Loading...
1982-11-10470 November 10, 1982 ,(Regular Day Meeting) November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) "Re: EMMANUEL CHURCH, Albemarle County This is to inform you officially that the above property has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places (Date Entered: July 8, 1982)." "Re: CARRSBROOK, Albemarle County This is to inform you officially that the above property has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places (Date Entered: July 8, 1982)." Agenda Item No. 11. With no further business to come before the Board at 9:45 P.M. Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. ' ' Chairman November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 10, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T, Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda con- taining one item requiring approval by the Board, and four items for general information. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept and approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Item No. 2.1. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month of October, 1982, for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, were approved as presented. Item No. 2.2. Report of the County Executive for the month of October, 1982, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of October, 1982, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Grant Project Fund Capital Improvements Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Mental Health Fund $ 36,648.89 738,O92.O7 2,282,272.89 23,616.66 83,762.12 1,140.29 49,394.70 291,908.54 373.97 233,409.14 $3,740~619.27 Item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of September, 1982, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia. Item No. 2.4. Notice from CentraI Telephone Company of Virginia, dated October 18, 1982, regarding public hearing for an increase in rates before the State Corporation Commission, on which a public hearing will be held on January 25, 1983, in Richmond. Nov~ber 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 2.5. Financial report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1982, for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was received. Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. 2, 1982, were correct as presented. Mr. Lindstrom reported the minutes of June Mr. Henley reported the minutes of June 9, 1982, were correct as presented. Mr. Henley noted however, that he did not verify each figure represented in the appropriation ordinance. Mr. Fisher requested one change in wording of the minutes of June 9, 1982, that being in agenda item 10A in the last sentence. Mr. Fisher suggested the sentence read "Therefore, the previous action ~e~e~ stands." Mr. Fisher said this change more accurately represents the actions of the Board. Mr. Fisher reported the minutes of June 14, 1982, were correct as presented. MisS Nash said the minutes of June 30, 1982, were correct as presented. Mrs. Cooke requested a slight clarification of the wording in the minutes of July 7, 1982, Agenda Item No. 6 entitled "Five Year Capital Improvement Program, Section VII-- Libraries'', as follows: "Mrs. Cooke did not feel there was a need for another branch in the urban area at this time, but felt..." Mr. Butler reported the minutes of July 14, 1982, were correct as presented. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes of June 2, June 9, June 14, June 30, July 7 and July 14, 1982, with the corrections as noted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said he wished to note for the Board's information that the minutes of August 11, 1982, which were approved on October 13, 1982, with the understanding that the wording in agenda item fifteen be verified by the clerk; has been changed to more ac- curately reflect the actions of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said he also listened to the tape of that meeting, and said the minutes as corrected accurately reflect the actions of the Board. Mr. Fisher said since there was no objection from members of the Board~ the minutes of August 11, 1982, stand approved. Agenda Item No. 4.a. Highway Matters: Vacation of right-of-way off Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Fisher said the applicant in a letter dated November 8, 1982, has requested this item be withdrawn from discussion. "This is to advise that Comdial Telephone Systems, Inc., formerly Stromberg- Carlson, respectfully withdraws our request for Board action on the proposed exit connecting Commonwealth Drive with our property. We intend to pursue the matter with the present owners, Mr. Ed Wright and Mr. David Carr. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, (signed) Sid Spencer, Industrial Relations Representative" Mr. Fisher said no further action was required by the Board of Supervisors regarding this matter. Agenda Item No. 4.b. Highway Matters: Discussion: Abandon portion of Fieldbrook Road. Mr. Agnor reported that this matter was not yet ready for Board action, and suggested it be readvertised when ready rather than being carried over again. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer indefinitely the request of Mr. Joseph W. Richmond to abandon the public right-of~wa~ in_State~RQute 652 in Fieldbrook Subdivision, and that this request be rea~ver~lsec~. ~ne mo~lon was secon~e~ by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4.c. Highway Matters: Request from Dr. Charles Hurt regarding Vacation of portion of Flordon Drive. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Charles W. Hurt, M.D., dated October 14, 1982: "We would like to request of the Board of Supervisors to abandon the 50 foot right of way known as Flordon Drive between lots 11 and 12 (plat attached) in the Flordon Subdivision. We would also request to add the 50 feet to lot 12 itself." Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and showed the Board a plat indicating the right of way under discussion. Mr. Tucker said the owner of lot eleven has indicated an interest in having one half of the right of way dedicated to his property rather than the entire amount dedicated to lot twelve. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board set a public hearing date, and that all adjacent property owners, including the owner of lot five, be notified of the date. 472 November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Jim Hill, representing Dr. Charles Hurt, said he wished to change the request as stated in the letter of October 14th to split the right of way equally among the two adjacent property owners. Mr. James Garnett said he has no objections to the vacation as long as he receives one half of the vacated property. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set December 8, 1982, at 9:00 A.M. as the date of public hearing, and ordered that the appropriate ordinance be drafted and notification of all adjacent property owners be undertaken prior to that ~'? public hearing as required by State Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4.d. Highway Matters: Street Light request, Esmont Village. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Margaret G. Payne, dated November 19, 1981, and addressed to Mr. J. Ashley Williams, former Acting County Engineer as follows: "We would like to request a State street light be installed on Route 715, Esmont, Virginia between Pole #790-238 and Pole #790-30 on the west side of Route 715. The reason for this request is to help prevent theft and vandalism. The lighting is very poor in this area. I am a widow, age 61, and live alone. Mrs. Wash is also a widow and her aged mother lives with her. We do need more light in this area and would appreciate your help in this matter." Mr. Agnor reviewed the County's current policy regarding the installation of street lights. Mr. Lindstrom asked why this letter has taken so long to come to the Board for action. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present and stated that the extreme delay in processing this request was caused by his office. Mr. Henley commented that the reason for requesting the street light as stated by Mrs. Payne was not sufficient reason to cause him to vote in favor of the installation. Miss Nash described the area where the street light'would be installed, and Mr. St. John noted that there is a gap between existing street lights which causes visibility problems at this site. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the current street light policy has any limitations on the areas within the County which are eligible for street light installation. Mr. Agnor said the current policy is not specific to areas which would qualify, but that lights presently have been limited to areas of the County where there is cluster housing or on extremely dark, winding roads. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the policy should be made more specific before requests come in from every area of the County. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to approve the request for one street light on State Route 715 in the location indicated in the above'letter. Mr. Henley said he would vote for this request only because of the visibility problem rather than the reason stated by Mrs. Payne. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the staff review the current street light policy to reflect areas designated for growth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said any change in the policy should include preexisting one-half acre lots and clusters of homes. Mr. Tom Trevillians of the Engineering Department, said it is currently the job of the Engineering Department to receive street light requests, investigate the need, notify affected property owners, and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding installation. Mr. Henley said if there are to be changes in the current policy, he would like to see the installation of street lights be for the benefit of pedestrians, rather than for property protection from vandalism. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see the policy limited to the growth areas of the County, public facilities, etc., and recommended that the Planning and Engineering Departments review this policy and bring it back to the Board of Supervisors· Mr. Lindstrom said he would also like know of the total cost street lights pose to the County, as well as the percentage of increase in those costs over the last several years. Mr. Fisher said he hoped a recommendation could be ready for the Board at the December 8, 1982, meeting. Agenda Item No. 4.e. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt made a progress report on current construction projects on Secondary roads in Albemarle County. Mr. Roosevelt said work on Route 618 from Route 729 to the Fluvanna County line will begin on December 1, 1982. Also, the bridge in the southbound lane of Route 29 near Camelot will be advertised for reconstruction. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Sand Road (Route 717), Mission Home Road (Route 601), Shawnee Court in Carrsbrook Subdivision (Route 1488) and Georgetown Road (Route 656) projects have all been completed. November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said Georgetown Road is listed in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Trans- portation Study (CATS) for straightening. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that straightening is in addition to the project just completed, or is it one in the same. Mr. Roosevelt said Georgetown Road is presently a two-lane road. The CATS proposal would widen the shoulders and ditches to about twenty-four feet in width for the pavement, with six to eight foot shoulders. Mr. Lindstrom then asked about the walkway to be constructed by the County along Georgetown Road. Mr. Agnor said it was recently discovered by Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, that Georgetown Road actually has a forty foot dedicated right-of-way, rather than thirty feet as originally believed. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Elrod believes that there is sufficient State right-Of-way available in which to locate the entire-pathway. Mr. Agnor added that in places where private fences must be taken down in order to construct the pathway, he felt that those fences should be replaced for the property owners without charge to those owners; and that costs incurred in those operations be made part of the total project costs. Mr. Agnor asked if any signs could be installed to warn motorists about joggers using certain roads. Mr. Agnor said he has received a telephone call from a citizen requesting signs for his neighborhood. Mr. Roosevelt said the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation tried using similar signs to warn motorists about children at play in the streets. Mr. Roosevelt said these signs only seemed to encourage more .children to play in the streets, rather than warning motorists to drive cautiously. Mr. Roosevelt said he felt the situation with joggers was very similar. Mr. Fisher expressed concern about the traffic situation on 01d Ivy Road where it meets Route 250 West. Mr. Fisher said a recent fatal accident, approval of a rezoning for a retirement village, and increased traffic seems to have made driving in this area extremely difficult and very dangerous. Mr. Fisher recalled a comment made by Miss Nash that Old Ivy Road be studied and possibly made a "one-way" road in a westernly direction. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt for his comments or recommendations on this situation. Mr. Roosevelt said his department could look at the accident data for the entire area and evaluate the traffic flow patterns and bring back this data to the Board. Mr. Roosevelt said to just make 01d Ivy Road one-way might cause more difficult traffic situations elsewhere. Mr. Roosevelt said a study would be the first step, that he would conduct an accident survey and bring the results back to the Board of Supervisors in a few months. Agenda Item No. 5. Request for resolution to amend the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Agnor requested the Board to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Code sections 18-18 and 18-19(c) to shift performance bond administration procedures from the Department of Planning to the Engineering Department. Mr. Agnor noted that all bonding procedures have already been transferred with the exception of those relating to subdivision roads. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution of intent: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend sections 18-18 and 18-19(c) of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance to shift performance bond admin- istration from the Department of Planning to the Engineering Department, as it relates to subdivision roads. FURTHER REQUESTS the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said proposal to amend the County Subdivision Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. NOT DOCKETED. Employment Research Committee. Mr. Francis Fife, Chairman of the Employment Research Committee was present and reviewed data gathered by his committee regarding unemployment in the CharlottesviZle-Albemarle Community. (NOTE: Mr. Fife was before the Board of Supervisors regarding this same matter at meetings held on September 15 and October 13, 1982.) Mr. Fife presented a letter of support from Mr. George B. Vaughan, President of Piedmont Virginia Community College, dated November 3, 1982 (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Mr..Fife stated that although there are a few agencies already established which handle unemployment and retraining of the unemployed, this commission should not duplicate these services. Mr. Fife said it is proposed that the Employment Research Committee deal strictly with low skilled people. Mr. Fisher said that documents submitted by Mr. Fife at previous presentations do not specifically state the goal of this proposed committee being for low-skilled unemployed. Mr. Fisher said the goals should be more specifically stated. Mr. Fife said he would like a representative from the Board of Supervisors to work with his committee to prepare those specific goals so they may be brought back to the Board of Supervisors quickly. Mrs. Cooke said she would volunteer as that representative, but would like to make certain that the Committee not only tries to train the low-skilled unemployed to find jobs, but works with local, already established industry, to train people for specific jobs available. (Note: Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:20 A.M.) November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Butler said he has been involved in similar projects for the past ten years. Mr. Butler said he has been very proud of the achievements of the CETA program which was active throughout the Country a few years ago, and since Federal Funding of the CETA program ceased, he would support the establishment of some local agency to attempt to take over this task. (NOTE: Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 10:22 A.M.) Mr. Fisher said Mrs. Cooke would work with Mr. Fife and his Committee and bring back a set of specific charges at some future meeting for the Board of Supervisors to review and possibly approve. Agenda Item No. 7. Recreational Program Fees. Mr. Agnor read the following memo- randum to the Board, dated October 29, 1982, from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation: "In the past few months, our Department has been contacted by several County residents who, in light of the recent revenue-sharing agreement, object to the non-resident fee charged to make use of City Parks and Recreation programs and facilities. Currently, the City charges non-residents rates in a variety of program areas such as; athletics, swimming, special interest classes, golf and garden plots. The additional revenues generated by non-resident fees for the City are approximately $18,500 per year. The majority of which would come from County residents. The only differential rate charged by our Department is for admission to Chris Greene and Mint Springs Parks from Memorial Day through Labor Day. The additional revenues gained totaled about $4,700 this past season, with $1,700 of these fees being collected from City residents. Our Department would definitely be in favor of dropping our non-resident fee for City residents ifa reciprocal arrangement could be made for County residents interested in using City programs and facilities. I realize that the Board of Supervisors and City Council have many issues to deal with at this time, but I feel that County residents have a valid objection to the City's non-resident rates now that the revenue-sharing agreement has been approved and I would like to suggest this as an area of discussion at a future meeting between the Board and City Council." Mr. Fisher said the City/County Consolidation Committee would most likely be the proper route for discussing such an idea, but felt this was not the proper time for sUch a discussion. Mrs. Cooke agreed, stating that matters already being worked on by the Committee should be completed before any new discussions begin. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to refer this idea to the Consolidation Committee when the time is more appropriate. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ~ Agenda Item No. 8. Execute revised architect agreement for County Office Building Parking Lot. Mr. Agnor read his memorandum dated November 5, 1982, as follows: "In 1980 the County executed a contract with Stainback and Scribner for Phase II of the County Office Building project which included renovations of the gymnasium wing and design of the access road and parking lot on the athletic field. In the scheduling of the project, it became obvious that the renova- tion of the gymnasium should be separated from the parking lot construction, so the design and bidding of the renovations were thus separated. In addi- tion to the scheduling of construction, a second reason for separating Phase II into two Projects is the fact that the architect fees for designing a parking lot carry a lower rate than building renovation fees. A separate contract with Stainback and Scribner 'for the parking lot and access road has been prepared for the County Executive's signature. The contract follows the same format as the 1980 contract for Phase II, but carries the lower fee. Your authorization to execute this contract with the architect is requested." Mr. Fisher asked when construction would begin on this project. Mr. Agnor said April was the original date, but due to athletic activities scheduled on the field through May, 1983, bids will be put out in April with construction to begin hopefully in June. Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the County Executive to sign the revised contract for access roads and parking lots east of the Albemarle County Office Building on that property currently used for "temporary" parking and former Athletic Fields (Architect's Job No. 8217). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. (NOTE: Copy of fully executed agreement is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 475 Agenda Item No. 15. Boards and Commissions. Appointments. Mr. Fisher reviewed the list of vacancies on Agenda Item No. 15.f. Community Services Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to reappoint Mr. William A. Chick to the Community Services Board, with said term to expire on December 31, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mr. Jeffrey W. Sobel to the Community Services Board, with said term to expire on December 31, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15.d. BOCA Code Board of Appeals. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to reappoint Mr. Kenneth O. Smith to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals with said term to expire on August 21, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded yore: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15.i. Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mr. Walter J. Hurd to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging with said term to expire on October 20, 1984. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15.k. Youth Commission. Miss Nash suggested the name of Mr. Patrick Iachetta as a possible person to fill the youth vacancy on this Commission. Mr. Fisher suggested the Clerk contact Mr. Iachetta to see if he would be willing to serve. Agenda Item No. 15.j. Transportation Safety Commission. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated October 26, 1982, from Mr. John W. Massie, Jr., Director of Construction, Maintenance and Operations of the Albemarle County School Board resigning from the Trans- portation Safety Commission and recommending Mr. Robert Thraves for the post. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to appoint Mr. Robert Thraves to fill the unexpired term of Mr. John Massie on the Transportation Safety Committee. The appointment is scheduled to expire on December 31, 1984. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15.m. Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board of Directors. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated July 30, 1982, from Mr. Thomas Payne, Chairman of the MACAA Board Nominating Committee, requesting Albemarle County to consider the appointment of a third representative on the MACAA Board. It was noted that letters were sent to Messrs. Graham Paige and Harold R. Bailes (proxies representing Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash on the MACAA Board) their opinion on the need for a third representative, and no response was received. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt to have a third elected official on the MACAA Board would constitute a quorum. 'Other Board members were of the opinion that a third official was unnecessary. Mr. St. John said if a third member of the Board of Supervisors were appointed to the MACAA Board, it would be necessary for the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to keep minutes no~ only of the MACAA meetings~ but be certain that those discussions were made part of the official minutes of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John advised the Board to decline the appointment of a third representative to the MACAA Board. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to decline the request to add a third elected official from Albemarle County as a representative on the MACAA Board of Directors for legal reasons. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom then stated that since he and his proxy (Mr. Harold Bailes) have great difficulty in attending the MACAA Board of Directors meetings, he wished to resign his post. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley to accept the resignation of Mr. Lindstrom (and proxy Mr. Harold Bailes) from the MACAA Board of Directors, and appoint Mr. James R. Butler to fill the unexpired term (expiration of which was unspecified). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 15.1. JAUNT. Mr. Fisher said due to the recent incorporation of JAUNT, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to appoint five interim appointees to the JAUNT Board of Directors for a period of one year. Mr. Fisher said that although current JAUNT Board members were not officially appointed by the Board of Supervisors, he felt the Board should consider official appointment of those citizens already serving on an interim basis. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint Mr. Connie Cochran, Mr. Donn Bent, Ms. Dinah Ansley, Ms. Beverly Thompson and Miss Ellen V. Nash to the JAUNT Board of Directors on an interim basis, said appointment to expire on November 9, 1983. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15.c. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Treva Cromwell is willing to be considered as an interim Chairman for the Rivanna Board until such time as a permanent Chairman can be appointed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to nominate Mrs. Treva Cromwell as interim Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board and offer such recommendation to the Charlottesville City Council for their concurrence. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15.g. Emergency Medical Services Council. Mr. Fisher said he has resigned his position on the Emergency Medical Services Council (term expires on December 12, 1982), and asked if any member of the Board of Supervisors wished to serve. There were no Board members wishing to serve on this Council. With regard to Emergency Medical Services, Mr. Fisher noted for the Board's information that there is legislation being drafted to require completion of an eighty hour training course for all rescue squad personnel before they are allowed to answer emergency calls. Mr. Fisher said if such legislation is passed, it Will cause many rural rescue squads to disband because the cost to train volunteers will be overwhelming. Mr. Fisher said the Virginia Association of Counties has stated they will work to defeat such proposed legis- lation. Agenda Item No. 6. AHIP: Quarterly Report. Mr. Gary Oliveria, Director of AHIP, was present. Mr. Oliveria presented the usual slide presentation indicating the work completed on housing rehabilitations in Albemarle County. Mr. Oliveria said during the first quarter of fiscal year 1982-83, AHIP completed more jobs than ever before in its history. Mr. 01iveria said the seven major rehabili- tation jobs completed during this past quarter, expended the last available HUD block grant money. Mr. Oliveria said that an announcement will be made later today that the Charlottesville Housing Foundation Loan Fund Committee has chosen a bank to administer a $300,000 loan fund, making loans available to clients of AHIP at subsidized interest rates. Mr. Fisher commented that the $300,000 "seed" money was privately raised. Mr. Fisher asked what provisions will be made to see that borrowed money is repaid to this loan fund. Mr. Oliveria said all the details for this loan fund have not been worked out, but provisions will be made to insure repayment of borrowed money upon transfer of the property or upon death. Miss Nash asked if present applicants would be given the first opportunities to obtain loans through this new fund. Mr. 01iveria said yes, that those who have been waiting the longest for financing would be given the first opportunity to apply. Mr. Fisher said he hoped that these funds would be handled very carefully so that AHIP could continue it's work for many years to come. Agenda Item No. 9. Library Board: Discussion of library branch on Northside. Mr. James Hingeley, Chairman of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board of Directors, was present at the request of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Hingeley delivered a brief history of the discussions by the Library Board and staff regarding the older of the two bookmobiles. Mr. Hingeley said the older bookmobile is in need of major repairs and is scheduled to be removed from service in the near future. Mr. Hingeley said many possibilities were discussed with the State consultant for regional libraries, and the result of those dis- cussions and lengthy deliberations by the Library Board, was to take the older bookmobile out of traveling service and place it as a permanent "stop" in the parking lot of Albemarle Square Shopping Center. Mr. Hingeley stated that this in no way will affect the cost of such service to Albemarle County, and will only eliminate six regular stops at various locations in Albemarle County near the Albemarle Square location (i.e. Stonehenge, Squire Hill, Carrsbrook, etc.). Mr. Fisher expressed concern that if the bookmobile is parked in the lot at Albemarle Square, it will draw users from Stonehenge and Squire Hill, across Rio Road; causing a potentially dangerous traffic situation. Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Fisher, asking also if any traffic study was conducted prior to the decision to locate the bookmobile in Albemarle Square. Mr. Hingeley said no traffic studies were conducted, and that it was envisioned that users of the bookmobile would arrive by vehicle, rather than being pedes- trians. Mrs. Cooke asked how payment for use of this facility would be charged users living outside of Albemarle County. Mr. Hingeley said that although the bookmobile would be located in Albemarle County, payment to the Regional Library would be done on a "per use" basis. Mrs. Cooke questioned the methods used by the Library Board in making such a decision, noting that this matter should have been discussed with the Board of Supervisors prior to any such decision being made. Mr. Hingeley said the Albemarle County Planning Department, as well as the County Executive, were contacted regarding this matter, well in advance of any decision being made. Mr. Hingeley said no response was ever received from the Planning Department, but three concerns were voiced by Mr. Agnor: 1) if locating the bookmobile in a semi-permanent location would plant the seed for a permanent structure, 2) whether or not a special use permit or zoning variances were required for the location of the bookmobile, and 3) does this require review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission. November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 477 Mr. Fisher said although he is concerned about eliminating several bookmobile stops and restricting access to the bookmobile to users who can travel to the bookmobile, he was equally concerned abou~ what will happen to the bookmobile which will remain in operation. Mr. Fisher said the newer bookmobile was paid for almost entirely by Albemarle County for use in Albemarle County, and asked if credit would be given to Albemarle County if the bookmobile is used in other localities. Mr. Hingeley said he was not aware of any con- tractual obligations attached to the purchase of the new bookmobile. Mr. Hingeley sum- marized a letter from Miss Letter E. Neher to Mr. Christopher Devan dated June, 1978, referring to discussions held by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting of June 14, 1978. Mr. Hingeley said that the letter states that use of the bookmobiles can be determined by the Library Director effective July 1, 1978, with proper allocation of operating costs. Mr. Agnor noted that the new bookmobile was not purchased exclusively by Albemarle County for use in Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said the County paid about 97% of the purchase cost because that was the proposed percentage of use for Albemarle County at that time; also the funds derived from the sale of the old unit were to be credited to Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said that under the terms of the new proposed contract for the services of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, bookmobiles are to be handled totally separate from all other services; costs for services of bookmobiles will be charged to each locality based on use in that locality. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if a bookmobile permanently located in Albemarle Square would be considered under the bookmobile contract or the regular contract for library services. Mr. Hingeley said he did not know the answer to that question at this time. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this matter be forwarded to the Planning Commission to get a determination as to the best possible location for a "branch library"; but a more basic question is, should the bookmobile be taken out of service, or should it be repaired and run in order not to lose six stops in Albemarle County. Mr. Henley said he would not be willing to support financing two bookmobiles if one is only used a very limited amount. Mr. Fisher commented that the bookmobile which is in need of repairs is the unit which is scheduled to serve the other jurisdictions, and the unit purchased by Albemarle County will no longer be available to provide all the services paid for by Albemarle County. Mr. Hingeley said Greene and Nelson Counties are no longer contributing funds for the operation of the bookmobile and therefore the bookmobile no longer provides service to those two localities. Mr. Hingeley said Louisa County must receive bookmobile service in order to remain part of the regional library system, and they are paying for the bookmobile service which they use. Mr. Lindstrom said Louisa is paying for operating costs of the bookmobile service in Louisa County, but not the Capital Costs involved in the purchase of that bookmobile. Mr. Fisher asked if citizens were notified in areas where bookmobile service is proposed to be eliminated. Mr. Hingeley said changes in schedules are provided to citizens and he felt they would be notified, although he is certain such notification has not yet taken place. Mrs. Cooke asked if the six stops are being eliminated in Albemarle County in order to serve Louisa County. Mr. Hingeley said if only one bookmobile is operating, it is essential to cut six stops in Albemarle County to meet service requirements in Louisa County. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any service would be cut in Albemarle County if the Regional Library stopped serving Louisa County. Mr. Hingeley said if bookmobile service were stopped to Louisa County, the present level of service most likely could be continued in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom suggested sending a letter to Louisa County stating that if Louisa wished to continue having bookmobile service, that they pay to have the old unit repaired. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the Regional Library System would lose any significant funds if Louisa were to drop out of the Regional Library System. Mr. Hingetey said most likely the Regional Library System would be subject to a reduction in State aid, but he was not certain of the amount or of any other ramifications. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Hingeley find out who paid the balance of purchase costs for the new bookmobile in addition to the funds supplied by Albemarle County. Mrs. Cooke again expressed her concern about the possible elimination of services which are being paid for by citizens of her district just to meet contractual obligations to Louisa County. An unidentified lady stated that the stops which are proposed to be eliminated had extremely low circulation figures and that is why those stops were selected for elimination. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Hingeley attempt to obtain information regarding: 1) who paid the balance of the purchase price of the new bookmobile, 2) would the Regional Library lose state funding if Louisa County were no longer in the library system, 3) will Louisa County consider paying repair costs for the old bookmobile to continue service in that county, and 4) circulation figures for the bookmobile at each of its present stops. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to prepare traffic study information if the bookmobile is located in Albemarle Square, and Planning's viewpoint on a best possible permanent location for a northside library branch. Mr. Hingeley said he is anxious to solve this dilemma and hoped to have all the requested information in time for presentation to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting in December. Agenda Item No. 10. Executive Session. At 12:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session to discuss property acquisition or sale of property, Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler~ Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:50 P.M. without Mr. Lindstrom being present. 478' November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Budget Amendments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 3, 1982.) Mr. Agnor said both requests are from the Education Department. The first request is for $6,200 to be appropriated from the School Fund to Code 17RK-405--Instructional Equipment. The second request is for $2,000 to be appropriated from the School Fund to Code 17J-305--Instructional Supplies. The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against the budget amendments, the public hearing was closed. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 1:55 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said action cannot be taken for seven days. Therefore, action on these amendments will be taken on November 17, 1983. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Capital Improvements Program--Broadus Wood School and Albemarle High School Phase IV. This discussion was deferred from October 13, 1982 in order that a more detailed presentation by the School Administration and the architect for the projects could be made for both the Broadus Wood and Albemarle High School Phase IV projects. Mr. Robert Vickery, architect from the firm of Vickery Partnership Architects, was present to discuss the Broadus Wood Project. He summarized the history of the project. Mr. Vickery noted a request from Dr. Clarence McClure, former School Superintendent, in 1978, for a cost estimate on additional classrooms and a gymnasium for Broadus Wood School. This was done and the estimate was given for $960,000. Then in September 1981, Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, School Superintendent, requested an indepth study to include extensive renovation to the existing structure and an addition to handle the school needs for 300 students. After meetings with parents in the Broadus Wood area, the school principal, and the School Administration, a plan was developed. This study was completed on April 30, 1982, with three potential schemes. The plan developed had several factors. One was to remove the existing trailers on the site and to renovate the interior of the existing school. A new gymnasium would be added as well as a properly sized library since the present library is only one-half the size mandated by the State. Modest improvements were also planned for the kitchen storage and stage facilities. Lastly the entry to the School would be improved in order that parking conditions would be better. The persons reviewing the plans recommended scheme two which showed an addition on the east side of the school. Mr. Vickery said in May 1982, the request and drawings were presented to the School Board. The School Board then authorized the architects to proceed with design drawings in order that documents could be submitted to the State for consideration of literary funding. This information was submitted to the State on October 4, 1982. Mr. Vickery said he understands that preliminary approval has been given for the literary funding. Mr. Vickery said the next step is to complete contract options and get everything ready for bid. The State will not give final approval until contract options are in their office. The procedure for contract options takes about five and one-half months to prepare. Mr. Vickery said if all of this is completed, the projec-t could possibly go to bid in March. Mr. Vickery then explained the drawings of the existing school and as it would appear after being renovated. Mr. Vickery said the construction cost is estimated at $1,500,000 with the total project cost being $1,920,000. Mr. Lindstrom asked the purpose of the additional $420,000. Mr. Vickery said the funds are necessary for furnishings utility hook-ups and other associated project costs. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be cheaper to build a new school. Mr. Vickery said no, not for a school to handle 300 students. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this area continues to grow if the mechanical devices will permit expansion of the school. Mr. Vickery felt the school could easily be expanded to handle 400 students without serious mechanical problems. Mr. Fisher asked if the new wing would be air conditioned. Mr. Vickery said the plan is to air condition the offices, but not the cafeteria or the other wings or the gymnasium. Mr. Vickery then noted that if there is ever to be air conditioning~ it is cheaper to have that included in the first stage of construction. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the windows will open and shut. Mr. Vickery said there will always be one operable window in each classroom. Mr.. G. Lawson Drinkard, architect with the firm of Vickery Partnership Architects, was present to discuss the Albemarle High School Phase IV project. He noted that this final phase of the renovations is to replace the mechanical units and the classrooms in the old part of the building. The mechanical systems are no longer functional and reptacemen~ parts for the system cannot be obtained. The cost estimate for this project is $765,000 for construction costs with a total project cost of $915,000. This includes "through-the- wall" units to heat and cool certain areas. Heating will be off of existing pipes and cooling will be handled with compressors at self-contained units. Mr. Drinkard said approximately two-thirds of the school building is now air conditioned and this final phase will include those spaces which are not air conditioned at this time. Mr. Agnor asked if this included air conditioning the gym. Mr. Drinkard said no. Mr. Fisher asked if the classrooms will be used in the summer. Mr. Anderson, Assistant Principal, Albemarle High School, was present and said the classrooms have not been used in the summer in the past. Dr. Gutierrez noted that there is a possibility of a future summer program. Mr. Lindstrom asked the cost of providing air conditioning to the classrooms. Mr. Drinkard said approximately $500,000. The reason this is expensive is because power has to be brought to the individual units in order for the units to be operable and same has to come from different parts of the school. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many additional classrooms are involved. Mr. Drinkard said thirty-five. Mr. Fisher then asked what the $58,000 requested appropriation is for. Mr. Agnor said for the final design work and to submit the design plans to the literary fund office for final approval. November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 4 79 Mr. Fisher then opened the discussion for public comments. Mr. Robert Rutland, a citizen, said he learned through the press that Mr. Agnor had recommended delay of this project and other school renovations until 1984. Mr. Rutland said everything that is consumed has increased in price but one thing that has not increased is school enrollment. He feels that quality education is an important aspect, but the key to everything is respect and respect does not come from an architectural plan. Therefore, Mr. Rutland urged the Board to approve what he understood was originally recommended and that is to delay this project until 1984. Mr. Rutland felt air conditioning is a luxury item and that it is time for the Board to "bite the bullet" and say no to the request. In conclusion, Mr. Rutland said the request is approximately $30,000 per classroom and even though this is a rich nation, it is not that rich. Speaking next was Mr. John Anderson who noted that Albemarle'High School is the largest and oldest high school in the County. He noted concern that the pupils are exposed to ninety-five degree temperatures at AIbemarle and Western Albemarle High.School has air conditioning. Therefore, Mr. Anderson urged approval of the request in order that Albemarle High School would have the same conveniences as the other school. Mro Lindstrom asked if the School Board planned to air condition all all the County schools. Mr. Charles Totbert, School Board member, was present and said he could not speak for the entire School Board but personally felt that if any major renovations are done in a school, air conditioning would be considered as an option at that time. Mr. Tolbert also noted a serious problem at Albemarle High School with part of the building being air conditioned and part not. Mr. Henley said even though he did not have air conditioning in the schools he attended, he felt that the rooms today are designed for air conditioning because there is no other way to cool the rooms. Therefore, he planned to support the request for Albemarle High School Phase IV. Mr. Fisher then asked that the discussion return to the Broadus Wood renovation. Mr. Tolbert said the request today is for planning funds and he urged approval of same even if there is some reservation about the actual construction project. Mr. Tolbert said the lead time for the planning is limited. He pointed out that essentially all this renovation does is to bring the school up to State standards and to remove the trailers from the property. Mr. Tolbert said Dr. Gutierrez has assured the School Board that a school at least of the current size will be required in this location. Therefore, Mr. Tolbert urged approval of the planning money and to reserve a decision on the construction if the Board so desires. Mr. Fisher asked if the bid documents would be drafted as part of the design. Mr. Tolbert assumed they would. Mr. Fisher then asked if an agreement can be made that if the Board approves the planning funds, that the bid documents will be drawn with various alternatives such as one-half of a gymnasium, a whole gymnasium, interior renovations, and an additional wing. Mr. Tolbert said that depends on whether the cost will be more to break the plan down in that manner. Mr. Vickery said the cost would be more but the plans have been broken down already with the two wings as an alternative. Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, was present and said to renovate the school and not have at least one-half of a gymnasium is ridiculous. A number of years ago when the School Board attempted to upgrade the schools in the County, the idea was to bring the schools up to 1980 standards. Physical education is required at this school and having to take physical education in the cafeteria is ridiculous. Mrs. Haden noted agreement with Mr. Tolbert that the Board of Supervisors approve the planning funds for this project. Mr. Fisher said his concern is that two months ago the Board was given a figure of $1,750,000 for this project and today the amount is $1,920,000. He felt when the borrowing limit on literary funds was increased to two million dollars, the feeling was to spend all of that amount and he was concerned with that approach. Mrs. Haden said Broadus Wood is in an area that will continue to need a school and renovation of the school is needed. She said the School Board has not made a decision on the type of gymnasium or on the extra classrooms at this time. Dr. Gutierrez spoke next and urged approval of the planning funds for Broadus Wood based on the reasons stated. He said the current situation relative to physical education is not equitable. He noted that there has been a school at the Broadus Wood location for a long time and relocation of the students in that area would involve long travel times. Therefore, Dr. Gutierrez said even though the Board may feel it is taking a risk in renovating the school, it is a safe risk because a school will be needed in this area no matter what the outcome of the school redistricting study. Mr. Butler then asked which of the projects is the higher priority. Dr. Gutierrez said Broadus Wood is the number 1 priority. Speaking next was Mrs. Barbara Herath, parent in the Broadus Wood area. She said the condition of the existing building is good and with some renovations it can be adequate to meet the needs for a long time. As noted by Dr. Gutierrez there is no easy way to put the children elsewhere, so something needs to be done. Mrs. Herath said action needs to be taken as soon as possible for two reasons. One, the buildings costs will increase and literary funds need to be earmarked for the project. Mr. Smith, resident of Earlysville Heights, spoke next and urged approval of the request. With no further comments from the public, Mr. Fisher closed the hearing. 480 November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said he did not have any problem with the contract documents being broken into several alternatives. He also felt that the comments made indicate that the building will have the flexibility to be expanded for future needs without renovating the mechanical system. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize the expenditure of design funds with the stipulation that there be alternatives included in the bidding of the project for two classrooms on the east side of the building, a full gymnasium, one- half of a gymnasium, and with no gymnasium. He agreed with Mrs. Haden that a school without a gymnasium did not make sense but in order to have a full range of costs, Re agreed to including that as an alternative. Mrs. Cooke concurred with the comments of Mr. Lindstrom and felt that the area will continue to grow and an adequate school in the area is a necessity. She then seconded the motion. Mr. Henley favored the different alternatives and hoped the cost could be kept down as much as possible and still have a ~quality building. Mr. Butler supported the motion. He felt the residents in the area support the school and hoped that funds can be found to do an adequate job for the community in improving the school. Mr. Fisher noted concern about this much money being spent for one school project with all the other needs in the County. He did not want people to get the impression that approval of the planning money guarantees that the school will be renovated. He said he had informed people in his district that funds could not be appropriated for Meriwether Lewis School until the school redistricting study is completed. Mr. Fisher felt the redistricting study should be completed before any action is'taken and he did not support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said a number of children in his district go to Meriwether Lewis School but that is a different question entirely, since it~ has never been decided that a school should be built on the present site. The Broadus Wood site has been noted by the members of the School Board as being needed for a school. Mr. Fisher then asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. Lindstrom restated the motion to approve planning funds in the amount of $77,140 for the Broadus Wood School project with the stipulation that there be alternatives included in the bidding of said project for two classrooms on the east side of the building, a full gymnasium, one-half of a gymnasium and with no gymnasium and with said.funds coming from the Capital Improvements Budget. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Miss Nash said she supported the motion because planning is necessary but her support did not mean support of a new building. Mr. Agnor then noted that the proposed Capital Improvement Program shows funding of the actual construction in FY 1983-84. He asked if the staff is to assume that even though the planning money is approved, the construction funds are to be retained in FY 1983-84. Mr. Fisher said yes. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley (prefaced his vote by stating that he has informed t~ people in the Broadus Wood area that he is willing to fund the construction when Mr. Agnor says there are funds available), Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 13. Appropriations: 1982.) Capital Projects. (Deferred from November 3, The public hearing on these appropriations was held on November 3, 1982, and the request today is for approval of the actual appropriations. Mr. Lindstrom said the Albemarle High School Phase IV renovation project should be subject of separate action and he then offered motion to approve the following approPriations from the 1982-83 Capital Improvements Fund to the. following codes: $75,000 to Code 9700- 7060.12--Airport Phase I Terminal Building; $6,000 to Code 9700-7060.35--Mint Springs Swimming Area Improvements; $2,500 to Code 9700-7060.36--Mint Springs Maintenance Facility Improvements; $5,000 to Code 9700-7060.37--Crozet School Recreational Improvements; and $12,000 to Code 9700-7060.05--Health Department Parking Lot. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Henley said the Comprehensive Plan notes that growth will be in the urban area of the County. Therefore, Albemarle High School will be filled to over capacity. Based on that, he feels that the Phase IV renovation project should be approved. Miss Nash agreed and noted that air conditioning is necessary because the windows are not the type to be opened. Mr. Fisher felt the project should be bid with and without air conditioning. Mr. Vickery said there is difficulty in bidding the project both ways. Mrs. Cooke felt air conditioning is a necessity due to the construction of the rooms. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much extra it would cost to bid the project both ways. Mr. Drinkard said less than $10,000. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to appropriate $58,000 from the 1982-83 Capital Improvements Fund to Code 9700-1130.00 for the Albemarle High School Phase IV November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) renovations with alternatives being provided for both air conditioning and without air conditioning; contract documents not to be prepared until after cost estimates are made. Miss Nash seconded the motion. However, she did not feel additions could be built without air conditioning. Mr. Henley said he could support the motion if there was any question about the necessity of air conditioning but he did not feel that is the case and did not feel it justifies spending an additional $10,000 when _air conditioning is a necessity. Therefore, he cOuld not support the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: Section 5-3.1 of County Code restricting issuance of certain building permits (Buck Mountain Ordinance). (Notice of this public hearing was publiShed in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 1982.) Mr. Fisher said this ordinance was prepared and advertised to be reenacted for an indefinite period of time. Before discussing the ordinance, the Board needs to know the results of work by a staff committee appointed at the November 3 meeting to resolve the question of funding watershed management costs; particularly, the County's cost of protecting the South Fork Rivanna watershed, and the long unresolved question of City participation in the maintenance of structures required by the Runoff Control Ordinance and costs associated with that maintenance. Mr. Agnor said the Committee met twice with all members present, and twice with only two members present. At the first meeting held, Mr. Cole Hendrix asked for time to meet with City Council members before deliberations began. The result of aZ1 the efforts is that there is no report to make. Mr. Agnor said he understands that City Council discussed this at its meeting Monday night, and the results of that discussion have been transmitted to the Chairman by letter. Mr. Fisher said he had actually received two letters since the meeting last week: "November 4, 19,82 On Monday, November ist, the. City Council passed a resolUtion in which it stated its agreement to acquire the necessary land for the Buck Mountain Reservoir and that the acquisition be financed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the report of the 5 C's Committee. Although not part of the resolution, the Council did discuss and agree that the issue of cost allocation for watershed management was a totally separate topic and that we would not consider it as part of the issue of the acquisition and financing of the Buck Mountain land. On November 3rd, I was called on the telephone by Chairman Fisher who stated that the Board would not agree with the 5 C's proposal. He stated that the Board asked that a committee of staff members from the City, County and Rivanna be formed to immediately discuss the sharing'of the watershed costs. At that time, I restated the City Council's position. However, I also stated that I had no objection to the discussion of the sharing of watershed management costs. An analysis of the issue should be prepared by the staffs with the final determination as to whether any change is appropriate being made by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. However, I do not believe this study should delay our reaching an agreement on the Buck Mountain Reservoir. In conclusion, the City Council respectfully requests that the Board of SuperVisors agree to the settlement of the Buck Mountain issue by agreeing to the 5 C's proposal. We believe that the 5 C's proposal is reasonable and fair compromise of the issue which is in the best interest of all the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle. Very truly yours, (SIGNED BY) Francis L. Buck Mayor" "November 9, 1982 On Monday, November 8th, the City Manager. reported to the Council the County's information concerning the watershed management costs. After discussion, Council has asked me to advise the Board that the City Council is willing to discuss with the Board the City's additional contribution to the payment of these costs. We are ready to meet with the Board as soon as possible and, if the Board would like to meet with us, we hope that a meeting could be held before the end of the month. Very truly yours, (SIGNED BY), Francis L. Buck MaYor" November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mayor Frank Buck was Hresent. He said that City Council members feel that they have received all available information on this subject, and Council is willing to sit down and discuss this with the Board either in a sub-group or as a full body. Mr. Fisher suggested that the two bodies meet tomorrow night, November 11, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Office Building. Other Board members agreed with this suggestion, and the Mayor said he would confirm this date with Council members. At this time Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing on readoption of the ordinance advertised. First to speak was Mrs. Flora Patterson for the League of Women Voters with the following memorandum dated November 10, 1982: "The League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County has long supported increased cooperation between the City and the County. We have also for a long time advocated securing an additional reservoir site. It is within this context that we supported a moratorium on development in the Buck Mountain Creek area and extension of that moratorium while the adequacy of the site for a reservoir was studied and while equitable financing arrangements were developed. The site has now been found to be suitable and the need for its acquisition appears to be generally agreed. Further, we believe that the report of the 5 C's Study Group provides a basis for an equitable agreement for financing site acquisition. We would like to compliment the 5 C's and its Study Group for their efforts to facilitate such an agreement. In its report, the Study Group has done the community a valuable service by separating out and clarifying many of the issues involved. We endorse the conclusions and recommendation of this report. The issues now holding up agreement between the City and County appear to be a set of diverse problems which may require a number and variety of solutions. Some of these may be worked out easily and quickly, while others, it seems, may be more complex. Some might be appropriately addressed within the context of the Consolidation Study. We are confident that agreement on solutions can be reached by the City and County, acting with good will and working together for the benfit of all the people in the community. In the meantime, we believe that the questions related directly to acquisition of the BuckMountain Creek site should be settled now. The landowners in the area -- and the public -- deserve a decision and that decision should be to proceed immediately with acquisition." Speaking next was Mr. Roy Patterson. He said that Citizens for Albemarle had sent a letter to the Board last week urging that the Board reach a compromise agreement with the City and proceed with the Buck Mountain project. Mr. Patterson said he would just like to reinforce that letter. He expressed the hope that future generations will be able to look back on this day and be proud of what the Board did. Since City Council has approved the 5 C's proposal, it would be appropriate for the Board to take similar action so the Buck Mountain project can proceed without incurring increased costs. He urged extension of the moratorium. Mr. Don Wagner was present on behalf of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association and presented the following letter: "November 10, 1982 ~he~Board of Directors of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association has adopted a motion in support of the 5 C's proposal for funding for the proposed Buck Mountain reservoir, even though this will mean additional tap fees which will raise the cost of new homes. While BRHBA is sympathetic to the desire of the county that all water users contribute to the cost of protection of the watershed, this need should not be allowed to jeopardize progress with Buck Mountain. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) Donald J. Wagner Secretary Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, Inc." Mr. Venable Minor said he has confidence in this Board and he recommends that ~the moratorium be extended. Mr. Dennis Marcello said he is an affected landowner. He said that if the County and City meet tomorrow, he hopes that the two bodies will really do something. He does not want to see the moratorium extended longer than one month and supports the statements of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley in taking the City to task. Mr. Marcello said he realizes that there are political factors and egos involved in this question, but he urged the Board to make a decision based on what is best for the citizens. November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 483 Mr. Leigh Middleditch said if he were a landowner in the Buck Mountain area he would be disturbed about the future of his land, so he can understand Mr. Marcello's statements. Mr. Middleditch said the last time he spoke before the Board, he expressed the hope that the Board would be able to overcome its frustration. He felt it is a positive thing that the Mayor has come to this meeting today to offer to meet with the Board to come to grips with this matter. Mr. Middleditch said he believes the issue of acquisition of land and the costs associated with the enforcement of the Runoff Control Ordinance should be separated. He suggested that the Board agree with the 5 C's proposal for funding although the proposal is not exactly agreeable to everybody. Mr. George Palmer said there is no question in his mind that the land should be bought today. The Board of Supervisors, in the 1960's studied a number of water sources, and more recently three or four expensive studies have been conducted on the same question. Mr. Palmer said he thought the Four-Party Agreement was a good agreement and covered all problems that might arise~ evidently it did not. The "Gibson" compromise is a good compromise, in that it adds no additional taxes on citizens, put .the burden of payment on the water users and not the general citizenry, and transfers some of that burden to future water users. The Home Builders Association supports the proposal, so he feels that is a strong factor in its favor. Mr. Palmer said he is impressed that the Mayor.has offered to sit down and discuss the watershed management costs, and he hopes the Board will extend the moratorium and go with the 5 C's proposal. Mrs. Opal David said she is the only person present today that was at City Council's meeting Monday night. At that time, there was not a single member of Council who did not speak up indicating a willingness for sharing costs. An unidentified property owner in the Buck Mountain area said that even if the moratorium is dropped, there will still be "a cloud on the land". He owns 30 acres in the area and some day would like to live on the property. He hoped that a decision about the reservoir would be made as soon as possible. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley immediatel offered motion to defer any action on this ordinance until tomorrow night (November 11) to see if the City is willing to reach some agreement on the sharing of costs associated with the watershed management program. Mrs. Cooke said she has supported the 5 C's recommendation from the beginning, but would wait until tomorrow night before commiting herself to an extension of the moratorium. She then gave second to the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought everyone knows his position, but he was willing to wait one more day. Mr. Butler said he feels the Board has before it a good proposal. He has been involved with soils and water nearly all his life and he has seen some really dry spells; in fact there was a time when the James River almost ran dry and some creeks dried up and have never returned. He felt it would be a big mistake not to go forward with this project. Miss Nash said she did not feel it would hurt anything to wait until tomorrow night before making a decision since the Mayor has indicated that there are some areas of agreement on the sharing of costs. At this time, roll was called on the motion which passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted that there may be a request for a recount of votes in last week's general election. He has been informed by the Registrar that if this occurs, and the court orders a recount, then the court will also order the payment of the cost for the recount by the locality. If this occurs, there will be a request before the Board at a later date for a special appropriation of funds. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a memorandum dated October 26, 1982, from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, concerning the completion of the real estate assessment for 1982. He commended Mr. Jones and Mr. Agnor for their apparent accuracy in estimating what the tax base would be. Mr, Fisher noted that the County's total appraised value is approaching one and three-quarter billions ($1,750,000,000). Mr.. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Governor Charles Robb announcing a meeting to be held in Richmond on December 3, 1982, to discuss ways to provide summer employment for young people. Mr. Butler agreed to represent Albemarle County at this meeting. Mr. Fisher noted report from Mr. P. J. Jenkins, Chairman of the Hatton Ferry Committee, in which Mr. Jenkins apologized for not having met the deadline for the committee report. Mr. Fisher said a letter had been received from a citizen requesting that the Board enact an ordinance outlawing smoking in public places. He asked if the County Attorney should respond as to the Board's power to enact such an ordinance. Mrs. Cooke said that she would personally love to see this happen, but if the Board has no power to do so, there is no need to take the time to discuss the request. 484 November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter stating that next Wednesday is National Community Education Day. Governor Robb has proclaimed that day as Community Education Day. The first community education program began operating last month at Stone-Robinson School and as part of the observance, the Board is invited to an open house at Stone- Robinson next Wednesday afternoon. Mrs. Cooke noted that she attended a forum on drunk driving in Richmond recently. The program was led by people from Montgomery County who have formed a drunk driver's task force. She thought it strange that no member of the President's task force was invited to speak at this forum and said that there is not much that can be done until such time as the President's Task Force has finished its study. Mrs. Cooke said there is to be a campaign against drunk driving the week of DeCember 6 and she will be seeking a proclamation from the Board. Mr. Agnor said that JAUNT has requested that the County appoint a proxy to vote the five shares of stock that the County has in the JAUNT Corporation. This is a three year appointment and instead of appointing a citizen as recommended by JAUNT, Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that either the Chairman or himself be appointed. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. Agnor as proxy to vote the Board's stock in JAUNT, Inc. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said that several members of the Board and the County Executive did attend the annual meeting Of the Virginia Association of Counties. He mentioned several recommendations for legislation which VACo is sponsoring for the next session of the General Assembly. 1) To add a ninth purpose of zoning to the State Code, that being to implement the comprehensive plan. 2) To allow a meals and lodging tax for all counties. 3) Education funding - the state requires 54 teachers per 1,000'pupils as the minimum standard of quality. Almost all counties now have a much higher quality, so a change in funding is requested. 4) JLARC has been discussing a recommendation that there be a change in the distribution formula for secondary road system. Agenda Item No. 17. At 4:30 P.M., there being no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn this meeting until November 11 at 7:30 P.M. for a continuation of the discussion on the Buck Mountain project. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None.