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