Loading...
1985-12-16 adjDecember 16, 1985 (Adjourned Meeting from December 11, 1985) (Page 1) 21i' An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 16, 1985 at 4:00 P.M. in Meeting Room %5, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting bein~ adjourned from December 11, 1985. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R St. John and Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. Public Hearing: of the Albemarle County Service Authority. 1985.) Resolution to amend the Articles of Incorporation (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 14, Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: A concurrent resolution of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 14, 1985.) Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Authority is in the process of reissuing some bonds. During the process, the Bond Counsel discovered that the Articles of Incorporation which created the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has language that conflicts with the Articles of Incorpora- tion of the Albemarle County Service Authority. The solution is to clarify the language regarding the exclusive function of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority which is to treat the water and sewage in the City and County. He then introduced Mr. Harry Marshall, attorney for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority who has been working with Mr. Harry Frazier, Bond Counsel in Richmond, to rewrite the articles. Mr. Marshall said in order to avoid a quibble several years from now, Bond Counsel recommends strongly that the Articles of Incorporation of both the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority be amended to make it absolutely clear that there can be no overlap in functions. The Bond Counsel has chosen to restate the Articles of Incorporation of both Authorities to indicate that the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority is the wholesaler only for water and sewer, and the Albemarle County Service Authority has the power only to receive finished water for human consumption and to deliver waste to the Rivanna Authority for treatment, and neither the Rivanna Authority, Albemarle County nor the City of Charlottesville can enter into the retail business. Mr. Agnor said City Council, at its meeting tonight, will take this same action to amend the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Articles of Incorporation. Mr. Marshall said the intent is for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Board and City Council to adopt a concurrent resolution to amend and reenact the Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Fisher asked if the City Public Works Department will be able to treat wastewater. Mr. Agnor said the Four-Party Agreement, of which the City is a signatory, states that the City will not produce nor sell potable water from any source other than the Rivanna Authority. The same applies to the County. Mr. Marshall said all four parties are bound by the Four- Party Agreement and this is not an attempt to amend the Agreement. Mr. Agnor said the Articles of Incorporation for both Authorities are registered with the State Corporation Commission. It is not the intent that the Articles of Incorporation conflict with the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Marshall said the City has no source of well water within the City limits. The Board of Supervisors will not give the City a permit for conducting a well water treatment plant. The City also does not have a wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Fisher said this proposed amendment would eliminate the power of the Albemarle County Service Authority to treat and supply water, and treat and dispose of wastewater, yet he does not see any similar action to constrain the City. Mr. Agnor said the Four-Party Agreement already constrains this action, but conflicts with the charter registered with the State Corporation Commission. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a similar authority with respect to the City's provision of public sewer and water. Mr. St. John said this is a "housekeeping" measure, and he and Mr. Marshall have questioned its necessity since the rights and obligations of all four members are set out in the Four-Party Agreement. This action is necessary because an Attorney General's opinion triggered this activity which Bond Counsel is going through in every locality that has a water and sewer authority. The Attorney General interpreted the Water and Sewer Authorities Act as requiring this type of language in the Articles of Incorporation. The City Department of Public Works is not an entity that is under the State Water and Sewer Authorities Act, but the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority are under the Act. Mr. St. John said this action would constitute an amendment or open the door for future argument concerning the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Harry Frazier of Hunton & Williams said this action will add sanctity to the Four-Party Agreement by removing any doubt as to any other interpretation. Mr. St. John said action today will strengthen the agreement. The public hearing was opened. was closed. There being no one present to speak, the public hearing Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution to be signed by the Chairman and attested by the Clerk to amend the Articles of Incorporation of the Albemarle County Service Authority. 