Loading...
11-21-2002 Regular Meeting~i [J 6000 2~ rR~'J1~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE .ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWO PRESENT: Robert C. Claud, Sr., Chairman Richard K: MacManus, Vice Chairman Stan D. Clark (Arrived at 6:04 p.m.) Phillip A. Bradshaw Henry H. Bradby Also Attending: Jacob P. Stroman, IV, County Attorney W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator Donald T. Robertson, Assistant County Administrator/Director of Human Resources Carey H. Mills, Recording Secretary Chairman Claud called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Claud noted that the Board had anticipated meeting earlier at 3:30 p.m. and, therefore, did not adjourn from its meeting (Retreat) held on Saturday, November 16, 2002. Noting that the. meeting did not take place, Chairman Claud requested a motion. from the Board to adjourn from its continued meeting on November 16, 2002. . Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board.. adjourn its meeting .from Saturday, November 16, 2002. The motion was adopted by a .vote- of (4-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby and Claud voting in favor; no Supervisors voting against the motion; -and, Supervisor Clark absent for the vote. // Supervisor Bradby delivered the invocation. 1! .The. Pledge of Allegiance was conducted. 1/ 1 Chairman. Claud called for Special Presentations. Chairman Claud read the Resolution to Recognize and Congratulate James Russell Thompson for Achieving the Rank of Eagte Scout. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: BOON ~1. rA&~%3~4 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE JAMES RUSSELL THOMPSON FOR ACHIEVING THE .RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, James R. Thompson is a member of Boy Scouts of America, Troop #3? and a. former resident of Isle of Wight County, Virginia having recently moved to the City of Newport News; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Thompson has achieved the rank of .Eagle- Scout; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes: to recognize and congratulate Mr. Thompson for his achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia that James R. Thompson is recognized and congratulated for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. The motion was .adopted by a vote of (5-0) with .Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // .Chairman Claud indicated the Consent Agenda (Item 2) included the following items: A. Actions of the Isle of .Wight County Planning Commission Meeting of November 12, 2002; B. Right Choices for Youth Seminar;. C. Resolution to Accept and Appropriate Grant Funds From .the Virginia Department of Health for Youth Programs; D. .Resolution to Appropriate $317,000 From the Economic. Development Reserve Fund Balance of the General Fund to the Industrial Development Authority; E. Resolution to Authorize Disbursement Up to $2,180,676 From the Capital Budget to the industrial Development Authority for the Completion of -the Shirley T. Holland. Commerce Park - Phase IIConstruction; F. Delinquent Real Estate Tax Collection Monthly Report; and, G. October 17, 2002 Regular Meeting Minutes. 2 1. 11 1 1 . ~aaK ~1 r~~~315 Chairman Claud asked if there were any items for removal. Supervisor Clark moved the .Board adopt. all items. on the Consent Agenda. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, ..Bradby, .Claud and Clark voting. in favor, and no Supervisors voting against-the motion. // Chairman Claud called for Transportation Matters.. Jonathan W. Hartley, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated that while he had no transportation matters to discuss with the Board, he would respond to any transportation concerns of the. Board. Supervisor MacManus stated Macklesfield Road has now been paved; however, VDOT has also installed a sign suggesting motorists should not utilize Macklesfield Road as it is a private roadway. He requested Mr. Hartley investigate this matter and report back to the Board. Supervisor Clark advised that he had received a .call from a resident on Hideaway Lane who indicated warrants .will be issued on motorists who travel on Macklesfield Road. Supervisor MacManus stated that the construction vehicles were using Yellow Rock Road during the paving of Macklesfield Road so as not to .damage the new road and now Yellow Rock Road is in disrepair at this time. Supervisor Clark moved .the Board direct the Director of Planning and Zoning to meet with. the County Attorney and the former County Attorney and prepare an appropriate position statement for the Board's consideration so that the Board can respond appropriately to inquiries from neighboring residents regarding accessibility issues related to these roadways. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no :Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw reported that Pruden Road has been advertised, the utilities have been moved and cleared and the contractor will begin construction in the near future: 1 Grace Keen requested the status of her .prior request for -gates and signs on the James River Bridge. Mr. Hartley stated- signs. are considered to be improvements to the primary road system. and that any improvements would have to be included in the Commonwealth Transportation Board's Primary Six-Year Plan. He 3 soon 21:~~f316 noted that the Board of Supervisors would need to include this in its list of projects to be included in the Preallocation Hearing and. .lobby the Commonwealth Transportation B©ard to add this request to the budget. // Chairman Claud called for Citizens Comments. Susan Mitchell presented a petition containing seventy-six (76) ..signatures of title examiners, lawyers, surveyors and others who visit the Clerk of Circuit Court's oflace on a regular basis to do their work. She requested the Board. reconsider allocating the necessary funding to keep the Clerk of Circuit Court's Office operating as it is currently. Supervisor Clark stated the Board has developed a policy stating the County will not be absorbing any State funding cutbacks. He directed Ms. Mitchell. and other. citizens to present their concerns regarding State cutbacks to their legislators to get the funding restored. Grace Keen requested the status of tax exemptions