Loading...
1989-02-08February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) 229 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 8, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Mr. Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Home (arrived at 9:04 A.M.), Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve Item 4.1 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Item 4.1. Street Sign Resolution for Old Oaks Drive (State Route 1647) and Old Oaks Drive (State Route 1649). A request having been received on May 10, 1985, from Craig Builders, Inc., for street name signs in Ivy Oaks Subdi- vision, the following resolution was adopted by the Board by the vote shown above. WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the following road: Old Oaks Drive (State Route 1647) at its intersection with Old Oaks Drive (State Route 1649) WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Vinginia Department of Trans- portation be, and the same hereby is, requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sig~ Item 4.2. Letter dated January 18, 1989, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, concerning the access road to the proposed Southern Regional Park (Route 631), was received as information. The letter stated that the park access road could be designed at a 30 mile per hour speed and that it is acceptable to place a gate house on the park access road near its intersection with Route 631. The road may be~gated and closed to traffic at that point provided such closing prohibits all public access during the time the park is closed. While fees may be charge~ for use of the park facilities, no fee may be charged simply to use the road ~f the County exercises its option to have the road maintained by the State. Item 4.3. Letter dated January 30, 1989, from Mr. Thomas F. Farley, District Highway Engineer, concerning a public hearing on February 27, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., to consider the proposed locatidn and design of Route 20 from 230 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) 0.10 mile north of Route 742 to 0.14 mile south of Route 742. This letter was received as information. Item 4.4. Memorandum dated February 3, 1989, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, concerning the salary of the Chief of Police, was received as information. Item 4.5. Department of Planning and Community Development's 1988 Fourth Quarter Building Report, received as information. Mr. Bowie stated that he noticed that in 1987 and 1988 the number of building permits was the lowest in six or seven years. He that it appears that the County may be going back to where it was in the !early 1980's as opposed to the heavy growth in the middle years of the 8Q's. I{e then asked the staff for a projection of figures for 1989. He added that the growth patterns could affect the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bain agreed and stated that he is interested in ~what the first quarter of 1989 will show, especially in areas such as Forest Lakes and Mill Creek. Item 4.6. Department of Planning and Co~unity Development's 1988 Year End Building Summary, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 26, April 9, May 14 and May 21 (N), 1986; January 6 (A), January 13, January 26, February 17 (N), March 2, November 2 (N) and November 16 (A), 1988; January 23, 1989. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for April 9, 1986, Pages 12 to 24 and found them to be in order. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for March 2, 19881, and found one typographical error; on Page 8, Arthur Williams' middle initial is "F" rather than "T". Mrs. Cooke had read May 14, 1986, pages 1 to 12; Mayi21 (Night), 1986, pages 1 to 9; January 13, 1988, pages 1 to 10; and January 23, 1989, and foun~ them all in order. ! Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom andilMr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion: S~tatus of Right-of- Way on Projects not in Current Six Year Plan, Specifically~ Routes 641 and 708. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, updated the Board. on the status of donated rights of way as of November 1, 1988, for project~ not in the current Six Year Plan. Those projects are Route 605, Route 637, ~oute 641, Route 667, Route 679, Route 688/791, Route 708, Route 737, and Route ii759 Mr. Roosevelt said the Board had revised its priorities when the Six Year Plan was adopted last spring. He indicated that top priority is no longer given to those roads where the right-of-way is already available, however, the public had been given until November, 1988, to obtain rig~ts-of-way for consideration under the old policy. He had submitted a r~port on the status of the rights-of-way on routes in the County as of November 1, 1988. He indicated that the report also lists projects that are noC in the Six Year Plan. There are three or four projects in the Six Year Pian that still have some rights-of-way lacking as of this time such as Route~ 682 and 610. There are also ten or twelve other routes listed where the citizDns have obtained February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 231 rights-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt stated that, in his letter of January 26, 1989, he had called attention to Routes 641 and 708 where the rights-of-way are not available from a hard surfaced road. He stated that VDoT no longer requires that the hard surfacing of a gravel road improvement tie into another hard surfaced road. He told the Board members that they have the option to decide what they want to improve, provided the rights-of-way are available. He pointed out, however, that he is still recommending that unless a road ties into another gravel road, that the road not be added to the Six Year Plan when the Plan is revised. He believes that this will set a precedent for citizens who want road improvements in front of their property, since they may want to donate the rights-of-way across their propertY, and insist that a short section of that roadway be improved. If theiBoard so directs, he said, he will not oppose the addition of Routes 641 and 708 into the list of roads when the Six Year Plan is revised. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is only one-quarter of a mile of dedicated right-of-way on Route 641 that could actually be improved. Mr. Roosevelt answered "yes". ~ Mr. Lindstrom next stated that on Route 708 there are two miles that could be improved, but there is a break between the end of the paved section and the next hard surfaced section. He said he does not have a problem with breaks in the pavement so long as a section Of road serving a significant number of people is improved. He is concerned with improving only a quarter- mile section of roadway, unless there is something unusual about it. If two miles of Route 708 could be paved, even if t~e pavement could not start at Route 795, he thinks this would be a meaningful improvement. He agrees with Mr. Roosevelt and would not support anythingithat would allow paving a few feet in front of houses, because it would cause the roadway to be difficult to maintain and would waste money. Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. !Way added that he believes the Board should honor the agreement made with the citizens concerning securing rights-of-way by November 1, 1988. i Mr. Roosevelt answered that he would advise the Board of each project as it happens, and that the next time the Six Y~ar Plan is revised, he will have to designate for the Board which routes must ibc considered under the old policy. This means that they will automatically go into the Six Year Plan, but he indicated that the Board will still s~t the priority order of the roads. He went on to say that between now aS December, considerable addi- tional rights-of-way may be obtained to quali~y Route 641 for paving, but the Board will not be under any obligation to pu%i the roadway into the Six Year Plan next time, even if the rights-of-way ar~'~available. Mr. Bowie asked if the quarter-mile section of Route 641 connects with Route 20. Mr. Roosevelt answered "yes". He !said this is the same section of Route 641 that was involved when a property owner decided to relocate the road and abandon the old road that ran through his} farm. Now the owner would like to have the whole section of the road widenedi!and paved. If properties were developed and houses were close to the road, Mr. Roosevelt said, he would recommend that this section of roadway be improved. However, this is not the case with this road. He said if additional r~ghts-of-way could be obtained, he would recommend it for a future Six Year Plan, but it would be considered under the new instead of the old policy. Mr. Bowie said there has been an effort Since the mid 1970's to have Route 641 paved, but all of the rights-of-wayhave not been obtained. He thinks the Board should consider approving the quarter of a mile off Route 20. He added that in light of all of the other projects in the County, a quarter- mile section of roadway on Route 641 is not enough to be paved, but he would hate to see the project dropped at this time,.and would like to see it carried forward to the next review of the Six Year Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said he would inspect Route 641 and report back to the next Board meeting, since a decision on this roadway does not have to be reached today. He added that he does not want to record rights-of-way on properties un~ess the roadway will have a good chance of going into the Six Year Plan. Mr. Lindstrom noted that there are only ~8 vehicle trips per day on Route 641 and most of them will be crossing the section next to Route 20. He said a 232 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) quarter of a mile is a very short distance to travel, so he feels it be a very significant improvement. Mr. Roosevelt mentioned that gravel road improvements have usually been made to keep the dust out of people's yards. He added that VDoT improved a quarter-mile section of roadway in Greene County about five or six years ago. In that quarter of a mile, there were eleven or twelve houses, which made paving a significant improvement. Mr. Roosevelt then stated that he understands the Board wants him to record the rights-of-way on Route 708. Mr. Way asked who is spearheading the efforts for paving Route 708. Mr. Roosevelt answered that Mr. Forest Via has been active in trying to get support for the paving of Route 708. Mr. Bowie asked who is heading the paving efforts for Route 641 and Mr. Roosevelt responded that it is Dr. Harold Young. Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Discussion - Grading at Intersec- tion of Routes 708 and 631 (Project #0708-002-241, C501), use of Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Roosevelt explained that this project has already been approved as a revenue sharing improvement. It was originally estimated to cost $100,000, be shared equally between Albemarle County General Funds and Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation matching funds. No regular secondary improvement were designated for the project. He said that the original plan called for grading at the intersection of Routes 708 and 631. However, at the prelimi- nary field inspection, it was suggested that Route 708 be! relocated in order to reduce damage to a church located at this intersectioni and to improve the overall alignment of the road. This change was supported~, by both VDoT and County staff. The new cost estimate is near $150,000. Mr. Roosevelt suggest- ed that the Board either request additional revenue sharing funds for fiscal year 1989-90 or designate regular secondary funds to supplement the revenue sharing funding for this project. He noted that the fir~ choice would delay preliminary engineering until the 1989-90 revenue sharing!process is complete and recommended that the Board use secondary funds to ma~9 up the difference. Mr. Bain asked if the Southern Regional Park is sti~1 planned to open in October, 1990. Mr. Agnor answered that opening the park ~as been delayed due to problems with acquiring the property and budgetary limitations, so the improvements to the intersection will not be a probl~. Mr. Bain asked if the budget and property problems c~$uld be taken care during the calendar year of 1990, would it be possible f0~ the delays on the project and park to be worked out. Mr. Roosevelt replied~i~that even on the current schedule, the project is scheduled for constructf6n to start in the spring of 1990, with completion in the fall of 1990. Any!idelay will alter this schedule. He also mentioned that one of the problem~ with revenue sharing is that the money has to be available at the beginning of the project. He said the Department has recently relaxed its requirements on funding and construction occurring in the same year, so the funding can be provided and then construction started when the preliminary englneermng is completed. Mr. Horne asked if the construction and completion d~tes of the project for 1990 are not met, is it reasonable to assume that the~schedule will be moved to the spring and fall of 1991. Mr. Bain said he would hate for the construction to occur at the same time the park is opening. Mr. Agnor said no one knows when the park can be opened. He said it will not be possible to open the park lwithin current budget limitations, unless money is shifted to the park f~om some other project, making it possible for the park to open on schedule. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if the County reapplies for revenue sharing, shO~uld it apply for additional money or start competing again for the total f~nds that are needed Mr. Roosevelt responded that the County would need to apply for additional funds. Mr. Agnor stated that this past year the four projects that the County applied for were readily approved. He said the staff fel~ that the delay in February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) 233 the intersection project would not be 'harmful. He pointed out that secondary road funds are already scarce. Mr. Bowie said he does not understand what will happen with the project if there is a delay. Mr. Roosevelt answered that until VDoT knows where all of the money will come from, there is no project. He added that to get additional revenue sharing funds, the County will have to ask for these funds when it makes its revenue sharing request this spring. He said that the Department will review and probably approve the request. The money would then be put with the $100,000 that has already been approved, and the whole project could be financed. He added that all of this would probably take place in June, so the portion of the year between February and June would be lost, which would probably push the advertising date into August of 1990, with construction in 1991. Mr. Bain commented that because of budgetary constraints on the park, he does not see that delaying construction on the intersection would make much difference. He then suggested that the Board request the additional $25,000 in revenue sharing funds. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Roosevelt if the request for revenue sharing is made in April with approval in June. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "usually." Mr. Agnor continued by asking that if secondary road money is used, would that money have to be taken from the already approved bUdget. Mr. Roosevelt mentioned that for a number of years, funding for projects seems to be exceeding the speed with which projects can reach the construction stage. There is a $5,000,000 balance in the County's secondary!!road funds and another $3,000,000 will become available on July 1, with very little construction being done this year. He mentioned that in two or three yea~s the big construction jobs may be beginning, and the balance that has been built up will be spent. He said most of the improvements done over the last few years, and the only three slated for this year, have been gravel road Smprovements. He has looked at the Six Year financial plan, and even though~estimates have greatly increased over what they were a year ago, it looks as though everything can be done in the Six Year Plan, when the projects can get~through the preliminary engineer- ing process. He said an exception to this wguld be the Meadow Creek Parkway, which was scheduled for construction in 1992 or 1993. He mentioned the problems with the Meadow Creek Parkway and how it is tied in with the Route 29 North project and the City projects and it appears to him that this project will probably be moved to 1994. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much of the $5,~00,000 is involved with the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Roosevelt respOnded that approximately $1,000,000 is for the Meadow Creek Parkway, the Rio Road, project will absorb approxi- mately $1,600~000, Fifth Street will take approximately $1,200,000. Mr. Lindstrom said that leaves $1,200,00.0 for the smaller projects. Roosevelt replied that the bridge on Route 669 will require approximately $300,000 of the funds, Route 678 will involv~i$500,O00, and $50,000 to $100,000 will be needed for a number of otheriprojects. Mr. Mr. Lindstrom said the gravel road improvements can be accelerated because money can be taken out of this year's!budget from the projects that cannot be constructed at this time, and then the money can be put back from the gravel road allocations next year. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if most of the gravel roads in the Six Year Plan could be ddne in these six years because of the outstanding balances. Mr. Roosevelt replied that everything financed in the Six Year Plan will be financed when the p~eliminary engineering process is finished, with the exception of Meadow Creek iParkway and the Hydraulic Road project. He said he does not see any way th~ Meadow Creek Parkway or the Hydraulic Road project can be financed befor~l1994. He added that the money is available for the other projects, and he dges not think it will delay anything to finance $50,000 worth of improvements on Route 708 from secondary road funds. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a formal resolution is necessary for this project. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he did not think sA, because the project is in the Six Year Plan, and he only wanted to have an ~nderstanding with the Board as to what they wanted him to do. It was the understanding that Mr. Roosevelt 234 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) would use regular Secondary Funds to supplement the revenue sharing funding for this project. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Financing of Gravel Road Improve- ments, Route 785 (Project #0785-002-203, N501). Mr. Roosevelt spoke to the Board regarding a dilemma concerning the financing of gravel road improvements in the secondary system in Albemarle County. he said the Code of Virginia requires that a minimum amount of the County's secondary allocation be allocated for the improvement of unpaved roads each year. This amounts to $775,000 for the current year. He pointed out that it has been the Board's policy to allocate no more than this amount to unpaved road improvements in a given year so that the State minimum has become the County's maximum amount allocated. He~ said that due a change in VDoT policy requiring that an advertised project have 70 percent of its estimated cost available at the time of advertisement, he could not longer follow the previous policy of borrowing from the paved rOad projects and returning the money through allocations in a future year~ He said that Route 785 is the first unpaved road project to fall into this category. Mr. Roosevelt said this project is $90,000 short of the 70 percent funding figure and he does not expect the rest to be available until the 1990-91 fiscal year One solution is to transfer the $90,000 from existing allocations to a paved road project immediately and finance the additional $100;i000 in next year's budget from funds anticipated for other paved road projects. He pointed out that there is no credit given by VDoT for exceeding the minimum unpaved road funds in a given year. This means that the minimum required unpaved road funding must be met in succeeding years, which effectively reduces the funds available for paved road improvements by $190,000. This~.reduction to paved road projects will eventually result in some project being deferred beyond it.~ current advertisement date. The other alternative is to ~efer the Route 785 project until 1990 when financing would meet the current ipolicy of VDoT. He asked for the Board to guide him on this matter. Mr. Bain remarked that he is not interested in takin'~ money for gravel road improvements out of paved road funds. He added tha~ia lot of secondary roads are more heavily traveled than gravel roads, and t~king $190,000 out of the secondary road funds concerns him. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Roosevelt what, in his opinion, ~are the chances of money being available for gravel road projects before th~i11990-91 time frame. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he does not think that there ~ill be any money available for gravel road projects before 1990-91. He sa~id he must find $500,000 over and above this year's gravel road allocatio_~ to pay for the projects that are already under construction, unless he can convince the State to give him credit for gravel road funds against the grav~'~l road funds that will be available two years from now. He said 70 percent~ of the money is supposed to be available when the project goes to constrUdtion, with the remainder of the money available the following fiscal year. He pointed out that this coming fiscal year payment should be made for R~outes 662, 674 and 727 from whatever additional money is necessary in the coming fiscal year. said the additional money for the next fiscal year amounts to approximately $1,300,000 while the gravel road funds for the next fiscal year are only $700,000. He remarked that it looks as though he has insufficient funds of $500,000, which would not be the case if he could use the~i$5,000,000 that is available in secondary road funds. Mr. Lindstrom commented that last year it seemed as ~.hough Route 610, which is the road that Mr. Lindstrom lives on, and certai~ other gravel ro~ would be paved within three or four years. He said he thegn received calls from other people who lived close to him, and they told h~m that they had talked to Mr. Roosevelt, who had informed them that it is~not likely that these projects will be done for seven or eight years. Mri Lindstrom wondered if the change of State policy made the difference in the ~ime frame for these roads. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes." He pointed out th~.t the $5,000,000 cannot be borrowed against, but because the County is eliglible for the $700,000 for gravel road improvements, Mr. Roosevelt coul~ use $700,000 of $5,000,000 and then pay it back. He informed the Board th!at he has been doin~ this for quite some time. February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) 235 Mr. Lindstrom asked if the $700,000 is a percentage of the total allocation for roads. He asked if the total amount of money went higher, would the gravel road improvements allocation increase? Mr. Roosevelt said "yes". Mr. Roosevelt said gravel road projects are easier to get accomplished. He gave an example of the spot improvements scheduled on Route 631 (Rio Road), and said that this project was started four years ago, but only three improve- ments have been completed on a short span of that roadway. He went on to say that it is difficult getting hard-surfaced projects to contract. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem seems to be that there are not any hard- surfaced projects worthy of being in the Six Year Plan that will be able to go any faster, anyway. Mr. Roosevelt agreed. Mr. Bain asked why the Fifth Street project could not move faster. Mr. Roosevelt responded that a lot of time was spent on the sidewalk issue, and he would take most of the blame for this problem. He mentioned that discussions relating to the sidewalk were started approximately a year ago, and the issue was just resolved at the last meeting of the Board. Mr. Bain then asked when Fifth Street would be constructed. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the date for Fifth Street to be constructed is July, 1991. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he is reluctant to take money out of the secondary paved road system to put on gravel roads, unless there is a crisis. Mr. Bowie said last year there might have been a slightly different set of circumstances county-wide on gravel roads, because of the Board's November 1 change in policy for obtaining rights-of-way. He mentioned that on Route 785 the citizens were unable to acquire voluntary rights-of-way so they bought the land from the people who did not want to idonate it. He believes that if money is not available, then projects cannot '~be done, but if money is avail- able, then he does not see any need to look for projects to spend this money on, when worthwhile projects are already wai~ing for construction. When the citizens live up to their half of the bargain, he said, the County should do the same. Mr. Bain said the Board needs to decide,~iif it wants to change the policy. He said the Board will have to decide if Rou~e 785 is different from any other gravel roadway for which the necessary right~-of-way have been collected, and if secondary road funds could be used for th~s project. He said he is not ready to change the policy because he thinks i!!it will set a precedent to take money out of secondary road funds. Mr. Home said he thinks the problem li~s in getting plans through the planning and designing process. He does not ~!think the Board should just accept that the projects cannot get through tihe process and so the money will have to be taken from one fund and put into another. He mentioned that the list of roads that met the Board's November t~ deadline indicates that it will be six or eight years into the future before ilthere is any money available except discretionary gravel road money. He dloes not think the Board should continue to put money into gravel roads because continually removing money from the secondary funds will eventually del~y those projects. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Home and ~said he believes the Board needs to have a work session with staff to see wha~ can be done get the projects started, instead of allowing the funds to be !spent on projects that do not serve a significant public need. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not understand why the Board cannot request that credit be given the County against future years' gravel road allocations for the over-expenditure that is necessary fok this year, in light of the State's new policy and the County's dilemma. !He is concerned that VDoT may not want the County to spend this money because it can be used somewhere else in the State. He has no problem with construCting the gravel roads if it does not permanently affect the funds available toi deal with the other projects. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he does not ne~d a formal resolution from the Board. He believes that, from the guidance t~at the Board has given him, he can report to YDoT that Route 785 will have t~ be delayed until gravel road funds are available. 236 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) The Board asked Mr. Agnor to draft a letter to VDoTrequesting that credit be given the County against future years' gravel road requirements for over-expenditures in the current year. Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Discussion Bridge at Route 620. Mr. Roosevelt explained that on August 26, 1988, he had received a copy of a petition requesting improvements to the bridge on ROute 620 over the Hardware River, and that the improvement had been included in the most recent Six Year Plan for secondary improvements with a low priority number (Project #0620-002-6019). He said the project has been deferred because bids far exceeded the maintenance replacement funds allocated for the project. In the meantime, funds were transferred to other qualifying maintenance replacement work. He said the plans and easements that had been obtained were still valid, and the bridge could be constructed if funding were available. Mr. Roosevelt said an allocation of $320,000 in the next fiscal year's budget would be sufficient to finance the replacement of the bridge with a concrete- floored bridge two lanes wide and allow minor improvements to the approaches on either side. Mr. Bain asked what the vehicle count is per day for Route 620 compared to Hydraulic and Rio Roads. Mr. Roosevelt responded that Route 620 carries 726 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Bain responded that he does not want the money to just not be used, but he thinks that the work on Hydraulic Road should be done quicker. He thinks it is ridiculous to postpone this work until 1995. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the plans for Hydraulic Road could be ready'iby 1992 or 1993, but the financing of the project cannot take place before 1994. He feels that spending $320,000 on Route 620 will not delay the Hydraulic Road project at all. He pointed out that the cos~ of the Hydraulic Road i~roject will be millions of dollars and using $320,000 now will not affeC~t that project. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Roosevelt needed a motio~!ifrom the Board concerning the Route 620 bridge project. Mr. Roosevelt ~swered that he does need a motion so that he will have proof that the Board ~11 definitely finance this project for next year. i~I Mr. Lindstrom asked that a work session be scheduled~iwithin the next month, to coincide with the Comprehensive Plan work sessi'-~ns, to go over the list of large projects in the Six Year Plan in order to d~termine what can be done to expedite the planning and design process. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to reallo- cate funds in the current Six Year Plan to allow the YDoTito proceed with bridge improvements on Route 620 in the next fiscal year.~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow.~ng recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and:~Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. i Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: To consider ame9dmng the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries to include Tax Map 56, Parcels 66C and 66E, for water and sewer service to existing structures. Mr. Home said that during construction of the sewerlsystem in Crozet, two existing septic systems had been damaged. The problem is that both parcels are in the service area designated "water only to'iexisting struc- tures''. The Albemarle County Service Authority is asking.!that the Board amend the service area boundaries to include Tax Map Parcel 56-66E, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Helt, and Tax Map Parcel 56-66C, owned by Mr. !and Mrs. Walter F. Perkins. Mr. Home said the staff recommends that the areas be put into a limited service category for water and sewer to existing Structures, only. He said the staff does not want to foster additional development on these proper- ties by use of the sewer. February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 237 Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, informed the Board members that he had written them a letter on December 16 explaining the conditions of the amendment. He added that this is the first time that the Service Authority has ever petitioned the Board to make changes in its jurisdictional area, and he hopes that the Board will feel that it is proper to do so. Since no one else wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority's boundaries to include Tax Map 56, Parcels 66C and 66E for water and sewer service to existing structures. Mr. Agnor said the Service Authority has identified some parcels where a sewer system crosses the property but there is no damage to the existing septic systems. He said the staff will bring to the Board a report on a limited service area that would allow existing structures to connect to these sewer lines, if the septic system fails. Mr. St. John said the Board should not take a chance of being accused of disregarding a section in the Virginia Code which states that a public facili- ty cannot be extended until the Planning Commission finds that the extension is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.. Otherwise, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended before the facilities can be extended. He believes that this kind of extension is not ~f a magnitude that would require that kind of review, but he would not like t~ see the Board set a precedent. At this time, roll was called and the mgtion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. (Note: At 10:44 A.M., the Board recessed, then reconvened at 10:49 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 6e. Highway Matters: Discussion - Painting of Lines into Subdivision to Distinguish Subdivision Entrances from rest of Pavement. Mr. Roosevelt said he had talked with the Culpeper traffic engineer who has that responsibility. He reported that it is not feasible for VDoT to mark turn lanes on roads which do not also have ailcenterline because of the cost involved. In order to quality, a Road must qarry over 500 cars per day and be wide enough to mark with a centerline. Mr. ~oosevelt went on to say that he would institute a program whereby over the n~t few months reflectors would be installed on posts at every turn lane on secdndary roads. Mr. Lindstrom asked if an edge line can 'ibe required from the subdivider in the future on roads where there is not a centerline. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes." He said the line will need to be re-marked approximately once a year, and that will be a cost that will have to be borne by the State. He said it is not economically feasible to mark only a few hundred feet. Agenda Item No. 6f. Other Highway Matters not on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Roosevelt summarized a memo from Mr. Richard P. Moring, Director of Engineering, dated February 3, 1989, concerning a rural addition on Route 611, advising that rights of way had been obtained and recorded for the extension of Route 611. A resolution accepting this section into the Secondary System is being requested. Mr. Way asked where Route 611 is located. Mr. Roosevelt replied that Route 611 runs from Route 691 west of Crozet to the edge of the Blue Ridge Mountains, and the addition runs from the end of State maintenance almost to the Skyline Drive. He said there is an allocation of $80,000 in this year's 238 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) budget for rural additions, and the Board has already authorized that $38,550 be used for this project. He said a formal request has to be made before it can be added to the system. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the cost of the project is $38,550. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes." Mr. Roosevelt said the road needs to be widened. He said this is the original road that went over the mountain, and in 1932 the first few miles were added to the system. He said VDoT has not done anything to improve its section of the road in the last 50 years, and the citizens in that area have done a few improvements. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution taking Route 611 into the State Secondary System of Highways as a rural addition for the amount of $38,550. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways a~nd Transporta- tion be and is hereby requested to accept as a Rura~ Addition into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the fo~i'lowing road: Beginning at the existing end of State maintenknce on State Route 611 and proceeding 0.95 miles northwest of that point along the existing private roadbed.~i.~ The centerline of the reconstructed State maintained secondary road will be identical with the cent~rline of the existing private road at this location. ~' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40iilfoot unob- structed right of way and drainage easement along t~is requested rural addition as recorded by plats in the Office o41 the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book ~i031, pages 397 417, 407, 412, 402, 437 and 433. Mrs. Cooke asked the status of the stop light at th~ intersection of Rio Road and Huntington Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he had got~!en the traffic report back, and it showed a light was not warranted. He said the Traffic Engineer had also videotaped the intersection, but Mr. Roosevelt had not had time to review that video. After he has done so, he said he wil~! report back to the Board. Mr. Bowie said he attended a meeting concerning Rou~e 29 North on January 31, 1989, and one of the questions asked at that meeting ~as why were there sc many traffic lights on Route 29, if it is supposed to be a rapid, through higl way. He asked Mr. Roosevelt to summarize for the Board What he told the crowd at that meeting. Mr. Roosevelt said although Route 29 is part of the Brterial system, it differs from an interstate system in that it was never toi~be a limited access roadway throughout its length. He said it was intended tp provide a four-lane divided highway connecting major population centers withih the State. He adde that the only places where such a roadway could be protected by the interstate system would be at bypasses around major developed areas.{ Unfortunately, he said, it has been impossible to protect Route 29 from development, and individ ual properties have to be given access to the highway. W~en traffic entering Route 29 North reaches a certain point, a traffic light h~s to be installed in order to prevent accidents. He added that neither the Traffic Engineer nor M~ Roosevelt support installing traffic lights until they ar~ warranted and the traffic or accident information indicates that they are necessary. February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) 239 Mr. Lindstrom said he doubts that anyone anticipated the kind of develop- ment that has been occurring when Route 29 was improved to a four-lane facili- ty. He added that Route 29 was not to be used like an interstate road. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned a newspaper article that discussed the Georgetown Road and Barracks Road turn lane. He said he does not have any objection to the project that VDoT is now proposing, but he does object to the three laning of the entire road. He said the article made it appear that he was objecting to the proposed project. Mr. Way asked if VDoT has a policy concerning the location of "no litter- ing'' signs, particularly with regard to Route 20 South. Mr. Roosevelt said he had no objection to placing a few signs along that road in places where there were no other signs. He said he tries to awoid placing too many signs in an area because then drivers may not read any of them. Agenda Item No. 7. Mr. Taylor Williams: Gypsy Moth Program, Status Report. Mr. Agnor introduced Mr. Taylor Williams, the Coordinator for the Gypsy Moth Program for the County Extension Service. Mr. Williams gave a slide presentation and explained that to date, 342 separate positive egg mass sites have been found among the 1,481 egg mass survey sites visited. This means that the gypsy moth is firmly established in all parts of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. He said that no widespread defoliation is expected during the spring of 1989. However, iso- lated trees may be damaged and, in time, large areas will be defoliated if nothing is done to check the infestation. The areas facing the earliest risks are in the northern half of the County wherei~the moth has been present for a longer period of time. Mr. Williams said that several sites in the southern part of the County may be chosen as researchi?areas to evaluate tactics for controlling low level infestations. These tactics include releasing sterile male, mass trapping, and releasing a virus t~at attacks only gypsy moths. These methods are alternatives to chemical s~ray, which may be objectionable in terms of environmental hazards. Mr. Bowie said it appears that the population is growing even when the moths are sprayed. He asked if the population would grow faster without spraying. Mr. Williams answered, "yes." He.'said that under the Fairfax Suppression Program, the Virginia Department ~of Agriculture will only treat populations which have the potential for defoliation in the current year. The Department essentially allows populations to~'build up until it is demonstrated that there is a potential for damage. He added that Fairfax County prevented defoliation with the exception of 40 acres of lightly defoliated area. The counties around Fairfax, however, experienced considerably more defoliation. He went on to say that Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is labor intensive, and costly, but effective. Mr. Lindstrom wondered if it would be more efficient to have a preemptive strike. Mr. Williams answered that the appropriate way to do a preemptive strike is not to use chemicals, but natural dontrols, such as parasites and sterile males. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if natural control ~ethods were tried in Fairfax. Mr. Williams replied that some natural controls ~ere tried in Fairfax County, but some of these methods are expensive. He added that the Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County pays for lure tape to be used ~on 500 acres every year at a cost of $45 per acre. He added that the IPM program is an expanding one, and he does not see any way of avoiding it. He mentioned that it would be possible to bring in a spray and treat the whole County, iilbut he thinks this would be ecologically damaging. He said it is not clear whether the spray program would serve as an effective preemptive strike. ~i Mr. Bain pointed out that even though F~irfax has an effective program, the methods used there have to be used more khan once. Mr. Williams agreed, but he said that the damage will level off and eventually decline. He went on to say that last year was the first major outbreak in Fairfax County. He 240 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) remarked that a similar investment will probably have to be made for next year but he expects that a reduction in acres will be treated, with an eventual leveling off. He said the outbreak comes in cycles, and there will be approxi mately five years of innocuous population and two years of outbreak. Mrs. Cooke questioned the sterile male release program, and pointed out that in an egg mass, there would probably be an equal number of male and femal Gypsy Moths. Mr. Williams answered that the population has to be flooded with sterile males for this method to be effective. He that they will compete with the wild population and will mate with the females, and those females will produce egg masses with no eggs. He stated that the population is suppressed by lowering the growth rate. He added that defoliation will not be prevented that particular year, but it lowers the population for the next year, and in some cases it can eradicate an isolated infestation. He stated, too, that thi~ is one of the methods that was used against the Mediterranean Fruit Fly and th~ Cotton Boll Weevil. He said that there will be some environmental concerns an~ questions, but the Federal Government has a policy for dealing with them. Thi~ policy requires the issuance of an environmental impact ~tatement and solicitsll opinions from interested groups. He said these groups, in general, support th~ program because they realize that the government is trying to implement an ecologically sound and integrated approach by using natural controls as well a safe chemicals. He mentioned that it is also hoped that i~a homeowner's self help program can be started where egg masses will be recognized and treated on the homeowner's property and reported to the proper authorities. He said quarantine laws are also effective so that Gypsy Moths will not be transported from one area to another. Mr. Williams said there are two sprays used to control gypsy moths: one, a biological control spray, p=otects foliage, and the other, a chemical spray, prevents im~nature insects f~om reaching adulthood The use of this chemical spray is controversial. The sp~ay is non-toxic and does not kill adult gypsy moths, but it could hurt mosquitos and other insects He added that the spray lasts two days after it is sprayed and then it breaks down, but it does not travel from one area to another. ~e said, however, that it is not registered for use over open water areas. He ~%nt on to say that this spray is very effective and inexpensive. Mr. Bain wondered if Fairfax County used the insect ~igrowth regulator spray. Mr. Williams answered that Fairfax is using the ~owth regulator spra) more now, but the emphasis earlier in the program was on i~he biological contrc spray. He stated that it did not suppress the populatio~i but instead pro- tected foliage and prevented an increase in the population. Mrs. Cooke asked if there is a predator to the Gypsy. Moth. Mr. Williams said the gypsy moth came from Europe, and its native predators have been left behind. He said the USDA has been in the process, over t~e last 50 years, of reintroducing those predators from Europe and Asia to control the moths. He mentioned that there are approximately 400 native species!i of birds that will eat gypsy moths, and they exert quite a bit of control ati low levels of popul~ tions. He stated also that there is an introduced ground~ beetle in this area which eats caterpillars. He said the parasites depend onltheir life's growth from the gypsy moth and as the gypsy moth prospers, the p~rasite prospers. Mr. Way asked what time of the year zs the best for ~lacing the traps. Mr. Williams responded that the traps monitor gypsy mothsI although mass trapping may be an experimental technique to suppress lowI level populations. He said that the traps should be set by the middle of Jun~, and they should be taken down by late August. Mr. Way inquired if Mr. Williams is getting cooperation from people throughout the County. Mr. Wmllmams samd the publmc has ~een very supportive and he has not run into any problems with the monitoring ~spect at all. He said because of the controversy surrounding the treatment~of the Gypsy Moths, public meeting will be held on February 28 at Jack Jouett~.!