212 December 16, 1985 (Adjourned Meeting from December 11, 1985) (Page 2) RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, by resolution of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County (the Board of County Supervisors) and a certificate of incorporation issued by the State Corporation Commission pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (the Act), the Albemarle County Service Authority (the Authority) was incorporated as a public body politic and corporate in 1964; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors desires to amend the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority to limit its powers. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY: 1. The Board of County Supervisors hereby indicates~its intent to amend the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority as provided herein. 2. The Articles of Amendment shall be substantially as follows: ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY 1. The name of the Authority is "Albemarle County Service AuthoritY". 2. The amendment adopted is to strike out the first paragraph of paragraph (3) of the Articles of Incorporation and insert in lieu thereof the following: (3) The purposes for which the Authority is created are for under- taking such projects as may be specified in the manner provided in said Act for the distribution and sale of potable water to retail customers and for the collection of wastewater from retail customers and delivery of such wastewater to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. 3. The Articles of Amendment were approved by a resolution of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County adopted on December 16, 1985, following a public hearing duly called and held on December 16, 1985, as provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has caused these Articles of Amendment to be executed this 16th day of December, 1985. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. by the following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion ca~ AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. The public hearing was opened on the amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. There being no one present, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the Concurrent Resolution of the Council the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County to k and Restate the Articles of Incorporation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as sei below: CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO AMEND AND RESTATE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, by concurrent resolution of the Council of the City of Charlottesville (the City) and of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County (the County) and a certificate of incorporation issued by the State Corporation Commission, pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (the Act), the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (the Authority) was incorporated as a public body politic and corporate in 1972; and WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority to limit its powers regarding the treatment and transmission of potable water and the treatment and disposal of sewage; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, IN SEPARATE MEETINGS ASSEMBLED: 1. The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby indicate their intention to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority as provided herein. ~ied ~he f ~end out December 16, 1985 (Adjourned Meeting from December 11, 1985) (Page 3) 2. The Authority shall not be authorized to treat or transmit potable water or treat or dispose of sewage except in the circumstances as stated in paragraph (d) of the Articles of Incorporation as proposed to be amended and restated hereby. 3. The Articles of Incorporation of the Authority as amended and restated shall be substantially as follows: RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County having created an Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), as a public body politic and corporate, and having signified their intention to amend and restate its Articles of Incorporation, hereby certify: (a) The name of the Authority is "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority" and the address of its principal office shall be Charlottesville, Virginia. (b) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Charlottesville and County Executive and County Engineer of Albemarle County and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. The names and addresses of the current members are as follows: Name Address Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (Albemarle County Executive) 23 Orchard Road Charlottesville, Virginia Treva W. Cromwell 23 Devonshire Road Charlottesville, Virginia Maynard Elrod (Albemarle County Engineer) 2323 Coxendale Road Chester, Virginia D. Cole Hendrix (Charlottesville City Manager) 104 Grover Court Charlottesville, Virginia Judith M. Mueller (Charlottesville Director of Public Works) 1940 Michael Place Charlottesville, Virginia The terms of the members of the board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the City and the County shall expire upon their ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter holding any such office shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority. The current term of the appointed member shall expire on May 1, 1986, and his successor shall be appointed for a term of two years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the board of the Authority may determine, but those members who are employees of the City or the County shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. (d) The