Loading...
07-15-2010 Regular MeetingREGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE FIFTHTEENTH DAY OF JULY IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman Thomas J. Wright, III, Vice - Chairman Al Casteen Stan D. Clark JoAnn W. Hall Also Attending: A. Paul Burton, Interim County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Carey Mills Storm, Clerk Jzcole Ford, an upcoming ninth -grade student at Smithfield High School, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and delivered the invocation. II The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. 11 Chairman Bradshaw called for Approval of the Agenda. Interim County Attorney Burton offered the following amendments to the agenda: Under the Special Presentations, add Isle of Wight County Citizen's Association Representative to request the Board of Supervisors to purchase the property adjacent to the Benn's Church Intersection (Rt. 258 & Rt. 10); under the County Administrator's report, add FY -11 Funding for the County Events Committee; under Old Business, defer Item (A), Storage for the Isle of Wight County Museum's Collection, to the Board's August 19, 2010 meeting; and, under the County Attorney's report, add three (3) closed meeting items. Supervisor Wright moved that the agenda be adopted, as amended. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 11 Chairman Bradshaw called for Special Presentations /Appearances. Chief Sullivan displayed a cat that is currently available for adoption at the County's animal shelter. Mike Gregory, Buggs Island Telephone Cooperative, briefed the Board regarding the development of a rural broadband network project for underserved portions of the County which is anticipated to be substantially complete within the next 24 months. Sheriff Phelps addressed the Board concerning a request of his to fill a County - funded position within that Department. Supervisor Clark moved that the matter be moved to Old Business for discussion. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Jim Carroll, Executive Director, Small Business Development Center of Hampton Roads, briefed the Board regarding a 2010 CDBG Planning Grant. Grace Keen and Ed Easter, on behalf of the Isle of Wight County Citizen's Association, presented the Association's request that the Board purchase the property adjacent to the Benn's Church Intersection at Rt. 258 & Rt. 10. Supervisor Clark moved that Donald T. Robertson, Lisa T. Perry, A. Paul Burton, the Director of Historic Resources and he be directed to follow up with the Citizen's Association's recommendations. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. II Chairman Bradshaw called for consideration of the Consent Agenda. A. 2010 Veterans Celebration and Parade Resolution to Support the 2010 Veterans Day Celebration and Parade B. Minor Revision/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) — Regional Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Abatement Program C. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Funds from the Department of Criminal Justice Services N D. Obici /Luter Family YMCA Grant Funding Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds from the Obici/Luter YMCA E. Appropriation of Unexpended 2009 -10 Funds for Use in Designated 2010 -11 Projects Resolution to Appropriate Funds from the Undesignated Fund Balance for Carryover Projects F. Request to Fill Site Supervisor Positions /Grant Funded G. Quarterly Report/Economic Development H. Monthly Financial Reports for County and Schools I. May 27, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes Supervisor Wright moved that Item (E), Appropriation of Unexpended 2009 -10 Funds for Use in Designated 2010 -11 Projects, (Resolution to Appropriate Funds from the Undesignated Fund Balance for Carryover Projects) be removed and that the remaining items on the Consent Agenda be adopted, The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Casteen moved that the following Resolution be adopted, as amended, to include Poplar Drive in accordance with the motion adopted by the Board at its June 17, 2010 meeting: RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE FOR THE COMPLETION OF VARIOUS CARRYOVER OPERATING PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia in its 2009 -2010 appropriation resolution, appropriated funds for certain repairs and improvements to various public facilities and; WHERAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to ensure completion of three important repair and maintenance projects identified in Fiscal year 2009 -10 but which could not be complete by year end and; WHEREAS, the projects to be completed are: - The sinkhole repair in the vicinity of Oyster Court - Parking lot paving at the Carrsville Volunteer Fire Station - Surveying and utility adjustment at Poplar Drive 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that $70,000 or so much as is needed to complete the projects designated above (but not exceeding $80,000) is appropriated from unexpended balances from County Building Maintenance accounts on June 30, 2010 and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustments in the budget and to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 11 Chairman Bradshaw called for Regional Reports. Regarding the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization, Supervisor Clark reported that he has taken Doug Smith's place on the Freight Transportation Action Committee which is reviewing long -range planning goals for freight and which includes funding for the Route 58/460 corridors. Regarding the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, Supervisor Clark reported that a search for a new Executive Director continues. Regarding the Hampton Roads Partnership, County Administrator Caskey advised that presentations on strategies for the region continue for regional identity. Regarding the Mayors and Chairs Caucus, Supervisor Clark reported that he had addressed the County's desire to have County representation on the Governor's Commission for Government Reform and Restructuring. He advised that tourism related business was also discussed. Regarding the Southeastern Public Service Authority, Theodore Hardison advised that the Authority is currently developing a five (5) year Strategic Plan. He invited anyone with ideas on how to improve the efficiency of the organization to contact him. Regarding the South Hampton Roads Resource Conservation and Development Council, Supervisor Casteen reported that the Council announced its support of an effort to develop a "Living in Your Watershed" booklet intended for fourth graders. In Regarding the VACo /Board of Directors, Chairman Bradshaw reported that he had spoken at the Town Hall meeting at Christopher Newport University this week for the Governor's Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring. He encouraged citizens to attend all future Town Hall meetings which are to be held statewide. Regarding the Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority, Supervisor Wright reported that six (6) individuals had applied for the Deputy Superintendent's position, which has been narrowed down to three (3) individuals by the Personnel Committee who will be present at the next Jail Board meeting. Supervisor Casteen reported that Supervisor Wright had been appointed as the Chairman of the Jail Authority for 2010. 11 Chairman Bradshaw called for Transportation Matters. Eddie P. Wrightson, Director of General Services, advised that VDOT recommends no reduction in speed limit on Battery Park Road /Route 704 at this time based on actual speeds, road conditions and crash data analysis. Mr. Wright advised that VDOT, through an independent consultant, had reviewed the 2.9 mile stretch of Route 17 at King's Cove Way and Ashby Way and contained in the agenda is a board report summarizing the recommendations of an independent study. Supervisor Casteen moved that the County Administrator be authorized to request that VDOT present the Speed Study findings and the proposed improvements to the Board. VDOT representatives are to meet with County staff prior to meeting with the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Mr. Wrightson presented a Resolution to Appropriate Funds for Final Payment for Emergency Signals at County Volunteer Fire Departments and Rescue Locations for the Board's consideration. He stated that in March of 2006, Congress approved $297,000 in Federal funds and VDOT began work on the project in April of 2007; however, it was December of 2007 when the County received Federal authorization to use the Federal funds. He stated that the total cost of the project was $331,947.09 and VDOT has charged back $30,839.13 to the Federal project, leaving a balance of $55,103.90, for which they have subsequently billed the County. Chairman Bradshaw moved that the Resolution be moved to Old Business for further discussion at the Board's August 19, 2010 meeting to allow staff to obtain additional information from VDOT. The motion was I adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Clark relayed a request from Roland Lewis, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Citizen's Association, that staff address with VDOT the need for additional funds to pave County dirt roads. Mr. Wrightson notified the Board that VDOT has begun to pave Muddy Cross Road. Tom GaskeIl presented a petition containing signatures of nine (9) of ten (10) homeowners on Dodge Lane requesting VDOT to take over maintenance. Chairman Bradshaw moved that staff be directed to work with Mr. Gaskell, other residents on Dodge Lane and VDOT regarding bringing Dodge Lane into the State secondary system. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Mr. Gaskell notified the Board that the drainage ditch at Tomlin Hill Road and Dodge Lane is in need of cleaning. ll At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor CIark moved that the Board amend the order of the agenda in order to conduct the public hearings. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. ll Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia Establishing the Economic Development Incentive Policy for Commercial and/or Mixed -Use Development. Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated that in light of projected financial challenges facing the County in FY2011 -12, staff within the Departments of Economic Development, General Services and Planning and Zoning, were directed by the Board to work collaboratively to assist and jumpstart those developments already approved in the County. She stated challenges which face the County include a $7.2 million deficit by 2012 from the loss of International Paper, its associated services and businesses, contractor's licenses, the Sales and Use tax and 2,500 area jobs, I$ as well as the financial loss of Smithfield Packing due to changes in their manufacturing totaling approximately $500,000 by FY2012. She advised that residential growth in the County has been on a steady decline and if no action is taken, the Commissioner of Revenue estimates that the County's tax rate would need to be increased from by $.13 to $.15 per $100 by the year 2012. She advised that staff has identified commercial and retail development as industries that should grow in the County and that this can be accomplished by growing the County's transportation network and utility infrastructure to accommodate growth and to continue leveraging private investments. She advised that the proposed Incentive Policy before the Board targets the following types of development: Commercial, retail, corporate office and multi- family, which come as a component of retail and commercial. She advised that some of the incentives identified in the Policy include waivers, an expedited review process, an Economic Development Incentive grant, connection and tap fees, reinvestment when the overall public benefit exceeds the overall private benefit, proffer flexibility when the overall public benefit exceeds the overall private benefit, review of the establishment of Community Development Authorities, Tax Increment Financing Districts and a change in the policy which allows it to repeal itself by August 15, 2015 unless the Board repeals it sooner. She concluded her presentation with a case study of the Eagle Harbor development. Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the Resolution. Thomas Finderson of the Newport District suggested that the phrase "where there is an overall public benefit exceeding the overall private benefit" be added following the word "establishes" on Page 2, line 4, under Project Eligibility; insert "shall require a public hearing" in the sentence "the Board of Supervisors may waive the requirement of a public hearing" on Page 3, under Project Eligibility; eliminate the section Economic Development Incentive Grant on Page 4; include a definition of "incremental tax revenue" on Page 5; insert language "After a public hearing" before "The Board of Supervisors" on Page 5; and, create a section (I) pertaining to a sunset clause for these incentives. Leah Dempsey of the Newport District stated that improvements to the County's recreational facilities, transportation and school facilities are needed, but can not be accomplished within the County's current financial situation. She stated other localities in Hampton Roads are considering different types of incentives versus an adversarial relationship between the public and the business community. She stated because of biased and inaccurate information printed in the newspaper, citizens are concerned that their tax dollars will be used to expedite development along the Newport Development Service District corridor. She stated data collected over the past 18 months illustrates that business needs to be done differently in the County and she encouraged the Board to adopt the incentive resolution and amendment to the Benn's Grant proffers. 7 Cindy Taylor of Smithfield advised that she moved into the County in the 1970's for the quality of life that the County offered. She spoke in opposition to incentives for multi - family and stated that there are certain costs associated with development which should be factored in with a project. She expressed concern with setting a precedent, noting that future developments will also want the same incentives. She recommended that projects be prioritized by the Industrial Development Authority as doing so would take it out of the political arena. She requested that the Board take caution with respect to waved fees, as the result is taxpayers in the County being asked to underwrite some of the cost of waiving the fees. She expressed concern about how Community Development Authorities (CDA), noting that it will become the County's responsibility to collect fees and taxes. She stated that it could also become the County's responsibility to become a foreclosure agent and pay the debt for the CDA until the property is sold. She requested that the Board give consideration to removing multi- family from the proposed Policy and not using CDA's to finance future projects. William Riddick, Attorney, stated that the Policy is a tool that the Board can utilize to deal with what his clients have, in the past, been complaining about. He stated that the County's requirements over the years have reached a level that likely exceeds any other locality in the Hampton Roads region. He stated that the County is the only locality that asks for commercial proffers, whereas other localities offer incentives to businesses to locate there. He stated the policy will provide the Board with flexibility to deal with all issues without sacrificing the quality of life that the County's citizens have come to expect. He stated the policy also sends a message to the community that the County is now willing to be more flexible and friendly and he recommended that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution. Terry Quinn of Carrollton recommended that proffers and fees be revised and include public input and not just from Messrs. Morgan and Turner. She stated that the Benn's Grant rezoning is not where the County should be focusing its financial incentives and energies. She stated that the County has an abundance of available housing in all price ranges and what the County needs is solid commercial growth. She stated with respect to the proposed incoming tax money, she finds the proposed 360 cars for an annual property tax of $300,000 unrealistic. She stated that she has not been successful in finding other localities in the State of Virginia that provide incentives for residential development. She stated that the Board has lacked inclusion of public input and the Board's decisions over the past five (5) years are part of the reason that the County is in such a precarious financial state. She stated that the Board appears to want more flexibility to modify existing rules, as illustrated by the phase in the Policy which states "the Board decides additional incentives are necessary." She stated that she has not found where Tax Increment Financing (TIF's) are used for building new residential developments, as it is intended for blighted areas. She stated that 9 Moody's Vice - President, Patrick Ford, has advised her that CDA debt is considered overlapping and considered when the bond rating is formulated for the County. Regina Haverty of the Newport District stated that the building of 200+ apartments does not seem to be what the citizenry wants at this time. She stated that citizens understand that the County's tax base needs to be diversified and she would like to see a development plan for attracting industry. She stated that jobs are needed, with housing, followed by a firm commitment from a business new to the County. She stated that even though