~Middle School at 7:'· p.m. in the cafeteria. He said that control programs and~ithe Gypsy Moth statu will be discussed and public input will be solicited. Hei~isaid that this meeting is part of the contract under IPM. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the Gypsy Moth program is funded. Mr. Williams replied that the program is federally funded and is anticipated to last for five years. February 8, 1989 ('Regular Meeting) (Page 13) 241 Mr. Lindstrom then asked how extensive a program the federal government will fund. Mr. Williams said the federal government will pay all costs of control and the scientific study while the programis in effect. He said the federal government program will not pay for his office supplies and secretarial support, but it will pay for his travel expenses. He said that even though the program is scheduled for five years, with federal budget constraints, the length of time could be cut. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the federal government would provide funds to start a county-wide program such as the one in Fairfax County, if there were a surge of Gypsy Moths during this five year program. Mr. Williams replied that the federal government would probably not fund expensive, marginally effective programs, such as the lure tape treatment. He added that the parasite program, however, has a fixed cost, and the Virginia Department of Agriculture has an insectory and raises parasites. Ail that has to be done to start the parasite program is to contact the Department of Agriculture and inform that office how many parasites are needed and the location. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the federal government would pay for a spray program if there were a massive increase in the infestation level and Albemarle County was experiencing substantial defoliation during the period of the program. Mr. Williams answered, "yes." He said the federal government would pay for the spray program if the gypsy moth population needed to be suppressed to reduce damage for the public. He went on~ito say that if an individual's home had 1,000 egg masses per acre, the Federal Government would pay the cost of the treatment, assuming the Government was still involved with the program at that time. Mr. Lindstrom next asked if Mr. WilliamS' office determines how the monies from the federal government programs will be?expended. Mr. Williams replied that the program he is involved with is an IlhM program and different situations are judged based on the potential for and co~t of damage. Funds are then expended based on the cost of control versus~he cost of damage. He said the responsibility for determining where the funds will be spent is handled at the State level. He collects data and lobbies s~rongly for certain locations, such as the four sites in Albemarle County, that ~e feels are in need of assistance. Mr. Bain asked what the cost is for Fai~ax County on an annual basis, relative to County funds. Mr. Williams replied that he would have to get back to him with the answer, but the cost of the ~ray is $10 an acre. He said that if it costs $350,000 to spray these areas, $~75,000 would have to come from outside of the County. Mr. Bowie asked what people would need to do if they want to voluntarily put the burlap bands on their trees. Mr. Wii!iams replied that the people would need to contact him. He said that he has been trying to get as much exposure as he can to make sure that the public knows that the burlap bands are available. He said that he also has various ~pieces of literature that deal with the burlap bands and describe how to look for egg masses on the individu- al's property. He went on to say that it might be in the County's interest to supplement the brochures with some professional information that might improve the educational process. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the private citizens could get the sterile male release program for their properties. Mr. Wiiliams responded that individuals will not have access to the sterile male release program. He added that the USDA rears the sterile males, but the programi is experimental and the sterile males are allocated to scientific projects. ~he parasite program, however, could be available to a private citizen if that person called someone in the State office. He indicated that the parasite~,program is not advertised. Mrs. Cooke recalled that the Gypsy Moths>are attracted to certain trees, and she asked if the oak tree is one of them. Mr. Williams answered that the oak tree will be impacted the most and there will be a decline in the oak contribution in the forests. He added that the oaks make up approximately 60 percent of most of the hardwood forests and i~ areas that have been infected for a long period of time, the oak tree will ~ecline by 20 or 30 percent. Mr. Agnor mentioned that Mr. Williams ha~ been meeting with school groups and civic groups and has made presentations a~ound the area. He then remarked 242 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) that the Federal Government has made a decision not to protect the national forests. Mr. Williams agreed, and said that the Shenandoah National Park will not treat any areas other than its developed areas. The philosophy is to "let nature take its course." He personally feels that a good compromise would be to implement biological controls in the natural areas. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems that the federal government will not do anything to help until the problem is really serious. He asked why the federal government cannot identify appropriate methods for private citizens to use, particularly in residential areas and larger areas, and make a reasonable method available to the citizens. Mr. Agnor answered that if individual property owners are dealt with, some will respond and some will not, and this affects the totality of an area, He said a neighbor's inactivity will have an effect even though some landowners try to control the problem. He indicated that the program that Mr. Williams discussed, where the State will use spraying mechanisms and the Federal Govern- ment will share in the costs, will promote an area type of control rather than an individual homeowner's control. Mr. Lindstrom con~nented that the Federal Government is just talking about the possibility of the program, but he does not see the p=ogram actually being provided. He then mentioned Fairfax County and wondered if there is a differ- ent program with different techniques available to FairfagilCounty, since there is now an established population of the Gypsy Moths there~'~. Mr. Bain asked why the counties near Fairfax County 40 not have a similar program. Mr. Williams responded that programs vary from c~ounty to county. He said the difference is that the counties with effective g~Psy moth programs have coordinators who monitor the population, educate the~publ~c and ask for assistance from the government to treat certain areas. The counties without effective programs do not receive funds from the Government. He explained the monitoring is the key to the whole issue, because monitoring makes money available from the Government. He said that everyone in ~he County should know where egg masses are so that they can be reported to his ~ffice. Crews can then be sent out to document these egg masses, and money ~ill be allocated by the Government. ii! Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is anything else that th~ Board needs to do. Mr. Williams replied that, nothing else needs to be done ~her than to create an effective educational program, which is his responsibiiity. He mentioned that as the egg mass surveying season winds down, he will have more time to devote to education. He stated that, other than to cooperate with the AIPM Program, the County needs to facilitate the public educati6n. He said that the County will have to bear the responsibility for printing b~ochures, hopefully a colored brochure, to show what egg masses and Gypsy Moths .look like so that the public can support the program. ~ Agenda Item No. 9. Early Retirement Application, approval of. Mr. Agnor said one application for early retirement f~om an employee with 36 years of service has been received to be effective on J~ly 1, 1989. He said the employee is eligible for five years of benefits at a cost of $1,263 in salary supplement and $900 in medical insurance for each y~ar, for a total of $10,815. He recommends approval of the application since ~he salary savings from replacing the employee with an employee at a lower saiary will more than offset the costs of the VERP. Mr. Agnor sa~d th~s pos~tzo~ was evaluated for elimination, but this employee works in an office that is ~lready short of staff. ~i Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. B~in to approve the Early Retirement Application (Grace P. Morris) as recommended by Mr. Agnor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following re~orded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and ~r. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. ~ February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) 243 Not Docketed: At 12:16 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn to executive session to discuss personnel matters and property acquisition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. The Board reconvened into open session :at 1:36 P.M. Agenda Item No. 10. "Rails to Trails'-', presentation by Rails to Trails group. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, introduced Mrs. Marjorie Siegel, Chairman of Piedmont Rails to Trails Coalition. Mrs. Siegel gave a video presentation on the concept of "Rails to Trails". She said the Coalition is interested in the potential abandonment of the CSX line from Charlottesville to Clifton Forge and the possible conversion of the property to hiking trails. She said the State Division of Parks and Recreation needs the support of localities if this conversion to public use is to become a reality. She pointed out that the Coalitionis not advocating the loss of any rail service; however, if the loss occurs, they feel the conversion to public use would be a tremendous recreational resource for the County. Mrs. Siegel said the Coalition would like the Board to include this potential trail concept in the Comprehensive Plan and authorize a letter of support to the State Department of Parks and Recreation, realizing that this endorsement would not be a commitment of any funding now or in the?future for the project. She them made a video presentation of what this concept would look like and the many uses that could be attained on this right-of%way. Mrs. Cooke asked Ms. Siegel if she had any information on established "Rail Trails." Ms. Siegel responded that sh~ did have some information on established "Rail Trails" and would be happy!'~to make this information available to the Board. She added that there are fiveii"Rail Trails" in Virginia. The Chairman of the Economic Developmen~ Council in Nelson County was present at the meeting and stated that there{lis significant interest in the small portion of the track that goes throughi!Nelson County and that the State of Virginia has appropriated $3.6 million for acquisition of rights-of-way. He added that Senator Thomas Michie and Delegate George Allen are both in favor of the acquisition of the particular track that is being proposed. He said Mr. Allen had made a comment, that once the rail~has been abandoned, the oppor- tunity may be lost forever. The Council Chairman stated that this railway has an interconnecting possibility to the Shenandoah National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway and could have a significant impact. He went on to say that his community is interested because the trail passes through Afton. He added that Afton has been developing as an arts and crafts community and already has an interconnecting bicycle route and some accommodations provided. He said this trail would be another interconnecting route.~ Mr. Pat Mullaney spoke to the Board, and said this video had pointed out that property has been set aside in the National Parks that will be there forever. He stated that it seems to him tha~.the County of Albemarle has the opportunity to do the same thing, and he hopes that other counties will also take part in this program. In this way, property can be set aside to serve people for years ahead. Mr. Way asked if this concept will be pUG before the Board again when review is started on the Comprehensive Plan. 'Mr. Home replied that there is justification for the "Rail Trail" in the draft, but it is not very detailed. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that there is a resolution in the Board members' packets that endorses a statement contained in House Document No. 40 regarding the outdoor recreation needs of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and further endorses the "Rail Trail" concept in Albemarle County. He then offered motion 244 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) to adopt the following resolution of support for House Document 40, Recommenda- tion 8, endorsing the concept of converting abandoned railroad lines into multi-use parks. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. WHEREAS, we, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, do hereby support House Document No. 40, Recommendation 8 (The Division of Parks and Recreation should increase its efforts to convert abandoned railroad rights-of-way into recreational trails.) contained in the Report of the Joint Subcommittee Studying the'Outdoor Recrea- tion Needs of the Con~nonwealth, 1988, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we further endorse the "Rail- Trail" concept within our jurisdiction converting abandoned railroad rights of way into multi-use parks for the benefit of all our citizens. Agenda Item No. 11. Rivanna Ruritan Club, donation of picnic shelter at Mint Springs. Mr. Agnor said members of the Rivanna Ruritan Club were present regarding a donation they would like to make to the County. Sheriff Terry Hawkins, President of the Rivanna Ruri~n Club, said that Mr. George Bailey has been the Chairman of the project, aq~ he would make the donation. Mr. Bailey said the Rivanna Ruritan Club has been working on this particu- lar project over the past ten years and has finally reached their goal. The Club would like to build, and entirely pay for, a picnic Shelter at Mint Springs Park. It would be donated to Albemarle County to be used by the general public upon request. The Club stipulated that a plaque be placed in the .shelter having the names of past presidents or others in the future, and that one time each year in July the Club be allowed to use~! the shelter for their annual picnic. Mr. Bailey then introduced members of the Ruritan Club who were also present: Rapidan District Lieutenant Govern6r, Mr. Milton Smith last year's President, Mr. Ward Robbins, and Mr. Lindsay Dprrier, Jr. Mr. Mullaney said he has met with Mr. Bailey and Sheriff Hawkins at the site, and has found a good place for the shelter. He saidilthat the size of th shelter fits the Park's needs exactly and will allow for a, ilsimilar facility to be deleted from the Capital Improvements Program. He adde~,~ that it will serve a great need, and he recommended that this donation be accepted. Mr. Way extended thanks to the Rivanna Ruritan Club o~ behalf of the Boar~ and the citizens of Albemarle County for their gracious offer. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by M~s. Cooke to accept the donation subject to the stipulations of the Rivanna Ru~itan Club, and to adopt the following resolution of thanks. Roll was called and the motion carried ~by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. W~, the Rivanna Ruritan Club is a non-profit group organized in the early 1950's and dedicated to the betlterment of the community; and W~, in keeping with this tradition of public service, the Rivanna Ruritan Club has come forth and offered to donmte a picnic shelter to be constructed at Mint Springs Park near Cr~zet; and February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 2Z15 (Page 17) Wq~qIEAS, the Rivanna Ruritan Club requests that it be allowed to place a granite plaque over the fireplace in the Shelter and inscribe upon it the names of certain of its members beginning with those of Charlie Yost and Richard Leake, with other names to be added over the years; and W~q~EAS, the Rivanna Ruritan Club also requests that it be allowed to use the picnic shelter once each year in the month of July; NOW, T~rRREFORE, BE IT RESOLV~D, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby e~presses its appreciation to the members of the Rivanna Ruritan Clublfor this handsome gift; and FURT~RRRESOLVED, that this Board does wholeheartedly accept this generous gift and the stipulations:'of the Club on behalf of the citizens of Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: County Code General Fire Protection. Amendment to Chapter 9 of the Albemarle Mr. Horne said the general purpose of the amendment is to clarify some general provisions in both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and to put these provisions in the County Code under their own sections. It would then be possible for the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to refer to these sections as the ones that control fire protection regulations in the County. He said these amendments are independent of the exact regulation and are important for land development activities. He went on to say that the items are also quite expensive so it is very important for people~who are developing land to be able to go to one location and read the requirememts. He said it becomes difficult when developers have to interpret general language or speak to a staff member who is interpreting another set of general s~andards. He said that this was part of the purpose for clarifying these regUlations. Mr. Bain referred to a paragraph that deals with providing two means of access. He wondered if this will cause extra'costs. Mr. Horne answered that most of the time there are two means of access, either through a loading area or a lane that is used for purposes of the industry or commercial establish- ment, or through a parking lot. He thinks that two means of access are appli- cable in large structures, particularly, in ~.n industrial structure where there may not be a need for an access at the back ~f the building, but there may be a large portion of the building that is not accessible to fire apparatus. He said this type of development would bear some:!additional cost %under the new regulations. He mentioned that the staff ge~rally looks for access around large institutional, commercial or industrialibuildings, anyway, but it is not currently written in a form that would alert i& developer. Mr. Bain asked if more width has been required for the fire lanes. Mr. Horne answered, "no." He said the width that:ihas been generated in the parking regulations in the Zoning Ordinance is what has been used in terms of lanes in parking lots. He then asked Mr. Robert Jenkins, Fire Official, if there is a 24 foot requirement for fire lanes, i~ Mr. Jenkins replied that the fire lane rlequires 18 feet around the perime- ter of the structure, but he said 24 feet can cause a problem in a parking lot. He said that basically in a parking lot, more.~access is needed to the fire lane. Mr. Bowie reminded Board members about past discussions relating to River Bend Shopping Center and whether parking could be prohibited in the fire lane. It was determined, at that time, that parking could not be prohibited there, and then it was determined that the fire lanes were the wrong width and in the wrong place. He went on to say that when fire lanes are mentioned, people think of a yellow line in front of a building~ He understands that the discus- sion is now centering on access to a building~through a parking lot, but he said this is not clear in the amendment. He also mentioned that there are other places where it is stated that things w%ll be done "according to the requirements of the fire official", with no fBrther guidance. For example, 246 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) chains may be provided at the entrance to fire lanes and private streets, but there are no regulations that stipulate what authority the fire official has determining the size of chains or posts, or how the locks are installed. Mr. Lindstrom called attention to a paragraph regarding a 50-foot setback. He asked if there were any possibility that this will conflict with other setbacks in the Zoning Ordinance, such as the 150-foot setback requirement on scenic highways. Mr. Horne responded that where it is required that a public or private street meet the requirements of fire lanes, then a street setback required. If the street is not approved to be used as a fire lane, then there would be a fire lane that would run back into the site. He said that maybe it could be clarified that where a public or private street is required as a fire lane, then the setback should not be more than 50 feet. ~ Mr. Lindstrom stated that the purpose is to be able to get fire apparatus within close proximity to a building. Mr. Home said that the staff will this situation. Mr. Bain asked about water flow requirement of 2,000'GPM for other resi- dential structures, and for commercial and industrial structures. Mr. Home asked Mr. Jenkins if he thinks this water flow is sufficient. Mr. Jenkins responded that he is concerned about the water flow and mentioned that he has studied other areas, and found in one building code, a hig~her volume require- ment. He said that some of the volumes required by the other standards will make it difficult for the Service Authority to provide the volume. Mr. Home then asked Mr. Jenkins if, in his opinion, 2,000 GPM's are adequate to fight a fire in residential, commercial and industrial structures~ Mr. Jenkins an- swered that 2,000 GPM's are sufficient for most structures~ but it cannot be said that this water flow will effectively fight fire in ~very structure. He mentioned that there is the ability in this ordinance to provide a higher flow for such things as hazardous chemicals, etc. Mr. Bain asked if the water flow has been increased for high hazard uses. Mr. Jenkins answered that the areas that do not meet the m~inimum flow require- ments have been protected with automatic sprinkler systems or fire walls constructed to reduce the square footage. It was requested that further information on the areas of concern be furnished to Board members before proceeding further with i~his requested ordinance. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Amendment to Chapte~ 17 of the Albemarle County Code - Solicitors. Mr. Agnor said this matter originated with a suggestion by the Common- wealth Attorney's office that the County consider limiting the number of hours on solicitation because of the potential problem of having!solicitors in residential areas after dark. He said Mr. St. John developed a proposed amendment to Chapter 17 of the County Code and then examined the constitution- ality of limiting solicitation to daylight hours. Mr. St. ~John found a case ' the Federal District Court which determined the ordinance ~o be unconstitu- tional. Mr. Agnor said, however, that Mr. St. John found Ghat, under Virginia law, it could be a valid provision, providing that the Board had before it a valid and compelling reason for restricting the solicitation to daylight hours only. He went on to say that there was another proposal to include an addi- tional section, which has not been drafted, but this section would make the entire ordinance subject to a new section of state Code which covers solicita- tion by charitable and civic organizations of contribution~ and requires those organizations to register with the State Commission of Agriculture and Consume~ Services to become a valid soliciting agency. He mentioned that he has had several calls from citizens who are engaged in sales of hotisehold appliances t~ residential customers, and this is their only source of ~n~ome. He said these citizens pointed out to him that the only time their custom, ers are at home is at night, and they were concerned that this type of ordina~he would prohibit them from earning a living. He remarked that Mr. St. John !~ould elaborate if the Board so wished. Mr. St. John said he would like to talk to the Commonw~alth's Attorney about this situation. Mr. St. John believes that this amendment could be February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) 247 troublesome if it were presented as a "blanket" amendment. He does not know what Mr. Dorrier's reason is for making such a request. Mr. St. John believes that the problem will have to be dealt with ~y some other means. He pointed out that the Board does not have a compelling reason for imposing this ordi- nance because it does not know all of the facts at this time. Mrs. Cooke asked if solicitors have to have a permit, and if so, where do they obtain one. Mr. St. John replied that the solicitors have to register with the Police Department and pay a fee for' the cost of the processing. Mrs. Cooke then asked if solicitors are~ required to show a permit to homeowners. Mr. St. John answered that the State Law requires that a solicito~ show a permit, if asked to do so. He stated that solicitors also have to register with the Commission of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the act of registering could be considered a constitutional burden on the solicitor. Mr. St. John responded, "No." He said that the requirement for solicitors to register was challenged, but the chal- lenge failed. Mr. Way then suggested that the Board allow Mr. St. John to confer with Mr. Dottier on this matter. Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Amendment to current fee schedules for Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Parks & Recreation, Soil Erosion, and Inspections Department. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that they had asked the staff to review all of the fee schedules and report b~ck if it was felt that any of them needed amending. He said that the Department of Engineering currently charges two fees: the Erosion Control Plan Review fe~ of $75 and the Erosion Control Inspection fee of $25. Both fees are coverm~g the actual cost of the plan review and inspection by that department. S~nce approximately 100 percent of these costs are recovered, the staff is not ~ecommending any change at this time. With regard to the Inspections Department, Mr. Tucker said an attempt is made to recover 100 percent of the cost for the inspections that are provided. He said the new fee schedule should increase,ithe annual revenue of that depart- ment by approximately $8,500, based upon the number of permits that were issued last year. Mr. Tucker stated that revenues are deri~ed from several activities in the Parks and Recreation Department with current Tevenues accounting for approx- imately 30 percent of that department's budge~. The fees for the recreational classes and the youth programs are adjusted aS expenses for these particular programs increase or are eliminated if the programs are cancelled. He said that the staff is recommending some adjustments to the fees, and this will require Board approval. Mr. Tucker next discussed picnic shelter fees and said that the current fees are $10, $20 and $30 depending on the size of the group. He mentioned that the majority of the shelter fees that ave collected are $10. He said that rates throughout the State vary widely, and the City of Charlottesville cur- rently charges a uniform fee of $25, and the size of the group makes no differ- ence. Based upon last year's reservations, if the County goes to a standard $25 fee, the shelter reservations revenues wo~ld increase from $240 to $475. He added that having the same rates as Charlottesville makes sense since the jointly owned Rivanna Park will open soon. Mrs. Cooke asked if the City of Charlottesville continues to charge a fee for shelter rental during the time that park entrance fees are collected. Mr. Mullaney explained that fees are not charged ~t the entrances of the City parks. Mr. Tucker stated that swimming fees, daily entrance fees and season passes are listed in the report. He added that, in general, the daily entrance fees are comparable and reasonable when they ~re compared to loCal and private fees and to the State Parks' swimming fees. They are also comparable to the 248 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) City of Charlottesville's swimming pool fees. He said that the staff feels, however, that the season passes should be increased. With adjustments made in the fees charged for classes, Mr. Tucker said, revenues should be increased by about $17,300. He said it is the staff's opinion that if the fees are increased any higher than that, it would be cost prohibitive to many of the County's participants. Relative to the Departments of Planning and Zoning, Mr. Tucker stated tha~ this fee schedule was amended in 1984. Since that time, Staff and administra- tive costs have increased approximately 30 to 35 percent, and Mr. Tucker said the amendments listed in the report reflect those increased costs. He said these are costs that are currently charged for various plats, Special Use Permits, zoning and map amendments, reviews by the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances, site plan approval and sign permits. He said these fees will recover about 50 percent of Planning or Zoning staff costs. He said the fees should also include the Engineering Department's staff time for review of subdivision and site plans. He added that this is not included in the current fees nor are they shown in the ones proposed. In conclusion, Mr. Tucker said the Board had based its cost recovery on percentages that were mentioned earlier. He noted, however, that many of the rapidly developing communities, and particularly counties, are trying to recover 100 percent of the costs on Planning and Zoning applications. Mr. Tucker told the Board that if it wished to discuss this further, the staff would be happy to prepare this information for the Board'~ consideration. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 2:45 p.m.) Mrs. Cooke commented that she does not have any problem with raising the shelter fees. Mr. Bowie remarked that he also approves of raising ~he shelter fees. He said he is concerned about the Engineering fees and the c~nceptual issue. He mentioned that if a subdivision is being developed for prq~it, then 100 percenl of the cost should be recovered, but if people are doing ~mprovements to their property, while it is true it will improve the value of t~eir houses, they are already paying taxes and as citizens they rate some type ~f service from the County and that is one of the services. He said he is no~ saying that these services should be free to County citizens, but he does n~t think that the cosl recovery should be 100 percent, either. Mr. Bowie asked ~bout inspections for wood stoves and furnaces, and wondered if this is necessary when someone is installing a wood stove. Mr. Tucker replied that usually~he inspection is done when a new home is being constructed, and it has bee~ made clear that a wood stove will be used in that home. He added that if a~ individual is putting in a wood stove, or even if a contractor is. installing the stove sometime after the house is built, usually a permit is no~ obtained. Mr. Jesse Hurt informed the Board that 838 permits w~re processed for woo~ stoves last year. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Hurt how many per,its were for new construction of homes. Mr. Hurt answered that 40 percent ~f those permits wer~ for new homes. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 2:50 p.m.) i! · Mrs. Cooke said she th~nks homeowners would be willing to pay for the permit to make sure that they are in compliance with regulations. Mr. Bowie stated that his concern was whether or not ~ County citizen has the right to expect this service from the government free ~f charge. Mr. Lindstrom said a distinction was made years ago, ~t the onset of the fee study, between those things that were services to the ~ndividual and those things that would benefit the community as a whole. The oMiginal analysis was that it was unfair to assess the entire cost of such services as zoning agains the individual, because these services benefit the whole County. He does not think, however, that the wholm County would benefit from sbmeone getting a woo, stove inspected. He then asked how a private homeowner would know about the inspection process for installing wood stoves or furnaces.i~! Mr. Tucker replied February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) 249 that insurance companies are aware of the inspection process for wood stoves and furnaces and will not renew policies without an inspection. Mrs. Cooke said it is questionable whether an inspection on a wood stove is of any significant benefit to the County as a whole. But, it costs the County the same amount of money and time to send someone out to make individual homeowner's inspections as it does to inspect new homes. She does not see why the taxpayer has any right to expect this as a free service. Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke agreed that they can support the inspection fees. Mr. Agnor co~ented that another aspect of this issue would be related to the percentage of the operational budget that the Board would like to recover. He said the Inspections Department has always tried to recover 100 percent of its total cost, and he pointed out that general tax dollars are not expected to generate any support of the operation. He said this does not mean that the fee schedule cannot be changed, but he indicated that taxpayers are not serviced at all from the tax that they pay. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning and Zoning Departments recover 50 percent of their costs. Mr. Agnor answered that Mr. Lindstrom is correct. Mr. Bowie stated that he still has a philosophical concern about the fees, but he had forgotten that general tax dollars do not contribute to the Inspec- tions Department. He added that heagrees with the 50 percent recovery of costs for the Planning Department. Mr. Bain asked what arrangements are made for people to pay for fees to the Parks and Recreation activities if they get Social Services assistance. Mr. Mullaney responded that if people who are on assistance cannot qualify through the Social Services Department for help on fee charges, they are sent to his office, with a note from the Social S~rvices Department, verifying that they do not qualify for assistance for these~fees. He said these people are then charged a reduced rate, which is a very~!nominal fee. Mr. Bain asked if these recreational activities are regularly used by people who need assistance. Mr. Mullaney answered, "yes." Mr. Way asked if Mr. Mullaney feels that these fees are reasonable in terms of recovering costs. Mr. Mullaney responded, "yes." Mr. Way added that the County should not price its recreational .facilities out of the reach of its citizens. Mr. Bowie wondered what percentage of the cost of operation of the parks is actually earned by the fees. Mr. Mullaney replied that the swimming pro- grams, which involve the operation of the beaches, employment of the cashiers and the part-time labor force, are covered by. the revenues that are brought in by the swimming program. He said these revenues do not apply to the help that is needed all year, such as the groundskeepers, who work at all of the parks. Mr. Bowie referred to the Planning and Zoning section and noted that the fee went from $100 plus $1 per lot to $130 plus $1 per lot. He said he does not have a problem with the $30 increase, bu~ he does not think that the $1 fee will make much difference. Mr. Tucker replied that it is an "add-on" fee which the County has always had. He said there is a base amount of time that will be spent, whether or not it is a five lot subdivision or a 20 lot subdivision, and the larger the subdivision is, the more time Will be spent to inspect it. He agreed that $1 does seem insignificant. Mr. Bowie asked if, relative to the $1 f~e, this is a technical issue or does a larger number of lots require more tim~. Mr. Tucker responded that more time is spent reviewing larger subdivisions. , He went on to say that the staff will see if it is possible to use some sort o~ a break point in these subdivi- sion fees, before the schedule is brought bac~ to the Board. (Note: The Board recessed at 3:00 P.M. and reconvened at 3:15 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Solid Waste Task Force. 250 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) Mr. Agnor said staff has been working to develop the information re~ by the Board regarding goals, staffing and funding the task force. He said work of the task force will take approximately seven months. The work plan includes review of available reports, evaluation of short and long term str~ gies, review of soils study, developing a hierarchy of alternatives for manag- ing solid waste, receiving public input, and making recommendations. It will be necessary to allocate funds for private consultants to, update certain data and for advertising. The recommendation for the composition of the Task Force is as follows: 1. One City Council member 2. One Board of Supervisors member 3. One member of the City Planning Commission 4. One member of the County Planning Commission 5. One representative from Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission 6. One representative from the University of Virginia 7. A chairperson selected jointly by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors 8. Two or three citizens from the City 9. Two or three citizens from the County. Mr. Way concurred with the recommendation and felt that even though it would be a large committee, there is a need for the three Citizens from each community. Mr. Bain agreed. Mr. Bowie said he also suppQrts the recommenda- tion as it is presented with three members from each commttnity. He said that if there is not a broad base of community support, the time will be wasted. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept staff's recommendation for composition of the Solid Waste~.~ask Force as set above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom andiMr. Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Work Session SchedUle on Capital Improvements Program (CIP). I~ Mr. Agnor said it has been suggested that the CIP needs should coincide with operational needs so that allocations of resources cQuld be more accurate To accomplish this, the CIP cycle could be shifted to the Fall and become a year plan, with major revisions made biennially, and mino=~updates or adjust- ments done between the biennial cycle. Mr. Agnor felt a Fall CIP schedule would be difficult in election years for board members inW~lved in running for re-election. 'i Mr. Way asked what would happen this year with projects that are due to start and need allocations. Mr. Agnor said he does not believe there will be many such projects, but they would have to be brought to the Board on a case- by-case basis. He said it would have to be decided how these projects could handled without impacting the other projects that would be reviewed several weeks later. He said most of the new requests being receiged are not for the first year of the CIP. He added that if the Board wanted to be sure that the allocation of revenues is done for both budgets at the same time, the Board could postpone the adoption of the CIP until the operatingiibudget is adopted April. This would allow the school system to get its work'~.!~one in the summer, but it does not give any priority to the allocation of revenues to a CIP program that would be approved before the operational needs! are known. Mr. Agnor said staff tried to tie the CIP to a fiscal year, but it is an ongoing program and does not divide itself by fiscal years~ He believes it would be helpful for the school division staff members to have time to develop their requests in the summer months when they are not in the midst of a school year. He said the original request for a change came from the school division. Mr. Bain remarked that he is willing to consider extending the program six years. He added that the County is growing, and it might still be neces- sary to examine the program every year. '~ February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) 251 Mr. Lindstrom asked about funding through Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) and how refined the project and the project budget have to be. He said the Crozet and Southside School projects have already been considerably devel- oped. He wondered if it would be possible to get YPSA bonds to build a school in the future, even though complete details~were not available. Mr. Agnor responded that the projects have to be outlined in detail. He added that once there is authorization to participate in the bond issue, the bond will be for a maximum amount of money. If the cost of the school goes over that amount, it would have to be funded from the County's own resources. He went on to say that the County would have to be down to the final design and cost estimates would have to be produced and verified before authorization were given by VPSA to participate in the bond issue. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he does not believe that this process would cause the YPSA bond issue process to be awkward. Mr. Agnor pointed out that the County could elect to borrow through ¥PSA next Fall even though the whole Capital Program was not adopted. Mr. Lindstrom asked if bonds could be sold for a project at a later date to recover money that has already been spent. Mr. Agnor replied, "no." He said Bond Counsel has to have the outline of the project, the budget for the project and the pay back on the bonds before the bonds are ever issued. Mr. Bowie said that, in his opinion, the County has considerable funding ability which creates a lot of flexibility. As far as the schedule is concerned, he thinks that the six year process is more logical, and he would like to try it. Mr. Lindstrom asked exactly what will happen under this proposal for this year. Mr. Agnor responded that requests will be taken by the planning staff, but will be held until the school's long range facilities plan has been com- pleted. The review process will then begin ~nd should be completed by early October. Mr. Agnor said members of the Boar~ need to agree in principle that this will be a transition year to shift the ~IP cycle to the Fall of the year. There were no objections from Board members. Agenda Item No. 17. Request from South~ide Health Center. Mr. Agnor said the County has a lease w~th the Southside Health Center which provides for the use of the property f~r a rent of $500 per month. The rent is to be used for maintenance of the property. Southside Health Associa- tion has negotiated to build a new clinic about one and one-half miles from its current location. The present facility woul~ be abandoned once the new one is operational. He said the Southside Health C~nter has requested that the County give them the net proceeds of the rent, which amounts to $12,000 for use in developing the new clinic. He said that according to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the CoUqty may retain the sale proceeds by continued operations of a replacement facility. Therefore, staff's recommenda- tion is to obtain a three party contract between the County, Southside Health Center and Central Virginia Health Association, which cOntinues the operation of a health clinic in the Esmont area, and a~locate $12,000 which will reim- burse Southside Health Center for about two-thirds of their cost of the land for a new site. Once the new facility is operational, the County can sell the old facility and keep the proceeds. Allocation of $12,000 from the General Fund is the first step in the process. Mr. St. John asked how the County could iigive the Center $12,000, then sell the building for a higher amount of money an~. keep the profit. According to HUD, Mr. Agnor said, all that is needed is a i~ritten agreement stating that the health program will be continued. He said tl~ere is no reference to the dollars that will go into the program. He said, too,~ that there has been no continual obligation with this project, except for providing the Center with the and to maintain it. The Center paid rent to i~he County, and no general fund allocations have paid for the operation of t~ Center. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there would be any zoning change on the new prop- erty. Mr. Agnor replied that there may be a ~Zoning change on the new property, but this has not yet been discussed. He saidi a local attorney is handling this 252 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) matter for the Center, and he assumes that the attorney is aware of the plan use regulations. He said the staff would contact the attorney to make sure that he knows about the regulations. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve an appropriation of $12,000 from the General Fund as recommended by staff, by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Contribution to Southside Health Center EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100059000568200 SOUTHSIDE HEALTH CENTER TOTAL $12~000.00 $12,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 APPROPRIATION FROM GENERAL FUND BAL. TOTAL $12~000.00 $12,000.00 Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion: Employment of Chief of Police. Mr. Agnor said the Board is familiar with the normal-~!process that is followed for hiring a County department head. The alternatives to this proces~ would be for citizens and staff of the Police Department ~nd heads of local la% enforcement agencies to be solicited for their comments on the qualities, background, and leadership skills of the candidate. Thisilalternative process could be accomplished by public meetings being held with ~he Chairman of the Board, Board members and/or Mr. Agnor present. He said h~ has already started the process to have a meeting with the staff of the Polic~ Department. These law enforcement heads could give their opinions on the candidates or they coul be requested to conduct the formal interview and testing process that is used in the law enforcement field for positions normally belowilthe chief's level. He said this process is operated by a professional law enf~orcement co~nittee. This committee could score the candidates, and those findings could be used, iJ the BOard thinks that it would be worthwhile. He said a ~anel of County citizens could be appointed by the Board to meet the finaiists and give their impressions of the candidates. He mentioned, also, that Ri background check is always done on anyone involved in law enforcement. Rathe~ than having this done by the County's Police Department, Mr. Agnor proposed that this be performed by an independent agency. He stated that the a~vertisement process has already begun and notices of the vacancy have been se~t to local govern- ments in Virginia. He informed the Board that its direction on the alterna- tives will be needed within the next ten days to two week~i, if a decision is not reached today. He added that the application deadlin~ has been set for March 3, and the process needs to be in place by that timel. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the application deadline allo~s enough time to advertise the position in professional journals. Mr. Agnqr replied, "no." He said most professional journals require at least six week~ notice. Mr. Bain remarked that this is a tight schedule, and ~he understands the reason for it, but to get people from other states involv~ takes a while. He is not sure he supports the application deadline. Mr. Agn~or responded that th~ advertisement and application process usually takes five w. eeks. The interview and checking the references normally takes three to four ~i~eks, and the back- ground check takes one to two weeks. Mr. Agnor said when a job offer is finally made, and if the applicant has to resign from anobher job, it usually takes another month. He added that for a normal departme~ head, it is a ninety day cycle, but with law enforcement it takes sligh6~ky longer because of the background check. He said that it would be no problem~I to extend the deadline. ~{ February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) 253 Mr. Bain wondered if there is an association of the Chiefs of Police in each state. He said that, if so, there would not be a waiting period if advertisements were sent to these associations. Mr. Agnor agreed. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that, if by March 3 there is not a good selection of applications for the position, then an advertisement could be sent out to professional journals and Chiefs of Police in surrounding states with the deadline extended for another 30 or 40 days. Mr. Way agreed that Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion was a good one. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the March 3 d~adline does not concern him if there is the flexibility to extend it in a meaningful way. He also thinks that Mr. Bain's suggestion of contacting the Chiefs of Police should be considered. He is not sure how other people feel, but he! does not object to having one meeting to receive comments from the public as to what qualities the Chief of Police should have. He suggested that the hearing be advertised and held early in the application process. The Clerk and Mr. Agnor suggested that the Public Hearing be held on March 1, 1989. Mr. Bowie agreed that there should be citizen input, but it should be as broad as possible, so that anyone who has a thought about this position, could express it. He said he does not have any objection if the County Executive and the Chairman of the Board want to meet with ditizens. Mr. Way felt the meeting should be a public hearing before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the wording of the advertisement be as precise as possible to make it clear to the public that the meeting is to get the public's input on what criteria should be considered in the selection of the Chief of Police and not on whether therelshould be a police department. He said the public could also put their comment~ in writing, and they would be accepted within a certain period of time. H~ stated that these two notices could be announced at the same time. By the-time the applications arrive, the written and verbal comments from the public ~ill already have been received, so that the people who are evaluating the applications can have access to these comments. Mr. Lindstrom said he also likes the idea of involving the local law enforcement agency heads and would like to i~clude the Commonwealth Attorneys of both the County and City. He said he has:no objection to the local law enforcement agency heads and Commonwealth Attorneys meeting with the finalists and interviewing them, and th~nks this mightl~e the appropriate way to handle it. : . Mr. Agnor said the Personnel Department !will make the first deletion of the applicants. Ail the remaining applications will be sent to Ray Jones, Bob Tucker and Carole Hastings for a separate re~iew. From these applications, these three people will select applicants who~ they believe should have an interview. The three lists are then compiles and the top three applicants selected. Mr. Agnor added that these three applicants will then be called for an interview. Mr. Bowie said when the separate lists are prepared by Mr. Tucker, Mr. Jones and Mrs. Hastings, it would help to hape law enforcement representatives review these lists before the top candidates are chosen. He said a Police Chief could see the candidates differently fCom someone who is not involved with police work. He said perhaps a fourth list could be prepared by this law enforcement person. Mr. Agnor agreed, and said he would suggest that the Personnel Staff compile the list as it is normally done, but that the entire stack of applications, with no cuts, be givenlto someone in a law enforcement agency. ~ Mr. Lindstrom wondered if there would be~a problem with confidentiality if other local law enforcement people were brought into the process. He asked if this is ethical, and also wondered if the applicant should be informed of the procedure. Mr. Agnor said there would not be~a problem with confidentiality as long as the person knows that the applicants'!names have to be kept in confi- dence. He agreed that the applicant should informed if there is the possi- bility of his or her employer looking at the applications. It would then be the applicant's decision of whether to be involved in the application process. He pointed out that most applicants would tell the employer of the decision to apply for the job, anyway, because the employer will probably be called upon for a reference. 254 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) Mr. Way said he thinks several members of the Boardshould be involved in the interviews, and all members of th~ Board should be involved in the final interviews. Mr. Bowie said he believes that the law enforcement specialists should no be involved with the final interviews because of the possibility that law enforcement applicants may not apply if their employer is on the panel of interviewers. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Way if he means that the County Executive should schedule interviews separately from the Board. He added that he thinks that the interviews should be done separately. Mr. Way replied that he did mean for the Board interviews to be separate from the County Executive's. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is important that the public be involved in the abstract aspect of the application process and that the public's views be put into writing so that these views are in front of the people who will be making the decisions. He also thinks it is critical that heads of other law enforcement agencies in this area are involved in the interview process and in the review of the applications. He feels, too, that it is important that a thorough background investigation be undertaken for any applicant who is seriously considered, an investigation which would includ~ sending somebody from the staff to the community where this person has worked to interview the employer and "the man on the street." If this process is followed, Mr. Lindstrom said, he~'~Will be confident tha the things that need to be considered, that are not part?~f the normal process have been done. He said he is not sure if he, himself, Can bring anything important to the interview process. He said the County EXecutive administers the operation and personnel of the County, and this is s~mething that should remain unchanged. If the backgrounds of the best applicants are investigated thoroughly and local experts in the field of law enforcement offer their aid, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks the process has been embellished enough to make it responsive to this unique type of appointment. He is inot sure if it is appropriate for the Board to become directly involved in ~i~he interview process but he thinks it is appropriate for the Board to hear how~the process is handled. He also believes that, at the end of the proces~ when the Board sees the recommendation, it is important that the Board have t~e authority to confirm this recommendation. He is concerned when the B~rd~!!'~ becomes actively involved in the interview process, but he does want to g~ the people with the expertise and the background in law enforcement involved.i~~ He feels that he cannot add anything to the interview, except for a political element, which he thinks should be avoided. Mrs. Cooke agreed, saying that one of the reasons fo~ forming the Police Department was to take law enforcement out of the political arena, and she thinks it should be kept out at all costs. She has no prpblem with citizens o qualified law enforcement people in the community making ~ list of recommenda- tions as to what is needed and what the County should be ~ooking for in a Chie of Police. She said, however, that she has confidence ini!ithe~ system that the County already has in force for hiring. She believes tha~ deviating from that system would erode the process. Mr. Bowie said he is more concerned that the heads o~ the law enforcement agencies are involved with the screening in some of the i~terviews. He said that the option is open for the Board to interview the last two or three applicants for the position, if the need arises. Mr. Bain stated that, concerning the background inve: tigation, when the final few are selected, sameone from the staff and/or the ~tate Police could g to the community where the applicant is. currently employe~ and talk to the people there. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Mr. Way said he agrees ~hat this is essen- tial. Mr. Bain said he would prefer that the advertisement !'for the position lis' the full range of salary instead of the entry range, with ~a statement ~ndicat- ing that the salary depends on experience and qualifications. Mr. Way and Mr. Lindstrom agreed. February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 255 (Page 27) Mr. Bowie asked the Clerk to type up and mail to the Board members the explanation of the application process, with the clarifications that were made. The Board agreed on the following actions for the selection process: 1. March 3, 1989, is the deadline for receiving applications. However, tentative contacts should be made to advertise in professional journals should suitable applications not be received by the deadline. 