1981-10-14404
October 14, 1981,(Regular Day Meeting)
October 7, t'9~1 [Regutar Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Agnor attempt to determine if there are non-University
sources of wastes being disposed of at the Vivarium and bring back his findings to the
Board.
Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application
from the Black American Law Students Association of the University of Virginia Law School
for a raffle to be held September 28 through October 2 and October 5 through October 9,
1981. Motion for approval was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann.
None.
Miss Nas~.
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: June 18 (Afternoon), August 13, September
10, September 17 (Night), 1980. Mr. Lindstrom said he had not yet read these minutes, but
stated that he would be certain to have them ready for the October 14th day meeting.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor requested a brief executive session in order to discuss a
property matter. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn
into executive session to discuss property matters. At 10:00 P.M., roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Miss Nash.
The Board reconvened back into open session at 10:20 P.M., and immediately adjourned.
Chairman
October 1~, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on October 14, 1981, .at 9:00 A.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R.
McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash (Arrived at 2:05 P.M.).
Absent:
Officers Present:
St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting
of eight items for the Board's consideration. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded
by Mr. Henley, to approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called on
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley., Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Item ~No. 2.la. LotterY Permit. A lottery permit request from the Broadus Wood P.T.A.
for bingo and raffles for November 6, 1981, was presented and approved in accordance with
the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same.
Item No. 2.lb.' Lottery Permit. A lottery permit request from the University of
Virginia ROTC Honor Guard for a lottery to be held on November 23, 1981, was presented and
approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of
same o
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
4 05
Item No. 2.2a. Street Sign. A local developer, Mr. Caleb Stowe has requested that
street name signs for Lewis Hill III be accepted for Highway Department maintenance; said
signs have been purchased by Mr. Stowe. Therefore, the following street sign request was
approved:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following
-- roads:
Holkham Drive (State Route 1636) at the northeast corner of the
intersection of State Route 678 and State Route 1636;
Ho!kham Drive (State Route 1636) and Holkham Lane (no state route
number) at the northwest corner of its intersection;
Holkham Drive (State Route 1636) and Herold Circle (no state
route number) at the southwest corner of its northern
intersection;
Holkham Drive (State Route 1636) and Hero!d Circle (no state
route number) at the southwest corner of its southern
intersection; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of
the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department
of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned
street signs.
Item No. 2.2b. Street Sign Request. Mr. Price Smith, a resident of Earlysville
Heights Subdivision, has requested street name signs for all the roads located in the
subdivision and has agreed to pay for the signs and the handling cost of same. The following
resolution was approved in accordance with the request:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following
roads:
Ridgemont Road (State Route 1535) at the northeast corner of the
intersection of State Route 743 and State Route 1535;
Ridgemont Road (State Route 1535) and Viewmont Road (State Route
1536) at the southeast corner of its intersection;
Viewmont Road (State Route 1536) and Stonefield Circle (State
Route 1537) at the northeast corner of its intersection;
Viewmont Road (State Route 1536) and Yorkshire Road (State
Route 1534) at the northeast corner of its intersection; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of the
County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of
Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned
street signs.
Item No. 2.3a. Take roads into State Secondary System; School Entrance Roads. The
following resolution was approved as requested by resolution of the County School Board:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following
entrance roads to the following schools:
Scottsville Elementary School - Beginning at the southern edge
of pavement on State Route 20; thence with the entrance road
to and in front of the school for 1100 feet. The pavement
design is eight (8) inches of aggregate base with one and
one-half (1 1/2) inches of S-5 bituminous concrete surface.
Red Hill Elementary School - Beginning at the southern edge
of pavement on State Route 760; thence with the entrance road
to and in front of the school in a clockwise direction for 350
feet. The pavement design is ten (10) inches of aggregate base
with one (1) inch of S-5 bituminous concrete surface.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed right-of-way
and drainage easements along these requested additions as shown on the
accompanying site plan for the schools.
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Item No. 2.4. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of August,
1981 was presented in accordancewith Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Item No. 2.5. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the
Regional Jail for the month of September, 1981 was presented along with summary statement
of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification
officer; said statements being approved as presented.
Item No. 2.6. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth'
Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of September, 1981 were presented; said statements
were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.7. Report of the County Executive for the month of August, 1981, 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 Fin~nee and charged to the following funds for the month of August, 1~81,
were also pres~ntHd~as ~nformation:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
~neral Fund
School Operating Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsvilte 1% Local Sales Tax
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 1,121.76
629,810.02
756.224.43
699,788.55
6,740.21
98,968.77
364.13
~ 135,905.85
28,580.34
219,493.67
$2,576,997.73
Item No. 2.8. Receipt of the Audit for the Regional Jail (Albemarle-Charlottesville
Joint Security Complex) for the year ending June 30, 1981, was received from the firm of
Robinson, Farmer and Cox Associates; said audit dated September 22, 1981.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: June 18, July 16 (Afternoon), August 13,
August 20 (Afternoon), September 10, September 17, October 15 (Night), October 22, November
5 (Afternoon), November 5 (Night), November 20, November 24, December 17 and December 18,
1980 and January 21, 1981.
Mr. Henley had read the minutes of August 20, 1980, (Afternoon) and found no errors.
Mr. Henley had not read the minutes of October 22, 1980.
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of November 20, November 24 and December 17, 1980 and
found no errors.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann to approve the minutes
of August 20 (Afternoon), November 20, November 24 and December 17, 1980. Roll was called
on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Request re' Shannon Drive.
The following letter dated August 21, 1981, was received from Mr. and Mrs. William C.
Cason:
"Gentlemen:
We would like to request that Rural Addition Funds be used to upgrade
Shannon Drive in Shadwell Estates. Ashby Williams, of the Engineering
Department for the County of Albemarle, has reviewed the situation and
agrees that this should be done.
Thank you for your attention to this matter."
Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, was present and said he had walked
Shannon Drive with Mr. Cason and indicated to him that the road was passable. The road has
a gravel surface and Mr. Cason lives at the very end of the road. Mr. Williams said he
suggested that Mr. Cason request the Board for the use of rural addition funds to upgrade
the road.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He said Rural Addition
Funds are usually included in the Secondary Road Improvement Budget but due to the lack of
secondary funds for Fiscal Year 1981-82, the Board had accepted his recommendation to not
include any Rural Addition Funds in the 1981-82 budget. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs
to decide whether or not to include Rural Addition Funds this year and in future years.
Mr. Fisher asked if Shannon Drive would qualify if there were Rural Addition Funds. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Code section on Rural Addition Funds has changed so greatly that almost
any road can qualify if it was opened to traffic prior to July 1, 1976. The Board has the
option of requiring one-half of the cost to be donated from sources other than highway
funds and also the option of using Rural Addition Funds for this addition up to the maximum
amount available. Mr. Roosevelt further reviewed the qualifications specified for Rural
Addition Funds. He noted that if there are no lots being held for speculation on the road,
the road would qualify but it is the option of the Board on how to handle such requests.
Mr. McCann suggested this road be reviewed by the Highway Department and if there are
any funds in the future, the request can then be considered. He ~lso noted that most of
the lots along the road are individually owned.
Mr. Fisher said since there are no funds available he did not see any need to ask the
Road Viewers to examine the road. Mr. Henley then offered motion to notify Mr. and Mrs.
Cason that there are no Rural Addition Funds available in Fiscal Year 1981-82 budget and
that the request can be made at a later date in the event that funding becomes available.
Mr. M¢Cann seconded the.motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Discussion: Commonwealth Drive.
The following petition from twelve residents on Commonwealth Drive was presented for
discussion:
"We,~ the undersigned residents of Commonwealth Drive, wish to express to
you our concerns about the following matters.
First, we have had a continuing problem with motor vehicles speeding on
Commonwealth Drive. We have contacted the Sheriff's Office. They informed
us that they could not enforce a speed limit when one wasn't posted and that
our road is private property. It is our understanding that our road has
been dedicated to Albemarle County and therefore, Albemarle County has the
power to post and enforce a speed limit. We request that a 35 mph speed
limit be set for our safety and the safety of the many people using our
road as a thoroughfare.