for the elderly and . handicapped. Supervisor Bradshaw advised Mrs. Keen that the Board had previously appointed a committee comprised of himself,. the' County Attorney, the County Administrator, the Director of Budget and Finance, the Social Services Director and the Commissioner of Revenue at its meeting of No=vember 7, .2002 to perform an evaluation and recommendation to the Board in time for the budget process. Steven Pretlow. requested -the Board make the County's tax on recreational vehicles comparable to what other surrounding localities are charging. Supervisor Bradshaw advised Mr. Pretlow that cities, have many more revenue streams than counties do. Chairman Claud advised that the. Board would evaluate this request in -the coming months as the Board begins to work on the County's budget. William E. Laine, Jr., Clerk of Circuit Court, requested the Board reconsider his request to restore State cutbacks to his budget. He stated the Board previously allocated copy fees back to his office; however, this still leaves a gap, of approximately $13,000. He requested the. Board appropriate to his office -the. full $23,388 needed. He stated that while the County did not create the State cutbacks, the Board is in a position to f x it as the County does have the funds. He stated while the County may feel it is unfair to have this problem dumped on it when it is not of its making; however, he .would suggest it is even more unfair for the Board to dump this problem on 4 1 1 1 BDO~ 2~ rAuF•,~~ - the citizens of .the County and those who use the Clerk's Office. He stated he realizes the Board wants to make apolitical statement, but this will not be effective. as the message will not be heard in .Richmond. He stated the Board members were elected by the citizens of their .respective district to govern the County and this is within the scope of the, Board's responsibility to grant this request. He stated his sources .tell him that approximately twenty-eight out of the forty (40) jurisdictions in the State have responded favorably in covering the shortfall. He respectfully requested that the Board fund the shortfall in his. budget. Supervisor Clark advised Mr. Laine that the :Board would discuss the matter further under Old Business. // Chairman Claud called for the County Attorney's report. County Attorney Stroman reported that he hashad several conferences ..with the attorneys -for Wavelength Technologies, L.L.C. and identified the following issues of concern; the "substantially similar" requirement contained in State law; the issue in the. agreement of whether or not there would be a desire on the part of the County to renegotiate in the event. of a sale; and, the issues discussed: by Supervisor MacManus concerning. customer responsiveness. He stated the agreement .currently reads that in the event of a sale of a company, the. County. has the ability to give its approval, which could not be unreasonably withheld. He stated he would soon be in a position to legally advise the Board whether this matter is in a position to go forward to a public hearing. County Attorney Stroman reported that the issue of the nomination of Ragged Island Creek as an Exceptional Waterway would be included. in the Board's December 5, 2002 .agenda following a meeting with Planning .and Zoning staff ~i County Attorney Stroman reported he would be reporting on .the utility- issues discussed at the Board's Retreat in the near future. County Attorney Stroman recommended that if the Board does consider the extension of the Charter Communications franchise agreement that it may ~ be an opportune time to bring it more in line with. thsr Wavelength franchise agreement which is more comprehensive. // Chairman Claud called for the County Administrator's report. Patrick J. Small, Director of Economic Development, reported that the Industrial Development Authority .held a public hearing on the issue of S ao~~ 21 ~~:::~18 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Norfolk Academy .this afternoon and recommended approval to the Board.. Supervisor MacManus .moved the Board adopt the following Resolution: RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ISLE OF WIGHT APPROVING ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR THE NORFOLK ACADEMY WHEREAS, there have-been described to the Industrial Development Authority of the County. of Isle of Wight (the "Authority") the plans. of The Norfolk Academy (the "School"), in connection with the refinancing of the renovation, expansion and equipping of .Burroughs Gymnasium, located at l 585 Wesleyan Drive, Norfolk, Virginia (the "Project") located at 1585 Wesleyan Drive, Norfolk, Virginia 23502; WHEREAS, the Project is owned and operated by the School and the Authority has held a public hearing on November 21, 2002, with respect to the Project and the. issuance. of industrial development revenue bonds with respect thereto in the maximum principal amount of $4,000,000 (the "Bonds") as required by Virginia. law and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); WHEREAS, the Code provides that the highest elected governmental officials of .the .governmental units having jurisdiction over the issuer of .private activity bonds shall approve the issuance of such bonds; WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia (the "County"), and the members of the Board of Supervisors. of the County of Isle of Wight (the "Board) constitute the highest elected governmental officials of the County; WHEREAS, Section I5.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, provides .that the. Board shall within 60 calendar days from the public hearing. with respect to industrial .development revenue bonds either approve or disapprove the issuance of such bonds; WHEREAS,. a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments. expressed at the. public hearing with respect to the Bonds and a fiscal impact statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-490? of the Code of Virginia of -1950, as amended, have been filed with the Board; 6 1 1 ~• eoox 21 r~~~319 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ISLE OF WIGHT, VIRGINIA: fl 1, The recitals made in the first and second preambles to this Resolution are hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. 2. