Loading...
10-19-2000 Regular MeetingTt ~~~~ . 1~;,:.~~61 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER IN THE.. YEAR TWO THOUSAND PRESENT: Phillip A. Bradshaw, Chairman Henry H. Bradby, Vice-Chairman Robert C. Claud, Sr. Stan D. Clark Richard K. MacManus Aiso Attending: H. Woodrow Crook, Jr., County Attorney W. Douglas Casket', County. Administrator Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County Administrator/Director of Human Resources Carey H. Mills, Recording Secretary Chairman Bradshaw called the meeting. to order at 6:00 p.m. The invocation was delivered by Supervisor Claud. The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. // 1 Chairman Bradshaw voted `lea" on the Resolution of Certification of Compliance with the- Freedom of Information Act for the closed session at .the previous meeting as he had left the .meeting prior to the vote on the. resolution. // Chairman Bradshaw called for Special Presentations. Jean Gregory, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) addressed the Board on the .Exceptional Waterways Program and its implementation by DEQ. // J Chairman Bradshaw indicated the following Consent Agenda included Items 2, A through H, and asked if there were any items for removal: A. Resolution. to Accept and Appropriate $13,675 From State Department of Health for the Two-For-Life Program B. Resolution to Accept -and Appropriate $26,970 From State Department of Fire Programs for the Fire Funds Program 1 J 909 ~;1 ~':'~62 C. Resolution of Gift of a 1989 Ford Van to the Carrsville Volunteer Fire Department forUse in Providing Fire. Services D. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate $410,064.43 From the Federal Government for School Programs E. Resolution to Appropriate $501,537 From. the Utility Construction Fund Balance for Various Utility Projects F. 'Isle of Wight County Locality Profile . G. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report H. September 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Minutes Supervisor MacManus requested additional commentary which had occurred be added to the September 21, 2000 regular meeting minutes concerning the issue dealing with -the fine associated with the property located in Gatling Pointe. He specifically requested that "In response to an inquiry from Supervisor MacManus, Mr. Hartley indicated that four (4) .violations had occurred. and the maximum fine possible would be $40,000. Attorney Riddick responded on his client's behalf that the house would be marketed for $335,000. Supervisor MacManus indicated a fine of $16,000 or approximately 5% of the house price appeared appropriate" be .inserted before the first paragraph on page 27. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board adopt all items of the Consent Agenda- with an amendment to the minutes on page 27, before the first paragraph insert "In response to an inquiry from Supervisor MacManus, Mr. Hartley indicated. that four {4) violations had occurred and. the .maximum fine possible would be $40,000. Attorney Riddick responded on his client's behalf that the house would be marketed for $335,000. Supervisor MacManus indicated a fine of $1.6,000 or approximately 5% of the house price appeared appropriate." The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against .the motion. // Chairman Bradshaw called for Transportation Matters. Chairman Bradshaw called for consideration of the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia on Replacement of the Jones Creek (Rescue) Bridge on Route 704 included in the agenda. Supervisor Claud moved the Board adopt. the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 1 II 2 Tt C ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA ON REPLACEMENT OF THE JONES CREEK (RESCUE) BRIDGE ON ROUTE 704 WHEREAS, the existing bridge crossing Jones Creek in Isle of Wight County, Virginia was constructed in 1937 and has deteriorated to the point that requires its replacement with a new bridge for the safety and benefit of the local citizens and businesses; and, WHEREAS, the replacement of the Jones Creek (Rescue) Bridge has been a priority road improvement of the Board of Supervisors for over ten years; and, WHEREAS, construction of a new bridge was begun on 1997 on a new alignment, but was tenminated by the Virginia Department of Transportation due to settlement problems on that alignment; and, WHEREAS, the new Rescue Bridge is now proposed to be built on the existing alignment requiring the closure and demolition of the existing bridge.that provides an important link between the communities of Rescue and Battery Park and the detour of traffic for the duration of construction; and, WHEREAS, THE Board understands that the bridge will be designed for standard weight .limits and may take further action upon completion of the bridge to restrict through truck traffic on segments of Route 704; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the public hearing that was held by Virginia Department of Transportation. on August 1, 2000, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 21, 2000, to receive public comments on this project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, .that the construction of a new bridge on the existing alignment is endorsed by the Board with the understanding that the Virginia Department of Transportation will incorporate the following design criteria and construction contract requirements into this project: L7 1) The height of the bridge will be established at seventeen (17) feet above mean high tide. 2) The design of the bridge and railing system will be redesigned to be sensitive to the historic character of the Rescue and Battery Park communities, as determined appropriate by a review committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. ! ^ 3 BOA ~'J ~I1 :'r i~ i 3) The construction contract .shall include .specific incentives. to encourage the timely completion of the bridge and causeway projects as well as .substantial penalties for exceeding the contracted completion date, not. to exceed eighteen (18) months. 4) The design ..and construction will be undertaken to afford thee. greatest protection possible to .the property owned by William F. a Johnson (Tax Map. # 23A-01-025). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors understands that the additional design measures and contract provisions may increase the cost of the project over the $3.5 million originally projected and that the Board shall be .apprised of such additional costs prior to finalizing the design of the structure and awarding any construction contracts. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, ~, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of-the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus noted the above resolution recites a review committee would be appointed by the Board. He suggested having a follow- up to the resolution to appoint such a committee and that the appointees serving live in the Newport District. Supervisor Clark moved the. Board direct staffto meet with VDOT and request direction on how to proceed with limiting through truck traffic on Route 704. The motion .was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. .Chairman Bradshaw referenced a letter contained in the agenda advising receipt of a letter dated October 11, 2000 from James S. Givens, State Secondary Roads Engineer, advising of the addition of certain roads in Gatling Pointe South and South Johnson Avenue into the State system. Chairman Bradshaw referenced a letter contained in the agenda advising receipt of a letter dated October S, 2000 from MacFarland Neblett, Resident Engineer, regarding the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Route 32/258 (Brewers. Neck Road) and Route 711 (New Towne Haven Lane). // Chairman Bradshaw called for Citizens Comments. Mary Alexander requested the Board look into .declaring a moratorium on all development in the County until the Comprehensive Plan is approved and ordinances are in place. She suggested that a special ordinance be 4 1 n ~~I ~~ D .•, ~~~~,~~ 16 ..;:: X65 adopted, effective today's date, to table developments over ten (10) units that do nothave previously approved master plans for a period of eighteen (18) months. Grace Keen noted. that elderly citizens could not hear the business being conducted by the Board. from the back of the room. Regarding the recent hiring of a replacement for the Public Works Director, Mrs. Keen requested that existing staff be considered for vacant County positions. Henry. Bell thanked the Board for its assistance in having Raynor Road striped. . Bill Hayes of Battery Park .addressed the. Board. concerning No Wake Zones on Jones Creek and the impact on waterways by boats and personal watercraft. Gerianne Gardner requested implementation review of the County's Chesapeake Bay Ordinance by CBLAD. Maria Gardner read a letter on behalf of Julia Brooks in favor of the Board supporting the designation of Ragged Island Creek as an exceptional waterway. // At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Claud moved the Board amend the regular order of the agenda in order to conduct the public hearings. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Chairman Bradshaw called fora public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Adopt A Voluntary Settlement Agreement and to .Authorize the Filing of A Petition in the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County for an Order Establishing the Rights of the Localities as Set Forth Under the Terms of Said Agreement, Pursuant to Section 15.2- 3400 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as Amended (Town of Windsor Annexation) County Attorney.Crook stated the public .hearing is for the .Ordinance to approve the agreement and submit it to the court. He noted the original agreement which was negotiated by the committee. of the Board of Supervisors and a committee of the Windsor Town Council with corresponding attorneys present was subsequently approved. by the Windsor Town Council after public .hearing and was approved by the Board of Supervisors after public .hearing.. He stated the agreement was. then submitted to the Commission on Local Government which conducted a S ., -; a~~~~ 1~ :N::~fi6 public. hearing and approved the agreement and recommended it to the court for approval. He stated the next step would be to petition the Circuit Court for approval of the annexation agreement. He stated special counsel for the Town of Windsor :annexation has recommended- some modifications to the agreement: which are not substantive as. follows: 1) change of date, 2) use a survey map rather than a metes and .bounds- description of the annexation area, 3) change the effective date from June 30, 1999 to December 31, 2000 and, 4) to allow temporary use for the Town of Windsor of the water line. from the Town of Windsor to the County's industrial park until the Town of Windsor can build their own. He stated the Board having. already approved. the agreement: would only be approving these modifications. Chairman .Bradshaw called for. citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. Carl Eason, Jr., attorney for the Town of Windsor, stated before the Board tonight is adoption of the modification of the agreement. He further stated the Board, after holding a public hearing, approved the original settlement agreement on May 20, 1999 after extensive discussions and negotiations between the Town of Windsor and .Isle of Wight County committee. He continued that in March of 2000, the Commission on Local Government held a public hearing and the Commission in August of 2000 filed a report recommending the approval of the agreement to the special three (3) judge court that would. be established if and when the petition is .filed. He stated that the reason the Town of Windsor is seeking boundary line adjustments is because the Town of Windsor is ninety-eight (98) years old and has never in its history modified, adjusted or expanded .its boundary lines. He stated the Town of Windsor, as