Secondly, we contacted the Virginia Highway Department. They informed us
that the developer of our residential area has been rejected for state
maintenance of Commonwealth Drive because of a particular sewage pipe Which
runs under the road. We feel that this matter should be investigated. Our
concern is that the road will not be maintained including the necessary
snow removal in the winter time.
We would appreciate your assistance in resolving these urgent matters which
threaten our safety. Thank you very much.
SIGNED BY
(Twelve Residents of Commonwealth Drive)"
Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, said this was referred to his office and the
following letter dated September 8, 1981, was written in response:
"Dear Miss Nash and Gentlemen:
I have examined the County records in existence with regard to that portion
of Commonwealth Drive south of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive
(including a small portion of ?eyton Drive which connects Greenbrier and
Commonwealth Drives). For discussion ~purposes, I have divided the road into
three sections:
Section I, from Hydraulic Road to the intersection of Northwest Drive;
Section II, from the intersection of Northwest Drive to the end of
Commonwealth Drive where it intersects Peyton Drive; and
Section III, Peyton Drive from the latter point to its intersection
with Greenbrier Drive.
Ail three of these road sections have been dedicated to public use. Peyton
Drive is required to be improved to State standards by. Dr. Hurt as a condition
of certain development along Peyton Drive. This has not yet been done, but~
is in the works.
Commonwealth Drive, Section II, has been constrdcted to State standards. At
one point, it appears.that there is a major drainage pipe which is broken and
is, therefore, not acceptable to the Highway Department. However, it appears
that this problem is relatively minor and can be solved. Dr. Hurt is desirous
of having this section of Commonwealth Drive in the system and is prepared
to make the appropriate requests and post the appropriate fees and bonds
with the Highway Department.
Section I of Commonwealth Drive was constructed jointly by Dr. Hurt and Mr.
Heischman pursuant to an agreement of which a copy is attached hereto (COPY
ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE). This road,~as well as the intersecting
Northwest Drive, has been constructed in accordance with State standards and,
with the exception of certain minor clean up work, can be accepted into the
Highway system. It appears that Dr. Hurt also wishes this section of
Commonwealth Drive taken into the Highway System, but Mr. Heischman does not
so desire at this time. It is my understanding that Mr. Heischman does not
wish to have to get permits from the Highway Department for work which he
desires to do in connection with certain other development along this section
of Commonwealth Drive. It is my opinion that, since the roads have all been
dedicated to public use, the Board may request the Highway Department to take
them into the system at any time, provided that someone be willing to post
the appropriate maintenance bonds and fees. It is my understanding that, at
least as to the two sections of Commonwealth Drive proper, there is no
impediment to the roads being taken into the system other than the considerations
outlined hereinabove."
Mr. St. John said the clean up work and ge.$t±ng the road into the state system is not
in the handS of the County but rather the developer, Dr. Charles Hurt. The main concern of
the citizens is lack of law enforcement on the described Section of road. Mr. St. John
said, according to State Code, the Sheriff can enforce the speed without having the road in
the system. Mr. St. John said considerations have been given in the past to establishing a
twenty-five mile per hour speed limit for roads not in the state system. Mr. Fisher felt
the first concern is what is necessary to get this section of road into the state system.
Mr. J. Ashley Williams said Section I is a joint construction project between Dr. Hurt
and Mr. Heischman and was built to serve Etdercare Gardens which is off of Northwest Drive.
This section is basically completed and only requires some minor work. The second section
was totally constructed by Dr. Hurt and has a problem with the drainage pipe. Mr. Williams
said this is a forty-eight inch pipe which expands under this road is buried from twenty-
five to thirty-five feet. There are some pipe failures in the middle of the road because
of the wrong size pipe being used. Mr. Williams said his staff has been working with Dr.
Hurt's engineer to resolve this problem. In the latest communication from the Highway
Department about this, there is still some concern about a one hundred year flood because
of the forty-eight inch pipe and the developer wants to insert thirty-six inch pipe through
same. This however will restrict the flow. Mr. Williams said the third section which is a
portion of Peyton Drive has to be upgraded with some site requirements. Mr. Williams said
the biggest concern is the second section, from the intersection of Northwest Drive to the
end of Commonwealth Drive where it intersects with Peyton Drive.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is a bond being held for completion of the work. Mr. Tucker
said yes and noted that there is an agreement that Section II will be taken into the system.
This agreement was approved by the Board a year ago. Mr. FHsher then asked if there was a
deadline on the completion of the work. Mr. Tucker did not recall a deadline date. Mr.
Williams said in the agreement between the County and Northwest Limited, Section I of the
road was to be completed at the time of permanent occupancy of Eldercare. Mr. Fisher then
read the following section from the agreement between the County and Northwest Limited:
"It is anticipated: (a) that the aforementioned roads will be completed in
accordance with the aforementioned plans as amended, (b) that Northwest will
request acceptance of the said roads by the Highway Department, (c) that the
Supervisors of Albemarle will request the Highway Department to accept the same
into the State Secondary Highway System, (d) that the roads so constructed
will be accepted, and (e) that Albemarle will issue a permanent certificate
of occupancy for the said nursing home facility upon satisfactory completion of
all other improvements required by the above-mentioned Special Use Permit . . .
Mr. Fisher said the Board should determine if the conditions of the special use permit
have been complied with and if the permanent certificate of occupancy has been issued. Mr.
Fisher felt "feet were dragging" on the matter and the road should be taken in as soon as
possible. Mr. Williams said the Highway Department has noted acceptance of certain points
on Commonwealth Drive and Northwest Drive and therefore it would be piecemeal to take only
Northwest Drive into Eldercare into the system. Mr. Fisher said Section I will deteriorate
if acceptance awaits Section II.
Mr. Roosevelt said Section I has a minor maintenance problem, Section II cannot be
taken into the system until the pipe problem is resolved, and Section III on ?eyton Drive
is way off in the future or not until Dr. Hurt does the necessary construction. Mr. Fisher
asked if a decision is made to put in the thirty-six inch pipe, if that could be accomplished
before next spring. Mr. Roosevelt said no. Mr. Fisher then felt action should be taken to
get Section I into the system before the winter. A brief conversation occurred about
Northwest Limited Partnership and the agreement with the County. Mr. Fisher felt the
County Engineer should get together with the Zoning Administrator and review the conditions
of SP-60-76 for Eldercare, Incorporated, which was approved by the Board on October 6,
1976, in order to determine if the conditions of the special permit have been complied
with.
Mr. Fisher said another consideration is the question of speeding on all subdivision
roads or roads in the urban area that are not in the state system and setting a blanket
speed limit in order to have something that the Sheriff can enforce. Mr. Agnor said in
subdivisions where there are private roads involved and no plans for acceptance into the
state system, the homeowners may post their own speed limits. However, this is a problem
with the subdivision roads that will be taken into the State system because the Highway
Department will not post a sign until the road is in the State system. Mr. Agnor said he
felt the developer will not post a sign, therefore, that puts the County in the position of
posting the sign and maintaining same. The County does not have that capability. After a
brief discussion, Mr. Fisher requested that the staff attempt to determine how many miles
of roads there are in the urban area which have been dedicated but are not yet in the state
system. Mr. Agnor said in a previous meeting the Board had requested this information and
the Engineering and Planning departments have been working on same.
Mr. Fisher then suggested a response be sent to the petitioners noting that this
section of Commonwealth Drive is not in the State Secondary System and that the Engineering
staff and the Highway Department are examining the matter further to determine items necessary
to have the road accepted. He also felt the petitioner should be notified that the staff
is working on a way to control speeding on roads not in the State Secondary System. Mr.
Fisher then asked that this matter be included again November 11, 1981.
Octoberll4, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
4'09
Agenda Item No. 4c. Vacation of right-of-way off Dominion Drive.
This was briefly discussed at the September 2, 1981, meeting at which time Dr. Iachetta
requested that the staff provide some information about of the right-off-way just off of
Dominion Drive which the adjoining property owners desire to have closed to the public.