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Isle of .Wight, Virginia,. approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority to assist in the plan of finance described herein for the benefit of the School to the extent required by the Code and :Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"). 3. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the .Virginia Code, .does not constitute an endorsementto a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the. Project or the School,. and, as required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that neither .the County nor the Authority shah be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and monies pledged therefor and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Countyor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 1 .The motion -was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. County Administrator Casket' stated the matter of the Dry Well- - Replacement. Program would be further discussed at the Board's meeting on December 5, 2002. He stated he has :prepared this report for the Board's information should they receive calls from their constituents- in the meantime. He .noted this is a program the Board will likely want to take advantage of on behalf of its citizens. County Administrator Casket' stated that the Board.. needs to formally adopt a Resolution Establishing Isle of Wight County's Legislative Proposals even. though the Board endorsedthe Proposals by action at its last meeting and it was forwarded to the County's General Assembly delegation. He stated the Board should .also incorporate the legislative priorities staff just received from the School Board. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board -adopt the following, Resolution to include the legislative priorities of the School Board on the County's list of priorities previously. endorsed: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR THE 2003 SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7 eoaK 21.~~~320 WHEREAS, the General Assembly considers numerous issues that affect local governments both directly and indirectly; and, WHEREAS, the County of Isle of Wight has specific interest in matters dealing generally with local governments, as well as with matters directly impacting the County of Isle of Wight; and,. WHEREAS, such interest should. be shared with Isle of Wight County's General. Assembly Delegation so that it may know of the County's position on these important issues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the .Board. of Supervisors of the County of Isle of Wight :endorses the attached legislative proposals. for the 2003 General .Assembly Session -and directs that both this resolution and the legislative .proposals be forwarded to Isle of Wight County's General Assembly Delegation and that the County Administrator and his staff work with and assist the Delegation as appropriate. The motion was. adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus,..Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting- in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // Chairman Claud called for Old Business. A. Tax Exemptions for the Elderly and Handicapped County Administrator Caskey transmitted. to the Board correspondence received from the Commissioner of Revenue for the Board's information. He stated the committee appointed by the .Board. at its November 7, .2002 meeting would be gathering .information. for presentation back to-the Board. B. Request of the Clerk of Circuit Court Supervisor Clark requested the Director of Budget and Finance advise. the amount of funds in the County's- contingency account. Anne F. Seward, Director of Budget and Finance, stated he only unallocated funds are located in the .County's contingency .account, which contains a balance of approximately $40,000. Responding to Supervisor Bradshaw,. Ms. Seward confirmed that the County .has not yet received any request for funds from the other Constitutional Offices. or agencies. She further confirmed that the State budget shortfall is approximately $1.5 billion now and the State. is ,. 8 n 8~0~ ~rACf.,~1 1 1 1 estimating that the shortfall will increase to $2 billion with a projection of reducing the current year's budget funding for schools. She. stated the first phase of this year's budget cut is approximately $154,000, and last year the .approximate reductions from the State to this locality was $658,000. Supervisor Bradby spoke in favor of funding the additionai $13,000 to the Clerk of Court's Office. He stated he would hate to see $13,000 stand in the way of providing services to the citizens of the County that could not be done anywhere except in the Clerk's Office. Supervisor Bradshaw stated the unanimous position throughout the State of Virginia is that localities will not tolerate further cutbacks from the State. He stated numerous counties within the State of Virginia spoke at the recent Virginia .Association of Counties meeting and stated they. would not fund these reductions in the State budget. He stated this year the Board is taking its message to its citizens. advising them that the County is rasing taxes because the State is not funding programs it is mandating on the County. He encouraged all citizens to call their representatives at the General Assembly and let them know they can no longer tolerate real estate tax increases. He stated the County has last approximately $2 million dollars in.State funding annually which equates to $.15 on the real estate tax rate. He stated all the major newspapers in the State are covering the united effort by the Virginia Association of Counties to stand up to the General Assembly. Supervisor Clark commented that he used the Clerk's office quite ..frequently and that Mr. Laine's staff does a superb job.. He stated this Board resolved early on though that it would not let Richmond shift its problems to the County. He stated whether the County's stand is political or not, he feels it is a stand that will ultimately benefit the taxpayers as it wild force the message that the State can not shift its revenue problems to the County. Supervisor MacManus :thanked Mr. Laine and Ms. Mitchell for coming to speak. to the Board tonight. He stated the Board has a ~~ responsibility to the citizens of the County