Loading...
11-21-1991 Regular Meeting~~~K a_~ ~~~~ ~~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER IN THE YEAR NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY ONE PRESENTS Henry H. Bradby, Chairman Joel C. Bradshaw, Jr., Vice Chairman Steven W. Edwards Thomas L. Ross Richard L. Turner Also Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney Myles E. Standish, County Administrator W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County Administrator/Community Development Donald T. Robertson, Assistant to the County Administrator Carey H. Mills, Assistant Clerk Chairman Bradby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The invocation was delivered by Supervisor Edwards. // Chairman Bradby called for a public hearing on the followings Resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount, of $18,000,000 Resolution authorizing going to the bond market and securing the first $10,000 before December 31, 1991 Pamela Edwards, School Board Chairman, made introductory remarks thanking the Board for their diligence in making the bond issue a reality. Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in favor. Amy Linnard of Windsor urged the Board to fully .fund construction for the two proposed schools in the County. Dr. Winter, Acting Superintendent for Isle of Wight County Schools, commended the Board for their efforts in funding the two new school construction projects. Bob Leber of Carrollton stated he was in favor of going to the bond market because it was an opportune time to look at financing because of interest rates. Dr. Morlino, former School Superintendent retired, appeared in favor of the issuance of school bonds and urged the Board to issue at least the amount indicated in the resolutions. Connie Carter of Windsor appeared in favor of going to the bond market. Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in opposition. Mr. Olson stated that although he was concerned about the County and the welfare of the citizens, he was also concerned about the timing of going to the bond market. Mr. Olson urged the Board to wait until all questions have been addressed and the Board is satisfied with the size, 'scope and cost before making the decision to enter the bond market for a realistic construction program. ,•, sorK ~4 . ~c. X35 ~ Ralph Caldwell of the Hardy District stated his concern was that the County did not know yet what it was buying. Chairman Bradby called for comments by the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw stated the Board was very concerned with education and the building of new schools and he did not want the public to think the Board was not taking action in this direction, but .that he also had questions he wanted answered by the School Board concerning the location of the new school in the southern end of the County. Supervisor Bradshaw further stated he was not satisfied with the way the School Board was going about the school construction process. Supervisor Turner stated he supports public education, although he would like to see a plan for the next five or ten years rather than the one or two year plan he has been seeing. Supervisor Turner further stated: he was not aware of a plan showing what the needs will be in the future, but that the County needs a total plan for the development of the total education system. Supervisor Turner continued he had originally set a maximum of $18,000,000, but clarified that that figure was a maximum of total expenditures of two schools; therefore, he would not be in favor of supporting the resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $18,000,000, but would support the resolution authorizing $10,000,000 in school bonds in 1991. Supervisor Edwards expressed concern that the School Board was much further along with one school than the other and he was also concerned about discussions relating to "if the County does $10,000,000 in bonds now and $8,000,000 later, then the School Board will have enough money to build at least one school". Supervisor Edwards .stated he wanted to see both schools bid out simultaneously; otherwise, he is afraid that only one school will be constructed with talk about how the County will need another high school in the southern end of the County in the future. Supervisor Edwards further stated it was his preference to proceed with putting the bonds out and proceed with building a first-rate educational system in the County. Supervisor Ross stated the message has gotten through to the School Board that the Board of Supervisors will not turn the money loose until the County knows. what it is purchasing. Supervisor Ross further stated the Board was not hesitating on the matter, it was the way the situation has taken shape and trying to get the money to perform what needs to be done. Supervisor Ross continued he was in favor of going to the bond market for $10,000,000, but no money will be spent until the County knows what it is buying. Chairman Bradby stated he was very concerned about the public school system in the County, but he could not see funding the projects until the cost is known for both schools. Chairman Bradby stated it was not a good business practice to proceed without knowing the cost. Chairman Bradby continued when the cost is provided, he will be ready to move in the direction of funding the schools. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he would be in favor of denying the resolutions tonight to give the School Board an opportunity to bring necessary information concerning the location of the school in the southern end of the County to the Board. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he wanted both schools to be :built. e~oK . ~4 ;~~;r ~J ~ Supervisor Ross stated any money received for school construction through the bond market would remain with the County, not with the School Board who could not use it until they showed the Board what it will be used for. Supervisor Ross further stated only then would the Board approve providing the funds for the School Board. Supervisor Turner stated the present issue was how best to enter the bond market to satisfy the needs of building the schools and that the financial advisor suggested the County entering the bond market in two phases for the building of two schools with the first being $10,000,000. Supervisor Turner further stated this amount was not limiting it to one school, it was just the first step in the total process, and after construction begins, the .County would go back to the bond market to get the additional money necessary. Supervisor Turner concluded that going to the bond market for the total amount at one time was not recommended by the financial advisor. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he would be in favor of proceeding provided that two schools were mentioned in the motion. Supervisor Turner moved that the Board approve the resolution authorizing going to the bond market and securing the first $10,000,000 before December 31, 1991 for the construction of two schools in Isle of Wight County with the remaining funds to go in a second bonding when the total bid is in. Supervisor Ross explained there were two resolutions before the Board and that they should be taken in .the order given and moved that the resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $18,000,000 be rejected. Supervisor Turner stated he would withdraw his motion. County Administrator Standish stated. the first resolution authorizes the issuance of bonds in a total amount and if the Board preferred not to make the amount $18,000,000, the Board should amend it to a different amount and then adopt it. County Administrator explained both resolutions needed to be adopted in that sequence and the first resolution set the amount of money the Board wants to borrow and the second resolution indicates the amount the Board wishes to go to the market for now. Supervisor Edwards questioned if the Board reduced the first resolution from $18,000,000 to $10,000,000, what is the need for the second resolution. County Administrator Standish replied that the second resolution specifies this particular bond issue going to the market in the next couple of weeks. County Attorney Crook stated there was a difference between a resolution of intent and a resolution to issue and the Board had previously adopted a motion to initiate the process for $18,000,000 in bonds. Supervisor Ross stated then the Board should cap the first resolution at $10,000,000 if the Board wanted to approve $10,000,000 and go to the bond. market. County Attorney Crook explained the. Board would leave the ., ~~C~M .~ ~ ~~° C.7~ first resolution at $18,000,00 and go to the bond market at $10,000,000. County Attorney Crook stated the Board. would then come back for the next resolution at a later time. Supervisor Turner moved. that the Board adopt the following resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds in the maximum amount of $1.8,000,000 with the stipulation that this is still in keeping with the Board's original motion of $18,000,000 as a total cap for both schools: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SCHOOL BONDS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $18,000,000 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10 (b) of Article VII of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 15.1-227.40 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), has elected, by the affirmative vote of the qualified voters of the County, to be treated as a city for the purpose of issuing its bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY,. VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County determines that it is advisable to undertake. various school projects, including .site acquisition, planning, design, construction, renovation, expansion, equipping and furnishing of public schools and related facilities, and to ,borrow money for such purpose and issue the County's general obligation bonds therefor. 2. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended., there are authorized to be issued school bonds of the County in the maximum amount of $18,000,000 to provide funds, together with other available funds, to finance various school projects, including site acquisition, planning, design, construction, renovation, expansion, equipping and furnishing of public schools and related facilities. 3. The bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature. at such. time or times not exceeding 40 years from their date, bear interest at such rate or rates, be in such denominations' and form, be executed in such manner and be sold at such time or times and in such manner as the Board may hereafter provide by appropriate. resolution or resolutions. 4. The bonds shall be general obligations of the County for the .payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on which its full faith and credit shall be irrevocably pledged.. 5. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in collaboration with the County Attorney, is authorized and directed to see to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this resolution in the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The motion passed (4-1) with all members voting in favor except Chairman Bradby who voted against the motion. Supervisor Turner then moved the Board approve .the following resolution authorizing going to the bond market and securing the ~~~K 14 ~~~ b~3 first $1.0,000,000 before December 31, 1991: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $10,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES OF 1991, OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on the date hereof, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds of the County in the maximum amount of $18,000,000 to provide funds, together with other available funds, to finance various school projects, including site acquisition, planning, design, construction, renovation, expansion, equipping and furnishing of public schools and related facilities, none of which bonds have been issued and sold; and, WHEREAS, the County had determined to issue $10,000,000 of such bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. Issuance and Sale. There are authorized to be issued and sold $10,000,000 of the general obligation bonds described above. 2. Bond Details. The bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Public School Bonds, Series of 1991, (the "Bonds"), shall be dated December 15, 1991, shall be in denominations of $5,000 and multiples thereof, and shall be numbered R-1 upward. The Bonds shall mature on January 1 in each of the years 1993 to 2012, inclusive, in amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1993 $150,000 2003 $500,000 1994 200,000 2004 550,000 1995 200,000 2005 600,000 1996 200,000 2006 650,000 1997 250,000 2007 700,000 1998 250,000 2008. 750,000 1999 300,000. 