(The request is set out in the minutes of September 2, 1981) The following staff report
was received from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning:
"Request:
Location:
Vacation of Right-of-way off Dominion Drive - Berkeley Subdivision
Between Lot 1, Block 5, Section 1 and Lot 11, Block 4, Section 1
This right-of-way presently provides access to t, he two above described lots
in Berkeley plus one townhouse lot in Four Seasons.
Vacation of this right-of-way was reviewed by the Albemarle County Planning
Commission on April 12, 1977, and at that time the Commission found no
reason to maintain the right-of-way as a public access since it could not
be extended beyond its present design. Staff recommended then and still
supports the vacation of the right-of-way, subject to an agreement between
the three affected property owners for an easement across said right-of-way.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reviewed this vacation request on
April 13, 1977, and favored the vacation as recommended by the Planning
Commission; however, on June 8, 1977, the applicant withdrew his request
for vacation."
Mr. Fisher asked if the townhouse lot in Four Seasons would be landlocked if this
access is not available. Mr. Keith Mabe, one of the adjacent property owners, was present .
and said yes, because the access is used by the townhouse. Mr. Fisher then asked if the
property owner of the townhouse lot is willing to enter into the agreement for an easement.
Mr. Tucker said, as indicated in the letter set out in the minutes of September 2, 1981,
all three property owners, which includes the owner of the townhouse, are requesting~this
vacation and as he understands all three are willing to enter into the agreement for easement.
Mr. Fisher then asked the procedure necessary to accomplish this request. Mr. St. John
said a public hearing is necessary and the property owners have to be notified that an
ordinance to vacate the right-of-way will be adopted. Also an agreement between the two
property owners that the right-of-way goes between and the owner of the townhouse lot for
the easement across the right-of-way should be in hand at that time. Motion was then
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to advertise for public hearing on ~
November 11, 1981, vacation of the right-of-way off of Dominion Drive with the understanding
that an agreement by the involved property owners has to be in the hands of the Board at
that time. Roll was called'and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
None.
Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 4d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Agnor noted correspondence dated September 24, 1981, from the Department of Highways
and Transportation regarding the Highway Commission's willingness to hold a combined location
and design public hearing concerning proposed improvements on Route 20 near the Key West
Subdivision and also 0.24 mile south of Route 649. Mr. Agnor said a public hearing will be
held on these improvements if so requested. Mr. Fisher then asked the recommendationrof
Mr. Roosevelt for a public hearing. Mr Roosevelt said no requests from the public for a
public hearing had been received and he would therefore recommend the Board not request a
public hearing since that would delay the project.
Mr. Agnor then noted the following letter from Delegates James B. Murray and Mitchell
Van YahreS dated September 24, 1981, regarding the highway funds for Route 717 (Sand Road):
"On September !5th, we had a conference in Richmond with three/members of
the State Department of Highways and Transportation.. They were Harold
Worrall, Director of Financial Affairs, John Ray, Director of Operations,
and A. S. Brown, Secondary Road Engineer. We have also consulted with
Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Highway Department.
The following information was obtained.
Route 717 is not a Federally Assisted Secondary road because it is not
a major collector. This means that the whole.cost of paving and main-
taining this road must come from state revenues.
The surfacing of Route 717 and many other similar roads around the state,
was begun with the expectation that there would be money to finish. It
has been state policy for some years to estimate state gasoline tax
revenues and begin work on needed projects, expecting to pay for them
as the gasoline tax revenues came in. This year the revenue was far
below what was estimated, so that many of these projects, like Route 717,
which were begun in good faith, simply could not be finished on time.
In an.attempt to relieve some of this cash flow problem, the Department
of Highways and Transportation has borrowed 25 million dollars from the
State General Revenue Funds. This must be paid back this spring.
The Highway Department would not promise any completion date for Route 717.
They felt that, barring major problems, suoh as further reductions in
revenues or heavy snow falls state wide, Route 717 could be completed
in the spring. They did promise to keep the road safe and passable
through the winter.
410
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Brown stated that the work done to bed down Route 717 for the winter
will not be wasted, because well over 90% of that bedding is preliminary
to hard surfacing.
For our information, relating to future problems, we were informed that
the Federal Government now pays 80% of our major collector Secondary
road construction. After 1983, due to Federal budget cuts, we will get
no Federal funds for Secondary roads."
Mr. Fisher requested that copies of this correspondence be sent to the property owners
in the area of Route 717 since in past years requests have been received for Route 717 to
be upgraded to State standards.
Mr. Fisher then noted letter dated September 18, 1981 from Mr. Harold King, Commissioner
for the State Department of Highways and Transportation regarding 1981-86 Construction
for the Secondary System. Mr. Fisher said the letter basically points out that there is a
temporary freeze on any state funded work financed from the current year's State revenues.
Mr. Hope further states that he feels the restriction will be lifted in early 1982. Mr.
Roosevelt said the best illustration of the letter is the situation on Route 717. Mr.
Fisher then requested that this letter be included with the above letter regarding Route
717 and be sent to the concerned property owners in the subject area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the pedestrian path on Georgetown Road is proceeding. Mr.
Agnor said he had asked Mr. Williams to contact the one property owner that the County has
been waiting for a response from and ask if she is ready to give an answer about an easement.
However, she did not respond. Mr. Lindstrom said if some progress is not made within the
next month, perhaps the Board should authorize condemnation since this project has been
going on for a long time. Mr. Henley stated that before he would vote on condemning any
property on Georgetown Road, he would want to make sure that a real problem existed because
he felt condemnation is very~serious.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had a citizen ask him about the possibility of installing a stop
sign at the corner of Westminster and Smithfield Roads. Mr. Roosevelt said he would check
into the matter.
Mr. Lindstrom then referred to a recent article in the Daily Progress concerning the
proposed western by-pass. He then asked if Mr. Roosevelt could describe briefly the source
of the recommendation used in the article and what prcoedures must be followed before this
proposal is acted upon. Mr. Roosevelt said the source of the recommendation is the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study Committee (CATS). This study was jointly
undertaken by the City and County with the assistance of the Highway Department. If adopted
by both bodies, the study will become the transportation plan for this area. This committee
was appointed five years ago to make a recommendation on a transportation system to include
both highways and other forms of transportation. The committee has reached the point where
they are ready to make a recommendation. A couple of weeks ago the Highway Department
received comments from both the Technical and Policy committees of this CATS study and
another meeting is scheduled for October 23. At that time, it is anticipated that the
committee will make a formal recommendation to both the city and county for a transportation
plan. The recommendation for a western by-pass to Route 29 is part of this transportation
plan. The City and County will review the recommendations and adopt something. If the
City and County do not adopt the same plan, then the Highway Department will attempt to
work out some sort of compromise. Mr. Roosevelt said the plan adopted by the City and
County will become the transportation plan for this area and after that the Highway Department
will fund projects based upon that plan.
Mr. Fisher said some improvement has been made to the road in front of Ednam on Route
250 but there are still some rough spots. Mr. Roosevelt felt what has been done is an
improvement over what was originally there.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate to Calvin Jones.
Mr. Fisher noted for the record that Mr. Calvin Jones, Purchasing Agent, has completed
a course and examination in the field of professional public purchasing. A certificate has
been awarded by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Mr. Fisher noted the
services of Mr. Jones since his employment with the County in October 1973. Mr. Fisher
then presented the certificate to Mr. Jones to recognize his interests in professional
purchasing and his designation as a certified public purchasing officer.
Mr. Jones expressed his appreciation for the presentation of the certificate.
Agenda Item No. 6. Request for Street Name Change in Key West Subdivision.
A petition from sixteen residents of the street legally known as George Rogers Road
Extended and a petition from twenty-six residents on neighboring streets in Key West
Subdivision was received by Miss Neher, Clerk to the Board. (Copy on file in the Clerk's
Office) The petition requests that George Rogers Road be changed to Wildflower Drive and
Mr. St. John said the request for a street name change in Key West Subdivision can be
handled today by a resolution without a public hearing if the area to be changed can be
identified.