because the Board has for the; past two (2) years raised real estate taxes to make up for the cuts made by Richmond. He stated it is time that the pressure is applied to where the problem is because Richmond is not upholding its responsibility. He stated the County is .holding the line because it has seen for two (2) years the problem passed on from Richmond to this community and Richmond needs to understand its responsibility to the citizens of the County and the State of Virginia.. Supervisor Clark .offered to support the efforts of citizens by the Board adopting a resolution and going to Richmond with them. // 9 . eoo~ 21 ra~~3?2 Chairman Claud called for New Business. Mr. Robertson notified the Board that the Governor has issued a Press Release that he is extending to State employees a half day on Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving. He noted, the Board. had previously adopted a policy consistent with the State. Mr. Hartley distributed a .copy of a letter dated November 15, -2002 from William T. Hopkins, III, Director of Planning, Engineering & Public Works for ..the Town of Smithfield, referring. the ~ amended proffers for .the Villas of Smithfield which will be considered by the Smithfield Town Council orr December 3, 2002. He stated the developer is-now agreeing to a cash proffer to the County of a lump sum amount of $20,000. He stated this community is proposed. as an adult community,. not age restricted, but age designed. Supervisor MacManus moved the Board direct Mr. Hartley to provide the Board's following feedback via. correspondence to the Town of Smithfield with the summary of the comments to reflect the previous position of the Board, that. it be updated to reflect the slight change offered in proffers to the County, and to review any previous comments of the Board and to include those that have not been addressed: l) Supervisor MacManus requested-the proffers be changed to make the development age restricted,. 2) Supervisor Clark noted the dollar amount of the proffer (78 units equals $250 per unit) is insufficient, 3} Supervisor MacManus commented that if the development was age restricted, .the lump sum proffered amount of $20,000 would be adequate to address the fire and rescue impact, however, this amount is not adequate to address school needs, 4} Supervisor MacManus requested the issue of the impact. to the road be addressed. The .motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. // At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Bradshaw 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 Claud called for a public hearing on the following: A: The application of Raymond A. and Estelle R. Parson for a change in zoning classification from RAC to Conditional Rural Residential, 2.85 acres of land located on the north side of Mullen. Drive .(Route 684} between the Sunry .County Line .and 10 } 840K 2irA4iJ~e) ni .Pons Road (Route 625) in Hardy Election District. The. purpose of the application is for asingle-family residential lot. Chairman Claud called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Raymond A, Parson, applicant, requested the Board approve the application. Chairman .Claud closed the public hearing and- called for comments from the Board, Supervisor Clark moved that the Board approve the application of Raymond A. and Estelle R. Parson, as conditioned. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with. Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw,. Bradby, Claud and Clark. voting. in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Claud called for a public hearing on the following:. B. The application of G. Fred Walls and William R: Turner, Jr:, owners and 17 Corner Properties, LLC, prospective owners for a change in zoning classification from Conditional LI and RAC to Conditional General Commercial, a total of approximately three (3) acres of land located adjoining 14214 Carrollton Boulevard which is on the west side of Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17) north of Brewer's Neck Boulevard (Routes 258 & 32) in the Newport Election District. Chairman Claud, called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. Charlie Williams of Williams. Automart and 17 Corner Properties, LLC, prospective owners, requested the Board approve the application. Chairman Claud closed the public hearing .and. called for comments from the Board.. Supervisor MacManus noted that the application is requesting a variance from the average distance and it is 3.2 feet away from meeting the County's current Highway Overlay Ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that. he is no longer requesting this variance. Supervisor MacManus noted that the applicant is proposing a fifteen (15) foot high sign. He inquired if the sign could be five (5) lower without negatively impacting his business so that it is not a monument on the edge of Route 17. 11 eQO~ ~~ ra~~324 Mr. Williams stated there is a three (3) tier landscape proposed and he wants to insure that the sign is visible once the trees are planted. He stated he also wants to insure that the sign is sufficiently high so as not to be blocked by parked vehicles. Supervisor MacManus inquired from the applicant what provisions are being provided to_maintain the BMP pond in the back. John Alphin, Challenge Constructors, stated the site plan illustrates infiltration ditches, which. will replace the need for a detention pond. County Attorney Stroman referenced the proffer letter dated .October 1, 2002, wherein it stated that the applicant agrees to provide additional landscaping at the shop building. He asked. the _applicant to specify what the additional landscaping consists of. Mr. Williams illustrated for the Board his landscaping plans and noted. that the conditions he is proffering are contained in both the sketches .contained in the Board's agenda. Supervisor Clark requested Mr. Hartley elaborate on his comments noted under "Strengths" and "Weakness" contained in the Board's report, wherein it is staff s opinion that the appearance of the building shown does not reflect the County character and. the most recently approved development plan of thearea.. Mr. Hartley stated this application was originally submitted and tabled by the Planning Commission at its September meeting and at that time the building was a much plainer building and following the Planning Commisison meeting the developer met with staff and made a number of enhancements. He noted the comments contained in the. agenda are dated. Supervisor Bradshaw requested Mr. Hartley clarify which conditions the .Board is voting on. . Mr. Hartley replied that there are two (2) sets of conditions, contained in separate documents, dated August 5, 2002 and October 1, 2002. Supervisor Bradshaw requested that in the future. Mr. Hartley pull all conditions together so that the Board .has a clear understanding as to what conditions they are voting on and so that such conditions can be more .easily referenced. County Attorney Stroman requested that the applicant confirm. that he is proffering:. the items he .offered in his letter of August 5, 2002 and his letter of October 1, .2002. Mr. Williams replied `des". .. 