purpose for which the Authority is formed is to acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for developing a supply of potable water for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and for the abatement of pollution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basin, by the impoundment, treatment and transmission of potable water and the interception, treatment and discharge of wastewater, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances necessary or suitable therefor and all properties, rights, easements or franchises relating thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their operation. Except to the extent of providing incidental services and the sale of excess products, the Authority's powers are limited to providing wholesale services to the City and the County. The Authority may contract with the City, the County, any sanitary district thereof or any authority therein created pursuant to the Act, to furnish water and to treat sewage delivered to its facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall determine; provided, however, that any such contract shall include as parties thereto the City and the County (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting December 16, 1985 (Adjourned Meeting from December 11, 1985) (Page 4) with any other party desiring service in the City or the County, except upon the written consent of the City or County (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors), respectively. (e) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or an inde- pendent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County have caused these Restated Articles of Incorporation to be executed in the names of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, respectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be affixed and attested by their clerks this 16th day of December, 1985. Attest: Clerk or Council CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA B~ Mayor Attest: Clerk, Board of Supervisors ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By. Chairman, Board of County Supervisors The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. by the following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. At 4:30 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 4:40 P.M. Agenda Item No. 4. Joint Meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles S. Armstrong, Mr. John E. Baker, Mrs. Je~ Haden, Messrs. Walter F. Perkins, Robert E. Taylor and Charles R. Tolbert. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Superintendent, Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet; Assistant Superini dent, Dr. John English; Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration, Mr. Daw Papenfuse; and Director of Personnel, Dr. Carole A. Hastings. Mr. Fisher said last week the Board of Supervisors was asked to authorize funding s( architect may begin work on the new Ivy area elementary school. Questions arose from Be members concerning the selection of a site for the school. Mr. Fisher asked the total cost projected of the new school. Mr. Overstreet said al figures must be considered estimates and are based on the square footage recommended by state per pupil. Mr. Fisher asked if that is the total cost or are there costs not incl Mr. Overstreet said furnishings are not included. Mr. Papenfuse said an estimate of $3,100,000 was made which includes site preparation, but does not include furnishings or contingency funds. Mr. Fisher asked how much furnishings would add to that figure. Mr. Papenfuse said 20 to 25 percent is the amount estimated for furnishings; the contingency would be a higher percentage. Mr. Fisher asked for the total cost of renovations to Bro~ Wood Elementary School. Mr. Taylor said the cost was approximately $2,400,000. Mr. Bow~ asked the estimated cost for the renovation and expansion of Murray School as the new fa~ Mr. Overstreet said the cost was estimated at $2,535,000; the estimate for furnishings changed the figure to $3,100,000. Mr. Fisher said the state requires 16 acres for a 600-pupil school and 25 acres is proposed by the School Board. He asked if this will require acquisition of additional properties that are already developed. Mr. Tolbert commented that one of the properties a dilapidated house on it. Mr. Tucker pointed out, on the map, the parcels being consid~ for purchase. Parcel 68, reviewed by the Site Selection Committee, is physically divide( Route 678. There is a deteriorated dwelling located on the smaller portion of the prope~ which is owned by an absentee owner. The parcel is five acres and the total cost is estJ mated at $45,500 including the building. Other properties being considered for acquisitJ are Parcel 69A which is one and one-half acres with a total assessment of $21,100; Parcel was reviewed and dropped from consideration; Parcel 69G with 1.69 acres with a total assE ment of $31,600 and Parcel 69H with almost two acres assessed at $18,500. All of the pa~ have buildings on them. Mr. Fisher asked if there is enough land at the Murray school sc that no additional land would need to be purchased. Mr. Overstreet said the State requi~ ten acres of usable land for an elementary school. These proposed purchases of land were suggested by the Site Selection Committee. Mr. Lindstrom said the Committee felt that i~ Meriwether Lewis site was selected, it would be advantageous to acquire those surroundin( parcels for future flexibility. Mr. Overstreet said the purchase of the 5.5 acre parcel which is divided by Rt. 678 is not a necessity, but