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