it currently exists, is economically stagnant and the Town of Windsor feels it needs to be in a position to be able to control. growth and development as it .occurs outside the current boundary lines for the Town of Windsor, specifically coming down Route 460. He stated the County would still have the ability to have a voice, impact and control of this area. as the agreement has set up a joint advisory review between the County's Planning Commission and the Town of Windsor's. Planning Commission for any rezoning and subdivision activities that take, place. in the boundary line adjustment area. He stated the opposition will state they are opposed due to higher taxes and because they want to live in a rural .area, ~ not in a city. He stated an economic impact study was commissioned three (3) years ago which showed that the impact would be only approximately forty (40) or fifty (50) dollars per year on average per household. He stated regarding. the rural/city living issue, . people living in a rural area now will continue. to live in a rural area. .Kurt Falkenstein, Windsor -Town Manager, stated that since the 1990 census, the population for the Town of Windsor has decreased in size by 4.5%. He stated little development has occurred in the Town of Windsor; two (2) homes -have been built and five (5) demolished. He stated over the last several years thirty (30) new homes have been built in the residential 6 T: 30i~d• ~~ r..:~ iV [1 1 area outside of town; a new Food Lion was constructed and a 125 bed nursing home was built: He stated the report by the Commission on Local Government sites the following points: 1) US 460/258 are principal gateways to the Town of Windsor, 2) business establishments located in the area for proposed annexation are sustained in part by the patronage of Town . of Windsor residents, 3) the Town houses the volunteer fire department and rescue squad, and.4).the area proposedfor annexation has a urban character. He stated that the Commission on Local Government finds that the areas proposed for annexation have a strong community interest with the Town of Windsor. and .such a community of interest supports the proposed annexation. He stated that the Town of Windsor has been identified as one (1) of the three (3) Development Service Districts in the County's Comprehensive Plan. He stated the County's Comprehensive Plan states that growth in and out of the areas will prevent outward sprawl of development into other County areas. He stated the impact. upon the County road system will be minimized since families will have an opportunity to locate physically close to their jobs and services which they require. He stated these considerations and the need to preserve .the open character of the County indicate that the areas designated as .Development Districts should accommodate most of the County's residential, commercial, industrial growth through.. the .year 2010. He concluded .his presentation stating the Commission on Local Government feels that the voluntary annexation agreement would benefit the County, the Commonwealth and the Town of Windsor. Wesley Garris, Mayor, Town of Windsor, stated he did. not .want to pay extra taxes. either, but if residents want a good quality of life, they must pay taxes. He stated the Town of Windsor is trying to improve the quality of life for the citizens outside the Town of Windsor, as well as the residents located in the Town. U James P. O'Briant, III, Chairman of the Town. of Windsor Planning Commission, stated the annexation will benefit all of the citizens, both in and out of the immediately .affected area. He stated governmental representation would be .increased and .all citizens would have greater input in the governmental. process. He stated the new citizens would receive the services that are currently .offered: to the citizens who reside in the Town of Windsor. He stated increased area in population will build a better posture for. the. Town of Windsor for such things as Federal grants,. revenue sharing and other items that are offered based on demographic population. He requested the Board favorably consider the minor changes proposed so that the County and the Town of Windsor. can move forward and .make this. a better community for all. Arthur Robinson, attorney representing a group of concerned citizens in the affected area, .requested the Board consider .concerns raised by the concerned citizens (approximately 175 residents of the affected annexation area). He stated the concerned citizens during the review process .have 7 ' ! v raised a number of questions that went unanswered because the information. to do so .was. not available to them. He stated their concerns 'are that as a political .and financial matter that the annexation could follow the .law of .unintended consequences and have significant ramifications for both the Town of Windsor and the County going forward which have not been planned for or .addressed. He stated another concern is the impact on the County with respect to providing .appropriate schooling for the additional families the Townof Windsor hopes will be attracted to the annexation area. He stated. that while the residents in the affected area do believe their taxes will be higher, they are also concerned- that many or all of the additional services may be impractical to provide to those citizens. He stated an additional layer of government will add to the burden that the area bears and may not provide the anticipated benefit. He stated the citizens are also concerned that .the goal sought by the Town of Windsor may not be accomplished. He stated the annexation agreement calls for significant and substantial improvements to be provided by the Town of Windsor, but the Town does not have the available funds and cites as a potential source State and Federal grants. He stated should these sources of funds not be forthcoming, then the only source of revenue to complete the commitment which has been made by the County will be the general revenue of the Town of Windsor and its borrowing power which flows from that general revenue. He stated this implies higher taxes on all the residents of the Town and a series of other unintended. consequences which are not favorable to the Town. He stated concerned citizens have also raised concerns regarding environmental factors and the geopolitical effect of the annexation and how it may affect minority voting rights. He requested the Board take these concerns under advisement, to .settle them as appropriate and then act in what it believes. to be the County's, the Town's and the. resident's best interests. Robin Land. of Longview Circle requested that the Board not support the Windsor annexation which will result in residential growth that will adversely impact the County's school system: She stated she is concerned with both overcrowded schools and the rising school construction costs that continue to burden taxpayers countywide... She stated if the annexation is approved, the County's school system will be impacted by overcrowded schools in the northern portion of the County and the: filling of a southern school space with students from Windsor and Carrsville from. residential growth. ,She stated lack of rezoning space .coupled with. the residential growth generated by northern developers will result in an accelerated construction schedule. She stated it would be prudent prior to the annexation approval for. the Board to allow the School -Board to commission both a facilities impact study and a demographic study. Thomas Finderson of the Newport District stated the soil survey revealed very wet soils .which are not appropriate for. high .density development. He stated foundation problems will .occur and there will be standing water under houses and yards. He stated there would be drainage i~ 8 problems,. as well as serious BMP problems. He stated clearly if the northwest or southwest- section is unsuitable for building, it is not to the advantage of the Town of Windsor to annex those areas. Carolyn Griffin of Windsor expressed a concern that the government officials are not listening to her. She stated no one present at the_town meeting in Windsor spoke in favor of the annexation. She stated she .has been unable to find out how much the Town of Windsor has on deposit and the Town of Windsor will not tell her how long it will be before the residents receive the services the rest of the Town currently has. She stated if residents are going to be charged taxes for services, then they should receive the services before they pay the taxes. Darrin Stoller, resident of the Hardy District, read a letter from M. H. Robinson in opposition to the annexation. Mr. Robinson stated the citizens in the annexed area will not receive Town water, street lights or sewage from the Town of Windsor. Mr. Robinson urged the Town of Windsor and the Board to listen to the voice of the residents affected by-this annexation issue. Darrin Stoller stated he is opposed to growth that has the potential to affect the County in a detrimental way.. He stated there will. be a burden placed upon. the County's already taxed schools. He stated the County has a good case if it were to go to court and if the Windsor Town Council brings a suit against the County it would be a selfish act that would demonstrate that the Town of Windsor does not care about the County or the citizens.. He stated growth must be handled with sound judgement. and common sense. He urged the :Board to do what is in the best interest of the County and not approve the. resolution. He requested everyone in attendance that is opposed to the annexation to stand which reflected a majority of the citizens present opposed to the annexation. Clint Osborne, resident of Windsor Woods, stated the plans for the annexation need to be further thought out. He stated a majority of the residents affected by the annexation are against it. He stated the existing. stormwater runoff collection and distribution system is adequate for the Town, however, if a high urban setting is established and the water runoff accelerates. to a high density situation, the stormwater runoff, which now uses the natural structure of the ravines and creeks, will end up in the water supply. He requested that if the rezoning of his neighborhood is not completed before .the proposed annexation is complete, that the agreement include a stipulation that no rezoning application be presented to the .Windsor Town Council until Town Council elections have been held.. He stated regarding the .issue of the meeting times for the County's Planning Commission, he would request that the Planning Commission hold its meetings at a more opportune time to allow citizens to attend at night. 9 John Atwood, resident of Hidden Acres, spoke in opposition to the increase in taxes due.tothe area being annexed. He stated the citizens in the affected area would .not receive any additional.. services. ' He stated during heavy rains the stormwater runoff already stands in his backyard.. He requested if the Board would not approve the petition. Jack Hoseley, a resident of Windsor Woods, stated he would like to see what additional services would be provided for the extra taxes paid before the Board votes. Gregg Willis, resident of Lovers Lane, stated there will be no benefits received from the annexation as the streets, law enforcement and fire and rescue services will not be improved. He requested that the Board .revisit its original vote and vote to stop it tonight. Mike Alexander of the Newport District spoke in opposition to the proposed .annexation due to the impact on the school system. He pointed out that no citizen has spoke in favor of the .proposed annexation and he requested the Board to table the matter and send it back to the Town of Windsor to work with their constituents. Tom Whitfield, a resident of Windsor, spoke in opposition to the proposed. annexation due to increased taxes and no additional services. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Claud stated the issues have. been discussed for the last year and a half and committees formed to work with the. public. He stated the Commission on Local. Government which has a responsibility to the State, the County .and the Town, has reviewed the data and issued its comments for consideration by the Board. He stated he believes the agreement is both fair to the Town of Windsor and the County. He stated regarding environmental issues, he believes the Town of Windsor will be sensitive to any environmental issues, as well as the County. He stated regarding schools, every school -child in the annexed area is in the Windsor schools .now and .will continue to be in the Windsor school district. He stated if the Town of Windsor has not provided the water, there would not be a Windsor Woods. Subdivision, or a Hidden Acres .Subdivision. He stated in the last. ten (10) years there has been a major water project on Church and Bank Streets so the Town of Windsor is progressing. Supervisor Clark stated if he were on the Board in May of 1999, he possibly would not vote as he would this evening, but the Board of Supervisors voted on the issue in 1999 and the vote is a valid vote. He stated he is concerned that some of the citizens in the annexed area will not have elected representation for a period of time and he would encourage the Windsor Town Council to take this into consideration and consider a 10 :moratorium on rezonings and variances -that would in any way af~'ect density in the annexed area, including existing platted developments and approval of proposed new developments, until those citizens have representation. He stated he would further ask the Town of Windsor to be diligent in obtaining proffers for public service facilities and, particularly, education costs. He requested the Windsor Town Council address the matter further with the new citizens in the .proposed annexed area. He stated the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia are very favorable to annexations and the Board must act responsibly so as not to encourage lawsuits that would cost the Town of Windsor. and the County a lot of money. and not be successful in the long run anyway.. Supervisor Bradby stated that he has noted tonight that the citizens are not in favor of the annexation and have unanswered questions. He stated he can not support the filing of the petition to the Circuit Court in Isle of Wight County because the citizens have asked the Board not to support it. He stated he has the citizens concerns at heart and in mind and he promised in the past to be responsive to citizens concerns. Supervisor MacManus stated a number of different issues have been raised tonight regarding growth control, taxes and the ability of the Town of Windsor to meet annexation agreement requirements. He stated the Board is here to serve all the citizens of the County and it is his opinion that the Town centers of this County represent the economic engines that make the County successful.. He stated without strong towns there would also not be a strong county. He stated he believes .the Windsor Town Council, both present and future, have the best interest of the people, both of Windsor and the .County, at heart; otherwise he could. not vote yes if that wasn't the case. Chairman Bradshaw stated he has never been in support of annexation, but unfortunately the .State of Virginia. supports towns expanding their boundaries. He stated the Commission on Local Government has never turned down an annexation, although- adjustments were made to the agreements. He stated the Commission on Local Government encourages cities to expand, however, there is currently a moratorium on annexation by cities in this state. He noted that the County is currently paying $1,000,000 annually to the City of Franklin .not to annex and the County is getting nothing in return. In response to Chairman Bradshaw, County Attorney Crook stated that the agreement that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the Windsor Town Council provided in Section 4.01 that following the issuance of the reported findings and recommendations of the Commission on Local Government, that the Town of Windsor and the County of Isle of Wight agree that regardless of the Commission on Local Government's recommendations this agreement will be submitted in its present form to the court for approval. He stated any changes in the agreement must be agreed to by the Town of Windsor and. the County. He stated these changes are the 11 BOeK ~'J rM:`Z7~ .only issues before the .Board .although there are other ,issues the Board can deal with the Town of Windsor on. He stated .the Board can deal with the issues Supervisor Clark raised, but .they should not be added to this agreement unilaterally. Supervisor Bradshaw stated he is in support of a list of concerns and the Board appointing a committee to work with the .Windsor Town Council to address. some of the concerns .raised tonight to see if a resolution can be found. Supervisor Claud moved the Board adopt the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF A PETITION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING THE RIGHTS OF THE LOCALITIES AS SET FORTH UNDER THE TERMS OF SAID AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION. 15.2-3400 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950), AS AMENDED WHEREAS, in May 1999, the. Town of Windsor.("Town") and the County of Isle of Wight ("County") approved a Voluntary Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), which constituted a voluntary settlement authorized by Section 15.2-3400 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and WHEREAS, in January 2000, the .Town and the .county presented the Settlement Agreement to the Commission on Local Government ("Commission"), which conducted a hearing as required by law and which issued its findings and recommendations in a Report dated August 2000; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-3400 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,. requires the Town and the County, ubsequent to the Commission's review, to approve the Settlement Agreement, and thereafter to petition the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County for an Order affirming the Settlement Agreement and establishing the rights of the localities under the. terms of the Settlement Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Town and the County now propose to enter into a modified Settlement Agreement ("Modified Agreement") which .provides for the annexation. to the Town of .certain territory, for a limited waiver by the Town of certain annexation rights, for the conveyance of certain water systems to the Town and the bulk sale of potable water to the County, for joint advisory review of certain planning and zoning matters, for the sharing of certain revenue, and. for other matters; ~. U NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors, by this Ordinance, approves and adopts the Modified Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto,. and. hereby authorizes 12 f: 90"a ~.1 ~,,: ~73 and directs its Chairman to execute the. Modified .Agreement on behalf of the Board. 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Administrator and County Attorney to petition the Circuit Court of Isle of Wight County for an Order pursuant to Section 15.2-3400 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, affirming and validating the Modified Agreement and establishing the rights of each locality as set forth under the terms. of the Modified Agreement. 3. The County Administrator shall take all other actions and employ such special consultants as may be needed to obtain the necessary Court approval of the Modified Agreement. 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the date of its adoption. The motion .was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (4-1) and Supervisor Bradby voting against the motion. '~ 1 Supervisor Claud. moved that- the Committee working with the Town of Windsor on the annexation agreement take the citizens concerns back to the Town to see if there can be a mutual understanding and resolution as to how their concerns can be addressed. The motion was adopted with ..Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Supervisor Bradby moved the Board take aten-minute break. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Upon returning to open session, Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight. County, Virginia Establishing the County Cash Proffer Policy 1 County Attorney Crook stated the County had a study done by Tischler & Associates, pursuant to .State statute, to determine the fiscal impact of development on the County. He stated proffers by developers are voluntary by statute and can not be demanded and the result has been a severe lack. of uniformity in proffers that are offered to the County.. He stated the proposed resolution sets out the statutory requirements for the. Board to follow in consideration and acceptance of cash proffers. He stated ' the guidelines define the factors to be considered, such. as the cost of needed 13 ` ~I . • 9o~r 1~ ~N.;~~?4 facilities and the impact on education cost. He stated .the total cash proffer amount of $6,895 per residential lot reported by the study states that this .will be considered by the Board in the acceptance of proffers. He stated the resolution also adopts the Capital Improvements Program and incorporates that aspart of the plan. Chairman Bradshaw called for, citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed resolution. Mike Alexander expressed his opinion that proffers in the amount of $6,800 are too small and the Board should take into account the rate of inflation. Clint Osborne stated .the numbers currently .being utilized are outdated. Chairman Bradshaw closed .the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor MacManus noted. that funds to perform an additional proffer study were in the County's budget so that the proffer amounts could be increased, but forbudgetary concerns the Boarddeferred the study. . Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt the following resolution and that it be forwarded to the Planning Commisison and staff for full utilization: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA ESTABLISHING THE COUNTY CASH PROFFER POLICY WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia. and Section 10305 of the Isle of Wight Zoning Ordinance authorize the acceptance of cash prof~'ers by Isle of Wight County from rezoning applicants, provided, (i) the rezoning itself gives rise to the .need for the conditions; (ii) the conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning, and (iii) all conditions are in conformity with. the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management and Land Use Provisions of the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan establish the overall objective of requiring that future growth pay its fair share of the associated costs for additional public facilities and services ,for which new development generates demand; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight County finds that rezoning and development of properties for residential use. may result in increased population and a commensurate increase.. in the need for capital improvements required to maintain the levels of service provided by the County; the costs of certain of the capital improvements which are reflected in the Capital 14 ... 90~p ~~ •.;; ~~ 15 1 Improvements Program and Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan have been calculated on the basis of a typical new residential unit and the contribution of each such residential unit to funding of capital improvements through the tax rate has been calculated; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that rezoning and development of properties for commercial and industrial use may result in more intense use of certain public facilities and also in increased tax revenue and other economic benefits to the County, and- WHEREAS, the capital improvements related to new commercial and industrial development maybe analyzed and determined on a site specific basis; and WHEREAS, the Board. recognizes that each development proposal presents circumstances requiring particularized. evaluation, with regard to the resulting. cost and benefits accruing to the County. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the following shall be the general guidelines for consideration and acceptance of cash proffers and will be considered by the Board in conjunction with other land use factors applicable to particular development proposals, and other. proffers offered by rezoning applicants: I. APPLICABILITY These guidelines shall be applicable to all rezoning applications. Amounts set out in this Policy, representing the cost of public facilities and public capital costs for each typical unit. of a development, are general guidelines only. Individual rezoning applications present circumstances, which are to be considered in evaluating applications and proffered conditions. Those circumstances and factors include: A. Proffers of dedication or construction of public facilities or land, or of amenities or facilities available for use in connection with a .proposed development, which decrease the need for use of community facilities existing, or planned by .the County. B. The economic benefits of industrial and commercial development and the contribution of a development proposal to the goal of development properly apportioned between residential, industrial,. and commercial types. C. The scale of the. proposed development. and the minimal incremental effect on community facilities of residential development consisting of only one additional lot. In considering voluntary proffered conditions., it is the intent. of the Board of .:Supervisors to apply this policy as equitably and fairly as possible under the law 15 eo~K 1~ ,;;:,~4`j6 and to avoid any greater. or lessor economic advantage to any. applicant for-.a rezoning of property. II. METHODOLOGY A. General Considerations: The impact. of proposed developments on public facilities and the need for capital improvements will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The basis for analyzing the needs to be .generated by proposed residential development, and the economic contribution of the development, shall be projected capital costs and. tax revenues set out in documents referred to below. Those costs and revenues are established. for typical County residential units. In general, the revenue generated by commercial and industrial development is expected to cover the capital costs of fire protection and emergency medical services. Each proposed development will be reviewed to identify any unusual or excessive .requirement of that .nature. No contribution for schools, parks, or .libraries is expected for commercial and industrial applications. The County's policy with respect to cash proffers in commercial and industrial rezoning shall be interpreted liberally in order to promote desirable economic development. B. The cost of needed public facilities as described in Cash Proffer Study, Isle of Wight County, Virginia, dated December 1993 as may be revised and updated and applicable to each typical single family residential unit are summarized as follows and shall, in addition to other factors described in this policy, be the basic for consideration of cash proffers: .Public Schools $5,810 Recreational Facilities 529 County Buildings 358 Fire Stations 163 Rescue Squad 35 TOTAL CASH PROFFER $6,895 C. .The cost of needed public facilities for other forms of residential development have been determined to be as follows, as more .fully described in the Cash Proffer Study: Multifamily $7,264 Mobile Home & Other $5,706 III. ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT A. The contribution of a development to public improvements financed through the tax rate has been based on the .percentage. of the tax rate attributable to 16 1 n Tt 80~a ~ ~:.1 r.;-~77 debt service over the 20-year period of a general obligation bond, and is more thoroughly described in the Cash Proffer Study. B. Analysis of in-kind donations, such as land or facilities, should. be based on the value set out in the written proffer, or a method agreed upon by the staffand the applicant. IV. ADMIh1ISTRATION Cash proffers when voluntarily submitted by the applicant and accepted by the Board of Supervisors and made a part of the conditional zoning will be further evidenced by a demand note to the County of Isle of Wight, without interest, in the amount of the total aggregate of the proffers. The note will be secured by a deed of trust of all of the property involved in the rezoning. Upon the payment of the proffer to the County on each lot, the lot will be released from the deed of trust. The County further agrees that. the deed of trust to secure the cash proffers will be subordinated to deeds of trust for financing of development of the property. V. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Consistent with Section 15.2-2239, of the Code of Virginia, the Board of Supervisors annually adopts the Capital Improvements Program, which incorporates the Capital Improvements Plan of the School Board. BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that a copy of this policy shall be provided by staffto all applicants for amendments to the Isle of Wight County.. Zoning Ordinance during consultation on .submitting an application. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and` Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against. the motion. Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article IV, Tax- on Consumers of Utility Services to Adopt A New Electric and Natural Gas Consumers Tax Pursuant to Section 58.1-3814 of the Code of Virginia County Attorney Crook stated the method of computing the tax is now changed by statute to kilowatt hours and the County is required to amend or change its ordinance to comply with the State statute by the end of October. Chairman Bradshaw called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the .proposed ordinance. Upon no one appearing, Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board... 17 eo~a ~.~ ~~:r~78 Supervisor Clark moved the Board adopt the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE.IV. TAX ON CONSUMERS OF UTILITY SERVICES TO ADOPT A NEW ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS CONSUMERS TAX PURSUANT TO SECTION 58.1-3814 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia by Act embodied in Section 58.1-3814 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended has authorized any County, City or Town to impose. a tax on the consumers of utility services provided by any water or heat, light .and power company and to impose a tax on consumers. of electricity provided by electric suppliers as defined. in Section 58.1-400.2 of the Code of Virginia and has further authorized any County, City or Town to impose a tax on consumers of natural gas; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly has further provided that on or before October 31, 2000, any locality imposing a tax on consumers of electricity shall. duly amend its Ordinance under which such tax is imposed so that the Ordinance conforms to the requirements of subsections C through J of Section 58..1-3814 of the Code of Virginia (.1950) as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, be it and it is hereby ordained by the Board of _ ~ Supervisors of .Isle of Wight County, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Article IV. of the Isle of Wight County Code are repealed upon the effective date of the. adoption of the following: ARTICLE IV. ELECTRIC AND- NATURAL. GAS CONSUMERS TAX Sec. 15-10 Definitions. Consumer means every person who, individually or through agents, employees, officers, representatives or permittees, makes a taxable purchase of electricity or natural gas services in this jurisdiction. Gas utility means a public utility authorized to furnish natural gas service in Virginia. CCF means thevolume of gas at standard. pressure and temperature in units of 100 cubic feet.. Kilowatt hours (kWh delivered means 1000 watts of electricity delivered in a one-hour period by an electric provider to an actual consumer, except that in the case of eligible customer-generators (sometimes called cogenerators) as defined. in Virginia Code Section 56-594,. it means kWh supplied from the electric grid to such. 18 _. _ f'. u customer-generators, minus the kWh .generated and. fed back to the electric grid by such customer-generators. Person means any individual, corporation, company or other entity. Pipeline distribution compa~ means a person, other than a pipeline transmission company which transmits, by means of a pipeline, natural. gas, manufactured gas or crude petroleum and the products or byproducts thereof to a purchaser for purposes of furnishing heat or light. Residential consumer means the owner or tenant of property used primarily for residential purposes, including but not limited to, apartment houses and other multiple-family dwellings. Service provider means a person who delivers electricity to a consumer or a gas utility or pipeline distribution company which ..delivers natural gas to a consumer. Used primarily relates to the larger portion of the use for which electric or natural gas utility service is furnished. Sec.15-11. Electric Utility Consumer Tax.. (a) In accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1-3814 it is hereby imposed and levied a monthly tax on .each purchase of electricity delivered to consumers by a service provider, classified as determined by such provider, as follows: (1) Residential consumers: Such tax shall be 10% times the minimum monthly charge imposed by the service provider plus- the rate of $.007813 on each kWh delivered monthly to residential consumers by the service: provider not to exceed $1.50 monthly. (2) Non-residential consumers: such tax on non-residential consumers .shall be at the rates per month for the classes of non- residential consumers as set forth below: . (i) Consumer/Industrial consumers -Such tax shall be 10% times the minimum. monthly charge imposed by the service provider-plus the rate of $.007383 on each kWh delivered monthly, not to exceed $100.00 per month. (3) The conversion of tax pursuant to this ordinance to monthly kWh delivered shall not be effective before the first meter reading after December 31, .2000, prior to which time the tax previously imposed by this jurisdiction shall be in effect. 19 8pnr ~~.1 ~f;;. ~Q~ (b) Exemptions: The following consumers of electricity, are exempt from the tax imposed. by this Section. (i) Any public safety. point. as defined in Virginia Code Section 58,1-3 813.1. (ii) The United States of America, the Commonwealth and the political subdivisions thereof, including- this jurisdiction. (c) Billing, collection and remittance of tax. The service. provider shall. bill the electricity consumer ax to all users who are subject to the tax and to whom it delivers electricity and shall remit the same to this jurisdiction on a monthly basis. Such taxes shall be paid by the service provider to this jurisdiction in accordance with Virginia code Section 58.1-3814, paragraphs F.