2009 800,000 2000 350,000 2010 850,000 2001 400,000 2011 900,000 2002 450,000 2012 950,000 The Bonds shall bear interest at such rates as shall be determined at the time of sale, computed on a basis of twelve months of 30 days each. Interest on each Bond shall be payable semiannually on each January 1 and July 1, beginning on July 1, 1992, (a) from December 15, 1991, if such Bond is authenticated prior to July 1, 1992, or (b) otherwise from the January 1 or July 1 that is, or immediately precedes, the date on which it is authenticated (unless payment of interest thereon is in default, in which case such Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid). Principal and premium, if any, shall be .payable to the registered owners upon surrender of Bonds as they become due at the principal corporate trust office of Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia (the "Registrar"). Interest shall be payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as they 6~~h _~.~ ;.~' ~~ -appear on the registration books kept by the Registrar on the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date. Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United State of America. 3. Redemption Provisions. Bonds maturing on or before January 1, 2002, are not subject to redemption prior to maturity. Bonds maturing on or after January 1, 2003, are subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the County on or after January 1, 2002, in whole at any time or in part on any interest payment date, upon payment of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed plus interest accrued and unpaid to the redemption date and a redemption premium of one-quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1~) of such principal amount for each six-month period, or part thereof, between the redemption date and the stated maturity dates of the Bonds to be redeemed, provided that the redemption premium shall not exceed 2$ of such principal amount. If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the County's chief financial officer in such manner as he or she may determine to be in the best interest of the County. If less than all the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed within such maturity shall be selected by the registrar by lot. in either case, (a) the portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some multiple thereof and (b) in .selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be considered as representing that number of Bonds which is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. The County shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to ba redeemed to be sent by registered or certified mail, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at its, address as it appears on the registration books. kept by the Registrar. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion thereof shall be issued to the registered owner upon .the surrender thereof. 4. Execution and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice- Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and the County's seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon. No Bond signed by facsimile signatures shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon. 5. Bond Form. .The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form• REGISTERED REGISTERED No. R- S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY General Obligation School Bond, Series of 199 1 INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP January 1, December 15, 1991 REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), for value received, hereby promises to pay, upon surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office of Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia (the "Registrar"), to the registered owner hereof, or registered assigns or legal representative, the principal sum stated above on the maturity date stated above, subject to prior redemption as hereinafter provided, .and to pay interest hereon semiannually on each January land July 1, beginning July 1, 1992, at the annual rate stated above, computed on a basis of twelve months of 30 days each.. Interest is payable~(a) from December 15, 1991, if this bond is authenticated prior to July 1,-1992, or (b) otherwise from the January 1 or July 1 that is, or immediately precedes, the date on which this bond is authenticated (unless payment of interest hereon is in default, in which case this bond shall be interest from the date to which interest has been paid). Interest is payable by check or draft mailed to the person or the entity shown as owner hereof at its address as it appears on the registration books kept by the Registrar on the 15th day of the month preceding each interest payment date. Principal, premium, if any, and .interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BOND ARE CONTINUED ON THE REVERSE HEREOF, AND SUCH CONTINUED PROVISIONS SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF SET FORTH ON THE FACE HEREOF. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have happened, exist and have been performed, and the issue of bonds of which this bond is one, together with all other indebtedness of-the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This bond shall not be valid until the Registrar shall have executed the Certificate of Authentication appearing hereon and inserted the date of authentication hereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Isle of Wight County, Virginia, has caused this bond to be signed by the facsimile signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, to be countersigned by the facsimile signature of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, a facsimile of its seal to be printed hereon, and this bond to be dated December 15, 1991. ..The motion was adopted (4-1) with all members voting in favor except Chairman Bradby who voted against the motion.. Chairman Bradby called for a public hearing on the followings Abandonment of a portion of Route 608 by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County Administrator/Community Development, stated at the October 31, 1991 meeting of the Board it was agreed to set a public hearing for the proposed abandonment of a portion of Route 608 being named Tyler Drive lying between Route 635, being named Dunston Drive, and the Isle of Wight. City of Suffolk boundary lines. Mr. Caskey further stated as required by statute for the abandonment of a public roadway, notice of such proposal has been appropriately posted at the front of the County Courthouse since October 8, 1991 and further public notices have been published for two consecutive weeks in the Tidewater News and the Times with