Mr. McCann said the problem is that there is one street with two names, George Rogers
Road, Extended, and Wildflower Drive.
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. St. John then presented a resolution for the Board's consideration:
BE IT RESOLVED that the name of George Rogers Road Extended in Key West
Subdivision from a point adjacent to Vincennes Road to a point adjacent to
Randolph Court be and it hereby is changed to Wildflower Drive.
Mr. Fisher said in looking at the map, part of Randolph Court, is already called
Wildflower Drive. Mr. St. John said that is correct, ~ut noted that there is no boundary
as to where Wildf!ower Drive ends and George Rogers Road Extended begins. Therefore, he
did not feel there was any harm to rename the part already called Wildfiower Drive as
Wi!dflower Drive.
Mr. Fisher asked if anyone from the public was present to speak on the request. Mrs.
John Warfield, resident of George Rogers Road Extended, was present. She noted that her
residence cannot be found if a map is used and even if road signs are followed which say
George Rogers Road. Mrs. Warfield felt the name change will add a great deal to the public
health and safety of Key West Subdivision. Mr. Fisher then asked if anyone disagreed.
Mrs. Warfield said one family on George Rogers Road Extended does not feel there is any
need for the change.
Mrs. Augusta Messick, resident of 112 Geroge Rogers Road, was present in favor of the
request.
Mrs. Warfietd then introduced Mr. and Mrs. Kermit Reel, residents of Wildflower Drive,
and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stubin, residents of George Rogers Road Extended. Mr. Reel expressed
his support of the request.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was any chance that George Rogers Road Extended would be
continued further. Mr. McCann said he understands that where the road was planned to be
built, the property has been sold ~to a private individual. Therefore, he did not feel the
road could be built. He also noted understanding of the problems the people were having
with the two different street names for the same street and he has not heard any opposition.
Mr. Fisher was inclined to support the request but was concerned about the procedure
and wanted to be assured that the definition of the area was clear. Mr. Fisher then asked
Mr. St. John his feelings about the proposed language. Mr. St. John said he was comfortable
with the legality of the procedure but was relying on the location from others. He then
noted that the following language could be inserted in order to clarify the earlier concern
of Mr. Fisher: "George Rogers Road Extended from Vincennes Road to Chestnut Ridge Road be
changed henceforth to Wildflower Drive." He said part of that section is already Wildf!ower
Drive. However, if any part of the road is left out there will be a problem.
Mrs. Kermit Reel said she was involved with having the road signs erected before the
road was accepted into the State System. She had worked with Mr. Dennis Friedrich of the
County Engineering Department and official county tax maps were used. Therefore, she felt
that the description is correct.
Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution with said change of names being effective immediately. Mr. St. John suggested
that the copy of the plat be included as part of the record. Mr. McCann and Mr. Lindstrom
accepted this as an amendment to the motion.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the name of George Rogers Road Extended in Key West Subdivision from
Vincennes Road to Chestnut Ridge Road be changed henceforth to Wildflower DriVe.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request re: Property in Woodbrook Subdivision.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following letter dated August 20, 1981, from Mr. and Mrs.
Joseph J. Oswald:
"Gentlemen:
We have recently purchased a home in the Woodbrook Subdivision located at
2922 Brookmere ~Rd - Lot 21, 45C01-0M-21 formerly owned by Mr. & Mrs. Lin.
The Service Authority has done some research and found that the lot
adjacent to our property is a 20 foot easement owned by the County - Deed
Book Ref No. 358-297 and in January 1960 the property was tendered to public
use on a plat by William S. Roudabush.
This property is being used right now as a short cut by the children attending
the Woodbrook Elementary School. However, the condition of this land is so
bad that someone could get hurt very easily due to the many deep holes in
the ground. We, together with our neighbor, have been trying to maintain it
and filling in these holes, but whenever it rains, it all washes right down
to the street.
We are interested in purchasing this land if the County does not want it or
need it. If it cannot be sold, then the County should at least repair it and
maintain it and perhaps a gravel path be made if it's going to be used solely
by the school children.
41-2:
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
We would appreciate a reply on this matter as soon as possible, since we must
build a garage and the size of our garage will depend on the decision by the
County on the above mentioned land.
Thank you for your cooperation and will await your reply."
Mr. Agnor said that Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk to the Board, had channeled the
correspondence to Mr. Williams of the County Engineering Office and requested that he
investigate the matter. Mr. Williams had in turn contacted the County Attorney's Office
and the following letter dated September 10, 1981, was received from Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, Deputy County Attorney:
"Together with Ashley, I have researched the status of the strip of land described
by Mrs. Oswald in her letter to the Board of Supervisors. I have determined
that the land in question is the remaining~por.tion of 'Wildwood Road', a public
road 50 feet in width which is dedicated to public use from Brookmere Road to
the property of Woodbrook School. This road was originally dedicated to public
use on the original subdivision plat of Woodbrook Subdivision recorded, in May
of 1960 in Deed Book 358, page 297. The portion lying adjacent to the Oswald lot
is that portion of the road which remained after the portion of the road on the
Woodbrook School property was vacated. The ordinance of vacation is recorded
together w~th an attorney's report and deed prepared in May of 1965 and
recorded in Deed Book 407, page 548."
Mr. Agnor said~the following letter was then received from Mr. Ashley~Williams, dated
October 6, 1981:
"Fred Payne's letter to you dated September 10, 1981, gives you the legal status
of this right-of-way. As he noted, it is still a dedicated right-of-way
although the road was never built. Before recommending any release of
this right-of-way, I checked with both the School Administration and the
Service Authority. The schools did not have any use for the property since
they already had an existing entrance to Woodbrook School. The Service
Authority, however, had an old well lot that served a waterline which goes
through this right-of-way. This also is the location of the water service
to Woodbrook school and a fire hydrant. Except for a 20 foot easement along
the waterlines, the Service Authority does not have any need for this old
roadway.
I recommend that this 50 foot right-of-way be divided equally between the
Oswald's on Lot 21 and the adjoining property on lot 39A(!), with the
appropriate reservation of a 20 foot easement for the waterline and fire
hydrant."
Mr. Fisher said if a decision is made to advertise for a public hearing on the vacation
of this request, he felt the School Board should be asked formally to review the matter and
respond due to the access to Woodbrook School. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann,
seconded by Mr. Henley, to advertise for public hearing on November 11, 1981, an ordinance
to vacate portions of certain plats of Woodbrook Subdivision, shown on recorded plats as a
portion of "Wildwood Road" with the condition that a twenty foot easement be provided for
the water line and fire hydrant for the Albemarle County Service Authority. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request re: Ashcroft Central Well.
Mr. J. Ashley W±lliams said on May 14, 1980, the Board approved a central well system
for Section I, Phase I of Ashcroft Subdivision to serve twenty-six lots. The well tests
were done without the monitoring by the County Engineering Department. However, such was
accepted to be allowed without the monitoring due to evidence that the monitoring was done
in a good manner. Mr. Williams said Mr. Gary D. Cooper, representing Liberty Land Limited,
contacted Miss Neher on October 8, 1981, requesting a clarification of the Ashcroft Central
Well System because he would like permission to have the system serve twenty-six lots in
either Section I, Section II or Section III of Phase I Ashcroft. Mr. Cooper felt that when
this was approved by the Board in May 1980 such was the consideration. Mr. Williams said
letter dated May 14, 1980, from himself to Mr. Cooper specifically stated that the approval
was for Section I, Phase I of Ashcroft because that was the request. In conclusion, Mr.
Williams said the request of Mr. Cooper at this time is permission to be allowed to use the
twenty-six connections to the central well system in Sections I, II or III of Phase I and
not be limited to Section I.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any conditions on the May 1980 request and if so,
have they been met.. Mr. Williams said in reviewing this request last week in conjunction
with another special permit request of Mr. Cooper, it was found that everything in Phase I
is in order. Phase II was the triggering for having Lego Drive constructed as a state
secondary road because the entrance off of Route 250 at the Odyssey property was deleted
and Ashcroft traffic will have to enter on the Frontage Road and that that is in Phase II.
There was also a condition that connection to the public water system would be made as soon
as available to this property. Mr. Fisher asked the number of lots in the three sections
of Phase I. Mr. Williams said Section -i has twenty-six lots, Section II has twenty lots
and Section III has twelve lots. Mr. Fisher then asked if the distribution lines have been
sized for a public system to be taken over by the Service Authority. Mr. Williams said
yes. The water system begins in Section I of Phase I and extends through Section II because
the well is in a remote location. The waterline was constructed, bUilt and approved b~ the
Service Authority through Sections IZ and III. Mr. Williams said his only concern is that
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
4'.1. :3
the plats for Sections I and II are recorded and show more lots than there is water capacity
to serve. If more than twenty-six lots are sold, the County could become involved. Mr.
Williams said Mr. Cooper is certain that he will not go beyond the twenty-six lots before
he can hook to the public system. He has assured Mr. Williams that if that happens, he
will dig another well. Mr. Fisher felt that when this request was approved, it was for
twenty-six lots in Section I. The approval was just marginal for that number of lots and
he was concerned. Mr. McCann then asked when the storage tank is scheduled to be built
for Pantops. Mr. Agnor said the bids are to be reviewed this coming Monday by the Rivanna
Board. Assuming the bids are accepted, it will take thirty days to get started. Mr.
Agnor said the attempt is to start construction in the fall and perhaps close down in the
winter and reopen in the spring. Therefore, the effort is to get the waterline up to the
tank in the spring. The tank itself may take longer. After a brief discussion on the
construction of the waterline and the storage tank, Mr. Agnor said there is a possibility
that once the waterline is in, connections can be made and that will not have to wait on
the completion of the tank. Mr. McCann said in watching the construction of the houses in
Ashcroft, he did not feel there will be that many houses built in the next couple of
years. Mr. Fisher said with the waterline so close to this property, he felt Mr. Cooper
should wait to use the waterline and he was not in favor of a possible sixty lots, the
total in Sections I, II and III being allowed to use a well that cannot supply half of the
needed supply for thirty lots. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Cooper is only requesting that the
twenty-six lots be allowed in any section of Phase I.
A brief discussion followed on the possible sale of the lots and the requirement of
a building permit for public water and sewer. Mr. McCann said if a lot of building were
taking place at this time, he would be concerned but he knows several people who have lots
in Ashcroft and they are not planning to build in the immediate future. Mr. Henley felt
Mr. Cooper would want to hook onto public water if he had to dig another well. Mr. Lindstrom
did not feel there was any problem with Mr. Cooper's request because the limit is twenty-six
lots in Phase I and he did not feel it mattered whether the twenty-six lots were in
Sections I, II or III. Mr. Fisher asked how the staff would keep track of how many building
permits have been issued. Mr. Agnor said approval is based on the water supply and when
twenty-six building permits have been issued, Mr. Cooper will be notified that no more
building permits can be issued.
Mr. McCann felt the builing permits were a safeguard and offered motion to allow Mr.
Cooper to use the central well system for twenty-six lots anywhere he desired in Phase I.
Mr. Fisher said he had seen so many problems with water and he had voted against this request
in 1980 because he did not feel the right procedures were being followed. Therefore, he
would not support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said a request has been received from Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance,
for an appropriation in the amount of $1,098.60 for the County Attorney's Office; said
appropriation is for the transcription of the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Case
recently heard in the Albemarle County Circuit Court. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,098.60 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and Coded to 1204-3002.01 Professional Services-Legal for a court recorded
transcript.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
None.
Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 15. Receipt of Official 1980 Census Information.
Mr. Fisher noted letter dated October 2, 1981, from the United States Bureau of the
Census:
"Since the release of the 1980 census counts for reapportionment and redistricting,
the Bureau of the Census has continued to review the counts and make revisions
as necessary, as part of the regular Census Bureau operations. Based on an
internal review system and correspondence from local governments concerning
the 1980 census counts, the Bureau has revised the census for Albemarle
County. The revised counts are 55,783 people and 20,363 housing units.
The change to the county is due to changes to the area listed below. Listed
also are the revised final population and housing counts for the area.
Area Population Housin$
Jack Jouett District
9,772 2,491
This information is also being transmitted to the Office of Revenue Sharing,
Department of the Treasury; to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
and to other State officials. If you are receiving grants from other agencies
on a population basis, you may wish to notify them of this revision."
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he had notified the finance and planning staffs about this information.
He noted that the finance staff is having some difficulty getting funding from some agencies,
state and federal, where population counts are important. Mr. Agnor said the Office on
Revenue Sharing has advised the County that they have also adjusted their figures and the
County's formula for revenue sharing has been corrected.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Interim Report -- Crozet Interceptor Committee.
Mr. Lindstrom, member of the Crozet Interceptor Committee, reported to the Board the
activities of the Committee. This committee was created on July 15, 1981, by the Board to
study the status of the alternatives to the Crozet Interceptor. Mr. Lindstrom said several
meetings have been held and various duties delegated to the staff members on the committee.
A letter was sent to Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and Delegates James B. Murray and
Mitchell Van Yahres requesting information as to the status of funding for the Crozet
Interceptor and more specifically, what the chances are for the project to be funded and
on what time table. The committee met with the legislators on October 9, 1981, and it was
learned at that time that the State Water Control Board has tentatively adopted a revised
Fiscal Year 1982 Priority List and the Crozet Interceptor Project will retain its number 9
priority listing. Instead of funding being available in Fiscal Year 1984-85 as orgina!ly
anticipated, it could be available in Fiscal Year 1983. Mr. Lindstrom said this change in
the date of funding could mean that the money would be available as early as October,
1982. However, the State Water Control Board still has to officially adopt its revised
Fiscal Year 1982 Priority List at a public hearing scheduled for December 8, 1981, and
Federal funding has to become available to fund the projects. Mr. Lindstrom said the
general consensus of the Committee is that all efforts should be made to ensure that the
State Water Control Board adopts the revised Fiscal Year 1982 Priority List as drawn, in
order that when Federal funds become available, the project can proceed. Mr. Lindstrom
said the legislators have agreed to support the adoption of the list and do all they
possibly can to get the project funded. Mr. Lindstrom said future activities of the
committee will center around working with the legislators to get the revised Fiscal Year
1982 Priority List approved by the State Water Control Board and following the public
hearing on December 8, 1981, the committee will reevaluate the County's position with
regard to funding of the interceptor and determine what steps are necessary to resolve the
problem of the interceptor.
Mr. Fisher felt that the City should also be involved in the presentation to the
State Water Control Board and asked Mr. Lindstrom to invite the City to work with the
County at the public hearing on December 8, 1981. Mr. Lindstrom then complimented the
staff for compiling the information on this matter.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of memorandum dated October 9, 1981, from Miss Neher regarding
the public hearing for amending the project areas map of the Albemarle County Service
Authority to include the Piney Mountain Restaurant. At the September 9, 1981, meeting,
Mr. Agnor had requested this amendment. However, Miss Neher has discovered that this was
brought to the Board in error because the restaurant was included when the project areas
map was amended last year and the Service Authority was using a map which had not been
updated. Therefore, the public hearing is not necessary.
Mr. Lindstorm said he had talked with Mr. Forrest Kerns, President of the Jordan
Development Corporation, several weeks ago and Mr. Kerns indicated that the Corporation
would like for the Board to assist in the selection of a location for a future potential
project. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Kerns also indicated that the Corporation is concerned
about locating a project in the Scottsville area.
Mr. Fisher said he was curious if this reaction is the official reaction of the
Jordan Development Corporation as a whole or just one of its members. Mr. Agnor noted
that Miss Nash has been sitting on this Board. He felt the confusion has come about
because the County has been working on a project for the elderly which is similar to the
Meadows Project. It seems the Corporation has moved in the direction of a housing project
for a multi-age group. The people in the Scottsville area have reacted negatively to such
a project because they are interested in senior citizens. Mr. Agnor said the County has
been frustrated in its efforts because of denials of applications for federal funding.
However, the County's planning process has been on housing needs for the elderly and not
for a multi-aged group. Mr. Lindstrom said that was what he had understood and he felt
that there is a need for some communication with the Jordan Development Corporation. Mr.
Agnor and Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinator, and Miss Nash have been working with
citizens in Scottsvitle. Mr. Lindstrom then requested a status report on October 21,
1981, on a housing project in the Scottsville area.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the University of Virginia's consultant report dated
October 2, 1981, and entitled "Waste Incineration Program Evaluation" with letter dated
October 7, 1981, from Dr. Ralph Allen, Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee, regarding
radiation programs. He also noted receipt of letter dated October 12, 1981, from Mr.
Thomas E. Maupin, Assistant Administrator of Services at the Martha Jefferson Hospital,
regarding a recent article in the Daily Progress about possible incineration of wastes
generated outside of the University of Virginia. Martha Jefferson Hospital has its own
incinerator used for burning pathological waste generated within that hospital. However,
the incinerator has been out of order for several months and during this time the University
of Virginia has been incinerating the wastes from Martha Jefferson Hospital. The letter
also points out that there is no on-going arrangement with the University of Virginia to
burn their waste and such is not even anticipated. Mr. Fisher then asked if there is any
October 14~ 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
other information regarding burning of non-University waste. Mr. Agnor said a letter
dated October 9, 1981, has been received from Dr. Ralph Allen. Basically the letter
states that the University, attempts to provide, on a limited basis, community services to
agencies which have a need for such incineration. In some cases a minimal charge for the
cost of fuels has been passed on to the agency. Also, listed in the letter are the outside
agencies who have been billed during the past year for such services for a total of
twenty-one hours. Those agencies were DaVid C. Wilson Hospital for one hour, Blue Ridge
Mental Health facility for two hours, and nine and one-half hours to Worrell Newspapers.
Dr. Allen notes in the letter an uncertainity as to the type of material incinerated for
each of these agencies. In addition, the following services were not charged, County
Sheriff's Office for confiscated marijuana, and the SPCA and Martha Jefferson Hospital
when both of their incinerators were not operating properly. Mr. Agnor said Dr. Avery
Catlin from the university had also advised him that the incinerator had been used in past
years for the County and City School Systems for disposal of chemical wastes from school
labs.
A brief discussion followed on conversations that Mr. Agnor and Mr. Lindstrom had had
with some University officials about this question and the general Consensus was that the
letters noted today are in general response to the concerns expressed in the Daily Progress
article. Mr. Fisher. said he did not object to the uses listed if such are on a low frequency
basis. Mr.~Lindstrom agreed and said his concern has been the rumor that there was a
commercial operation occuring and he then felt there should be a law on such an operation.
Mr. Fisher then noted letter dated October 7, 1981, from Ms. Donna Shaunesey, Associate
from the Institute for Environmental Negotiation, offering to involve itself with the
litigation between the Board~of Supervisors and the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John his reaction to the offer. Mr. St. John said if outside
negotiators can help in any way then he did not feel there was anything to loose in accepting
the offer.
Mr. Lindstrom noted for the record that he had lectured part-time in the Division of
Urban and Environmental Planning in the School of Architecture which is affiliated with
this organization. However, he did not feel this was a conflict of interest. Mr. LindStrom
then offered motion to authorize the County Attorney's office to use their discretion in
the involvement of the Institute of Environmental Negotiation. Mr St. John said if there
is any charge, he would have to return to the Board for funding.
Mr. McCann said he had a problem with getting involved with outside agencies on this
type of thing and .had been concerned about the appeal of this petition to State Supreme
Court. He also felt the request of Central Virginia Electric Cooperative was for a public
necessity. Mr. Fisher suggested that the affected property owners be involved with the
negotiations. Mr. St. John said a copy of the letter from the Institute has been sent to
those owners.
Mr. Henley then seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said he would support the motion
since it is just to examine the offer but he would not support any funding. Roll was
called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley,~Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None°
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report: Region Ten Community Services Board.
Mr. James R~ Peterson, Executive Director of the Region Ten Community Services Board,
was present and noted that almost a year ago a comprehensive planning process for the
purpose of anticipating a change in funding patterns and service needs was initiated. He
then summarized a draft dated July,~ 1981 entitled "A Comprehensive Plan of the Region Ten
~Community Services Board for the Provision of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Alcohol
and Drug AbUse Services". He said the purpose of this presentation is to seek the Board's
guidance and recommendations regarding any aspects of the plan. Mr. Peterson also noted
that last year a complete reorganization had occurred in two divisions; one for clinical
services, and one for everything else that helps people in their community if they are
mentally handicapped. Mr. ?eterson said Region Ten is stronger than it has ever been and
has streamlined its administrative overhead. Mr. Peterson said the Region Ten Community
Services Board has the statutory responsibility for the provision, either directly or
through contract, of~ (1) mental health services; (2) mental retardation services; (3)
alcohol and drug abuse services; and (4) the overall management of'these services in
Planning District 10. The plan is primarily conceptualized around these four areas and
secondarily around the organiz~ational Structures, both Board and affiliate, which have
evolved to implement the Board's r~sponsibilities. Thus, the plan is divided into five
sections: I. Role and History of the Region Ten Community Services Board; II. Board
Management and Administrative Support; III. Mental Health Services; IV. Mental Retardation
Services; and V. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services. Mr, Peterson also noted that ten percent
of the funds for Region Ten are local funds, fifty-five percent are state funds, twenty-two
p~ercent are from fees, eleven percent are federal funds, and two percent are from other
sources. Mr. Peterson concluded by stating appreciation to Mr. Agnor for his guidance in
the last year and noted that the term°~M~.Alfred Dofflemyer, Chairman of the Region Ten
Board, will expire on December 31~andhe!~ not eligible for reappointment and expressed
high compliments of him.
Mr. Fisher expressed appreciation for ~the report and asked Mr. Agnor about the managemen
of the Region Ten funds. Mr. Agnor said he has not asked Mr. Jones about this but did not"
feel there were any problems. Mr. Fisher asked .if a mechanism had been worked out to
charge Region Ten for administrative costs. Mr. Peterson said the County has never
charged, but the money is deposited is County ac.counts. The General Assembly has made it
possible for the Community Services Boards to place its funds in savings certificates to
gain interest. Mr. ?eterson said discussions have been held on becoming closer to the
count~ particularly in purchasing and hopefUlly there will be a closer physical relationship
on certain items. 'The Board expressed its appreciation to Mr. Peterson for th~ report and
the improved organization.
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor requested authority to execute an agreement for extension of
the County's agreement with the Virginia Housing Development Authority to continue the
Section 8 rental program for another year. Mr. Agnor said this cOntract is renewed each
year and the only change are the effective dates and the fees payable to the County for
the administration of the program The fees have changed from $16.25 per unit per month to
$21.02 per unit per month. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
McCann, to authorize Mr. Agnor to execute the Virginia Housing Development Authority
Administrative Services Agreement for Section 8 Existing for another year beginning July
1, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 9. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 11:50 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn
into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann.
None.
Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:04 P.M. and continued with the agenda.
(Miss Nash arrived at 2:05 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Request re: Winery License.