11 12 '1 1 II @0~~ 21 ~A~',,~5 County Attorney Stroman stated it is also not -the intention of the applicant to seek a variance and it should also be deleted. from the pr©ffers on the letter dated October 1, 2002. Supervisor Clark moved the Board approve the application of G. Fred Walls and William R. Turner,. Jr., as proffered with the items offered in the letter of August 5~' and October 1 ~` and that Item #4 (variance) is deleted from the October 1 ~` letter. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, ..Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Claud called for a public hearing on the following: C. The application of Barbara L. Courtney, Frances C. Macisaac and Green Tee Golf Center, Inc. owners and Roberr~ F. Berlucchi, prospective owner for a change in zoning classification from RAC, approximately 2 acres of land and from RAC, GC and Conditional GC, approximately 18 acres of land to Conditional Suburban. Estate. A total of approximately 20 .acres of land located on the south side of Carrollton Boulevard (Route 17) between Ashby Way and Cedar Grove Road (Route 661) in Newport Election District. The purpose of the application is for asingle-family residential subdivision, as conditioned Chairman .Claud called for persons to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. William Riddick, Attorney representing the applicant, stated contrary to the ruling of the Planning Commission, he believes this is an appropriate place for .this as it is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plana He stated the property is surrounded on all sides by residential development. He stated as a result of the comments made by members of the Planning Commission his- applicant is adding proffered conditions #9 and # 10 dealing with buffers. He stated his applicant is proffering that the buffer will not be disturbed and will remain as it is so that it would. separate the Canon Acres Subdivision from the new development. He stated in addition, his applicant is proposing a fifteen. (IS) .foot easement along the Walnut Grove Subdivision. He stated Mr. Berlucchi has a reputation for doing a quality job in this County as illustrated when he developed the Carrollton Meadows Subdivision. He stated the property will be served by .central water and sewer connected to the County's systems which would, after being installed, be donated to the County. He stated the property would.. have restricted covenants ,that. are no less restrictive than the Ashby Phase I and II restrictions. He stated the applicant is further proffering buffers between the user use and 'one (1) adjacent to the commercial use equipment. He stated the trail was deleted as it is unworkable because it runs through residents' 13 eaoa 21 ~~c~326 backyards. He stated a trafl:ic impact analysis will be performed and if there is any .place in the County that can handle the traffic generated by this development, the Route 17 corridor would be that place. He stated the proposed development is modest in scale .with a maximum of forty-one (41) lots.. He stated his applicant does take issue .with staff's suggestion about the access to Cedar Grove. .Supervisor Clark stated some citizens voiced concern at the Planning Commission meeting about this- development causing additional traffic on Cedar Grove Road. He further stated this development comes into Route 17, not Cedar Grove Road. He inquired if these citizens were concerned about an access not being granted to Cedar Grove Road. Attorney Rddick stated it is staffs belief that there should be some connectivity, :however, there are some environmentally sensitive areas there and he does not believe tying it in so there is access to Cedar Grove Road is .the appropriate thing to do. He recommended the Board review the proffers as -one (1) of the major changes has to do with the proffered conditions dealing with .cash. He stated if all forty-one (41) lots are developed, the applicant will pay the County approximately $328,000 for-the water and tap fees and, in addition, he is proffering the sum of $5,000 per lot or potentially $165,000. He requested the Board .allow him an opportunity. to respond to any questions at the end of the public. hearing. Pat Clark of Twin Hill Lane stated he believes this' is something that is largely a revenue based. zoning .and turning it into anon-revenue based zoning that places more of a burden on the County's .public facilities, especially in the Carrollton .area. He stated there is already. a Carrollton Meadows and. Carrollton Forrest in the Carrollton area and there are even future prospects at Smithfield Downs. He stated the Board would have a lot of reason for considering no action. on this. He stated the most recent proffer was for $2;000- which is grossly inadequate for the proffers the County needs to pay for the public facilities needed to support this type of development. He requested the Board deny the application if it appears that it will cause the Board to have to raise taxes for the third year in a row. He reminded the . Board that .the State has withheld substantial .amounts of funding f*om the ro~anty, .County departments are asking more from. the County to maintain h~ services the County presently .has and County departments are being expanded to meet the demand of recent developments. He requested .the Board .either. declare a moratorium on all residential developments until State finances and economic .status changes to where they can .pay their fair share and not require the citizens to make up the difference for the State funding offices and the schools. that will be overloaded because of these.. residents or table the matter.. Pete Green, of Zuni stated the applicant is proposing to purchase his water from Smithfield, which is well water. He stated the aquifers west of the County are already nearing the 80% limit that is placed on water 1 1 1 14 ...