-.and G., and Virginia Code Section 58.1-2901. If any consumer receives and pays for electricity but refuses to pay the tax imposed by this ection, the service provider shall notify this jurisdiction of the name and address of such consumer. If any consumer fails to pay a bill issued by a service provider, including the tax imposed by this section, the service provider must follow its normal collection :procedures and upon collection of the bill or any part thereof must apportion the net amount collected between the charge for electric service and the tax and remit the tax portion to this jurisdiction. ~~ Any tax paid by the consumer to the service provider shall be deemed to be held in trust by such provider until remitted to this jurisdiction. (d) Computation of bills not on monthly basis. Bills shall be considered as monthly bills for the purposes of this ordinance. if .submitted 12 times .per year of approximately one month each. Accordingly, the tax for a bi-monthly bill (approximately 60 days) ' shall be determined as follows: (i) the kWh will be divided by 2; (ii) a monthly tax will be calculated using the rates set forth above; (iii) the tax determined by (ii) shall be multiplied by 2; (iv) the tax in (iii) may not exceed twice the monthly "maximum tax". Sec. 15-12. Local Natural Gas Utility Consumer Tax. (a) In accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1-3814, there is hereby imposed and levied a monthly tax on each purchase of natural gas delivered to consumers by pipeline distribution companies and gas utilities classified by "class of consumers" as such term is defined in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3814 J., as follows: (1) Residential consumers: Such tax on residential consumers of natural gas shall be 10% times the minimum monthly charge 20 imposed by the service provider plus the rate of $0.09335 per CCF delivered monthly to residential consumers, not to .exceed $1.50 per month. 1 (2) Non-residential consumers: Such tax on non-residential " consumers shall be at the rates per month shown for each CCF delivered by a pipeline distribution. company or a gas utility for the classes as set forth below: (i) Commercial/Industrial consumers -such tax shall be 10% times. the minimum monthly charge imposed by the service provider plus. the rate of $0.07858 on each CCF delivered monthly to commercial/industrial consumers, not to exceed $100.00 per month. (3) The conversion of tax pursuant to this ordinance to monthly CCF delivered shall. not be effective before .the first meter .:.reading after December 31, 2000, prior to which time the tax previously imposed by this jurisdiction shall be in effect. (b) Exemptions. The following consumers of natural gas shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this Section. (i) Any public safety agency as defined in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1. (ii) The United States of America, the Commonwealth and the political subdivisions thereof, including this jurisdiction. 1 (c) Billing, collection and remittance of tax. The service provider shall bill the natural gas consumer tax to all. users who are subject to the: tax and to whom it delivers natural gas and shall remit the same to this jurisdiction on a monthly basis.. Such .taxes shall be paid by the service provider to this jurisdiction in accordance with Virginia Code Section 58.1-3814, paragraphs H. and L, and Virginia Code Section 58.1-2901, If any consumer receives and pays for natural gas billed but refuses to pay the tax imposed by this section, the service provider shall notify this .jurisdiction of the name and address of such consumer. If any consumer fails to pay a .bill. issued by a service provider, including the. tax imposed by this section,. the service provider must follow its normal collection procedures and. upon collection of -the bill or any part thereof must apportion the net amount cohected between the charge for electric service and the tax and remit the tax portion to this jurisdiction. Any tax paid by the consumer to the service provider shall be deemed to be held in trust by such provider until remitted to this jurisdiction. 21 ~I 8!i~fi ~~ r~~~'~t72 (d) Computation of bills not on monthly basis. Bills shall be considered as monthly bills: for the .purposes of this ordinance if submitted 12 times per year of approximately -one month each. Accordingly the tax for a bi-monthly bill (approximately 60 days) shall be determined as follows: (i) the CCF will be divided by 2; (ii) a monthly tax will be calculated using the rates set forth above; (iii) the tax determined by (ii) shall be multiplied by 2; (iv) the tax in (iii) may not exceed twice the monthly "maximum tax". Sec 15-13. Penalties. Any consumer of electricity or natural. gas failing, refusing or .neglecting to pay the tax imposed and levied under this ordinance, and any officer, agent or employee of any service provider violating .the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment in fail for not more .than 30 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each .such failure, refusal, .neglect or violation shall constitute a separate offense. Such conviction shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection and remittance of the tax as provided in this ordinance. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, ' Bradshaw, Clark and Claud.. voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no .Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Claud, noting that churches are currently exempt inquired if churches would be exempt under .this ordinance. County Attorney Crook advised that churches, under the proposed ordinance, are not exempt. Supervisor " MacManus .requested that the County's .support of churches being exempted from this tax be placed in the County's legislative priorities package: ' Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: An Ordinance to Require Disclosure of Personal Interests and Interests. in Real Estate by Local Government Officers and Employees County Attorney Crook stated at this time the members of the Board of Supervisors .and School Board are required to make full disclosure annually of personal interests .and real estate interests. He stated the Planning Commission is required to make disclosure under the current State law of real estate interests: He stated the purpose of the proposed ordinance is not only to require the Board of Supervisors and School Board members to make full disclosure annually of personal interests and interests in real estate, but will extend this requirement to .the Planning Commission, the 22 1 ~~.~~ ~ 1 ~ -.ti:-.~83 Board of Zoning Appeals,. Industrial Development Authority, County Administrator and the County Attorney. 1 Chairman Bradshaw called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Mike Alexander, a resident of the Newport District, stated Mrs.. Keen asked. him to speak on her behalf in support of the proposed ordinance. He stated this type of information should. be made .available to the public to avoid self-interest. Pat Clark, on behalf of the Isle of Wight Citizens Association, spoke in support of full disclosure annually of personal. interests and interests in real estate for the Board of Supervisors, School Board, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Industrial Development Authority, County Administrator and the County Attorney. Clint Osborne spoke. in support of full disclosure of personal interests and interests in real estate. He stated it is only fair that- all persons be included, not just the Board of Supervisors. 1 Chairman Bradshaw :closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Claud suggested that the Ordinance be approved with the condition that compliance by current members of the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals and the Industrial Development Authority be voluntary until the end of their respective terms. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board adopt the Ordinance, as amended by Supervisor Claud, as follows: that the Ordinance be approved with the provision that compliance by the current .members of the Planning. Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Industrial Development Authority be voluntary until the end of their current respective terms and then at the end of those terms, if they .are reappointed or a new person is appointed that it will be mandatory for the statements to be filled out. In the interim, for those organizations the forms would go to the individuals, but it would be voluntary until the end of their current term: 1 AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INTERESTS AND INTERESTS IN REAL ESTATE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia by an Act embodied in Chapter 40.1 of Title 2.1 has enacted the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act and in.Article 5 thereof, has provided that the local governing body by ordinance may designate persons occupying positions of employment of local government to file as a condition to assuming off ce or employment. a disclosure 23 ~: statement of their personal interests and other. information as is specified on the form set forth in Section 2.1-639.15 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors.. of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, deems. into be in the best interests of the citizens of said County to require certain designated persons occupying positions of trust for the County to disclose their personal interests and real. estate interests annually pursuant to Section 2.1-639.14 of the Code of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, be it and it is hereby ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of V~ight County, Virginia, that in addition to those government officers and employees required to file .annual disclosure statements of their personal interests and .interests in real estate as specified in Section 2.1- 639.14 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that the following persons occupying positions of trust, appointed by the Board of Supervisors of said County are hereby required as a condition to assuming office. or employment to file a disclosure statement of their personal interests and other information as is specified on -the form set forth in Section 2.1-639.15 of the Code of Virginia and thereafter shall file such a statement annually on or before January 15. In addition to any disclosure required by Section 2.1-639.14 A. of the Code of Virginia, said persons as hereinafter designated, shall file annual disclosures of all of their interests in real estate located in the County of Isle of Wight. Such disclosure shall include any business in which such. persons own an interest or from which income is received, if the primary purpose of the business is to own, develop or derive compensation through the sale, exchange or development of real estate in the County or Town thereof. Such disclosure shall be filed as a condition to assuming office or employment and thereafter shall be filed annually with the Clerk of the governing body of the County of Isle of Wight on or before January 15. Such disclosure shall be filed and maintained as public records for five (5) years. Forms .for the filing of such- reports shall be distributed. by the County .Administrator to each of the persons so designated to declare his interests. Additionally, an officer or employee of local government who is required by this Ordinance to declare his interests shall .declare his interests by stating (i) the transaction involved, (ii) the nature of the office or employee's personal interest affected by the transaction, .(iii) that he is a member of the business, profession, occupation or group the members of which are affected by the transaction, and (iv) that he is able toparticipate in the transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. The officer or employee shall make his declaration orally to be recorded in the written .minutes of his agency or file a signed written declaration with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors who shall, in either case, retain and make available for public inspection such declaration for a period of five (5) years from the date of recording or receipt. If reasonable time. is not available. to comply with the provisions of this subsection .prior to participation in the transaction, the ofFicer or .employee shall prepare and file the required declaration by the end of the next business day. ,. J J 1 24 The persons holding positions of trust appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Isle of Wight who are required to file the statements of personal interests and interests in real. estate and other information by this Ordinance, are the members of the Board of Supervisors, the School Board, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Industrial Development Authority Board Members, County Administrator and County Attorney. This Ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2001,provided, that it will not be effective for Planning Commission Members, Board of Zoning Appeals Members, and Industrial Development Authority Board Members, presently serving in those ..positions until the end of their current terms. ' The motion was adopted with Supervisors Bradby, .Bradshaw and Claud voting in favor of the motion (3-2) and Supervisors MacManus and Clark voting ,against the. motion stating they want the disclosure provisions to take effect immediately. 