Mr. Gerald Tremblay, attorney representing several petitioners, was present to request
an amendment of Section 11-27(b) of the Albemarle County Code relating to license taxes on
wineries. This Code section requires a license of $1,000.00. Mr. Tremblay said in examining
the matter he found that the State Farm Winery Act was separate and apart from Virginia
Code Section 4-25 which applies to wineries, generally an establishment for the purpose of
making wine and not on a farm. The whole idea of the Farm Winery Act was to enable farmers
to establish wineries and convert their grapes and fruit into wine and cider, and not be
taxed as they would be for a winery not established on a farm and not using the farmers
products to convert into a wine or cider. Mr. Tremblay said more than thirty years ago,
the General Assembly enacted Virginia Code Section 4-38 which enabled local governing
bodies to impose license taxes on persons licensed by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission to
manufacture, ~ottle or sell alcoholic beverages within a city, county or town. The act
enabled counties to impose an annual license tax in the amount of $1,000.00 on wineries
without limitation on the amount of wine produced. In 1976, the County of Albemarle, in
accordance with the enabling legislation, enacted Section 11-27(b) of the Albemarle County
Code. Mr. Tremblay noted that winery taxes are not for a farm winery. Then in 1980, the
legislation enacted the Farm Winery Act, Section 4-25.1 of the Code. Mr. Tremblay said
such is defined as farmers who raise grapes on their farm, establish a winery on the farm,
convert those grapes into wine, and do not import more than twenty-five percent of the
grapes from out of state. The farm winery can have a wholesale or retail store on the
premises or within a reasonable distance. Mr. Tremblay said the Farm Winery Act does not
make any reference to Virginia Code Section 4-38 nor any other provision than the provision
in the Farm Winery Act for taxing the wineries created under that act. Therefore, Mr.
Trembiay ~aid he feels that County Code Section ll~2~)~ldoes~nOt apply to farm wineries.
The County does not have to reduce the tax because the tax does not apply at all. There
is no enabling legislation to his knowledge that would allow such a tax to be imposed. In
conclusion, Mr. Trembtay submitted that the Farm Winery Act, Section 4-3'8 of the State
Code, does not apply.
Mr. St. John said in addition to the authority cited by Mr. Tremblay, Section 5~&~66.1 of
~.State Code exempts farm products from taxation. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance,
and Mr. Melvin Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, both agree that the Farm Winery Act
makes this product a farm product under the law. Therefore, he agrees with the opinion of
Mr. Tremblay as does the Finance Department staff.
Mr. Fisher asked how Laird and Company, a fruit distiller in the County, is distinguished
from a farm winery. He felt that if Laird and Company planted grape vines on their property
and processed those grapes along with grapes from other sources, Laird and Company might
also be called a farm winery. Mr. St. John said the vineyard would have to be large
enough so that the grapes brought in from other sources would be less than twenty-five
percent of the total. Mr. Fisher said the State Code does not read that way but rather
that not more than twenty-five percent of the fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural
products used can be imported from out of state. Mr. St. John then read the definition of
a farm winery in Virginia Code Section 4-2(10A). Mr. Tremblay said the definition specifical]
states "wine predominantely from fresh fruits or other agricultural products grown or
produced on such farm or from fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products grown or
produced elsewhere inside or outside this state". He felt the regulation of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board is for more than fifty-one percent. Mr. Fisher said he understands
that the County Attorney and the Finance staff do not think farm wineries should be taxed___~
and he also f~lt that was a s~tate law~.
in
Albemarle~
County
/ Mr. ~ernard Cham~er~±ain was presen~ an~ re~iewe~ vne ~u±± Ooopera~ion wn~cn was g~ven
by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the Board of Supervisors during the depression
when the wine industry was being revived. Mr. Tremblay then recognized a citizen group
attending thi meeting today
s ·
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
4 !17
-~ Mr. Fisher said another aspect of this question is where farm wineries should be
permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, he has requested the Zoning Administrator
to review the Zoning Ordinance and comment on same. A response has been received that the
ordinance allows wineries of all types by right in the Light Industry District but does
not allow wineries at all in the Rural Areas. Mr. Fisher felt a resolution of intent
should be adopted to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit farm wineries as per the State
definition in the Rural Areas of the County by special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit
farm wineries in the RA zone by special use permit; and
FURTHER REQUESTS the Planning Commission to hold public hearings on said
proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to this Board
at the earliest possible date.
Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said he supported the motion.but was
hoping that this could have been covered by site plan review rather than a special use
permit. He felt the conditions of the site plan would be just as significant as a special
use permit. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Scottsville High School Property.
Mr. Agnor noted that the School Board had adopted the following resolution on September
14, 1981:
BE tT RESOLVED by the County School Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
the below described property is hereby declared surplus property not needed by the
County School Board of Albemarle County, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 22.1-129:
All those certain lots or parcels of land, containing 3 3/8 acres, more or less,
situated in the Town of Scottsville, Albemarle County, Virginia, known as the
old Scottsville High School property and identified on Albemarle County Tax Map
130A(2) as parcels 76 and 76A. This property is the same property in all respects
a portion of which was conveyed to the County School Board of Albemarle County ~
by deed of Trustees of the Scottsville Methodist Episcopal Church South, dated
August 6, 1929, recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 206, page 404, and a portion of which was conveyed to the
County School Board of Albemarle County by deed of Helen A. Pitts and J. L.
Pitts, dated November 26, 1923, and recorded in the above Clerk's office in Deed
Book 177, page 288. Reference is made to these deeds for a more particular '- ~ .
description of the property described herein.
The Clerk is hereby directed to file this resolution with the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. It is the intent of the
County School Board of Albemarle County that upon the filing of this
resolution, title to the above described property shall vest in the County
of Albemarle, Virginia.
He then noted memordandum dated September 22, 1981, from Dr. Carlos Gutierrez,
Division Superintendent as follows:
"The Board of Education recently passed a resolution which declares the
Scottsville High School property as surplus. A copy of the resolution has
been filed with the clerk of the circuit court which should result in the
vesting of the title with the County of Albemarle.
Please review the attached materials which provide a brief description of
community activitieS regarding the use of that building. My Board realizes
that through the above action, it loses all authority in this matter; however,
they instructed me to be certain that the Board of Supervisors, are aware of
their strong hope that the building can be used in a manner which is acceptable
and helpful to the people of the Scottsvi!le area."
Mr. Agnor said he was seeking the Board's guidance on future use~of the building and
winterization of same. Mr. Fisher asked what winterization needs to be done. Mr. Agnor
said the building can be closed during the cold weather or the building can be put on a
maintenance level of heating which the system is capable of handling. If such is authorized,
the building can be used periodically as there are separate thermostats in the rooms. Mr.
McCann then asked the costs of maintenance. Mr. Agnor said $250.00 per month to keep it
on a maintenance level with some periodic use of the building. Mr. McCann said there
would also be the cost for someone to clean and open and close the building. Mr. Agnor
said he would propose that the users pay those kinds of fees as well as for the user.s to
pay a portion of the maintenance and heat level. Mr. Agnor said there are quite a few
groups that have used the building. Mr. McCann was concerned about keeping the building
open for community related activities at $250.00 per month and felt that there are too
many buildings which are not now properly utilized. He also felt the County would benefit
more by selling the building. Mr. Fisher agreed that some decision needs to be made, but
even if a decision is made to sell the building, there would still be the question of. what
to do with the building during this coming winter. He felt a committee should be directed
to decide if there are enough uses to retain the~lding or whether it should be sold.
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Nash added that she would also like to know if the new Scotts¥ille School building is
large enough for a lot of the uses which have occurre~ in this building. Mr. McCann said
the Board's Building and Properties Committee deals with these kinds of situations and he
felt that would be the proper committee to consider this matter. A brief discussion
followed on the activities taking place in the school. Miss Nash said she would like to
know the feasibility of keeping the school open for athletic programs. Mr. Henley asked
about draining the heating system in the building. Mr. Agnor said it is very difficult to
drain the building completely.
Mr. Fisher suggested a committee composed of a representative from this Board, a
Parks and Recreation staff person, an engineering staff member, and a representative of
the Scottsvi!le Town Council. Mr. McCann then offered motion to keep the building open
this winter and have a committee examine what to do with the building after this winter.
Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Miss Nash asked if the motion could be amended to separate
the building being open and the establishment of a committee. Mr. McCann felt the Building
and Properties Committee composed of Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and himself should have the
responsibility of deciding on the use of the building. He then restated his motion that
the old (Abandoned) Scottsville High School building be kept open during the winter months
of 1980-81 and between now and next winter, the Building and Properties Committee meet and
decide what to do with the building. Mr. Agnor asked if the motion included that fees be
charged. Mr. McCann said the fees are to be as they have been charged. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 15a.
Appointments.