~_ enoa 21.x=327 withdrawal. He requested the Board to think about water issues and keep them in mind when considering future development in the County. 1 Chairman Claud noted that if this development is .approved- it will be served by County water. which comes from the Western Tidewater Water Authority and. is not well .water. Tim Baer of Baer Fitness Center on Route 17 stated the proposed development would positively impact all the. business in the area. He stated it would provide additional revenueto the County as well. Mike Addick, a resident of Cannon Acres, stated he presented a petition containing approximately fifty (50) signatures in opposition to the proposed application. He stated the wooded area and lake is home to many waterfowl and birds and there is currently no shortage of housing in that area. He stated the number of traffic accidents in the. County have increased almost 35% with approximately seventy (70) accidents occurring along this corridor this`year. He stated the EMTs for the rescue squad in that area. now receive 600-800 calls which -will only increase with this development. He stated he also is concerned with the increasing number of homes and school .age children. He stated the rate of growth for the Route 17 corridor is becoming burdensome for the existing residents. it 1 Susan Oswold, a resident of Ashby Subdivision, presented a petition signed by Ashby Subdivision residents. She pointed .out that Eagle Harbor. will; have between 1,100 and .1,200 homes within the next couple year;a; "Founder's Point will have 345 homes; and, Ashby .Pointe will have approximately thirty (30) homes which is quite a bit of homes within a short distance. She noted that the traffic would be outrageous on Route 17 in addition to the overloading of students at Carrollton Elementary School. She stated it was .pointed out earlier that there is plenty of-room between Ashby Subdivision and Cannon Acres.- She stated she can always hear and in the wintertime can see the homes in Cannon Acres and the area of trees is really quite. small. She stated she found. out today there are another 275 approved lots behind the Smithfield High School that will be added to the school district. Thomas Finderson of the Newport. District expressed his concern .with the amount of current traffic turning onto Route 17 from Sugar Hill Road and Walnut Grove. He stated he agreed with Mr. Hartley that connectivity is needed with all these developments. He stated the developer has no plans Peter Munsel of Carrollton .stated he is opposed to .the proposed application and does not believe the current growth is .able to pay for itself and. he is concerned the citizens will be paying for. this and. any other .future development for a while. He recommended the Board table consideration of the application until the County gets a hold on its finances. He stated this is just an added burden that the County can not afford at this time... 15 ..~~~~~ BOQK ~.LrAG~3~S to access Cedar Grove Road and the proffers. are grossly inadequate... He reiterated that the County's Comprehensive Plan states "require. that adequate public facilities .are in place". He stated these .facilities are not in place and the growth in .the County is too rapid to .accommodate even the present projects. Michael Uzzle of Central Hill Road requested that on all development the Board should at .least make the dE;vetoper pay for' fire and rescue services. Lori .Gay- of Ashby Subdivision expressed concern with .the overcrowding at Carrollton Elementary School. She .stated .too much development is occurring too fast. Roxanne Lackes of Cannon Acres agreed with the comments made regarding the overcrowding at the schools. She. specifically cites a concern with the disturbance of the surrounding wildlife. In rebuttal, Attorney Riddick stated Pat Clark made. a point that this application is anon-revenue generator as opposed to a revenue generator and he wants. to point out -that the owner of the property has taken other employment as the golf market in the County has changed dramatically over the years and it is not as viable as it use to be. He stated Mr. Clark further made a remark that this. application could potentially hurt the. economy, but. the only thing that is strong. in the economy now is the housing industry. He stated moratoria are not proper and each project should be considered on its own merit. He stated this is not Smithfield water or well water, it is a blended. mix of water from the County's system and the County. has expended a great deal of funds to develop a water system and there is more than adequate capacity there with a lot of associated debt. He stated in order to make enterprise funds viable, the County must have customers. He stated .the sewer system is a win situation for the County as the tap fees generated go to the County and they can be used to retire that debt with no expense to the County as far as the infrastructure is concerned. He stated the applicant's proffers are high .enough that the residents of these homes will -pay .more than anyone else in the County has offered. He stated the residents who live adjacent to the development and have voiced their opposition. to it live in subdivisions that were not there a few years ago,. and most of-the people coming into the County are from somewhere else. Supervisor MacManus requested Attorney Riddick address how the BMP would be maintained. Attorney Riddick stated .the applicant would have to set up a homeowner's association to maintain the common area. Mr. Berlucchi stated he is not clear if the pond will be usable as a BMP and the engineers will. have to take a look at how the water falls. He 16 .. ,1 eooh 21 r~cj329 stated. he would be responsible for the BMPs and he has set up previous homeowner's associations wherein a budget is required by the State that shows funds set aside for future use should the BMP need to be dredged. Supervisor MscManus inquired if the applicant intended to proffer a homeowner's association. Mr. Berluchi replied it is a State law .that he must provide. a homeowner's association and that a budget for it be established illustrating the cost for it. He stated he would not have a problem with proffering assurance of the. BMP. Supervisor MacManus noted it appears there will be thirty (30) lots with proffers of $5,000 apd eleven (11) lots with zero proffers. He asked the. applicant if he had a price range for these lots. Mr: Berluchi stated the average sale price for these homes is proposed at $190,000. ~He stated the traffic study that was performed indicated no problems with traffic. County Attorney Stroman noted that the proffer letter was unsigned. 