2. Associations of Chiefs of Police in the mid-Atlantic states are to be notified. Notifications should show the full range of salary. 3. Advertise for citizen comments on criteria only for a Chief of Police at the regular meeting on March 1, 1989. Written comments may be sent to the County Executive's Office before March 1 as well. 4. Allow the Police Department staff to submit written comments and set up a meeting for verbal input. 5. Review all applications through normal processes with back-up review by the Chief of University Police, the City Chief of Police, and the City and the County Commonwealth's Attorney. 6. Compile written and verbal input in a memo. 7. Selection of ten finalists through'~normal screening process with the Personnel Director and the Depnty County Executives. 8. Face-to-face interview of finalists with the four people men- tioned above, with Mr. Agnor or hi~ designee as observer. 9. Written comments on the interview of finalists to be sent to Mr. Agnor for distribution to the Board. 10. Final interviews by County ExecutiVe and selection of one candidate .... 11. Investigation of finalist by StateiPolice. 12. A member of the Board or staff to ~nterview citizens of the community of the candidate .... 13. Board approval of final candidate. Agenda Item No. 18d. Education: MIT Grant. Mr. Agnor said the School system has received a grant of $5,000 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to create a project-oriented approach to math and science using video broadcast, telecommunications, and microcom- puters. The grant will reimburse the school system for the services of a math teacher who is to attend a training session and subsequently conduct workshops in conjunction with the University of Virginia for teachers in Albemarle and neighboring areas. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. John English, Assistant Superin- tendent for Instruction, is present to answer any question. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this grant is only for one time. Mr. English replied that there is no indication that there will be any more grant monies available, but the program will be expanded a~ross the nation. He added that Albemarle County is one of the five sites that have been selected at this time. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to appropriate $5,000 for the MIT grant as requested by the School Division. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 256 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Massachusetts Institute of Technology grant. EXPENDITURE .COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1200060628700100 Murray School-Mach. & Equip. TOTAL $5,000.00 $5,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018000189902 Mass. Institute of Tech. TOTAL $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Agenda Item No. 18a. Appropriations and Transfers: Lickinghole Creek Basin Project. Mr. Agnor said in the 1988-92 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Project is listed as a $1,810,000 project, with $300,000 derived from a Federal grant, and the balance from local funds. In 1984, the project received an appropriation of $107,500 which is shown in the current CIP as a "Prior Allocation". It was discovered this month that the $107,500 allocation has been erased and the funds returned to the CIP Fund Balance in 1985 when it was anticipated that local funds ~ould be derived from the Rivanna Authority or from the County and City jointly~! Since neither of those funding arrangements happened, the current CIP is short of funds and the project design of the basin has been halted until the problem is resolved. Mr. Agnor said there are currently 14 drainage improvement projects in the CIP totaling $296,722. Of these projects, the Birnam]~ynridge Basin is the only one requiring disbursement of funds this fiscal ~ear. The balance could be postponed to provide funds for the design of the!~ickinghole Creek Basin project. Postponing the projects does not remove t~ir need or the requirement ultimately for funds, but staff can see no ot~er way to derive the funds for the basin project, and the staff f eels it is a!higher priority than other drainage projects due to the loss of Federal funds if they are not~ used during this fiscal year. Staff recommends an appropriation of $107,500 be transferred from two other projects having lower priorityil Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by M~s. Cooke to appro- priate a total of $107,500 from the Four Seasons Basin pr0~ect and the Berkeley Storm Sewer, Phase II project as recommended by S~aff by adopting the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and:Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: STORM DRAINAGE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Transfer to cover work on Lickinghole Creek Project. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1910041035704000 1910041040704000 1910041039704000 Four Season Basin Berkeley Storm Sewer, Phase II Lickinghole Creek TOTAL ($6o,ooo.oo) (47,500.00) 107,500.00 $0.00 Agenda Item No. 18b. Appropriation: Rescue Squad E.M.s. Funds. Mr. Agnor said the 1988-89 Emergency Medical Service "One For Life" funds have been received in the amount of $11,682. This amount exceeds budget February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 29) 257 projections by $102. In order to pass to the rescue squads the full amount, as done in the past, staff requests a budget amendment of $102. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to appropri- ate $102 as recommended by staff, by adopting the following resolution: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Budget revision based on actual Emergency Medical Service funds received. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100032030565002 1100032030565102 1100032030565202 CH'VILLE/ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD TOTAL REVENUE DESCRIPTION $34.00 34.00 34.00 $102.00 AMOUNT 2100024000240415 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE TOTAL $102.00 $102.00 Agenda Item No. 18c. Appropriation: United Way. In the current fiscal year, Mr. Agnor said, the County appropriated $16,835 to the United Way Child Care ScholarShips Program to provide child care to our County Aid to Dependent .Children:(ADC) clients who could not be provided child care service by the County's Social Services Department. those ADC clients were to be referred to the Unite~ Way by the County when their child care needs could not meet the State of!Virginia guidelines. He said these State guidelines changed in December, ~988, which allows the County's Social Services Department to provide the child care service and be reimbursed 90 percent of the cost by the State· ' Mr. Agnor said United Way advised the Cdunty of its inability to utilize the money with the restrictions for use by ADC clients, and requested that the restriction be removed so the money could be,!~used by United Way for Child Care Scholarships under their guideline. After c~nsidering this request, staff advised United Way that a better solution would be .to transfer the remaining portion of the annual appropriation ($12,626.~!25) to the County's Social Services Department. United Way now agrees ~hat the best use of these local funds should be to leverage additional statei!funding and fill greater needs in the County. Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that the Board approve $12,626,25 from the United Way to the Social~Mervices Department budget for this program, i Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to transfer $12,626.25 to the Department of Social Services from United Way as recommended by staff by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried hy the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. ~indstrom and Mr. Way. · ~ NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. 258 FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) Transfer of funds from United Way to Social Services for Child Care. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100053020571104 1100059000567900 Social Services-Child Care United Way TOTAL $12,625.25 (12~625.25) $0.00 Agenda Item No. 18e. Appropriation: Home Care Funds. Mr. Agnor said staff requests the transfer of $7,000 from the Board's Home Care contingency account to the Department for Social Services, based on the recommendations in the report (on file) from the Long-Term Care Coordinat- ing Committee. In FY 1988-89, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) requested County funding ($7,355) for a part-time worker to provide emergency home care to Albemarle County residents, a service JABA felt was not being provided by the County's Companion Care Program. The Program Review Committee acknowledged the increasing need for home care services, but was not convinced that JABA was the most appropriate vehicle for delivering this servi~e. The committee, therefore, recommended that $7,000 be set asked in the BoArd's account until the Long-Term Care Coordinating Committee, with the ThomaS3 Jefferson Planning District Commission as the lead agency, could study home ~are needs in the County and make a funding recommendation. Mr. Agnor said the Committee's report, based on interviews with public and private home care providers, concludes that a need for emergency home care does exist in the County. There is also a shortage of home care workers willing to work for low pay, hard work, and few benefits. Due to this labor shortage, no agency, including JABA, can guarantee an emergency response for home care. If emergency home care cannot be guaranteed, additional funding to JABA or another agency will only duplicate non-emergency services now being provided by the County's Companion Care Program. '~ Based on these findings, Mr. Agnor said, the Committee concluded that the funds be used by Albemarle County Social Services to purchMse emergency home care when needed. This give Social Services the flexibility to purchase services from JABA or any available vendor, such as Sandy'~s Health Agency or Manpower. However, if the County funded the JABA position-as requested, there would be no guarantee of emergency service and the money would not be available to purchase it elsewhere. Mr. Agnor said the s~ff concurs with the results of this study and recommends that the $7,000 in the Board's Contin- gency Fund be transferred to the Department of Social Services to purchase emergency home care for Albemarle County residents. He salid JABA also sup- ports this recommendation. Mr. Bowie complimented Mr. Agnor on the memo that was!given to the Board relating to the Home Care Funds. He said it showed that ai~lot of thought had gone into the process. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by M~. Bain to approve the transfer of funds as recox~ended by staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) 259 FISCAL YEAR: 1988/89 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Transfer of funds for Home Care Services from Board of Supervisor's contingency to Social Services. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100011010999996 Board of Supervisors AMOUNT ($7,000.00) 1100053020571003 Social Services 7,000.00 TOTAL $0.00 Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. No action was taken by the Board. Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor gave an update on legislative matters before the General Assembly. He said other localities are trying to become eligible for the one percent income tax proposed for Northern Virginia to help fund its transporta- tion needs, but there is little hope of this happening. He said there is also a House Bill involving recordation fees thatwould allow the localities to receive, effective July 1, 1990, revenues that now go to the State. These fees would be designated for education and transportation, and would amount to $690,000 for Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said it has been announced that transportation monies will be reduced by the State for all secondary road allocations starting this coming fiScal year in order to fund the Route 58 improvements across the south side of the State. He said that if this bill is approved, Albemarle County's secondary road money would decrease by $250,000. Mr. Agnor then informed the Board that the amendment to the Service county, , District legislation in the State Code would have added the word," " but the bill did not pass. He said that service districts are already allowed in cities and towns. Mr. Agnor also informed the Board of a Senate bill that removes a four year term for the School Superintendent position. Mr. Agnor announced, too, that the major'classifications of the school budget which were to be revised down to five is being expanded to seven. Mr. Way pointed out that there are 13 classifications in the school budget now. Mr. Bain asked staff to check into the possibility of publishing a newsletter to citizens of the County on the a'gtions of the Board during each quarter. Other localities in the State do this and he would not consider such a newletter to be propaganda. Mr. Lindstrom said that he believes that¥if people are interested in a topic, they will find out about it. He does ~ot think that it should be up to the Board to provide this type of informationi~ He said that in a rural situation, Mr. Bain's suggestion would probab%y be helpful. Mrs. Cooke stated that an action letter ~ould help in situations when the Board is accused of not informing the public.'l She said she could think of a number of times when this would have been helpful to her. She supports Mr. Bain's suggestion, and thinks it would be worthwhile to look further into the matter. ~ Mr. Bowie commented that he wonders how ~he letter would be distributed, because it would take a lot of postage to mai~ it. He also said that if a publication to this effect was put in the lobby, he doubted if anyone would pick it up. 260 February 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 32) Mrs. Cooke asked staff to look at the ramifications of disbanding the Transportation Safety Committee until grant money is available and interest applying for it increases. Mr. Lindstrom asked that a letter dated January 26, 1989, from Mr. Bradley Knight regarding the intersection of Routes 766 and 614, be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Agnor informed the Board that the County staff has been notified by HUD that the Jordan Development Corporation has a reservation of $340,000 in the Family Rehabilitation Loan Program for the Scottsville School project. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn to 1:30 P.M. on February 15, 1989. At 5:06 P.M., there being no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn to February 15, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins.