris said they think so, but there are a lot of questions about the total work component. They believe the Governor's Employment and Training Department will be given some money to create some opportunities for work, subsidized or unsubsidized. The local department estimates, based on the current workload, that 250 work site will be needed if they have to implement this program. Mr. Martin said he believes the County would be well-served if it had some type of facilities where it could provide day care for the people who will need day care and part of the work requirement could be providing the day care service. He believes the problem is in finding space. He would be May 3, 1995 (Regular D'ay Meeting) (Page 17) 00001? amendable as a Supervisor in funding space where day care could be set up. He believes there is a huge market from people not only on ADFC, but other people who cannot afford the cost of day care. Mrs. Morris said the other significant change in the current policy is under Item No. 11 which sets a 24-month limit on ADFC payments. She said staff still has a lot of questions about the changes, and the State Board is currently working on regulations to answer those questions. Mr. Martin said there is a lot of debate about welfare reform, and a lot of it is partisan. A lot of it just puts people against people. In general, he thinks there is a need for welfare reform, and he asked Mrs. Morris her opinion. Mrs. Morris said there are some good pieces, but there are some that cause concern. If GETD gets involved, she wonders how much of the day care and transportation funds they will "take out of that pot". Welfare reform costs money. It is such a political issue that we are trying to create welfare reform to reduce expenditures, but if you are truly going to reform the system, money has to be spend to do it. Mr. Martin said he believes that the requirement to be in school, or if under the age of 18, to live with a parent, is positive. He has never seen a person have a baby to get their own apartment, but he has seen people who may have taken more precautions if there were not some benefit for them. Mr. Marshall said he is in favor of welfare reform, but believes some money will have to be spent that people are not aware of. He thinks a segment of society has been created that is dependent upon the system for survival, it has really become a way of life. He is also concerned about the health care of the children. The Health Department is faced with an astronomical amount of responsibility when these people go off of Medicaid. Mr. Tucker said the County Social Services Department, the City Social Services Department, and the Chamber of Commerce have been working jointly on this problem as to how these jobs will be provided. The private sector is being looked at to provide the majority of these positions. If these people can't find a private sector job, then it falls to the public sector to provide some type of employment. It behooves the County to continue to encourage the private sector to do as much as they can to provide those jobs for these people. The County has about 200 participants, and the City a possible 500. Mrs. Humphris said she is a member of VACo's Health and Human Services Steering Committee. During their discussions they had a person from a state task force on lOng-term care talk to them about the importance of training people for that kind of home care, etc. One way to have these programs interrelate would be to make money available for the necessary education and training. Also, the Extension Service is having a terrible time justifying itself and maintaining its existence, but they are the ones who have many of the programs available for teaching and training of family survival, etc. Instead of the state phasing out the Extension Service, it should be given support because they have the know how and the programs in place to do the kind of training that will be needed for all of these programs. Mr. Martin said there has to be a starting place. He is glad that it is starting and we only need to keep an open mind and see where the problems are. He has never had a client who actually put in 10 applications a day who did not get some type of job within a week. Clients who don't want to work, and don't put in the applications, don't get a job. He agrees that training programs are needed, and the Extension Service, etc'., but we need to move slowly and work together, because in this area where the unemployment rate is so low, the available jobs in the area are not that great. Mr. Marshall said in his business, when he runs an ad he gets 30 applicants, but most are just applying so that they can continue to get some type of assistance. He interviews, and when he hires them, they don't show up for work. One part of this reform act is that it will make people work. That is one part that he agrees with. With no further questions from the Board members, the subject was closed. (Mr. Bowerman left the room at 11:41 a.m. and returned at 11:43 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation Request: Community Services Act Fund, $1,147,155 (Form #940061). Mr. Tucker said the Community Services Act (CSA), passed by the General Assembly in 1992 and implemented in FY 1993-94, requSres the consoli- dation of several funding sources for services to youth and their families including funding for foster care, special education, and juvenile services. Locally, the fund is managed by the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) consisting of community parents, the directors of social services, mental health, court services units, health departments and representatives from the schools and other community agencies. However, the fund is fiscally managed by the Albemarle Department of Social Services for Albemarle resi- dents. Local funding (for both the General Fund and the School Fund) was May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 0000.:1.8 provided in the original FY 1994-95 operating budget. This request is to approve an appropriation authorizing the expenditures as required by State law and to recognize the State revenues. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 FUND: COMMUNITY SERVICES ACT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING/APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1994-95 ACTIVITY EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1155153120300205 1155153120571211 1155153120571212 1155153120571213 1155153120571214 1155153120571215 1155153120571216 1155151120571217 1155153120571218 DESCRIPTION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RESID PUBLIC CONSULTANTS RESID PRIVATE NON-RESID PUBLIC NON-RESID PRIVATE RESID PUBLIC NON-MANDATED RESID PRIVATE NON-MANDATED NON-RESID PUBLIC NON-MANDATED NON-RESID PRIVATE NON-MANDATED TOTAL AMOUNT $32,000.00 160,645o00 535,644.00 30,644.00 150,645.00 20,644.00 100,645.00 50,644.00 65,644.00 $1,147~155.00 REVENUE 2155116000160521 2155116000160522 2155124000240109 DESCRIPTION LOCAL-ALBEMARLE LOCAL-EDUCATION STATE POOL FUNDS TOTAL AMOUNT $417,220.00 99,000.00 630,935.00 $1,147~155.00 Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: New High School. Mr. Tucker noted that he had forwarded to the Board members student distribution figures including a breakdown of the middle school district by elementary feeder school, however, no redistricting decisions have been made at this time. He also included a map showing the various sites that were considered during this process as a means of visualizing the search area. Staff is requesting guidance as to how to proceed recognizing that the School Division had hoped to begin the preliminary design of the building by June 1, 1995. Also, the option on the property expires on July 22, 1995. Mr. Tucker said if the Board agrees to move forward with this, staff only needs authorization for the Chairman to sign the appropriate documents to exercise the option. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to authorize the Chairman to sign the appropriate documents allowing the County to execute the option on the 110 acres at a purchase price of $1.9 million. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin who said he knows there are a lot of people in the southern end of the County who are upset. Some say they were given promises 20 years ago that if another high school were built, it would be in the southern area. He was on the School Board at the time the idea of another high school was brought up. At that time, all felt the third high school would be built in the northern area. The County is growing rapidly on the northern side. Where this school is being placed is a legitimate compro- mise. Given the situation as it is now, he won't argue for a school on the north because geographically that would be a problem. This is an ideal place and an ideal compromise between the growing area of the north and the southern area which has had to put up with transportation and travel all these years. It is a legitimate compromise that has to be made. Mrs. Humphris said she agrees. She has always said that a school of this size must be built where there are public utilities. Not only is it geographically sound, but it has public water and sewer, it is near a popu- lation, and it has been learned that that is the proper way to site schools. She feels the County is lucky to have this site at this location and to have the opportunity for it to serve not only as a school site, but for other needs that the County will have in the future for a possible library, fire/rescue station, and vehicle maintenance station. Mr. Bowerman said he will support the motion exercising the option. In addition, a developer in this community who he respects, stopped in his place of business last week and asked him to consider the implication of what the County was about to do. He did not say the $17,000 an acre is not the fair market price. He said that the last time that he purchased a parcel he paid $6-$7000 an acre for a contiguous tract. He said the implications of what the Board is doing raises the value of residential land in the urban area to $17,000 an acre and also takes 100+ acres of residential acreage out of the May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) OOO0'19 Comprehensive Plan. This developer said this puts pressure on housing costs in the urban area to an extent that he (Mr. Bowerman) had not considered. He just wanted to pass this information to the Board members. Mr. Tucker said it puts pressure on the County to replace this land area in terms of residential loss in another location near infrastructure. He does not know how this affects the cost of land in the area, but doubts that it will raise prices to $17,000 an acre. Mrs. Thomas said a lot of people in the area labelled "A" are in her district. She sympathizes with a lot of people who say this location is too far north. Almost, without exception, even the people who are concerned about its location think it is a wonderful site. These people don't add anything about the southern connector, but she believes that will make it possible to have the southern part of the growth area actually develop in a way that does not lead to some of the problems in the northern growth area. Most of her constituents are excited about the site, and she believes it will produce the best high school in the whole region. Mr. Marshall said his phone has rung more about this one issue than about everything else he has dealt with since he became a Board member. He would like to clarify statements that have been going around. In the long run, the other Board members have helped him in making a decision on this matter. The more he looks at this site, the more he agrees with what has been said today. Some people said they did