would provide flexibility in designi] the entrance to the school. Mr. Tucker said it has been suggested that only the portion the property where the building is located be acquired; the building is vacant. If the I portion of the property were acquired a connection could be tied in from the back side o. 678 rather than realigning the road. Mr. Way asked how many total acres would be in the site. Mr. Taylor said the acreage will be between 18 and 23 depending on whether the 5.! acres is acquired. Mr. Overstreet said the Site Selection Committee recommended purchase all of the property. Mr. Tolbert said excluding parcel 69D, the total acreage is 19.4 a< 'tied sie C. an ard Y he ded. any dus e ility. has red by ty on 69B ss- cels es the g of ther Rt. of res. December 16, 1985 (Adjourned Meeting from December 11, 1985) (Page 5) 215 Mr. Perkins said the parcel can probably only be purchased through condemnation. Mr. Lindst] said when the Site Selection Committee was asked to select a site, it was the opinion of the members of the Committee that if a new school were built on the Meriwether Lewis site, there would be a significant public advantages to gaining a large site to allow flexibility in development. The road on the split property can be rerouted to fill out the site. Mr. Fisher noted that the Committee found that either site is sufficient. Mr. Taylor commented that excluding the 5.5 acres; the total acreage would be below the state requirements, which would then be a basis for condemnation proceedings. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to discuss the proposed road improvements. Mr. Tucker said the County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1977 included realigning Rt. 678 at its intersectio] with Rt. 250 West. The sight distance at this intersection is not very good. The Committee recommended this improvement be made if the Murray site is chosen. The Committee also looke~ at making improvements along the frontage of Murray and possibly providing a new entrance. Mr. Fisher commented that if the Meriwether Lewis site is chosen, this improvement is not necessary because fewer trips across Rt. 250 would be required. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Overstreet said enrollment figures indicate 150 students now live south of Rt. 250 and the other +450 live north of Rt. 250. Mr. Fisher said the improvement of the inter- section of Rt. 678 and Rt. 250 affect all those who use those roads, not only students and parents. He is inclined to make the improvements, as they are already in the costs for Murray. Mr. Lindstrom asked the estimated cost. Mr. Tucker replied the cost is $102,000. Mr. Taylor asked how much land will need to be purchased to make the road improvements. Mr. Tucker said much of the land has already been dedicated to the Highway Department. He think~ that the cost for purchasing additional land is included in the $102,000. Mr. Tolbert said if that figure includes all of the costs, it would be a tremendous deal for the County. Mr. Fisher said a waterline extension would be beneficial to the general public as well as the school, but the cost would be much higher for the Murray school site. He said he has received calls from taxpayers asking why the County would spend money to acquire land for a new school and just walk away from Murray School which already has sufficient land. He aske¢ whether the additional costs can be justified, particularly to the members of the public who are not users of the schools. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the student population would be handled during construction. Would it be impossible to build the addition at Murray given the problem of student reloca- tion. He asked whether substantial parts of the renovation could be done during non-school time. Mr. Papenfuse said it probably can be done, but problems do occur. Mr. Taylor said from an educational point of view there is a strong argument to build the school at the Meriwether Lewis site to avoid the disruption of renovation. There is the safety factor, construction going on around the children, the quality of the finished product and the quality of the educational setup when school is opened, all have to be considered. Mr. Papenfuse said a problem of safety exists with the school being close to the entrance, in that construction vehicles would be close to the school. Mr. Fisher asked whether it was worthwhile to spend nearly $1,000,000 more to avoid these problems. The County is also losing public benefits in road improvements and waterlin~ extensions. Mr. Lindstrom asked whether additional time for bus travel from the Meriwether Lewis site to the Murray site would be approximately ten minutes. It was agreed that was correct. Mr. Bowie said there are a lot of people who pay taxes and have no children in school and are interested in the overall expenditure of County funds. There are people who have children in schools where the schools need improvements now, such as children in school~ using mobile classrooms. He has trouble spending so much money on one school when there are renovation needs at other schools. Also, if travel is unsafe one way, it certainly is unsaf~ from the other direction. Mr. Taylor said if a new school is built at the Meriwether Lewis site, the Murray schoo~ facility would be useful for other purposes. He, also, cannot justify spending an extra million dollars for a place to store textbooks or a media center. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Meriwether Lewis site is used, he is concerned the existence of the Murray school could plac~ pressure on the Board to allow growth in that part of the county. The community is in the South Fork Rivanna watershed and he does not think the density should be expanded. He said the potential would exist for having a divided district again. He does not think that there must be a building for storage. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Lindstrom if he was saying that educational facilities can control growth, or growth can be directed where a school building is placed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is all tied together and it is a major concern. He asked for an estimate of costs that might be saved if the Murray site is used for another purpose. Mr. Taylor said he does not have that information, but there are some real uses that can be made over the next several years. Mr. Lindstrom asked if additional renovations will be required. Mr. Taylor said $40,000 was mentioned as an additional renovation factor. Mr. Taylor said the Murray site could be used for a media center. The media center which now is in the County Office Building is running out of space, the Ragged Mountain Program, or the Alternative Education Program. If the facility is in use, he does not think there will exist a split community. This is a large school division which has all kinds of needs that will grow beyond what they are today. A cost differential of $500,000 to have the facility available for use in the most populous area of. the county is a very minimal cost. The consultant recommended building a new school further north than the Meriwether Lewis site considering the placement of population, travel time for kindergarten children, and the disruption factor of renovation. The School Board strongly supports having the new school a' the Meriwether Lewis site and retaining Murray school for alternative uses. He, also, wants the money available to build and renovate other schools, but this project is a top priority. Mr. Overstreet said if Murray School is available for other uses, the school division will relocate the media center and textbook depository there right now. Mr. Fisher commented tha' Murray school would need to be air-conditioned before using. Mr. Overstreet said the air- conditioning is only done once and there will be a tremendous saving and cost return by usin, it as a depository. Mr. Fisher said there also will be a cost because the textbooks will have to be transported to the center. Mr. Overstreet said that is being done now, the textbook concept was moved into the media center program. Mr. Taylor said that gave the schools better control of the textbooks. 216 December 16, 1985 (Adjourned Meeting from December-il, 1985) (Page 6) Mr. Henley said he has trouble supporting doing away with a good school after what happened with Greenwood Elementary. The children, teachers and everybody was satisfied w~th Greenwood, and it was closed down, and now the same thing is happening to Murray with thell intent to build a new school. It does not seem to him to be very cost-effective. Mr. FiSher said it appears to him the cost differential would be nearly $1,000,000 and the road impr )ve- ments and waterline extension which would benefit the general public would not be attaine! with use of the Meriwether Lewis site. He is also worried that the final cost will be muih higher than originally considered. Mr. Tolbert said tentatively the final cost could be less. It is possible that the cost of renovating Murray school could be grossly underest - mated and Meriwether Lewis overestimated by a minor amount. Mr. Overstreet said the cost differential in the long term of maintaining and operating a partially renovated and partially new building would be higher than in a new building which would have a more ene gy efficient design. Mr. Fisher said there still is the need to renovate Murray for additional uses and there will be other expenses for the building. He thinks that a built-in liabil .ty for the County has to be considered. Mr. Overstreet said the School Board is committed t look at the issue of a school and not road and waterline sites. Mr. Taylor said the School Board needs guidance from the Board of Supervisors and to provide a school at one site or the other. His vote remains for the Meriwether Lewis sit , but he asks that the Board of Supervisors act quickly in order to avoid delay in providin a new school for the Ivy area. Mr. Fisher said part of the problem is that there is no overall budget. He is worried about how much is to be spent on each project. Mr. Overstreet sai any project will take money away from other projects. ~Mr. Fisher said that is correct, b~t he is worried about a "creeping" _budget. Mr. Henley said he does not think enough cost h been laid to the portion of land divided by the road that must be relocated. Mr. Lindstr ~m said he understands that the School Board is not committed to relocating the road. Mr. Taylor said the school division need the property on the north side of the road, not the south side. Mr. Fisher said the decision on the selection of a site will be placed on the agenda for Wednesday, December 18. Mr. Bowie said that will give him a chance to study the figures .e has received. Mr. Overstreet again cautioned about the figures until something more conc~:ete can be provided. Mr. Armstrong said he wished to state that the School Board is unanimou in its decision in selecting the Meriwether Lewis site. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters from the Board and the School Board. There were n Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 P.M. HA~k~AN ne.