copies of public notices included in the Board's agenda package. Mr. Caskey continued this portion of roadway is abutted on either side by properties owned by Norfolk & Western and represents acreage in approximately 913 acres proposed to be developed as a coal storage facility. Mr. Caskey stated the Board had previously separately approved a conditional rezoning application and a Special Use Permit for the proposed facility at its meetings of January 10, 1991 and February 7, 1991. Mr. Caskey further stated the Board had been forwarded previously a traffic study report which has been reviewed by County. staff via the Director of Transportation for the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission and the Resident Engineer of VDOT with comments of the Resident Engineer of VDOT distributed to the Board. Mr. Caskey read the following into the record from the County Planner, R. Bryan David: MEMORANDUM DATE: October 23, 1991 T0: W. Douglas Caskey Assistant County Administrator/Community Development FROM: R. Bryan David County Planner REs Route 608 Traffic Study Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the above-referenced and would like to offer the following comments: The study points to the obvious need for closing Route 608 as there will be five ( 5 ) railroad crossings when the facility is built-out and vehicular traffic at these crossings will be impeded by train traffic as well as by operation of the stacker/reclaimer and its conveyers; Since Route 608 will need to be closed, the alternatives presented range from total abandonment to relocation of the road, with Norfolk Southern opting for the former, and apparently, VDOT's desire for the latter given Mac Neblett's recent revelation; The average daily traffic count of 1.95 vehicles per day appears to be significantly less than the Mac Neblett'a recent, and off the cuff, statement of VDOT's estimate. of 400 vehicles per day; The assignment of 10 vehicles per day for through traffic on Route 608 from occupied dwellings located at either end of this road and adjacent to the Norfolk Southern property may be low (bottom of page 5); however, I do not have any technical foundation for reaching this observation.;. The traffic assignment analysis at the bottom of page 8 highlights the fact that there will be minimal increases in travel time with closure versus relocation of Route 608; Given these minimal increases in travel times it is my opinion that relocation, and its attendant cost, should not be considered as a viable alternative in this matter; and, These comments relative to the traffic assignment analysis must be qualified because it only uses projected traffic volumes on Route 607 and 609/610 for 1991 and it does not project future traffic volumes, along with the correspondent levels of service, given a closed and not relocated Route 608. I am not sure such future projections can be reasonably obtained, but one should keep in mind that the land surrounding the facility is within the County's Central Development Service District. In summary, I concur with the findings that "Allocation of land and funds for such a relocation (Route 608) would not produce benefits...corresponding to the costs". I would also add that the consultant should be prepared to defend their traffic count and volume projections given Mac Neblett's recent comments. Mr. Caskey read the following into the record from the Director of Transportation, Dwight L. Farmer, P.E.: November 14, 1991 Mr. W. Douglas Caskey Assistant County Administrator/ Community Development Post Office Box 80 Isle of Wight, Virginia. 23397 RE: Windsor Coal (THY:Windsor Coal) Dear Doug: In regard to your request of October 7, 1991, I would like to offer the following comments. I have reviewed the TRAFFIC STUDY ORIGIN/DESTINATION Report on Route 608. The study methodologies used by the consultant appear to be appropriate and accurately reflect the impact of the. closure of Route 608.. It is my observation that the number of vehicles travelling ,through the area is relatively low. The assessment of the impact on changes in traffic patterns and the additional delay encountered by existing traffic appears to be correct. In addition, I agree with the conclusion that the alternative routes should not experience any measurable degradation in level of service of congestion. If we can be of additional assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call.. Sincerely, Dwight L. Farmer, P.E. Director of Transportation c" 3 aoo~ 14 ~~,;,- .~~ Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in favor. Judy Begland, Director of Economic Development, stated based upon her review of the study performed by McDonald and Langley concerning alternatives for that section of Route 608 under discussion, she did not .believe there would be any adverse effects on future economic development opportunities by the proposed abandonment of Route 608. Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in opposition. Connie Carter stated she lived at Route 636 which intersects with Route 608 and was opposed to the proposed abandonment for the convenience of Norfolk and Southern. MacFarland Neblett, Resident Engineer -with the Virginia Department of Transportation stated VDOT supported industrial and commercial development in the County; however, the abandonment of any road serving the public is a serious matter ~ which may cause problems for .the citizens of the Commonwealth. Mr. Neblett further stated that for this reason, the General Assembly has. made limited provisions for the abandonment of secondary roads and there are. provisions for abandonment of a road for specific public purposes; however, VDOT is not aware of any provisions for the outright abandonment of a road for private or commercial purposes. Mr. Neblett continued Section. 33.1-155 of the Virginia Code permits the abandonment of a road when a new road which serves the same citizens as the old road is constructed and accepted by VDOT and the new road must be accepted before the abandonment of the old road. Mr. Neblett stated this procedure has previously been recommended by VDOT and is still supported as a way of moving the existing road and allowing the proposed coal storage facility to be built. Mr. Neblett further stated many abandonments are carried. out pursuant to Section 33.1-151.. of the Code of Virginia and for all counties except Fairfax County, this section provides that a secondary road may be abandoned only because it has ceased to be used or because of the safety and welfare of the public is at risk. Mr. Neblett continued it is VDOT's position that neither of these conditions holds true for Route 608 and therefore the abandonment may be unlawful and a decision by the County to abandon Route 608 outright may be appealed to the Circuit Court under Section 33.1- 152 of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Neblett advised that even if Route 608 were to be abandoned, the right of way of the road belongs to the Commonwealth and may not be used for .other purposes without conveyance of the property by deed pursuant to Section 33.1-154. Mr. Neblett concluded that VDOT supports economic development efforts in the County, but cannot support outright abandonment of Route 608 in the County, unless a new road which serves the same citizens as the old, is constructed and accepted into the secondary system. Supervisor Bradshaw stated the road would no longer be useful because of the trains delaying traffic for long periods of time. Supervisor Turner stated there would be a risk if the road was left in place and railroad crossings were installed. Mr. Neblett reiterated that VDOT could accept abandonment of the existing road if a relocated road were built which would not have any road crossings. Mr. Neblett admitted there would be "a risk if the existing road were left as it is and. railroad crossings installed as mentioned. Supervisor Turner asked if VDOT could require Norfolk Southern to build another road if Route 608 was deemed dangerous. Mr. Neblett replied yes if VDOT determined that Route 608 was a safety risk and endangered the lives of motorists. Supervisor Turner pointed out that if VDOT determined Route 608 a risk, then the County would be in compliance with abandonment. Supervisor Turner stated the County Code explains a road c:an be abandoned if it becomes a risk to the health and welfare of the public and he felt Route 608 would be a risk and supported abandoning it. Supervisor Bradshaw stated there was no purpose for building another road along the side of Route 608 because it would split citizens' farms up. Mr. Neblett stated Route 608 was not a risk at the present time because there were no railroad crossings installed, but when the railroad crossings are built, there could be a risk. County Attorney Crook stated he had written a letter earlier on this matter for County staff as had Attorney Robert Powell for Norfolk and Western. County Attorney Crook further stated the statute was capable of two interpretations concerning when a road can be abandoned.- A road can be abandoned if it is no longer needed or used and it is a safety hazard. County Attorney Crook continued there is a provision which allows abandonment under certain conditions which seem to only fit Fairfax County. He stated further that the point has been made if five railroad crossings are installed along that short span of road, it will create a dangerous situation. County Attorney Crook stated there is no simple yes or no answer to this and that the matter may end up in court requiring a judicial decision. William K. Barlow, attorney representing Norfolk and Southern Railroad, stated Norfolk and Southern is in the process of going before the various governmental agencies and receiving their approval for necessary permits.. Mr. Barlow further stated the Board had three choices: (1) let the matter continue on as it is, which would create a traffic hazard, (2) abandon a segment and have ultimate route around the railroad which would create a considerable expense for Norfolk and Southern, and (3) abandon Route 608, which is the preferable solution to the matter. Mr. Barlow concluded that this solution would provide benefits to both Norfolk, and Southern and the County because Norfolk and Southern had indicated that it would share in the savings of the cost of this new alternative route in the amount of .$500,000 payable over a period of ten years and the rate of $50,000 per year to be used by the County for. other public improvements which would be a significant aid to the taxpayers of the County.. Robert Powell., attorney .representing Norfolk and Southern, stated there are two methods for. closing roads in Virginia which are set out in the statute. Mr. Powell further stated Mr. Neblett referred to one method of road closure under Section 33.1-155 which is a method by which a road can be closed with another road being constructed to take its place which has to be in place and accepted by VDOT. Mr. Powell continued this type of abandonment is under Section 33.1-151 of the County Code which states the governing body of any county on its own motion may cause any section of the secondary section of highways deemed by it to be no longer ~, r, H~~"n ~_4 ~,;i. ~~~.~ necessary for the uses of the secondary system of highways to be abandoned altogether as a public road. Mr. Powell stated the code went on to say that if the Board after a public hearing is satisfied that no public necessity exists for. the continuance of the secondary road as a public road or that the safety and welfare of .the public would be served best by abandoning the section of road, it shall enter an order of abandonment. Mr. Powell further stated under Section 33.1-153 it states in case of the abandonment of any section of road under the provisions of this article, such section of road shall, not remain a public road, public landing, or crossing. Attorney Barlow stated that Mr. Neblett appropriately sought the advice of representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation in Richmond regarding the matter and is relaying their cautious position. Attorney Barlow further stated. he endorsed the comments of Attorney Powell though and felt this was a non-controversial matter with only one person appearing in opposition. Bryant B. Goodloe, Vice President with Langley & McDonald, stated his firm was requested by Norfolk & Western Railway to provide information regarding alternatives for the matter. Mr. Goodloe further stated a report dated February 27, 1991. was provided to the Board which was the latest traffic study and origin destination for the project and the methods used were in accordance with the American Association of State Highway Officials. Mr. Goodloe continued the study has been reviewed by the County, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Southeastern Public Service Authority and was based on existing traffic counts... Mr. Goodloe stated a seven-day traffic count was performed which allowed weekend traffic to be considered and appropriate information