not agree with the process, and he may, personally, have contributed to that. There was a meeting in Scottsville and he lead the people present to believe the Walton site was the best, so did George Landrith, and so did Bill Nitchmann. He assumed that these three people would be on the Site Selection Committee, but that did not happen. He does not want the people in the area to blame Carole Hastings, and he said he is delighted that Mrs. Hastings will now be the principal at Walton Middle School. He appreciates, and is grateful that the Board is locating the school in southern Albemarle. He does believe that the majority of people who elected him want this site, so he will vote for it. Mr. Perkins said this is a compromise. He was asked by the media if the Board intended to take a vote today, and he said he did not know. But, now that he realizes that Mr. Marshall will be away until June, this is probably the best opportunity to take a vote. With any decision like this comes criticism. He was asked why the County is buying 110 acres when it does not need that much. Ten years from now there would be other criticism if the property were needed and had to be purchased at a much higher price. Also, a number of people have suggested building smaller high schools. This is a good idea, but at this point, he thinks the Board needs to proceed to meet the needs of the County. Maybe, the County needs to look at community-based schools and having K-12 all at one site. The flexibility to do different things is needed and not be regimented. Maybe money could be saved, but in this case, he believes the Board needs to proceed. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 12:03 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia, under Subsec- tion (1) to discuss appointments to boards and commissions and under Subsec- tion (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding matters pertaining to: No. 1, a county agreement and related probable litigation; No. 2 , a taxation issue; and No. 3, a specific legal matter regarding a contract. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:33 P.M. Mr. Bowerman immediately moved that the Board certify by recorded vote that to the best of each Board members's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) The motion was seconded by Mrs. HUmphris. motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: 000020 Roll was called, and the Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to appoint the following persons to the Historic Preservation Committee. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. W. James Eddins, 2051 Polo Grounds Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 Historic Preservation/Archaeology; President, Preservation Piedmont Jeffrey L. Hantman, 209 Surrey Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia Ralph Dammann, 2958 Barrsden Farm, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 Owner, Preservation-related Business Sara Lee Barnes, Cloverfields, Route l, Box 1295, Keswick, VA, 22947 Citizens for Albemarle Dr. C. Jared Loewenstein, Route 4, Box 142, Charlottesville, VA, 22901-9163, Historic Preservation/Archaeology; Alderman Library Mary Ann J. Elder, P. O. Box 59, Ivy, VA, 22945 Owner Historic Properties; 1740 House and Woodstock Hall Tavern Mrs. Robert (Bessie B.) Carter, 852 Redlands Farm Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, Owner, Virginia/National Register Property Cynthia Marie Conte, Route 21, Box 103, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Member, Albemarle County Historical Society Robert L. Self, Route 1, Box 114, Wingina, VA, 24599 Architectural Conservator, Monticello Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint the following persons to the Mountain Protection Plan Committee. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Joseph T. Henley, Jr., Rt. 2, Box, 139, Crozet, VA, 22932 owner of Mountain Property Sherry Buttrick, P. O. Box 20, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Virginia Outdoors Foundation Page O'Neill Gilliam, Route 5, Box 21lA, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 Owner of Mountain Property David A. Tice, 601 Brighton Drive, Earlysville, VA, 22936 Professional Forester and Professional Biologist Will Rieley, 109 2nd Street, S.E., Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Landscape Planner Dr. G. Carleton Ray, Rt. 2, Box 230-C, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 Environmental Sciences Tim Michel, 1520 West Pines Drive, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 Member, Architectural Review Board Peter G. Hallock, P. O. Box 138, Keswick, VA, 22947 Owner of Mountain Land Mark Lorenzoni, Route 5, Box 340, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 Chamber of Commerce Sandy Rives, Rt. 1, Box 1136, Keswick, VA, 22947 Ex-Officio, Shenandoah National Park 00002 May 3, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to advertise for a public hearing on June 14, 1995, to consider the repeal of the open space use category for purposes of land use taxation. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mro Martin announced that he will run for reelection this Fall. Mrs. Humphris asked about the proposed connector between Mill Creek and the Lake Reynovia property. She thought the Board was to approve something further on this request. Mr. Davis said the applicant is in the process of putting together the proper language for approval. They have drawn an agreement which they want the Homeowners' Association to approve prior to bringing the proffer back to the Board. It is their intent to turn over the responsibility for the maintenance of the emergency access to the homeowners' association, and they want that approved before they obligate themselves. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. At 2:38 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.