the Benn's Church intersection will be improved, bottlenecks will still exist. She stated an overall traffic management plan for the entire area is needed. She recommended that a survey might be conducted to determine how many County residents will be willing to see a reasonable residential tax hike to compensate for the projected shortfall rather than gambling on a risky real estate deal. She stated that additional facts and studies are needed that quantify projected residential population growth, infrastructure information regarding schools, police and fire departments. She stated it may be more prudent to wait for the results from the census to determine the projections for the community. She recommended that public hearings be mandatory. Vincent Corolla, Chairman, Isle of Wight/Smithfield /Windsor Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber has taken new approaches to promote local businesses in facilitating business growth in the Towns and commerce centers and has unique incentives for businesses seeking relocation of stores in the County and the Towns. He stated favorable feedback has been received in that effort and a report to the Board will be provided in the near future. He stated the Chamber's position is that the incentive program is forward thinking and will stimulate commercial retail development. He stated that the County must be open to residential development to support potential and existing businesses and industries. He stated that the Chamber hopes that the Board follows this initiative with a plan to consider all sizes of development. He stated that the Chamber believes strongly in economic expansion in the County and endorses the proposed resolution. Delores Darden of Windsor stated that the proposed incentives appear to target only large developments and help only one (1) or two (2) projects in the County. She inquired if smaller or individual developments will have some type of reduction in proffers or waiver of fees in the future. She stated if the current proffers are out of line, then perhaps they should be studied and that she is not confident that CDA's and TIF's are good tools to spur and incentivize economic development as they have been used in other areas and found to be unsuccessful. She stated that she has contacted other localities and can not find a waiver or reduction being offered to connection and tap fees and that it is unprecedented to give economic incentives to housing developments. She stated that there is only 20% of commercial development in Eagle Harbor and while the apartments and houses have grown, the W commercial development has not grown along with it. She stated that the County, the City of Franklin and Southampton are in a good position for economic growth as they have been targeted for development. She stated if the County is truly concerned about the overall public benefit, why doesn't the Board raise taxes and earmark those funds for transportation, roads and improving the Benn's Church intersection. She stated that the proposed policy undermines all the checks and balances that have been put in place in the County's system and she would recommend that the County go back to a system where developers develop, government is government and citizens continue to have the right to speak. Sharon Hart of the Newport District requested that language be added at the end of the paragraph on Page 2 under Project Eligibility, "whereby the overall public benefit exceeds the overall private benefit." She requested that a sunset clause also be added of no more than four (4) years. She recommended that the language on Page 3 under Development Incentives, Item (a), be deleted with respect to the waiving of review fees for site plan and subdivision review, including zoning and building permits. Also under Development Incentives on Page 3, Item (B), Expedited Review Process, she stated that she has a problem with allowing developers to proceed with digging footings for buildings before the final site plan is reviewed. She recommended that under Development Incentives on Page 3, Item (d), Proffer Flexibility, a public hearing be held each time the proffers are reduced. She recommended deleting the entire paragraph under Development Incentives on Page 3, Item (e), Economic Development Incentive Grant. Under Development Incentives on Page 3, Item (f), Establishment of a Community Development Authority, she stated that the County is not responsible if a project goes downhill and she recommended that Item (h), Other Incentives the Board May Deem Appropriate be deleted. Jerianne Gardner of Carrollton commended the Board for finding another way to get the County into the economic competition that the surrounding areas are placing on the County. She stated that she is not in favor of the Board raising taxes to build a road. Henry Morgan, 22048 Ballard Creek Drive, stated that in previous years the County did experience modest growth pressure and the Board, at that time, adopted a Proffer Policy that enabled them to manage that growth pressure. He stated this Policy has been utilized by previous Boards as a tool to manage smart growth. He stated for the past two (2) years there has been no growth pressure and the Board may need to incentivize some growth. He stated that the economic reality is that the Board must cut services further, reduce school funding, raise taxes or expand the tax base. He stated that the Board needs to give itself tools to accomplish its goals. He stated that the economic impact from the closure of International Paper to the County is $6 million and the Board, before raising the tax rate, directed staff to examine ways to stimulate rezoned projects that were lying dormant. He stated with respect to Ms. Haverty's comment, there was a recommendation about senior 10 housing, however, the proffers and the infrastructure could not be supported by that development alone. He stated with regard to Ms. Darden's comments regarding tap fees, tap fees are used to pay back the construction of water and sewer lines, however, there are no water and sewer lines in the Development Service District. He stated that he is asking the Board to allow him to use the water and sewer tap fees that he is willing to pay to build those lines. He requested that the Board approve the request of Benn's Grant. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Hall stated that she believes the Board needs to further discuss the proffer structure before taking any action. She advised that she would never vote in favor of a policy which eliminates the need for a public hearing. Supervisor Clark stated that the statute does require a public hearing, however, the Board has the ability to opt out. Supervisor Casteen suggested that the Policy state that the Board would not opt out of conducting a public hearing. Chairman Bradshaw advised that the Board can not set a policy which is in contradiction to State law. Supervisor CIark advised that he does not see this Board ever opting out of a public hearing, however, he can not speak to what a future Board might do. Supervisor Casteen expressed concern with the expedited review process with respect to the issuing of an early land disturbing permit; digging a foundation prior to final site plan and reinvesting connection and tap fees in a project. Chairman Bradshaw commented that the Policy is simply a tool to guide the Board with respect to moving forward with projects. He clarified that staff can not make any decisions, only recommendations to the Board based on the Policy. Supervisor Hall commented that tools should apply to everyone. Supervisor Casteen recommended expanding the proposed Policy to include everyone before taking action. Supervisor Hall commented that she was unaware that the proposed Policy was going to be presented until the last meeting. W Supervisor Clark commented that the Board has been discussing incentives for these developments for a while and this is the incentive package which is being endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce. Supervisor Casteen commented that he has a hard time supporting a policy that uses multi - family housing as one (1) of its aspects of creating opportunity for incentives. Supervisor Clark commented that the Policy is about mixed -use developments, which includes commercial, multi - family or residential. Chairman Bradshaw stated that his end of the County is rural and approximately 15 minutes from the closest grocery store. Supervisor Clark stated this is a County -wide Policy and when development comes to Chairman Bradshaw's end of the County, this policy will help incentivize it so that it can happen where it might not otherwise come. He agreed that the Board may need to work further on the Policy to incentivize not only existing developments, but new ones, but this is only the first step. Supervisor Clark moved that the following Resolution be adopted, as presented: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA ESTABLISHING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL AND /OR MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the closure of International Paper's Franklin Mill will result in $6 million in revenue losses to the County, and over 2,500 jobs with area suppliers and local service and retail business; and WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors is concerned with the County's economic sustainability as a result of the global effects of the current economic recession, its impact on jobs, and the County's continued ability to generate revenue sufficient to maintain the current quality of life for existing and future residents; and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the importance of developing policy intended to promote the overall economic welfare of the County, encourage a sustainable and vibrant community through measures that promote the growth of commercial and mixed use development consistent with the goals and objectives of the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the importance of creating jobs and the need to retain a healthy employment population base; and 12 WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the role of the housing industry, when developed in conjunction with commercial development, as a critical economic development engine that serves to provide the consumer base necessary to draw and support commercial and retail development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT in an effort to promote the overall economic welfare of the County and remain a strong economic development competitor within the Hampton Roads region, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County hereby endorses the provision of funding incentives necessary to stimulate commercial and retail development in Isle of Wight County by establishing Isle of Wight County's Economic Development Incentive Policy for Commercial and /or Mixed Use Development, as follows: I. Purpose: With the loss of International Paper, its associated support services, changes in manufacturing at Smithfield Packing, and the effects of the current economic recession, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors recognizes the need to provide funding incentives to specific commercial and /or mixed -use development as a means to stimulate commercial and retail development in Isle of Wight County. This industry segment has been identified as a viable market for the County that will diversify the County's tax base, by increasing the percent of sales tax generated, and other local revenue, including taxes on business licenses, machinery and tools, personal property, and real estate. In 2009, Isle of Wight County commercial real estate revenue (including industrial) made up only 15% of the real estate taxes collected. Recent data reveals that Isle of Wight County is an under - stored market in the categories of furniture, building material /garden supplies, clothing accessories, sporting goods /hobbies /books /music and general merchandise. This is attributed to a small consumer base and the competitive pressure among existing businesses which leads to further decline. These deficiencies result in absorption of the County's trade area market into that of neighboring jurisdictions and leakage of retail dollars out of the County. Evidence of this was documented in 2006 with the County's per capita taxable sales tax equating to only half of the state's average and 75% of neighboring Suffolk. This is despite, the County's per capita income being the fifth highest in Hampton Roads and the highest of non -metro areas for the same period. II. Project Eligibility_: In an effort to stimulate the growth of the commercial and retail industry sector, replace the loss of tax revenue and jobs, curtail the leakage of retail dollars, and diversify the County's revenue base, the Isle of Wight County 13 Board of Supervisors hereby establishes a Commercial and /or Mixed -Use Incentive Policy applicable to the following types of development: a. New development consisting of commercial /retail square footage in excess of 80,000 square feet with a minimum net new taxable investment in new construction of $20,000,000. b. New corporate office development /expansion with an employment base of twenty -five (25) or more new full-time equivalent employees (FTE) and a minimum net new taxable investment of $25,000,000. c. New multi - family residential developed in conjunction with commercial development, consisting of one hundred (100) or more multi - family residential units and a net new taxable investment of $20,000,000. III. Development Incentives: The Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors will utilize a variety of incentive measures as determined to be prudent to attract these new growth industries, including but not limited to the following: a. Review Fee Waivers Development review fees may be waived for site plan and subdivision review, including zoning and building permits. b. Expedited _Review Process Expedited review projects receive a higher priority in the work flow of staff than other review projects, including the resubmission of plans, and are allowed to proceed with the issuance of an early land disturbing permit and a footing and foundation permit prior to accomplishing final site plan approval. c. Connection/Tap Fee Reinvestment Connection/Tap Fees may be reinvested into the development for the installation of required water and sewer utility improvements whereby the overall public benefit exceeds the overall private benefit. d. Proffer Flexibility Pursuant to Section 15.2 -2302 of the Code of Virginia as amended, and Section 1- 1016(e) of the Isle of Wight County Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may waive the requirement of a public hearing where an amendment to the proffered conditions is requested by the 14 profferor, provided that the amendment does not affect conditions of use and density. Included in these provisions is the authority of the Board to make decisions relative to the infusion of cash proffer contributions into the development for the installation of needed transportation and utility improvements whereby the overall public benefit exceeds the overall private benefit and any other amendment provided that the amendment does not affect conditions of use and density. e. Economic Development Incentive Grant The Board of Supervisors shall be empowered to grant to qualified prospective businesses or developers an Economic Development Incentive Grant (EDIG) equal to up to five years taxable return on investment created by the project. The Directors of Economic Development and Planning & Zoning will collectively pre - qualify each prospective business and related project, calculate long term taxable return on investment, and make a grant award recommendation to the Board for approval. Prospective businesses or developers must agree to enter into a performance agreement with the County that outlines in detail the net new taxable investment and/or employment commitments to be generated by the project. The agreement will include conditions under which the EDIG will be paid out and claw -back provisions which would apply if the business or developer underperforms. f. Establishment of a Community Development Authorit Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article V, Section 2- 14(a), the Board of Supervisors has the power to consider petitions for the creation of community development authorities (CDA), in accordance with the Virginia Water and Wastewater Authorities Act, Chapter 51, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), which may be created to finance the following development within the proposed CDA boundary: 1) Roads, bridges, parking facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic signals, water and sewer systems, stormwater management and retention systems, gas and electric lines, and street lights; 2) Parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses, entrance areas, security facilities, fencing and landscaping; 3) Fire prevention systems and rescue vehicles; 4) School buildings and related structures, when authorized by the locality and the school board; and 5) Other public construction and special services that the Board may deem appropriate, and which is consistent with the provisions of the Code of Virginia. g. Establishment of a Tax Increment Financing District 15 A Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District may be established by County Ordinance to direct a portion of identified incremental tax revenue towards improvements in a specially established district for the purpose of eliminating blight or providing economic development benefit. h. Other incentives the Board may deem appropriate The Board of Supervisors may consider other economic development incentives as may be presented and deemed appropriate. The motion was adopted by a vote of (3 -2) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and Supervisors Casteen and Hall voting against the motion. H Chairman Bradshaw declared that the Board take a recess. H Supervisor Clark moved that staff be directed to review the comments of Thomas Finderson and Sharon Hart with respect to procedural matters and for possible future revision of the Policy and return to the Board with their recommendations. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. M Supervisor Wright moved that the order of the public hearings be amended in order to conduct the public hearing on the Hunting Lease with the Windsor Hunt Club at this point in the agenda. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote. 1I Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: An Amendment to the Hunting Lease with Windsor Hunt Club. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the amendment pertains to the requirement of a 51 % membership be Isle of Wight residents; that no butchering of the game be done on the property; and, that there be no alcohol. Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. Chester Cramer, President of the Windsor Hunt Club, spoke in full support of 51% of the Club membership consisting of County residents. He stated with respect to the prohibition of butchering of the animal and disposal of the waste, it was his understanding that the intent was to bring everyone in compliance with State regulations and that they were under the understanding that it was the disposal of the waste that was of concern and that the amendment was going to address it as a recommendation to follow the State Game and Inland Fisheries Commission. He further stated that with respect to the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages, the Club recommends that the word "possess" be removed with emphasis on consumption of alcoholic beverages. Interim County Attorney Burton recommended that the lease be approved in the form presented as it is written the same as in other leases. He stated with respect to butchering, the Board does not want field dressing to occur on County property and does not want people to be consuming, using or possessing alcohol on County property due to liability issues. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright moved that the amendment to the Hunting Lease with Windsor Hunt Club be adopted, as presented. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: The application of Turner Farms, Inc., Benns Church Properties, Henry W. Morgan, and Richard L. Turner, applicants /owners, to amend the proffered conditions of approximately 253.375 acres of land located on the west side of Benns Church Boulevard (Rt. 10) near its intersection with Brewer's Neck Boulevard (Route 10/32/258), in the Windsor Election District. The request is to amend Zoning Case #ZA- 01 -09, approved May 21, 2009, to allow for the use of voluntary cash proffers and utility connection fees to fund off -site transportation and utility improvements at the Benns Church intersection. Ms. Walkup presented the application. Henry Morgan, 22048 Ballard Creek Drive, stated the project is in response to the Board's direction to staff regarding what can be done by the County do to stimulate rezoned properties that are lying dormant. He stated that the project is a market rate rental complex with no tax dollars involved from the County's General Fund and there are no rents to be subsidized by 17 any agency, although there is some HUD financing. He stated it is a $30 million dollar investment that will command rents similar to the Eagle Harbor apartment project. He stated that the proffer amount offered is to the average to what the Eagle Harbor apartments paid and he is asking that the proffers be reinvested in the road infrastructure. He stated that he agrees to pay the full water and sewer tap fees and he asks that those fees be applied to the water and sewer infrastructure at his project. He stated it is not typical for a locality to ask a developer to pay tap fees and off -site utilities. Bill Blankenship, Ashton Builders, stated that the project creatively uses the proffers to improve an already failing intersection and open up the development for numerous other developments to occur in the area. He stated that recent studies have disputed the fact that apartment developments create a negative economic impact on a community. He stated that the 240 unit project is anticipated to create approximately $19 million in revenue for the County and the project's first year should generate 293 jobs. He stated it will generate approximately $5.5 million in revenue to the County and maintain 77 local jobs. He stated that localities today are reconsidering their proffer policies and reducing the proffers on this project to the requested amounts is essential to the viability of the project. He stated that FHA financing will be used and guidelines on HUD loans will dramatically change in September 2010, which will have a tremendous negative impact on this project. He urged the Board to vote in favor of the proposal. Jeff Knowles, Vice - President Hoy Construction, requested the Board approve the request for reduced proffers to allow the project to move forward. He stated that the County's proffer and tap fee requirement are far beyond the most expensive in Hampton Roads. He advised that the funding program being pursued will be changing in September 2010 and will be substantially more restrictive. Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. Thomas Finderson of the Newport District spoke in support of the proffer amendment. He stated that the building of the road and the water tower lays the groundwork for a super center, which will net $740,000 annually in various revenues and 350 jobs. Sharon Hart stated that the number of students per unit is .27 and the case can be argued that proffer reduction is legitimate and fair. She stated that only the multi - family units will pay a reduced proffer, but the single - family and commercial units will pay full proffers. She stated that the voluntary proffers are going to pay for the County's share of the grant and the County does not have to come up with this money from County funds. She stated that her only concern is that bringing more people in will create more of a bottleneck at the James River and Crittenton bridges. M Pat Clark of the Newport District stated that he hopes that this is the first step toward a super center being built in the County that would bring the opportunity to buy local and retain all money being spent here in the County. He stated the project is within the area of the Newport Development Service District and the first step towards a greater shopping opportunity with the end result being an area that is a service district that is small enough to still offer a rural feel. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Hall commented that she might support the application if it was for anything other than multi - family housing. Supervisor Clark commented that the development includes commercial and retail. He commented that no growth will occur until the intersection is improved and there is water and sewer. He stated that this is a way to get that and he believes that once they are in existence, not only will Benn's Grant build out, but also St. Luke's Village and the Frank property. He stated this will go a long way to make up the loss of income from the closure of International Paper, to include the benefit of a reduced commuter time, less gas consumption and the County having another competing health care facility. Chairman Bradshaw commented that the County is not going to receive any State or Federal funds to improve the intersection any time soon and the applicants are agreeing to build utilities off-site that will belong to the County. Supervisor Wright moved that the application of Turner, Farms, Inc., Benns Church Properties, Henry W. Morgan and Richard L. Turner, applicants /owners, be approved to amend Zoning Case #ZA -01 -09 to allow for the use of voluntary cash proffers and utility connection fees to fund off - site transportation and utility improvements. The motion was adopted by a vote of (3 -2) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark and Wright voting in favor of the motion and Supervisors Casteen and Hall voting against the motion. Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance Providing for a Cable Franchise to be Granted to Charter Communications, Inc. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that Charter has advised that it is in need of additional time to review the matter. He stated that Charter is requesting the Board's consideration of an extension agreement to extend the existing franchise to September 15, 2010. He recommended that the Board defer the public hearing on the franchise ordinance until the Board's August 19, 2010 meeting. K Supervisor Clark moved that the public hearing be deferred until the Board's August 19, 2010 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5- 0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Amending and Reenacting Chapter 15. Taxation. Article I. In General. Section 15 -3.1. Tax on Probates of Wills or Grants of Administration. Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the General Assembly had recently adopted an amendment to the Code of Virginia which would allow the County to impose a $25 fee for recordation and that he recommends the Board approve the Ordinance. Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed ordinance. No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Wright moved that the following Ordinance be adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 15. TAXATION. ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL. SECTION 15 -3.1. TAX ON PROBATES OF WILLS OR GRANTS OF ADMINISTRATION. WHEREAS, on May 16, 2002, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors enacted Section 15 -3.1 of Chapter 15, Taxation, to the Isle of Wight County Code which provides for the imposition of a tax on the probate of every will or grant of administration in an amount equal to one -third of the state tax on such probate; and WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has enacted, effective July 1, 2010, Section 58.1 - 1717.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) and amended Sections 58.1 -1718 and 58.1 -3805 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) to allow for the imposition of a Twenty -Five Dollars ($25.00) fee on the recordation of a list of heirs pursuant to Section 64.1 -134 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) or an affidavit pursuant to Section 64.1 -135; and lu WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors wishes to conform the Isle of Wight County Code with the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) with respect to the imposition of such a fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors, Virginia, that Chapter 15. Taxation. Article I. In General. Section 15 -3.1. Tax on Probates of Wills or Grants of Administration of the Isle of Wight County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 15- 3.1.Tax and fee on Probates of wills or grants of administration. There is hereby imposed a Twenty -Five Dollar ($25.00) fee on the recordation of a list of heirs pursuant to Section 64.1 -134 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) or an affidavit pursuant to Section 64.1 -135 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), unless a will has been probated for the decedent or there has been a grant of administration on the decedent's estate in which case there is hereby imposed a county tax on the probate of every will or grant of administration in an amount equal to one -third of the state tax on such probate. The tax imposed by this section shall be collected by the clerk of the circuit court for the county who shall pay the revenues collected into the treasury of the county and shall be entitled to compensation for such service in an amount equal to five percent of the amount collected and remitted. (5- 16-02; 7- 15 -10.) For state law as to authority of the County to collect such fee and tax, see Code of Va.,§§ 58.1- 1717.1, 58.1 -1718 and 58.1 -3805. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Amending and Reenacting Chapter 4. Buildings. Article M. Inspections. Interim County Attorney Burton advised these amendments are to change certain inspections fees and he would recommend the Board approve the Ordinance. Chairman Bradshaw called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed ordinance. 21 No one appeared and spoke. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Clark moved that the following Ordinance be adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 4. BUILDINGS. ARTICLE III. INSPECTIONS WHEREAS, the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors has determined that as part of its efforts to balance the local budget it must increase the fees imposed on building inspections; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 4. Buildings. Article III. Inspections. is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: CHAPTER 4. BUILDINGS. Article III. Inspections. Division 1. Fees Generally. Sec. 4 -6. Existing buildings or structures. (a) Inspections will be provided by the building official of the county of existing buildings or structures to determine if same are in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Code at the request of the owner thereof upon payment to the county of a fee of twenty -five dollars. (b) Issuance of certificates of compliance for existing elevators and associated equipment by the building official of the county at the request of the owner upon receipt of adequate proof of inspection in accordance with ASME Standards A 17.2.1 and A 17.2.2 and payment of a fee of twenty -five dollars. (9 -5 -74; 9- 21 -00.) Sec. 4 -7. Uncertified mobile homes. There shall be a fee of one hundred dollars for the inspection of mobile homes manufactured after January 1, 1972, that do not bear the proper inspection seals as approved by the Virginia Industrialized Building Unit and Mobile Homes Safety Regulations, Article 5. ON The department of building inspections, upon request of the dealer, shall inspect and certify unlabeled mobile homes as reasonably safe to be used only in the county as directed by Article I, Section 103, of the Virginia Industrialized Building Unit and Mobile Homes Safety Regulations. (11 -15- 74.) Division 2. Fees When Building Permit Required. Sec. 4 -7.1. Generally. On all buildings, structures, alterations or repairs requiring a building permit, including plumbing, electrical and mechanical installation, as defined in the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code and Mechanical Code as adopted by the state and entitled the Uniform Statewide Building Code, fees shall be paid as required and in accordance with Sections 4 -8 to 4 -10.1. (5 -3 -79; 11- 19 -80; 6- 16 -88.) Sec. 4-7.2. Refunds. In the case of a revocation of a permit or abandonment or discontinuance of a building project, refunds of fees paid pursuant to Section 4 -7.1 shall be paid for the portion of the work which was not completed, upon certification thereof by the building official and approval of the County Administrator. (2- 16 -89.) Sec. 4 -8. Construction repair or alteration of buildings or structures. (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum building permit fee shall be fifty dollars. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be one hundred twenty -five dollars. (c) Basic permit fee. (1) Usable area under roof, per building or structure (includes all new construction, finished or unfinished). For the construction of any building or addition thereto where floor area is increased, the fee shall be based on the floor area to be constructed, as computed from exterior building dimensions at each floor. a. All buildings of minimum construction types, for the first forty thousand square feet and under, sixteen cents per square foot; b. All buildings over forty thousand square feet, twelve cents per square foot. (2) All structures not under roof, ten cents per square foot of area or a minimum permit fee of thirty dollars, whichever is greater. (d) Demolition permit fee. The demolition permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Accessory buildings and structures, fifty dollars each; (2) All other buildings and structures, fifty dollars each. (e) Moving structures permit fee. The permit fee for moving structures shall be as follows: (1) Accessory buildings or structures, sixty -five dollars; (2) All other buildings and structures, seventy -five dollars. (f) Industrialized building_ permit fee. The industrialized building permit fee shall be the same as the basic permit fee in subsection (c)(1) of this Section (excluding mobile homes). (g) Modular construction permit fee. The modular construction permit fee shall be same as the basic fee in subsection (c)(1) of this section. (h) Mobile home permit fees. The mobile home permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Mobile home and other mobile units permit fee, seventy - five dollars each. (i) Sign permit fees. Sign permit fees shall be sixty -five dollars per sign. 0) Tents and other temporary structures permit fee. The permit fee for tents and other temporary structures shall be sixty -five dollars each. (k) Chimneys, _ fireplaces, etc. The permit fee for chimneys, fireplaces, wood and coal stoves and other solid fuel burning heaters shall be fifty dollars. (NOTE: Fireplaces, heaters and chimneys shall be included in new construction permit fees only if so noted at