1 Supervisor Clark noted for the record that he and Supervisor MacManus voted only in opposition to the amendment, but do support the ordinance with it to take effect immediately. Chairman Bradshaw called for a public hearing on the following: The application of Maurice A. Rhodes for a change in zoning classification from RAC to Conditional Rural Residential of approximately 18.6 acres of land. Said land is located on the west. side of Ballard Road (Route 614) south of its intersection with Walters. Highway (Route 258), Windsor Magisterial District. The purpose of the application is for four single-family residential lots, as conditioned. Chairman .Bradshaw called for citizens to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. Durwood Scott, representing the applicant, stated the applicant is requesting permission to subdivide four (4) parcels. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. County Attorney Crook stated the proffer resolution adopted by the Board was not involved in this application because this .application preceded that and there was no consideration of such a guideline in this application. He stated if the Board approves this application, it will not be going against the County's newly adopted policy. Supervisor MacManus inquired if staff represented to the applicant the County's proffer amounts. 25 ao~~ 2~ ~r::•~~86 County Attorney Crook replied "yes." Chairman Bradshaw. moved the Board. approve the application of Maurice A. Rhodes. The motion was adopted with Supervisors Bradby, Bradshaw and. Claud voting. in favor of the motion. (3-2) and Supervisors MacManus and Clark voting against the motion. Supervisor Claud moved the .Board approve.- the request to withdraw 18.6 acres from the Knoxville AgriculturaUForestal District. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisor voting against the motion. Chairman Bradshaw called .for a public hearing on the following: The application. of Sherry T. Joshi for a Conditional. Use Permit to occupy asingle-wide mobile home for two years while constructing a single family residence to be located on sixty-one acres of land on the east side of Hunt Club Road (Route 630) at 30199 Hunt Club Road in Windsor Magisterial District. Chairman Bradshaw called for. persons to speak in favor of or in .opposition to the application. Shenry Joshi stated she is desiring to construct a new home and would like to live in the mobile home while the permanent home is being constructed. Supervisor Clark inquired what would happen to the mobile. home. after the permanent home is built.. i~ 1 Ms. Joshi stated the mobile home will be removed.. Chairman Bradshaw closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Clark asked. if the removal of the mobile home is a condition of the application. County Attorney Crook stated the removal of the mobile home should be made a condition of the application. Supervisor Clark- requested the removal of the mobile home be included as a condition of the approval ofthe application. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board approve the application of Sherry T. Joshi with the condition that the mobile home will be removed after the permanent home is completed. The motion was adopted with Supervisors 26 ~n~A 1 ~..,. ~~37 MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting . in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 1 // Supervisor Clark moved the Board return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (S-0). // Chairman Bradshaw called for the continuation of Citizens Comments. Gloria Veryner addressed the Board concerning the reinstatement of a No .Wake. Zone on Jones Creek. She noted. that boat traffic from all sizes. creates the same and .larger waves as caused by storms, however, these continue on a steady basis throughout the summer without giving .the creek an opportunity to .recover. She stated putting up and enforcing No Wake Zones will be a relatively simply and immediate rearm .for.. the Board. She suggested the County relocate the boat ramp where it can be enjoyed by everyone. 1 Brian Tim expressed concern about the surrounding properly along Jones Creek, as well. as the condition of the wetlands.. He expressed his support of No Wake Zones on Jones Creek. He suggested the boat ramp on Jones Creek be moved closer to the James River. Charles Green spoke in favor of a No Wake Zone on Jones Creek. He noted for safety reasons, the ramp should be relocated. Sue Strickland's name was called by Chairman Bradshaw as having signed up to speak. She was not in attendance. Phil Goodwin of the Isle of Wight Rescue -Squad spoke in opposition to the centralization of dispatching of emergency medical responses by the County. Brian Carroll spoke in favor of emergency medical dispatchers remaining in the Town of Smithfield Police Department. Randolph Barlow requested the Board fund the dispatching positions and. leave the dispatchers with the Town of Smithfield. Carl Hill requested a status of Yellow Rock Road. Supervisor Clark noted this would be addressed under OldBusiness. Clint Osborne requested the Planning Commission hold its regular Commissionmeetings at night.. He further addressed the Board concerning " the Windsor Woods Subdivision .rezoning application noting that -the 27 ao~e 1~ ~~:~438 developer has yet to make contact with the residents. He requested that a public hearing be granted at the Planning .Commission's meeting when the application comes up and that the residents be allowed to continue to be in the process hear at the end. Supervisor Claud informed Mr. Osborne that when the issue comes back to the Planning Commisison in November, there .will be a public hearing. Supervisor Clark advised Mr. Osborne that the Board does not have the authority to tell the Planning Commission when it should meet because the State Code allows the Planning Commission to set their own meetings. Mr. Osborne indicated a desire. to meet with the County Attorney to discuss whether or not there are any other avenues that. can be followed by a citizen to require the Planning Commission to meet in the evenings.. Jim Holtoff requested that. the decision for a weight limit on the Jones Creek Bridge. be left to the discretion of VDOT. He further noted that he is not in favor of a No Wake Zone on Jones Creek because it is a public waterway. Thomas Finderson noted his support of a No Wake Zone on Jones Creek. He suggested improving .the James River. Bridge launch ramp to move these boats from the Jones Creek Landing. He stated a facility is needed closer to the James River. // Chairman Bradshaw noted the attendance of the .Central Dispatch Committee and suggested the Board entertain a motion to amend the order of the agenda to the first item under the County Administrator's section. .Supervisor Clark moved the Board amend the. regular order of the agenda in order to hear the first item under the County Administrator's section pertaining to the Central Dispatch. Committee. .The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0): Richard O. Childress, Director of .Emergency Management, reported that the Fire and Rescue Association met recently and are recommending that the position be sent to the Town of Smithfield to be .funded by the County. He distributed to the Board a letter which was received just prior to the Fire and Rescue Association's meeting.., from Sheriff Phelps which contains a sample Memorandum of Understanding with regards to employees that would be placed in his center.: He stated that while the Committee is still sending forth the same recommendation, aconsensus is no longer present and the recommendation is again that these positions be placed in the dispatch center located in the Sheriffs Department. He stated 28 T: so~~ . ~.~ ~,:~: ~~39 ~~~ 1 also discussed was the cost to incorporate the Smithfield Volunteer Fire Department ~ into the move to the Sheriff's Department which is approximately $5,000. Supervisor MacManus commented that he spoke with both the Chief of Police and the Town Manager for .Smithfield and at that time, both had ..indicated that there would be an unanimous agreement. He stated that position has since been reversed. He stated at that time, the suggestion was made. to the Fire and Rescue Association that it may want to reconsider the fact that the host had changed their mind, but, in fact, has not changed their minds, as they are willing to support it. He stated the Town of Smithfield does want to support it,~the Association wants it at Smithfield and. the rescue squads both want it located at Smithfield. He stated the report from the Committee recommends five (5) people be hired for the dispatch office, if it was to be placed in the Sheriff's office and the Town of Smithfield is asking for four (4) people and .would staff it with four (4) and would staff it with four (4) with the make-up personnel being made from Town staff, creating. a savings of $30,000 between the two (2) on an annual basis. He stated the other cost factor is related to the hardware/software aspect. He stated initially the Committee had indicated a $5,000 cost which now maybe only $300 verses a $13,000 to $18,000 cost if it was the be placed with.hardware in the Smithfield office. He stated the. lowest -cost option in that case, and would reinforce this Board's position of supporting the Association, would be to proceed with placing it in the Smithfield office. Supervisor Claud noted- that he did attend .the Fire and Rescue Association meeting and the vote was unanimous. He stated a concern was expressed by the Carrollton Volunteer Fire Department that additional help was needed. He stated if you look at what has been. said as to why it really needs to be left in Smithfield is that there has been a good. working relationship for twenty-five (25) years and trained dispatchers that know the system. He stated if the Board proceeds with this concept, what will happen in five (5) years when the County has four (4) years of good relationships and still have the trained dispatchers and what will be the incentive. to go to central dispatching. Supervisor MacManus stated he would suggest going ahead and plan to move to some type of contractor support to provide the County with a definite cost to implement along-term system. He stated he sees this as an interim position until the County can get the central dispatch in place and he would further suggest that the Board ask the Committee to provide a definitive cost plan on how to implement the recommendation which is the County's wants along-term central dispatch and needs it quickly. Chairman Bradshaw stated he did not like the idea that five (5) to seven (7) years down the road the County would be going to central. dispatching because this is too long.. He stated the County needs to hire some contractors and move forward. 