Loading...
1982-06-16June 16, 1982 (Regular night meeting) A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on June 16, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlot- tesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. James R. Butler, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and George R. st. John, County Attorney. Also present was Mr. Russell W. Otis, Administrative Assistant to the County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M., by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Cooke is out of town on a business trip and Mr. Agnor, County Executive, is out of town attending a meeting of the International City Managers Association. Agenda Item No. 2. Introduction of 4-H State Congress Delegates. Miss Ellie Bishop of the VPI-SU Extension Service was present. Miss Bishop stated that the 4-H Congress is for 4-H members between the ages of 14 and 19 years of age, who are seniors in high school, who get to represent their county at VPI in Blacksburg. Miss Bishop read a list of students invited to attend this year's 4-H Congress, and then introduced those students present at the meeting. Mr. Fisher said the County is proud of the achievements of these students and hoped that the experience of 4-H Congress would be beneficial. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-82-30. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative. Request for special use permit to replace expired SP-79-78 for electric substation on 1.875 acres zoned LI. Located at intersection of Routes 763~and 606. County Tax Map 21, part of Parcel 12. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the Planning Staff report and recommendation from the Planning Commission as follows: Request: Electrical Power Substation (Section 27.2.2.8) Acreage: 1.875 acres Zoning: LI Light Industrial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 12 (part), is located on the south side of Route 606 at its intersection with Route 763 north of the General Electric plant. HistOry: This is the fifth special use permit application by REC for a power substation in this area. Prior approved permits either expired or were abandoned due to site location changes. A temporary substation has been established in the area. This site was graded by General Electric during recent development operations;however, additional work would appear necessary to comply with the proposed con- ditions of approval of this special use permit should this petition be approved. Staff Comment: In the initial phase of development, the substation would serve a limited area along Route 29 North with five distribution circuits: 1) circuit to the'north and West serVing.the Piney Mountain~area; .2) circuit~ leading southward serving Camelot, Badger-Powhatan and other customers to the.south along Route 29; 3) two circuits to the west and south serving Briarwood and North Pines Subdivision; and 4) a circuit dedicated to the General Electric plant. Initially, the permanent substation would operate at 34.5 kv and would be served by the same line that serves the existing temporary substation. When the permanent substation is constructed, it will be insulated for the ultimate design voltage of 115 kv. .REC's plan is to serve its entire service area in Albemarle County and some or all of its service area in Greene County from this substation. ~ Conversion of the substation to 115 kv would require new and/or expanded transmission line right-of-way into and out of the site. REC has stated that the current 34.5 kv line "has a limited capacity which will soon.be reached if the load growth in'the area continues its present trend". As with other electric cooperatives, REC is dependent on wholesale suppliers for power source (The following is an excerpt from a letter dated May 18, 1982, from J. B. Leonard to R. S. Keeler): "We have been negotiating with Virginia Electric and Power Company, our wholesale power supplier, for the past three years in an attempt to arrange for the procurement of a 115 kv service from them. Their ability to provide it depends upon the deter- mination of their transmission line siting to serve their pro- posed Hollymead Substation. Once that has been accomplished, the way will become clearer for the solution of our pending problem." June 16, 1982 (Regular night meeting) In the past, proposals for new or expanded transmission line rights-of-way have met with considerable opposition. Staff would anticipate future proposals to receive vigorous review, including exploration of alternative routes. Given this background and REC's stated time constraints,~Staf£ ....... would urge REC to present transmission line proposals at the earliest possible date. At this time, Staff recommends favorably on the operation of the proposed substation at 34.5 ky; however, Staff would recommend that conversion of the substation to 115 ky be treated as new business, since conversion would be dependent on other projects which have not been re~ viewed. Should REC choose to insulate the substation for 115 kv service initially, it would be done on a risk basis. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Approval of this petition shall not be deemed to be an endorsement of any subsequent projects of REC, VEPC0 or any other agency or person related to the usage of this substation. County review of any subsequent project will be treated as new business without reference to this approval, and such project may be approved or denied based on its merits; 2. Approval of this petition shall not be deemed to be.endorsement of VEPC0's proposed Remington-Hollyme&d t~ansmission line project. The County has made no formal review of the proposed project and therefore has no official position on the proposal; 3. The existing temporary substation and appurtenances shall be removed and the site restored within thirty days of the permanent substation be- coming operational; 4. Site plan approval to include: a. Sufficient berm on northern and southern and eastern property lines with evergreen trees (4 feet - 6 feet in height) on 15-foot centers on top of the berm in order to screen the substation structures; b. Trespass fencing around substation structures; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance. 5. Grading permit; 6. Access limited to Route 606. 