was averaged and it was found that an average of 195 vehicles per day currently .traveled the road. Mr. Goodloe further stated 78 vehicles were measured which would travel through the existing road which would be impacted and that an additional 10 vehicles were added to make the study valid which would make a total of 88 vehicles being impacted. Mr. Goodloe continued four homes were now vacated since the study was performed. William. J. Whitney, Jr., Vice President of Talbot & Associates, stated his firm has been involved with the site for approximately two years in which during that time very extensive environmental analyses were performed. Mr. Whitney further stated as part of these investigations, his firm has conducted all of the wetland delineations, once .under the manual used by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency known at that time as the 1989 Delineation Manual and most recently using the 1987 Corps. of Engineers manual, which is the prevailing manual for delineating wetlands in use by these agencies today.. Mr. Whitney continued the road issue was looked at, particularly with respect to evaluating from the environmental standpoint, the alternatives available to deal with any displaced traffic caused by .the abandonment. Mr. Whitley stated it was his firm's estimation that if Route 608 was abandoned with a relocation requirement, it would necessitate the destruction of approximately two acres of jurisdictional wetlands using the 1987 manual and approximately nine acres using the 1989 manual. Mr. Whitney further stated a relocated road would destroy approximately six areas of farms fields now in existence and seven acres of forested uplands along that same corridor. Mr. Whitney continued it was his firm's conclusion that relocation of Route 608 would represent the most environmental damage of the alternatives available and it would not ~;: ~ ~n~~ 1.4 : ~~. ~~~ be in the public interest from an environmental standpoint to relocate Route 608. S. Bruce Wingo, Virginia Resident Vice President for Norfolk Southern and Chairman of the Virginia Operation Lifesaver Council, stated should Route 608 stay in its present location, five additional crossings would need to be built and Virginia averages approximately seventy-five crashes a year resulting in forty to forty-five injuries in five municipalities across the State. Mr. Wingo stated his Council encourages reducing exposure at grade crossings and encourages closing them, if possible. Mr. Wingo further stated signalization is not the answer because statistics show that over 50$ of the crashes happen at crossings with lights and gates and therefore it would be in the public welfare and safety to abandon Route 608. Lynn B. Dutton, in-house counsel for Norfolk and Western, stated that no one appeared tonight at the public hearing to state they needed or wanted to retain Route 608 either in its present form or in a relocated form. Ms. Dutton further stated Mrs. Carter, a citizen of the County, did state she was opposed, but she was opposed to the project itself. Ms. Dutton continued there is no public necessity to retain this segment of road nor is there any benefit to the public safety and welfare to retain it. Ms. Dutton further stated if the road is abandoned, the public welfare would be served by sharing cost savings that would result from not having to build another section of road. Ms. Dutton continued we are all aware of the impact on wetlands and the requested abandonment was not for the convenience of Norfolk and Southern, but for the safety and welfare of the County. Ms. Dutton stated if Norfolk and Southern were required to build a road, Norfolk and Southern was prepared to do it, but Norfolk and Southern may have to purchase additional land from the State and before the permits are obtained, Norfolk and Southern would need to know in what direction to proceed because they did not want additional delay. Ms. Dutton urged the Board to approve the abandonment of Route 608 which would serve the best interests of the citizens and that the traffic study prepared by Langley & McDonald be accepted as part of the record. County Attorney Crook stated that he was concerned about proper notice having been given under the statute. He stated that he had checked with Mr. Standish and was informed that the notice had been posted at the Courthouse and published in the newspapers. Mr. Standish further informed him that written notice had been given to Mr. Neblett, Resident Engineer of VDOT. County Attorney Crook stated that the statute provides for thirty-days' notice be given to the Transportation Board or Transportation Commissioner. Since the courts strictly construe statutory notice requirements, it is his advice to the Board that the matter be tabled to allow the thirty-days' notice be given to the Transportation Board. Supervisor Turner moved the Board table the matter thirty days in order to give the Commonwealth Transportation Board official notice of intent. The motion. passed unanimously (5-0). // At 8:50 P.M., Supervisor Turner moved that the Board take a ten-minute recess. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Supervisor Turner left the meeting and did not return. // 8~~~~ ~ 4 '~~.~ ~~7 Chairman Bradby called the meeting back to order at 9s00 P.M. and called for Citizens Comments. Robert Leber of the Newport District, stated he would like to address the Board concerning the proposed renovation of the second. floor of the old Smithfield High School building to accommodate the Smithfield Branch of Paul D. Camp Community College. Mr. Leber further stated he has served on an Advisory Committee with the purpose of assisting Paul D. Camp Community College in selecting and developing courses to be provided by the college for the citizens in the northern end of the County and the demand for such courses has increased each semester along with requests for new courses which have been conducted in various locations in the Smithfield area. Mr. Leber stated based on the demand demonstrated for these types of job-related courses, it has been become important to find a consolidated facility for the college and it is anticipated in the long term that this demand will lead to a permanent college facility in the County; however, in :the near term, it has been recommended that the second floor of the old. Smithfield High School be used as a cost effective step for providing a central facility in the County. Mr. Leber continued funding the old Smithfield High School renovation