the time of issuing the permit.) (1) Alterations to create finished space. The fee for alterations to shell buildings, unfinished tenant spaces, garages and attics to create finished space shall be twelve cents per square foot. RE (m) Other structures. The fee for all other structures as defined in the Basic Building Code not included in the above fee schedule are as follows: (1) Piers -- $50.00; (2) Pools: a. Inground -- $125.00, b. Above ground -- $65.00. (3) Retaining wall as defined in the Building Code -- $75.00; (4) Towers -- $50.00. (n) Permit reissuance fee. Permits becoming invalid as specified by the Code may be reissued up to a period of five years and charged a fee of fifty dollars for each six months period thereof. A request for such reissuance shall be in writing and submitted prior to the permit becoming invalid. (o) Plans examination. (1) The fee for plans examination, other than residential and accessory structures, shall be two hundred fifty dollars. (2) A fee of one hundred fifty dollars shall be charged for the reviewing of residential plans prior to making application for a permit. This fee will be credited to the permit fee if the permit is applied for within six months. (p) Appeals. For each appeal to the Building Code board of appeals, the fee shall be four hundred fifty dollars. (1- 10 -74, §A; 5 -3 -79; 6- 16 -88; 12- 16 -04; 4- 21 -05.) For state law as to authority of county to levy permit Fees, see Code of Va., § 36 -105. Sec. 4 -9. Installation of plumbing fixtures, etc. (a) Minimum _permit fee. The minimum permit plumbing fee shall be fifty dollars. (b) Reinspection _ fee. The reinspection fee shall be one hundred twenty-five dollars (see Section 4- 8(b)). Corrections shall be made and the reinspection fee paid before the reinspection is conducted. M (c) Basic permit fee. The basic plumbing permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Residential, fifty dollars per bathroom to include one -half baths; (2) Commercial, fifty dollars plus ten dollars per fixture. (d) Sewers, manholes, etc. The permit fee for sewers, storm and sanitary manholes, area drains or devices shall be twenty -five dollars each. (1- 10 --74, § B; 5-3 -79; 6- 16 -88; 12- 16 -04.) Sec. 4 -10. Electrical services. (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum electrical service permit fee shall be fifty dollars. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be one hundred twenty -five dollars. (See Section 4- 8(b)). (c) New service equipment fee. New service equipment permit fees shall be as follows (new construction fees based on total ampacity of service equipment and subpanels feeder overcurrent protection): 0 -- 200 amps $75.00 201 — 400 amps $75.00 401 — 600 amps $100.00 601+ amps $100.00 + $20 per 50 amps above 600 (d) Relocation and service increases permit fee. The permit fee for relocations and service increases shall be as follows (additional work charged according to Subsection (i) of this Section): (1) Existing service panels only, fifty dollars each; (2) Meter only, fifty dollars each; (3) Service increases, fifty dollars. (e) Temporary service. The fee for temporary service (includes thirty -day power release prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy) shall be fifty dollars. W (f) Reconnection fee. The reconnection fee shall be fifty dollars each (this does not include any electrical work within any structure). (g) Mobile home hookup. The fee for a mobile home hookup (excluding electrical service) shall be seventy -five dollars. For a mobile home hookup plus electrical service, the fee shall be based on the size of service. (h) Connections and outlets. The for fixed appliances and equipment connections and outlets to existing service (ranges, water heaters, dishwashers, disposals, furnaces dryers, baseboard units, exhaust fans, motors, air conditioning units, etc.) shall be fifty dollars. (i) Permit reissuance fee. The permit reissuance fee shall be the same as stated in Section 4 -8(n). (1- 10 -74, § C; 5 -3 -79; 6- 16 -88; 12- 16 -04.) Sec. 4- 10.1.Mechanical and P-as fees. (a) Minimum permit fee. The minimum mechanical and gas permit fee shall be fifty dollars. (b) Reinspection fee. The reinspection fee shall be one hundred twenty -five dollars. (See Section 4- 8(b)). (c) Basic permit fee. The basic mechanical and gas permit fee shall be as follows: (1) New construction: a. Up to one thousand dollars contract value, fifty dollars; b. Over one thousand dollars contract value, fifty dollars plus eight dollars per one thousand dollars or fraction thereof (2) Equipment replacement, repair, etc. The permit fee for the replacement, repair or alteration of mechanical systems, or equipment in existing buildings, structures or additions thereof shall be as follows: a. Up to one thousand dollars contract value, fifty dollars; b. Over one thousand dollars contract value, fifty dollars plus eight dollars per one thousand dollars or fraction thereof. Exemptions: Domestic cooking equipment and space heaters in dwelling units are exempt from mechanical permit fees. Inspections of this equipment are required. 27 (d) Fuel piping The fuel piping permit fee shall be as follows: (1) Minimum permit fee, fifty dollars; (2) Each outlet, ten dollars. Note: This fee applies when a permit is issued for fuel piping work only. (e) L.P.G. tanks and piping. The permit fee for L.P.G. (i.e., butane, propane, etc.) tanks and associated piping shall be fifty dollars per tank. (f) Tanks and piping for flammable liquids. Tanks and associated piping for flammable liquids shall be fifty dollars per tank. (g) Removal of fuel storage tanks. Removal of fuel storage tanks shall be the minimum fee; i.e., fifty dollars for each tank. (h) Fire suppression systems. The fire suppression system permit fee shall be as follows: (1) New construction, same as basic fee (subsection (c)(1) of this Section); (2) All others, same as basic fee (subsection (c)(2) of this Section). (i) Elevators, dumbwaiter, etc. The permit fee for elevators, dumbwaiters, moving stairways, moving walks, construction personnel hoists and conveying equipment shall be fifty dollars per unit. 0) Permit reissuance fee. The permit reissuance fee shall be the same as stated in Section 4 -8(n). Amusement rides and devices. The permit fee for amusement rides and devices shall be as set forth in the then current edition of the Virginia Amusement Device Regulations adopted by the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development. (6- 16 -88; 12- 16 -04.) NO W THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that the amendment and reenactment of Chapter 4, Buildings, Article III, Inspections shall be effective as of July 1, 2010. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. irQ 1I Supervisor Wright moved that the Board return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 11 Chairman Bradshaw called for Citizens Comments. Donna Trudell requested that the Board approve the request of Tropical Smoothie Cafe for two (2) facade signs. 1/ Chairman Bradshaw called for comments from the Board. There were no comments offered. 1/ Chairman Bradshaw called for the County Attorney's report. Interim County Attorney Burton requested public hearing authorization to advertise an Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Isle of Wight County Code by Amending and Reenacting Chapter 6. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Article III. Land - Disturbing Permit. Section 6 -16. Penalties, Injunctions and Other Legal Action. Supervisor Wright moved that the County Attorney's office be authorized to advertise the Ordinance for public hearing at the Board's August 19, 2010 meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Interim County Attorney Burton requested the Board authorize the Board to execute the Franchise Extension Agreement with Charter Communications VI, LLC. Supervisor Casteen moved that the Chairman be authorized to execute the Franchise Extension Agreement on behalf of the Board. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. M Interim County Attorney Burton advised that he had four (4) matters to discuss with the Board in closed meeting. ll Chairman Bradshaw called for the Community Development report. The application of DF -I Carrollton, LLC, applicant and owner, to appeal the Development Review Committee (DRC) motion from May 4, 2010 to deny the applicant's request for two (2) facade signs for Tropical Smoothie Cafe. Supervisor Clark moved that the application of DF -I Carrollton, LLC be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 1l Chairman Bradshaw called for the Parks and Recreation report. Mark W. Furlow, Director of Parks and Recreation, requested authorization to fill a vacant Recreation Specialist position which has been vacant since May 7, 2010. Chairman Bradshaw moved that the Director of Parks and Recreation be authorized to fill the vacant Recreation Specialist position in the amount of $27,333. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. With respect to a concern expressed by Supervisor Wright, Mr. Furlow explained the particulars associated with a recent bid for lawn mowers. Chairman Bradshaw advised that it is the Board's consensus and policy that the Board wants to do business locally. He stated that if a local business is within 5% of the low bid, they will have the opportunity to adjust their bid and if a local vendor does not meet the specs, staff is to contact them because normally a mistake has been made. H Chairman Bradshaw called for the Economic Development report. Lisa T. Perry, Director of Economic Development, advised that a skeleton crew remains at the IP plant, to include contract workers who have been brought in to assist in preparing the plant for full closure. She advised 30 that on -going maintenance continues to preserve the critical infrastructure and assets onsite. She advised that the onsite IP employee transition center closed the last day of June and Opportunity, Inc. has moved all related services to the regional Workforce Development Center at PDCCC. She advised that Randy Betz has conducted an informal survey which indicates that approximately 330 of the displaced workers have either begun new jobs or have accepted new job offers; over 50 companies, businesses and government agencies have hired former IP workers with the largest number going to the Shipyard in Newport News; over 120 have accepted job offers as of today and, of those, over 100 have actively begun working. She advised that IP has also relocated a number of hourly and salaried workers to other plants within the IP system and that a number of employees have opted to retire. She advised that seven (7) of the displaced workers have either begun new or expanded existing small businesses. She advised that IP contacts for the County have not been communicating with staff lately. She advised that the sawmill is not for sale. She advised that she would check to see if the Franklin Equipment Company's machinery and tools have been sold. Chairman Bradshaw recommended that Ms. Perry contact the new IP corporate communications employee. Ms. Perry provided an overview on the Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park project. Ms. Perry advised that the distribution project staff was competing for has not made a location announcement on this project and staff remains hopeful. She advised that staff has responded to two (2) comprehensive requests for information within the last week for large manufacturing projects involving significant investment and job creation. She advised that the Virginia Port Authority has requested detailed information on the Intermodal Park for a prospect meeting in hopes of luring an expanding port related company to Virginia. Ms. Perry provided an update on the status of the proposed Naval Airfield Proposal. Ms. Perry advised that the City of Franklin has submitted a letter of interest and on April 22, 2010, representatives of the City of Franklin and airport management met with Navy representatives to get an overview on the proposed project and to offer a tour of the existing airfield. She advised that, to date, no commitments have been made and in August the Navy is scheduled to release detailed Requests for Proposals from interested airfields to be included in the site selection process. 11 Chairman Bradshaw called for the County Administrator's report. Donald T. Robertson, Director of Information Resources and Legislative Affairs, briefed the Board on the Governor's reform initiative. He advised that a Committee has been appointed to deal with 31 intergovernmental relations with focus on regional opportunities, restructuring of tax reform and the Dillon Rule. H Supervisor Wright moved that the Board extend its meeting past 11:00 p.m. The motion was adopted by a vote of (4 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion; no Supervisors voting against the motion; and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote. 11 County Administrator Caskey presented a request from the Treasurer to fill a vacant position within that office. Supervisor Hall moved that the Treasurer's request to fill a vacant Deputy Clerk position within that office be approved. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Diane Jones, Communications Center Manager, requested permission to fill two (2) of three (3) vacant dispatch positions in the Emergency Communications Center. Supervisor Casteen moved that the Emergency Communications Manager be authorized to fill two (2) of the three (3) vacant position in the Emergency Communications Center. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. County Administrator Caskey advised that he would be bringing the 2009 -2010 Strategic Plan back to the Board at its August 19, 2010 meeting for discussion. County Administrator Caskey advised that the Board was distributed a report entitled FY -11 Funding for the County Events Committee prior to the meeting tonight for its consideration. Supervisor Clark moved that the Board allocate funds in the amount of $3,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance of the General Fund. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 1/ Chairman Bradshaw called for Appointments. 32 Supervisor Wright moved that Ruth Hartsfield be appointed to represent the Windsor District on the Commission on Aging. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Hall moved that David Moose be appointed to represent the Hardy District on the Wetlands Board, replacing Charles W. White. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. H Chairman Bradshaw called for Old Business. Regarding Sheriff's Phelps' earlier request to fill one (1) County - funded position within that Department, Supervisor Clark moved to approve the request to fill the vacant position. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Regarding the Smithfield Water Agreement, Supervisor Casteen moved that the matter be returned to the Board at its August 19, 2010 meeting with an accompanying appropriation resolution. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 1l Chairman Bradshaw called for New Business. There was no new business offered for discussion by the Board. H Supervisor Clark requested that a property acquisition matter be added to the closed meeting. 11 Chairman Bradshaw declared a recess. H Interim County Attorney Burton requested a closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.7 of the Code of Virginia regarding consultation with 33 legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to SPSA; pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.3 regarding consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to the acquisition of real property in the Windsor Magisterial District; pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.7 regarding consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to Bojangles; pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.7 regarding consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to probable litigation; pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.3 regarding consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to the sale and acquisition of real property in the agricultural districts in the County; and, pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711.A.3 regarding consultation with legal counsel requiring the provision of legal advice pertaining to the acquisition of real property in the Windsor District. Supervisor Casteen moved that the Board enter the closed meeting for the reasons stated by Interim County Attorney Burton. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board return to open session. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Wright moved that the Board adopt the following Resolution: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.2- 3712.D of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE AYES: Bradshaw, Casteen, Clark, Hall and Wright NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 H Rick Bodson recommended that all future public hearings in which the subject matter may be considered contentious and need clarification be anticipated beforehand and that staff turn towards the audience and explain the context of the application and how it will fit into the vision of the County. He advised the Board, regarding his perception of how the Board had conducted its meeting, that lecturing those in the audience and other fellow Board members is inappropriate. II At 11:25 p.m., Supervisor Hall moved that the Board adjourn its meeting. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5 -0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Clark, Casteen, Hall and Wright voting in favor of the motion, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. M