29 ~~~,~, 19 ..; -4~0 Supervisor Clark recommended that the Board direct the Committee to come back with recommendations in six (6) months and the County be ready to implement a plan by the end of 2001. Chairman Bradshaw recommended that the President of the Fire and Rescue Association be added to the Committee so that they can be part of the planning process. Supervisor Bradby stated he had hoped that the recommendations would come from .the volunteers of the County, but he is not hearing that. He stated volunteers are giving their time, effort and placing their life on the line for the County. Mr. Childress noted that there is consensus with all the organizations that the County needs to move ahead with the central dispatching. Supervisor MacManus moved as a short-term, interim position that the Board fund four (4) dispatch positions at the Smithfield .Police Department's dispatch center and provide approximately $18,000. funding for the extra console. Also, from along-term perspective, that the Board provide the necessary funding and support to the .Central Dispatch Committee to continue its work and to bring on a consultant,. if necessary, to implement the long-term solution of a true central. dispatch system in as short a time frame as possible, perhaps one (l) year. This is in support of the Fire and Rescue Association and rescue squads. The motion was adopted unanimously with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. . Supervisor Clark moved that the Board ask. the Committee to be prepared to come back to the Board within six- (6) .months with a firm outline for implementing plans for a facility and staffing of a centralized dispatching system in the County, within one. (1) year. The motion was adopted unanimously with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. .Chairman Bradshaw moved that the President of the Fire and Rescue Association be added to the Central Dispatch Committee. The motion was adopted unanimously with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the. motion (5-0) and no Supervisors w voting against the motion. // Supervisor Claud moved. the Board return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). f 30 .: ,~ ~i 9~^~ 19 r~:~~~1 Chairman Bradshaw called for the Community Development report. Chairman Bradshaw called for discussion by the. Board on the No Wake Zone for Jones Creek. Supervisor MacManus stated the Town of Smithfield's request for a No Wake Zone was denied because waters with a width. of fifty (50) yards did not have the impact on the environmental erosion as did the weather. He stated he did not have a problem with a No Wake Zone, where it is needed from an erosion standpoint. He inquired if the Board could ask for the Virginia .Institute of Marine Science's (VIMS) thoughts on where a No Wake Zone on Jones Creek could be best utilized and where it may not provide any benefit. Supervisor Clark moved .that staff be directed to contact the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to request that a representative of that. organization be present at the Board's November 6, 2000 meeting at 2:00 p.m. to discuss its position on No Wake Zone regulations. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor MacManus recommended that when the Board enacts the No Wake Zone on Jones Creek that the .enforcement come in for those portions. that are zoned No Wake areas. .Chairman Bradshaw called for discussion on the status report contained in the agenda concerning the Eagle Harbor Development. Upon inquiry from Chairman Bradshaw if staff had forwarded the development plans- to CBLAD for its review and comment, to which Mr. Hartley replied "no", Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board direct Mr. Hartley to forward .the development plans to CBLAD for review and comment. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (S-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. [] Chairman Bradshaw further moved that the consultant, URS Greiner Woodward. & Clyde, be invited to attend a meeting to provide. an explanation and- answer questions from .the Board on the Water Quality Impact Assessment which they previously prepared for Eagle Harbor. Mr. Hartley is to advise the. date of the meeting. The motion was. adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in-favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. 31 Supervisor Clark. requested Mr. Hartley to check on the number of ponds proposed throughout. the .project. He .further requested that Mr. Hartley verify whether or not there is a grave .located at one of the access points. ^ Mr. Hartley stated additional copies of the Comprehensive Plan will be distributed to members of the Planning Commission, the Advisory Committee and the library by the end of this week. Chairman Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley. place the .issue of the Comprehensive Plan on the next agenda under his section for discussion by the Board on how to proceed. // Chairman Bradshaw called for the County Administrator's report. County Administrator Casket' recommended the Board authorize staff to issue an RFP for financial advisory services. Supervisor Claud moved the Board .authorize the Director of Budget and Finance to issue an RFP for financial advisory. services. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County Administrator/Director of - Human Resources, presented the issue of the Leave Transfer Policy for the Board's consideration. Supervisor Claud stated the Board previously allowed employees of Social Services, School Board and Constitutional Officers to transfer their sick leave when they became employed by the County. He stated for ..Constitutional Officers' slots, if a person is paid by the Compensation Board and there is an opening within County employment, they must resign that job and take the job with the County. He .stated any unused leave time, seniority or tenure was not permitted to be transferred to the County.. He stated he is proposing that if an employee does transfer from the :School Board, Social .Services or Constitutional offices. that they be allowed to .transfer their unused leave balances up to the maximum allowed by the County. He suggested the three stipulations he would like to .see included: 1) transfer employees hired by -the County within thirty (30) days of termination; 2) transfer employees or regular full-time employee who leaves the previous agency in good standing; and 3) transfer of said employee has been approved by the County Administrator or his designee. 1 Supervisor MacManus concurred with the stipulations specified by Supervisor Claud and said he would hope that the County Administrator 32 T; would speak with the other organizations to determine if there could be a reciprocal agreement. 1 Chairman Bradshaw asked the County Attorney if a person would lose seniority if they do not meet all the conditions contained in the statement - "will be allowed to transfer unused leave balances and maintain seniority provided the following... "? County Attorney Crook replied "yes." Mr. Robertson stated part of the intent is to treat this like an internal transfer, which is why these stipulations are in place. County Attorney Crook stated the problem about the transferring employee has not been compensated for unused leave balance should have nothing to do with seniority. He suggested .this be moved to the first paragraph where it states "will be allowed to transfer unused leave balances which have not been compensated and maintain seniority provided the following, and then list the stipulations 1, 3 and 4. Supervisor Claud moved the Board direct the County Attorney and the Human Resources Director to draft apolicy-and bring back to the Board at -its November 6, 2000 meeting which includes the following stipulations: Employees transferring from the School_ Board, Social Services and Constitutional Officers will be allowed to transfer unused leave balances which they have not been compensated for and maintain their seniority provided the following; 1) the transferring employee is hired by the. County within. thirty (30) days of termination from said agency; 2) the. transferring. employee is a regular full-time employee who leaves the previous. agency in "good-standing"; and 3) the transfer of said employee has been approved by the County Administrator or his designee. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Claud stated after the- Board takes action on the above, he would propose that any employee transferring from the School Board, Social Service and Constitutional:0fficers to the County since 1/1/96 will transfer their unused leave balances up to the maximum allowed for County employees provided employee has not been previously compensated. 1 County Administrator Caskey .requested the .Board set a date in January for the Board's Retreat. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board direct the Assistant County Administrator/Director of Human Resources to contact The Smithfield Center to lock in January 20, 2001 as a date for the Board's annual Retreat and that staff prepare an agenda for the Board's consideration. The County Administrator reminded the Board members to submit their 33 ~ - ~o~~ ~.9 > '~~4 recommendations for agenda topics. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, .Bradby,. Bradshaw, .Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Bradshaw moved the Board establish the Town Meeting date sometime in February, 2001 and that staff coordinate with the Carrsville Elementary School. The motion was adopted with. Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Mr. Childress presented a request for an increase in allocation in the amount of $38,133 for- the expansion of the Carrsville Volunteer Fire Department project. He explained that the successful low bidder came in over what. was already allotted for this project. He noted within the bid was the request for a separate bid amount to replace the existing roof. Supervisor MacManus suggested placing- a five (5) percent contingency on such contracts in the future.. Chairman Bradshaw recommended adding the contingency as a separate line item. Supervisor Claud moved the Board authorize $38,133 from the capital contingency fund to be added to the Carrsville Volunteer Fire Department project and accept Strickland and Wilson .Construction Company, Inc. as the successful bidder for the project at $278,133. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and .Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor C and further moved that the Chairman be authorized to sign the contract with Strickland and Wilson Construction Company, Inc. orr behalf of the County. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Patrick J. Small, Director of Economic Development, stated the .County was .invited to submit a proposal to the State for community economic improvement funds. He noted the deadline for submittal of the proposal is October 31, 2000. He stated a public hearing was previously held to satisfy the Department of Housing and Community Development's requirements. He stated a second public hearing is scheduled for-10:00 a.m. on Friday, October 27, 2000. Supervisor Clark moved the Board adopt the following resolution authorizing the Chief Administrative Official authority to complete, sign and submit a proposal to apply for Virginia Community. Development Block Grant funds: RESOLUTION GIVING THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE :OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE, SIGN AND 34 .. ~l 1 9'. ao~~ ~9 -,.:-~~5 SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO APPLY FOR VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (VCDBG) FUNDS 1 Be it resolved that, pursuant to two public hearings, Isle of Wight County wishes to apply for $700,000 of .Virginia Community Development Block Grant funds for the Shirley T. Holland Commerce Park Improvements Project. Whereas, approximately $2 million of local public money originating from bond proceeds or General Funds and $192,000 in Virginia Industrial access Road Funds, will also be expended on this project, it is .projected that more than one hundred and sixty (160) new job recipients will result from the implementation of this project, of which eighty-one (81) will be low and moderate-income persons. Be it further resolved that W. Douglas .Caskey, County Administrator, is hereby authorized to sign and submit appropriate documents for the submittal of this Virginia Community Development. Block Grant Proposal. 1 The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (S-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. County Administrator Caskey requested the Board's consideration of a Resolution of Appreciation to Ludford T. Creef, III for his years of service to the .County. Supervisor Claud moved the Board adopt the following resolution: Resolution of Appreciation to Ludford T. Creef, III Upon the Completion of his Services to Isle of Wight County Whereas, Ludford T. Creef has -served faithfully as a valued employee of Isle of Wight County in the capacity of Director of Public Works from March 1, 1988 through November 3, 2000; and, 1 .Whereas, he has contributed substantially to the successful operation of the Isle of Wight .County Department of Public Works through his professional_insight, broad experience and knowledge; and, Whereas, .through his leadership and direction, in 1998 the Department of Public Works was recognized with a National. Association of Counties achievement award for the innovation and effectiveness of the County's full service Convenience Centers; and,. 35 Whereas, his contributions to Isle of Wight County have materially improved the quality of life for the citizens of Isle of Wight; and; Now Therefore Be It Resolved by the .Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors that Ludford T. Creef, III be recognized and commended for his outstanding service to the County upon his retirement, and is presented this Resolution as a token of the County's gratitude and esteem; and, Be It Further Resolved, that the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors: extends to Ludford T. Creef, III its best wishes for his future endeavors and orders that a copy of this Resolution be spread upon the minutes. of this Board this nineteenth day of October 2000. The motion was .adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) .and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Bradshaw called for the County Attorney's report. County Attorney .Crook presented a request for the Community Block Grant for -the Jamestown home improvement project. He stated the County takes a Note and Deed of .Trust from the landowner and the County subordinates that to financing Deeds of Trust. He stated this situation calls for a subordination of the .County Deed of Trust. for a particular property holder in the Jamestown area for. improvements under the .Block. Grant. He stated there are two (2) Deeds of Trust .prior to the County's Deed of Trust, the person is refinancing and the refinancing .amount is less than the two (2) prior Deeds of Trust. He stated the County's position is not lessened in any .way by this subordination. He stated he has reviewed the information and recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the contract. i Supervisor Claud moved the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the contract. The. motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. County Attorney Crook stated he met with the .County's Fire and Rescue Association as directed by the Board concerning .the issue of the County being the Purchasing Agent and the utilization of the Public Procurement Act requirements. He stated the Fire and Rescue Association. understands that the use of County. funds has to be pursuant to the Public Procurement Act, however, they would like to make the purchases because. they have the contacts, expertise and know what kind of .equipment is needed by them. He stated for this to happen it would require supervision from the Director of Budget and Finance, as well as from himself as to legal requirements being met. 36 •. .•. i~ Anne F. Seward, Director of Budget,and Finance, stated she would not have a problem with the. organization writing the specifications and County staffcould put. it out to bid. She stated what she is hearing though is that he organization wants to not only write the specifications, but put it out to bid, which is not following the Procurement Act. Supervisor MacManus recommended that staff explain to the organizations that the County will ensure that they are part of the process, at the specifications and evaluation stages.' County Attorney Crook noted that he would like to reword the policy and bring it back to the Board for its consideration. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board .direct the County Attorney to redraft the procurement policy with regards to capital purchasing for the Fire and Rescue Association. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw,. Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Bradshaw called for Oid Business. Nomination of Ragged Island Creek as an Exceptional Waterway (Tabled 10/5/00) Supervisor Clark stated he thought the Board should consider the matter only after the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ} advises that the County's application is complete and a copy of the completed application is forwarded to the County by DEQ. 1 Supervisor Clark moved the Board consider the matter after DEQ advises the application is complete and hasnotified the County that DEQ is ready for the County's comments. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark .and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Clark further moved .that the Board direct the County Attorney to send a letter to DEQ stating that the Board appreciates the efforts of its citizens, that information is being gathered, and that the matter will be considered by the Board when the application is complete. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // 37 Chairman Bradshaw called for New Business. Supervisor Clark noted that .cable was down on one of the clearest days and several citizens contacted him and he would request. that the General Manager of Charter Communications appear again before. the Board to advise why the cable was- out again. County. Attorney Crook recommended that the County Administrator, Supervisor Clark and himself meet with Charter Communications to discuss cable issues. Supervisor Clark moved the Board direct the County Attorney. to set up a meeting between. the Board's committee and Frank Staley (Charter. Communications) to discuss cable issues. The motion .was. adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the .motion. Supervisor Clark spoke regarding the lack of raises for employees within the Treasurer's Department. Chairman Bradshaw advised that the Treasurer has never appeared before the Compensation Board and requested a review of any of the salaries, although the Commissioner of Revenue goes before the Compensation Board annually and receives its support. Supervisor Clark inquired about environmental review and wetlands delineation for the Hutchins property, Mr. Hartley stated that the conditions of approval that the Board approved the waiver on was .that the County would obtain an engineer's report on the drainage issue. He noted he would provide the Board with copies of information pertaining to the drainage issue. Supervisor Claud acknowledged staff efforts in increasing the County's United Way contribution by 16.3%. ...Supervisor Clark inquired about the status of Yellow Rock Road. County Attorney Crook advised ,that he sent afollow-up letter after the last meeting to the attorney for the owner, but he has not yet received a response.. Supervisor Clark inquired about the status of Gayle Way. Mr. Hartley advised that .South Johnson has been .added to the State's system. He further advised that .Duke's Lane, Poplar, South Shore Drive. and Gayle Way are to follow, in that order. Supervisor Clark requested. Mr. Hartley verify that. Gayle Way was platted as a separate right-of--way and single ownership. ii 38 Supervisor Clark inquired when the Comprehensive .Plan would be forwarded to CBLAD. 1 Mr. Hartley advised he has already sent the Comprehensive Plan to CBLAD for its review and comments back to the County. County Administrator Casket' stated Chairman Bradshaw notified him that he .had received comments from citizens that the County is not being responsive to providing the Comprehensive Plan sections. He further stated he contacted the Executive Director of CBLAD expressing the County's concern. He stated he emphasized to Mr. Clower that if there is. a breakdown in communications, that CLBAD needs to be talking to the County and the County's citizens don't need to be finding out from CBLAD if there is a problem, but rather the County needs to know it. He stated at this point staff will have to assume that CBLAD is satisfied with the response it is getting from the County. Supervisor MaeManus encouraged Attorney Riddick and his client to work out a compromise position with the citizens on the Windsor Woods rezoning application. 1 Regarding the property located at Nike Park Road and Battery Park Road, Supervisor MacManus advised that the Town of Smithfield will be working with involved parties and that there is a concern because the property is zoned commercial. Regarding the issue of redistricting, specifically consideration of a Citizens Advisory Committee, Supervisor MacManus suggested two (Z) citizens from each election district be appointed to the Citizens Advisory Committee. Responding to Supervisor MacManus, Chairman Bradshaw advised the matter was. tabled until the November 6, 2000 meeting at which time the guidelines will be established . Chairman Bradshaw referenced correspondence received from the Treasurer concerning delinquent tax collection efforts. He requested County Attorney Crook to further review the matter. 1 .Supervisor Clark stated he was just made aware of a letter from the General Manager of Charter Communication offering to credit all Carrollton residents accounts who were out of service for Saturday, Sunday and Monday. // Chairman Bradshaw called for Appointments. 39 ea~~ ~9 r~-5~0 Supervisor Claud moved the Board accept the resignation of Joan C. Griffin on the Events Committee. The motion was adopted unanimously (5- 0). Supervisor Claud moved the Board .appoint Betty K. -Hardy on the Events Committee. The: motion was adopted unanimously (S-0). // - County Attorney Crook requested a closed session under Section 2.1- 344 A7 of the Freedom of Information Act. for advice of counsel to advise the Board concerning two (2) matters of probable litigation and under Section 2.1-344 A7 concerning one (1) matter involving status of contract negotiations which is a matter requiring advice of counsel. Supervisor Clark requested a closed session under Section 2.1-344 A7 concerning two (2) matters involving actual litigation -and under Section 2.1- 344 A3 concerning a matter involving land acquisition where divulging the land in question would jeopardize the negotiation of the County. Supervisor MacManus moved the .Board enter closed session for the reasons stated. The. motion was adopted with.. Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (S-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Upon returning to open session, Supervisor Claud moved the Board adopt the following resolution: CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information. Act; and, WHEREAS, 2.1-344.1 D of the .Code of Virginia requires a certification by this Board of Supervisors that such .closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters- lawfully exempted from open. meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors. VOTE. 4 i~ 40 ,., f 1 1 1 BanE ~i1 -~;:~50,, AYES: MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, Clark and Claud NAYS: 0 ABSENT DURING VOTE: 0 ABSENT DURING MEETING: 0 The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, Bradshaw, -Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion {5-0) and no Supervisors voting against the motion. . // Chairman Bradshaw requested. the Board consider alternative dates for the regular meeting of November 2, 2000 as he could not be present. At 11:50 p.m., Supervisor Clark moved the Board adjourn and hold its next regular meeting on November 6, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. The motion was adopted with Supervisors MacManus, Bradby, :Bradshaw, Clark and Claud voting in favor of the motion (S-0) and no.. Supervisors voting against the motion. // Phi A. Bradshaw, Chairman