had been discussed by the Board and in turn, the college leasing the space from the County; however, due to State funding cutbacks, the college does not have the necessary money to make this type of long-term .leasing commitments. Mr. Leber stated he was before the Board tonight representing the Advisory Committee in requesting the Board to set aside necessary funds for renovating .,the second floor of the old Smithfield High School. Mr. Leber urged the Board to approve a commitment to provide the estimated $400-,000 for the renovation project in the 1992-93 budget, authorize the immediate beginning of the selection process for an architect to complete the design phase of the project and develop the bid package for renovation and approval to commit to Paul D. Camp Community College that the County will provide the branch facility by 1993 to allow the Smithfield branch to be included in appropriate grant requests. David Hardy stated continuing education is an important asset for the County and in order for the County to meet the demands and. needs, it is a must for the County to provide such services to the citizens. Mr. Hardy urged the Board to support funding of the proposed renovation to the old Smithfield High School second floor. Robert Manley, President of the Isle of Wight Smithfield Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber strongly supported the County's efforts to renovate the old Smithfield High School and provide a facility for Paul D. Camp Community College. Mr. Manley. further stated the project would be an asset to the entire County and a significant contribution to residents. Thomas Fenderson of the Newport District stated the facility, if approved, would be fully usable and urged the Board to fully support the funding of the renovation to the old Smithfield High School second floor renovation for use by the Paul D. Camp Community College. Supervisor Bradshaw requested the total amount of funding being requested. Mr. Leber replied approximately $440,000 of which $40,000 was for the architect and the creation of the bid package. Mr. Leber stated the renovation was estimated to be approximately $400,000. Supervisor Bradshaw requested the Town of Smithfield's share of the cost to renovate the second floor of the old high school building.. Mr. Leber stated he would need guidance from the County to determine the amount of Smithfield's share. County Administrator Standish replied the Town of Smithfield has not been approached yet. Supervisor Ross stated he supports the involvement of Paul D. Camp Community College in the area and asked when the County would be informed of any aid through grants that may be available for this type of program. Mr. Leber stated Dr. Barnes had indicated that no grants would be available within the near future from the State. Supervisor Ross stated lack of funding from the State should not be pushed on local governments to accomplish matters that are a responsibility of the Federal,. State and local governments. Supervisor Ross stated that although the facility was needed, he was not sure this was the proper time. Mr. Leber stated with the County financing such a project, the County would control the ownership of the building. Mr. Leber stated the County could petition the General Assembly to make the. project a line item in the 1992 budget. Supervisor Bradshaw asked who would be paying the teachers. Mr. Leber replied it would be the same type of arrangement as is now in existence. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he felt Paul D. Camp Community College may request additional funding from the County in the future if this request was approved. Dr. Rogers stated the only request today was for the County to supply the building and all other expenses would be paid by the State. County Attorney Crook asked if Mr. Leber was requesting the County to do the renovation and pay for it. He further stated that the County should. handle the matter and the funds subject to the requirements of the Procurement Act including. RFPs for architectural services. County Administrator Standish stated proposals would have to be solicited through his office. Supervisor Edwards moved the Board authorize County Administrator Standish to work with Delegate Barlow and other members of the legislative delegation to include funding in .the State budget process in the 1992 January session of the General Assembly and request the Town of Smithfield to participate on a cost-sharing basis. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of those members present. Thomas Braun appeared with complaints regarding stray animals and requested the County to revise the County Code regarding animal control. Fred Bailey requested an Executive Session .regarding complaints about County employees. County Attorney. Crook advised the Board could go -into Executive Session under Section 2.1-344 Al of the Freedom of Information Act for discussion of personnel as requested by Mr. Bailey. At 10:00 P.M., Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board go into Executive Session for the reason stated by County Attorney Crook. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of those members present. At .10:30 P.M., upon returning to open session, Supervisor Ro$s moved the Board adopt the following resolution:. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened. an executive 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, 2.1-34.4.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such executive 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 executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, .discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 1 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 1 The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of those members present. // Chairman Bradby called for the .Community Development report. W. Douglas Caskey, Assistant County Administrator/Community Development, presented the following applications for the .Board's consideration: A. The application of Floyd L. Turner, IV, for a Conditional Use Permit to locate and occupy a mobile home for a period of thirty-six (36) months while building a_residence on twenty- one (21) acres of land located on the north side of .Peanut Drive (Route 649), between Central Hill Road (Route 637) and Beale Place a~~K Drive (Route 646), District 14 ...~~100 in Hardy Magisterial Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in favor. No one apgeared. Chairman Bradby called for citizens to speak in opposition. No one appeared. Supervisor Ross moved the Board approve the application of Floyd L. Turner. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of those members present. B. The application of Elvira H. Hawkins, owner, and G.T.E. of Virginia, lessee, for a Conditional Use Permit to locate panels for a telephone remote switching station on .13 acres of land located on the south side of ' Brewers Neck Boulevard (Route 258 & 32), near its intersection with Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17) in Newport Magisterial District. Supervisor Ross moved the Board approve the application of Elvira H. Hawkins with the Planning Commission's recommendation that if the wooded acreage surrounding the proposed switching station is developed in the future, then the applicant and/or lessee will .provide appropriate landscaping to visually screen the site from Brewers Neck Boulevard and any surrounding land uses. Furthermore, any such landscaping shall be subject to approval of a landscaping plan by the Department of Community Development. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of those members present. Mr. Caskey stated at the June 6, 1991 meeting, the Board was advised of the need of the production of 10,000 County street name maps for public distribution. Mr. Caskey further stated proposals were requested from two map vendors and a proposal was received from Alexandria Drafting Company. Mr. Caskey continued an interest was expressed from the Chamber of Commerce to purchase 10,000 copies of the street name map which resulted in cost .information being requested from ADC for 20,000 maps. Mr. Caskey stated a contract and specification sheet was received from ADC referencing the printing of 20,000 maps at a total production cost of $13,967. Supervisor Edwards moved the Board authorize County staff to enter into a contract for the production of 20,000 maps with the provision that the Chamber of Commerce will receive 10,000 in exchange for reimbursement to the County of half the cost and will sell the maps as a Chamber exercise. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of those members present.. // Chairman Bradby called for the County Attorney's report. County Attorney Crook stated he had nothing for public discussion. // Chairman Bradby called for the County Administrator's report. E ~~~ K _1.4 ;.;~ ~.0 ~. ~ Supervisor Edwards moved the Board adopt. the following resolution: A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMISSION OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACCEPT AND INCLUDE MARSH VIEW COURT AND DEEP WATER WAY INTO THE VIRGINIA STATE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has this day advised this Board that streets in Brewers Creek Subdivision, Newport Magisterial District, Isle of Wight, Virginia, have been built in accordance with Secondary Road Policies, and the Isle of Wight County Subdivision Ordinance relating to acceptance of streets into the State's Secondary Road System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation is requested to include into the Virginia Secondary Road .System for maintenance. the following described streets in Brewers Creek Subdivision. 1. Marshview Court: Beginning at a point on State Route 661, 0.050 miles north from its intersection with State Route 1907; thence running in an easterly direction 0.29 miles to a cul-de-sac. Length: 0.29 miles Right of way: SO feet Total length: 0.29 miles 2. Deep Water Way: Beginning at a point on Marsh View Court, 0.037 miles east of its intersection with State Route 661; thence running in an southeasterly direction 0.42 miles to a cul-de-sac. Lengths 0.42 miles Right of way: 50 feet Total lengths 0.42 miles Unrestricted rights of way fifty (50) feet in width and additional right of way for the cul-de-sacs, along with the necessary drainage easements have been provided and are on record. in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court at Isle of Wight County in Plat Book No. 14, Pages 5, 6, 7, Slide 375, April 3, 1989. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of those members present. Supervisor Edwards moved the Board adopt the following resolutions RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT DOLLARS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the School Board of the County of Isle of Wight has received grants for various. programs; and, WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of five hundred fifty-nine thousand seven hundred forty-eight dollars ($559,748) need to be appropriated to the following programs in the 1991-92 budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia:. Chapter I Winter Project #046-92-1 $544,175 BOCK ~ ~ ~ N,.: ~ ~~ Special Education Preschool Grant 15,5?3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that five hundred fifty-nine thousand seven hundred forty-eight dollars ($559,748) be appropriated to the programs listed above in the 1991-92 budget of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia. 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 the things necessary to give this resolution effect. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) of~those members present. County Administrator .Standish stated it was necessary for the County to order additional street signs again which was put out to bid. Supervisor Edwards moved the Berard award the contract to the low bidder, Korman Signs, Inc. in the amount of $47,403 for signs, posts and appropriate equipment. The motion passed unanimously (4- 0) of those members present. County Administrator Standish advised the Board he was waiting on final information from the architect on costs for new construction and renovation to the existing Health Department facility. // Chairman Bradby called for New Business. There was no new business offered for discussion. // Chairman Bradby called for Old Business. There was no old business offered for discussion. // Chairman Bradby called for approval of the October 17, 1991 minutes of the Board. Upon recommendation from County Attorney Crook, .Supervisor Edwards moved the Board approve the October 17, 1991 minutes. The motion gassed unanimously (4-0) by those members present.- // At 10:40 P.M., Supervisor Ross moved the Board continue the meeting until December 5, 1991 at 11:15 A.M. for the purpose of receiving bids- on the bonds approved previously for school construction. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) by those members present. Myles ~ Standish, Clerk. Henry H. B adby, Chairman