29 North; No access shall be permitted from Route 7. Structures shall not exceed 40 feet in height. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June i, 1982, unani- mously voted to recommend approval of this special use permit with the same conditions as recommended by the staff. There were no questions from Board members, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and asked if a representative of Rappahannock Electric Cooperative was present. Mr. Barry Leonard, representing Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, was present and gave a brief history of this site. Mr. Leonard said until negotiations are complete with VEPC0, no final work on this project can take place. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this' spe'cial permit request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve SP-82-30 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. There was no dis- cussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-82-31. J. Lewis Butler. To locate a public garage on .82 acre zoned RA. Located western side of Route 726. County Tax Map 130, parcel 42C. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said a letter was received from the applicant dated June 7, 1982, requesting withdrawal of this application. Mr. Fisher noted that the letter received was not signed by the applicant. Mr. Tucker said the applicant did not appear at either of the two Planning Commission meetings at which this petition was scheduled to be heard. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission therefore recommended denial. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the with- drawal of this petition without prejudice as requested by the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Butler,~F~her, Hen!ey,¥L~dstrQm and ~iss~.Nash.. None. Mrs. Cooke. June i6, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-82-7. First Rio Road Land Trust. To rezone 0.3 acre currently zoned CO to LI with proffer to limit use to current use (WWW Electronics). LoCated at intersection of Route 631 and Greenfield Court. County Tax Map 045, Parcel 163. Charlot- tesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1982.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Requested Zoning: LI Light Industry (PROFFER) Acreage: 0.3 acre Existing Zoning: C~~ COmmercial office Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 163, is located at inter- section of Rio Road and Greenfield Court. History.: In 1978 this property was rezoned from R-2 to B-1. The rezoning, sought for purposes of refinancing, did not bring the electronics firm into compliance with zoning regulations. Character of the Area: WWW Electronics is located on this property. To the northwest is the Rio West office complex. A dance school and apartment building are to the southeast and a mobile home park is behind the pro- perty. Property directly across Rio Road is undeveloped. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density residential and commercial uses in this area. Staff Comment: WWW Electronics is an "original equipment manufacturer" of printed circuit boards and does assembly work for Sperry and Stromberg- Carlson. Approval of this petition would bring this use into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and permit building expansion. While the Com- prehensive Plan does not recommend industrial use in this area, Staff opinion is that continuation/expansion of this type of use, as restricted by the applicant's proffer, would not be objectionable in the area. Staff recommends approval. PROFFER "The undersigned beneficial owner of the First Rio Road Land Trust does hereby Proffer the following limitation for its request for LI zoning: Testing, manufacturing and assembling of electronic components. (signed) Donald R. Wright, 4-29-82" Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 1, 1982, unani- mously voted to recommend approval of this rezoning request with the proffer dated April 29, 1982. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about the procedure being used. Mr. Lindstrom thought expansion of the present business could be handled without a rezoning, simply by recognizing that this use was in existence prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, and indicating that expansion of the existing nonconforming use was allowed by placing an asterisk on the zoning map. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the Zoning Administrator wished to have this property rezoned. Mr. Tucker said the Zoning Administrator felt the proposed expansion was too great to be handled as an expansion of a nonconforming use. Miss Nash expressed concern about the revision to the Comprehensive Plan which is currently taking place; in that the rezonings will be indicated on the map, but she did not know if the proffers will still be indicated to show the conditions of the rezonings. Mr. Tucker reassured Miss Nash that properties rezoned with proffers will be properly indicated on the revised Comprehensive Plan maps. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Leroy Hamlett, representing First Rio Road Land Trust and Mr. & Mrs. Don Wright. Mr. Hamlett said the present use has been consistent since 1969 and that the only change contemplated is an expansion of that use. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom again expressed concern about the procedure being used. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve ZMA-82-7 with the proffer as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Hiss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. June 16, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-82-9. Resolution of intent to amend Section 3.0 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide a definition of "borrow area" and to include "soil" as a natural resource extraction activity. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1982.) Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-82-10. Resolution of intent to amend Section 10.0 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for "borrow area". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1982.) Mr. Fisher suggested discussing these two agenda items simultaneously because they are so interrelated. Mr. Tucker then read the Planning Staff report on ZTA-82-9 and ZTA- 82-10 as well as the Planning Commission recommendations as follows: At its meeting of May 4, 1982, the Albemarle County Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to define and distinguish between soil extraction activities based on the purpose and intensity of use: "Borrow area, borrow pit" would be defined as a relatively minor activity and would be permitted by right in the Rural Areas district; Removal of soil from a site as a part of the construction process to construct a building or establish another permitted use on the same site would be exempt from zoning regulation. (This would not, however, affect the applicabiZity of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance); Ail other soil extractive activities where soil is removed from the site would be defined as "Natural Resource Extraction" and would require NR overlay zoning. Staff recommends the following amendments (underscore indicates proposed new wording, hyphens indicate proposed deletions): 1. ZTA-82-9 Amend Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, by adding a definition for borrow area, borrow pit, and by amending the existing definition of natural resource extraction: Borrow area~ borrow pit: A location at which soil and other related material is removed from the site for transportation to another site. Removal of soil and ot'~er' related material as necessary to e'stablish another permitted use ~_pon the same site shall not be considered as the establishment of a borrow area or borrow pit. Natural Resource Extraction: The process by which coal, petroleum, natural gas, .s.oil, sand, gravel, ore, or other minerals is removed from any open pit, borings or any other underground workings and produced for sale, exchange or commercial use or otherwise removed from the site, and all sha-fts, slopes, drifts or inclines leading thereto and including all buildings, structures and equipment above and below the surface of the ground used in connection with such process. Natural resource extraction as defined herein shall not be deemed to include: exploratory activities designed to determine the presence of coal, petroleum, natural gas, soil, sand, gravel, ore, or other minerals, including but not limited to, excavation, drilling, boring or core the drilling or boring of wells for the purpose of obtaining water; nor the removal of soil and other related material as necessary to establish another permitted use upon the same site. 2. ZTA-82-10 Amendments to RA and NR district regulations Amend Section 30.4.2.1, Permitted uses, by right, in the NR district to read: Except as otherwise expressly provided in Section 30.4.2.2 or Section 10.2.1-18, removal of soil, sand, gravel, stone or other minerals by excavating, stripping, quarrying or other mining operation. Amend Section 10.2.1, Permitted uses, by right, in the Rural Areas RA district, by addi~ #18, reading: Borrow area~ borrow pit not exceeding an aggregate area of 107000 square feet or an aggregate volume of 20~000 cubic feet~ whichever is less~ including all borrow pits an'd borrow areas on any one parcel. Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting of June 1, 1982, the Planning Commission unani- mously recommended adoption of the proposed amendment~as set out above. Mr. Tucker noted that there were no public comments made at the Planning Commission hearing, but since that time, he has received a number of letters and telephone calls from construction contractors and Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, expressing the opinion that the proposed amendments are far too restrictive. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against the proposed amendments, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he received two letters and several telephone calls regarding these proposed amendments~ and feels this matter should be referred back to the Planning Oom- mission~ for additional comment~from the public. June 16, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the HighwaY'Department (who arrived at the meeting moments after the public hearing.waS, closed on these amendments) said he would like to participate in the Planning Commission hearing on these amendments and felt additional information should be received prior to any adoption by this Board. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to refer ZTA-82-9 and ZTA-82-10 back to the Planning Commission for their additional review and for receipt of comments from the public; and then to be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for action at a later date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: MRS,, Cooke. Agenda Item No. 7a. Request from School Board regarding Advance of Funds. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, was present and summarized the following three memorandums for the Board: From: Date: Subject: Dr. Carlos Gutierrez Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance June 10, 1982 Projected Status of School Fund on June 30, 1982 Just this week Dr. Barton and I confirmed that the operations of the Education Department will end this fiscal year with expenditures falling within appropria- tions. Total revenues available to meet the expenditures, however, will be insufficient. The basic reason for the revenue shortfall in the School Fund this fiscal year is the $1,039,141 of local funds that were advanced to prevent an accumulated deficit in the School Fund last fiscal year (80-81) which, in effect, reduced the local share of revenues in the current fiscal year (81-82) from $12,401,125 to $11,361,984. With the remainder of local funds ($1t,361,984).added to State and other~re- venues received this fiscal year, the School Fund will not have a sufficient balance to pay the July and August payrolls, which are required to be written by June 30th. I, therefore, will be unable to issue the July and August paychecks to those ten month employees that elected to take their pay in twelve installments. In order to complete the School Fund disbursements by June 30th, I will need some action by the Board of Supervisors, who in turn will need previous action by the School Board, all of which must be completed by June 30th. Considerable progress has been made this fiscal year in purchasing procedures, payroll input, cost containment, monitoring of revenues and expenditures under Dr. Barton's supervision. Lines of communication between this department and the Education Department have been improved primarily due to Dr. Barton's efforts. The accumulative problem of the School Fund balance remains, however, until further action is taken. I will be pleased to discuss this with you and Dr. Barton, if desired." "June 16, 1982 To: Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance From: J. William Barton, Assistant. Superintendent for Finance/Business Management Subject: Transfer Request and Advance on 1982-83 Appropriation At its meeting on. June 14, 1982, the Albemarle County School Board took the following actions: 1. Approved a recommendation to request permission from the Board of Supervisors to transfer $10,000 from 1~F1-207, Electricity, to 17F2-290b, Contracted Services-Equipment. 2. Approved a recommendation to request, from the Board of Supervisors, an advance from the 1982-83 local appropriation for a sum to be determined at the close of the 1981-82 fiscal year, but not to exceed $1,039,141. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. The School Board also has directed the Superintendent to confer with the County Executive to arrange a joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to resolve the problem which exists with respect to the School Fund balance." "To: From: Date: Subject: Board of Supervisors and County Executive Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance ~une 16, 1982 School Board Request On June 14, 1982, the School Board took action to request the Board of Super- visors to advance local funds from the 1982-83 appropriation upon the recom- mendation of Dr. Barton and Dr. Gutierrez. Also, please note my June 10, 1982 memorandum to the .Superintendent stating the projected condition of the School Fund on June 30th. In addition to the request for advance of local funds, there is a request for transfer of appropriation in the amount of $t0,000 from 17F1-207 Electricity to 17F2-290b, Contracted Services - Equipment. June 16, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) My recommendation is to approve both of the School Board's requestsand is based upon the fact that for this fiscal year (1981-82) in spite of anticipated short falls in State school revenues of approximately $125,000, and had there not been an advance of local funds in the amount of $1,039,141, the School operation is anticipated to be in the "black" by approximately $25,000. I would be remiss if I did not mention that had not it been for the efforts of Dr. Barton this would not have been true. Also, this is the first year since the mid-seventies that only one transfer is necessary to close out the year." Mr. Lindstrom stated what he felt was the original cause for the deficit in the School Fund balance. Mr. Lindstrom said that although this deficit is blamed on shortfall in revenues from the State and Federal governments, he feels the original causes have been compounded by other problems which he feels have never been adequately explained to the Board. Mr. Fisher said the School Board requested funds last year in order to have an in- dependent auditing firm study the problem, but no report has yet been received by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said that except for some improvements in operating procedures, the School Fund is in the exact same condition as it was twelve months ago. Mr. Fisher stated that twelve months is a lot of time and he felt some progress should have been made in discovering the cause of the problem. Mr. Lindstrom said if a "shortfall" in State funds is the cause of this problem, most of the deficit should have been made up by now. Mr. Jones brought the Board's attention to the last paragraph of Dr. Barton's memorandum in which he noted that the School Board has requested a joint meeting of the School Board and the Board of Supervisors in order to discuss this problem. Mr. JOnes also noted that the amount of the advance being requested is less than the amount carried over from previous years. Mr. Lindstrom said in response to the request for a joint meeting, he felt the County Executive should deliver a message to the School Board that the Board of Supervisors will be glad to meet jointly, but not until the School Board can answer the question of why the deficit problem exists. Mr. Fisher said he would be willing to have a joint meeting after the School Board has had a chance to review the final version of the independent audit, taken action on same, it has been analyzed by County staff, and then presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said he wants to know how this deficit originated and it is very frustrating that no answer has yet been offered. Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors and the citizens of the County deserve an answer to that question. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the recommendation of Mr. Jones and the School Board to: Approve the transfer of $10,000 from Code 17FI-207, Electricity to 17F2- 290b, Contracted Services-Equipment. Advance from the 1982-83 local appropriation a sum to be determined at the close of the 1981-82 fiscal year, not to exceed $1,039,141. Regarding Dr. Barton's letter requesting a joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to resolve the problem which exists with respect to the School Fund balance; advise the School Board that the Board of Supervisors would be willing to meet with the School Board once the final independent audit report is received determining the source of the million dollar deficit, the report is acted on by the School Board, analyzed by County staff and presented to the Board of Supervisors em- phasizing that the Board wants to know the source of this continuing deficit before a joint meeting of the two Boards is held. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Miss Nash asked if the School Board intends to repay this advance in the upcoming budget year. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this was too much money and that it could not be repaid in one fiscal year. Mr. Fisher said he had suggested during budget work sessions that the School Board attempt to reduce the deficit by $250,000 a year which he felt was not unreasonable. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the School Board is concerned enough about the problem. Mr. Henley said he did not feel the School Board could make up the deficit and that the Board of Supervisors would have to eventually make up that amount. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to emphasize the third part of his motion about the joint meeting, especially that the Board of Supervisors would like the audit report analyzed by the County Staff and the County's auditors. There was no further discussion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation. Mr. Jones summarized his memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, dated June 10, 1982, as follows: "The County of Albemarle acts as the fiscal agent for the Community Diversion Incentive Program for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. The original grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia for $140,000 was increased to $156,031.69 during the past fiscal year. To date we have not received 100% of the grant proceeds. However, I respectfully ask you to approve the additional amount of $16,501.69 to be appropriated to Grant Code 9302.5847.02 in order that this money can be transferred to the Community Diversion Incentive Program. The amount requested should be transferred from the unallocated balance of the Grant Fund." June 16, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 272 Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $16,501.69 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the unallocated balance of the Grant Fund and transferred to the Grant Fund and Coded to 9302. 5847.02 for the Community Diversion Incentive Program. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vot~e: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Butler reported having read the minutes o~ the meetings of January 20 (Afternoon), January 20 (Night), January 21, January 25, J~nuary 27, January 28, February 1 and February 3, 1982; and that they were correct as presented. Mr.~Fisher recommended that the unread .minutes of October 7 and November 11, 1981, ~s well as February 10, 1982, be carried over to the next meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes of January 20 (Afternoon), January 20 (Night), January 21, January 25, January 27, January 28, February 1 and February 3, 1982, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 9a. Appointments: Library Study Committee. Mr. Fisher said it has been requested that a committee be formed of elected officials and staff members from each locality which is a member of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. This committee would review the funding of the library system, renegotiate the contract under which the library is presently operated ~' and possibly reapportio~ those allocation percentages. Mr. Fisher recommended the appointment-of Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, as the staff member to this committee and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom as the representative of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash to appoint Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, per Mr. Fisher's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Russell Otis informed the newly appointed members of the Library Study Committee that there would be a meeting of the Committee at 10:00 A.M., on June 24, 1982, in meeting room #tl of the Albemarle County Office Building. Mr. Fisher announced that the first meeting of the City/County Consolidation Committee is scheduled for July 6, 1982, at 2:00 P.M., in meeting room #11 of the Albemarle County Office Building. Mr. Fisher said there would be a joint meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council on June 30., 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in the County Office Building, for a public hearing on the proposed Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir. Mr. Fisher said following the public hearing, there will be a joint work session on the same matter. Mr. Fisher said the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board will also be present at that public hearing. Agenda Item No. 11. At 9:50 P.M., motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to June 30, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.