There were no nominees offered for ~y appointments.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters. Mr. Agnor announced that on October 19, 1981, at
2:00 P.M. in the Basement Conference Room of City Hall, the engineering firm working on
the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir Study will make a report to the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority.
The Board recessed at ~2:55 P.M. and reconvened at 3:10 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Request for funds for Stony Point and East Rivanna Volunteer
Fire Departments.
Mr. Agnor said a request has been received from Mr. Ted Armentrout, Chief of Stony
Point Volunteer Fire Company. The Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company is requesting the
County to assist in the acquisition of a new tank truck for the purpose of mobile water
supply used in fire suppression. The two modified gasoline tank trucks the company currently
has are in less than satisfactory condition. The amount being requested is $109,000 and
the company would like the opportunity to repay the funds over a period of ten years,
similar to financing approved for other fire companies for building purposes. The second
request came from a meeting Mr. Agnor had with representatives of the East Rivanna Fire
Company. The Company is currently curtailing a $70,000 loan to the bank on an annual
basis; a demand note which is renewed annually thereby, the interest rates are becoming
excessive. The East Rivanna Company had planned to pay the note off by 1988 and they are
seeking relief from the high interest rates which are exceeding their principal payment.
The request is for the County to advance $70,000 which would be repayable in four years at
$15,000 each and a fifth year at $10,000. Mr. Agnor said he had explained to the fire
companies that requests of this size are difficult to deal with out of the normal budget
cycle. However, the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company does n~t want to wait for a fiscal
year cycle. Mr. Agnor said he had discussed these requests with Mr. Ray Jones, Director
of Finance, in terms of analyzing financial resources. One item examined was the estimate
of the General Fund Carry-Over balance for the fiscal year ending June, 1981. T~e estimate
is that $360,000 is available. Of that amount, $132,000 is to be used to balance the
1981-82 operating budget and an additional $67,000 has been appropriated, leaving a balance
of $160,000. Another aspect of it is that the operating account that the County has to~
maintain to pay bills is down to a level of $4.2 million and should not be lowered any
further because there is a lag time in reimbursements from the State and Federal governments.
The third area examined was whether there are any residue funds from existing capital
projects and there are none available for new projects. In summary, Mr. Agnor said he
could not find any funds available in the amount of $180,000 to apply to this kind of~need
at this time.
Mr. Fisher asked if the County has ever bought equipment for any of the volunteer
companies. Mr. Agnor said no, not for a fire company, but an ambulance was funded~for the
Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. Mr. Agnor said there was a discussion of this type for
the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department when it as first formed and subsequently when
they needed to purchase a second piece of equipment. At that same time, the County was
involved in the funding of the building for the Seminole Fire Department Building. Mr.
Agnor said if the loan could be tax exempt so that the banks would not have to pay income
taxes on the interest earned then the rate would be about one-half of what the prime rate
is. Mr. Ray Jones had stated to him that perhaps the County could work with the banks to
find some way for the loans to be tax exempt for all the volunteer fire companies. Another
tax exempt method possible would be to lease the equipment from a leasing company for the
fire companies.
A brief discussion followed on the companies to which advances have been made in the
past. Mr. McCann expressed concern~that volunteer companies are no longer volunteer.
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Ted Armentrout, chief of the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, was present. He
noted that financing through the banks was explored and'the rates are excessive and no FHA
money is available. He felt the two present tankers are a risk to the firemen and cannot
provide adequate fire protection.
Mext to speak was Mr. Charles Norford, President of the Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Company. He said the company would be delighted if the County would take over fire protection
and relieve the volunteers of the many hours they spend raising funds. He noted that
there must be some provision to obtain a tanker which will be safer.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had always heard that the volunteers did not want the government
involved in running their companies. Mr. McCann said he would hate to see support go from
community to tax dollars and such is basically what is taking place. He then asked Mr. Agnor
if there was still $160,000 in the Carry-Over balance. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. McCann
said if the request is necessary, then he supported same. Mr. Norford said there are
supporters in the community, but the Company is not in a position to go ask $109,000 for
this one purpose only.
Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the situation will be any different at budget time in
April than it is now. He then asked if there was any benefit to waiting until the next
budget cycle. 'Mr. Fisher felt with the rescue squads and the fire companies, there are
likely to be equipment needs for all of them. Therefore, he felt the Jefferson Country
Firemen's Association needed to decide who has the greatest needs for projects and what
that need is and let the County try to fund the highest priority each year. Mr. Henley
did not see how it was possible to take $180,000 out of the budget at this time of year.
Mr. McCann said there is now some money and requests will be coming if~the funds are not
disturbed. Therefore, he supported this request because he did not know of any better
need. Mr. Lindstrom agreed and felt the operations have to be funded and the question is
how to fund in the most efficient manner. Mr. McCann said it is quite evident that the
Board is going~o have to decide how much it is going to put into volunteer fire companies.
Mr. Carlo Colombini said the volunteer fire companies provide a great service at
practically no expense to the County. He said the fire company just wants assurance and
the funds will only be borrowed.
Mr. Armentrout asked if the Association prioritized its needs, would an allocation be
a payback or a grant. Mr. Fisher did not know but did note the procedure of past funding
for volunteer companies.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to support the request if the funds were on a
payback basis and if the Firemen's Association could get together and determine what the
priorities are as of this year and return to the Board with that information. Mr. Lindstrom
said opening the door to all of the companies at once bothered him but if the priorities
could be determined then he would support such a program. Mr. McCann felt it was the
reasonable way to go and perhaps that this is an incentive to determine the n,eeds of the
county as a whole. Mr. Armentrout said he would relate this to the Association. However,
he felt everyone will want to get their foot in the door at the same time.
Mr. McCann then offered motion to approve $109,000 for the Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Department for the tankers. There was no second and the motion died. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion to consider these requests after the Association has established a list of
priorities. Mr. Armentrout asked if this included rescue squads. Mr. Lindstrom said no.
Mr. Henley felt a committee could be set up. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion included
funding. Mr. Lindstrom said the motion is to consider immediately the requests made today
assuming that the association acknowledges them as top priorities for this year. Mr. Henley
said he did not plan to support the motion because this amount of funds should be built
into the budget. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mt. Fisher said the request is a large amount
of money and he was concerned about funding large capital projects on an ad hoc basis. He
did not feel this was the proper way to handle the matter. Miss Nash agreed with Mr. Henley
that this should be a budget item. Roll was called on the motion and same failed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Lindstrom and McCann.
Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash.
Dr. Iachetta.
Mr.. Fisher said the question of how much money might be made available, when and how
it would be paid back, was something that the staff should consider when working on the
budget. He felt the Association is going to have to set priorities. Mr. Henley felt it
impossible for the County to fund these requests in the middle of the year. Mr. McCann
said all volunteer fire companies are going to have to look at their level of services.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor then recognized Mrs. Janice Perkins who is retiring on
October 30, 1981 after sixteen years of employment with the County. He also recognized
Mrs. Virginia H. Cassidy who will have been with the County for thirty-five years on
October 15, 1981.
Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, then read a letter dated October 13, 1981 from
Mr. Theodore Hardeen, Jr. commending Mrs. Perkins for her assistance to him on matters in
the Finance Department. Miss Nash and Mr. McCann then reiterated the comments of Mr. Hardeen.
Mrs. Perkins then noted her enjoyment in working for the County.
Mr. Fisher then extended the Board's appreciation to Mrs. Perkins and Mrs. Cassidy
for their dedicated years of service to the County and requested on behalf of the Board
that certificates of appreciation be drafted for these employees.
42O
October 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 17. At 4:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by
Mr. Henley, to adjourn to October 15, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor,
County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
CHAI~AN
October 15, 1981 (Adjourned from October 14, 1981)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was sched~
for October 15, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, Fourth Floor,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from
October 4, 1981.
Present: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, and Layton R. McCann.
Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
This meeting was scheduled to meet with the Negotiating Committee on annexation and
revenue sharing. Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order at 3:04 P.M. and motion was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss. Nash, to adjourn into executive session for discussion
of legal matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and McCann.
The meeting returned to open session at 4:00 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
Led