1 Attorney Riddick stated he had a signed copy, but he still needed the signature of Mrs. Courtney who was present at the'. meeting tonight. He stated he has sent a copy to Mrs. Macisaac who lives out of state requesting her signature. Attorney Stroman advised that the statute requires that all proffers be submitted prior to the public hearing.. He stated he was also concerned that Attorney Riddick .does not have a proffer signed by everyone. .Attorney Riddick stated -the original proffers were signed by ail parties and Mrs. Macisaac has agreed to all the. conditions with the exception of the additional .cash. He stated Mr. Berluchi is the proposed purchaser of the property and would be bound by that. County Attorney Stroman stated his concern is with the timeliness and that the proffers must be signed by all parties in order to be effective. He stated the County's ordinance permits the Board to hold. more than one (1) .public hearing and if the Board were to schedule another public hearing and if the applicant. were to present a fully executed proffer statement before the start of the public hearing, then he would consider these proffers to be legally binding in the event that the Board voted to approve the rezoning and accept the proffers. Supervisor Bradshaw stated before the Board requests another public hearing he would recommend the matter be sent back to the Planning ~, Commission with the new proffers. l? ---___ 'eooa 21 ~~cr330 Chairman Claud stated he did not see a need to send the matter back to the Planning Commission based on the additional items presented. Attorney Riddick stated he .would ask that the matter` be tabled based on the` County Attorney's opinion. County Attorney Stroman recommended the .Boars table .the matter this evening and schedule a public hearing by the Board. at its December 19, 2002 meeting. Supervisor Clarke stated there is no sense. in the. citizens having. to come back :for another public hearing and he would like all concerns to be raised tonight so that when the Board c©nsiders the matter at its. December 19, 2002 meeting. it can simply vote on it. County Attorney Stroman stated that the comments made this evening are part of the record and would be a basis on which the Board could take action. He further stated Supervisor Clark's suggestion is valid in that there -may be issues that the Board raises .that might prompt something additional from the developer and the same .rule would apply. He stated any revised proffer letter received prior to the initiation of the public hearing would be within the Board's consideration. He recommended the Board make a motion to table consideration of the matter, direct County staff to advertise the: matter for the Board's December 19, 2002 meeting. and that the. cost. of the advertisement be paid by the applicant for this second public hearing: . Chairman Claud closed the public. hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Clark .requested. staff address the lighting issues brought up at the Planning Commission meeting. He asked how these lighting issues are different froth the other two (2) existing subdivisions. Mr, Hartley stated he did not know of any differences other than the cumulative effect. He stated right now there is an undeveloped piece of property. Supervisor Clark noted that there was a concern .raised regarding the wildlife aspect, however, there appears to be a fair amount of the property is proffered to be undisturbed. He asked how -much of the area that now contains-trees would be disturbed to develop the property. Mr. Berluchi replied that:: the area between Cannon Acres is approximately 1.3 acres and it will remain the same. He stated he does not anticipate reducing any wildlife habitat. He stated as a developer he attempts: to leave as many trees up as possible .because that is what the homeowner wants. ~I I8 ,i II 1 800X ~~ ~~GrJ+,~ Supervisor Clark inquired if the proposed development is going to adversely affect the Resource Protection Area. Mr. Berluchi stated the area remains as it is now. He stated he would like for the homeowners to have access to it as it is a common area and will be part of the homeowner'sassociation. Supervisor Clarke .inquired if this property is not zoned residential, what other commercial uses are allowed on that property. Mr. Hartley. replied that he believes this property. is zoned conditionally for a golf course. Supervisor Clark inquired what the development service district- designation is for this property. Mr. Hartley replied residential primarily with small portions as commercial. Supervisor MacManus inquired how many other homes are in the Newport District in the price of $ l 90,000. Mr. Hartley stated between Eagle Harbor and what remains undeveloped in other .portions of the County, as well as the Town of Smithfield, he would estimate 250-3001ots in this price range that are active in the development process. Chairman Claud deferred his comments until after the second public hearing. Supervisor Bradshaw inquired what the projected school-age population for this subdivision. Mr. Hartley stated there has been no specific projection associated with this development. He stated based upon past studies, the average is .52 children per household... He stated according to the school system, what is seen coming out of this general price range is one (1) child per household and this will be balanced out by some of the condominium and apartment developments that wilt occur later on. 1 Supervisor Bradshaw stated he agreed with Pete Green's comments earlier in the meeting on the water issue.. He stated there is going to come a time that the Board is going to have to take into consider the aquifer in this area that is continually being pulled from. 19 eooK 21 fat{332 Supervisor Bradby stated there have been a number of comments from the citizens tonight, and he will keep these in mind and base his decision on their comments. Supervisor Clark moved the Board. to table the application of Barbara L. Courtney, Frances C. Macisaac and Green Tee .Golf Center, Inca owners and Robert F. Berlucch and instruct staff' to advertise a public hearing for the Board's December 19, 2002 meeting with the .cost of the advertisement. to ~~ paid by the applicant. The motion was, adopted by a vote of (5-0) with. Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. - Chairman Claud called for a public hearing on the following: D. A Conditional tJse Permit application of ATG :Investments to locate a communications tower behind the Monette Information Systems Data Center building on approximately 5 acres of .land located at 1 Monette Parkway, Smithfield, in the Hardy Election District. Chairman Claud called for persons to speak in favor of or in .opposition to the proposed application. . Gerry McGowan, Director. of Engineering Services for Monette Information, stated Monette has been working over the last year with various businesses to develop an alternate path into the County so that Smithfield Foods. can have a totally redundant system for. business communications. As a result of not being .able to come up with a good acceptable business solution, Smithfield Foods has been seriously considering relocating to a new location in Hampton which already has redundant communications built into it. He stated- recently. an alternate acceptable .solution has -been ,found that will require the erection of a public tower. He stated the tower is designed for future growth and .Monette is proffering to .reserve one (1) .site for use by the County.• He stated the approval of this tower would trigger the expansion of the data center by approximately 6,000 square feet. Patrick. J. Small, Director of Economic Development, stated staff has been .working on this project for a number of months to prevent the data center from being relocated to Hampton. He stated included in the Board's agenda are economic impact figures that illustrate that approval will result in the retention of approximately sixty-five (65) jobs in the community, as well as several million dollars in .investment.. He stated more importantly are the intangible benef is gained from continuing to help Smithfield Foods in their growth in the community as-the County continues to grow itself. Bill Pierce, Vice-President of Information Technology with Smithfield Foods, stated the tower is a critical part of the strategy to consolidate data services in Smithfield and provided additional computer services for other 1 1 20 n eooK 21•Mcf333 subsidiaries around the country. He stated Smithfield Foods is looking for alternate services to provide reliable services to existing companies and any additional subsidiaries Smithfield Foods may acquire in the future. Chairman Claud closed the public hearing and. called for comments from the Board. Supervisor Bradby moved the Board approve the Conditional Use Permit application. of ATG Investments. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0} with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw,. Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. ..Chairman Claud called for a public hearing on the, following: 1 E. An Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Isle of Wight County to Establish Village Center and Community Boundaries and Revised Community. Descriptions for the Communities of Colosse, Orbit, Walters, Central Hi11 and Wills Corner. Chairman Claud called for persons to speak in favor.. of or in opposition to the proposed Amendment. Tevya Williams, Planner, stated community meetings were held for all five (5) village centers.. She stated Colosse does not desire to retain -the. '~, village center designation. She stated regarding the issue of the Walter's boundary, the owners of the property in question do want their property located outside of the community boundary for Walters. Chairman .Claud closed the. public hearing and called for comments from the Board Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board approve the Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Isle of Wight County to Establish Village Center and Community Boundaries and Revised Community Descriptions ~_ -for the. Communities of Colosse, .Orbit, Walters, Central Hill and Wills Comer. The motion was adopted by a ..vote of (5-0} with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Chairman Claud called for a public hearing on the following: F. Resolution Authorizing the .Issuance of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds. of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, in the Maximum Principal Amount of $8,900,000. Chairman Claud called for persons to speak in favor of ar in opposition to the proposed Resolution. 21 eoQh 21 ~~~=334 . Anne F. Seward, Director of Budget.. and Finance, stated the resolutions for the Board's consideration support nine. (9) projects that have been identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. She stated there is also proposed in this funding $13.$ million dollars in refunded bonds which. will bring. approximately $45,000 worth of savings annually to the County over the remaining fourteen (14) years. on these bonds. .Thomas. Finderson of the Newport .District .stated while all these projects are needed, he believes the public will have concerns with a proposed new Administration building,. and they expect County employees to make do with vYhat they .currently have. He stated citizens. will want half the expenditures postponed, especially with State budget cuts and additional proposed cuts next year. Grace- Keen. of the Newport District welcomed the new County Attorney. She stated she would .like to know the Board's vision for the County for the next ten (10) years... She encouraged the Board to keep spending as it is .now until the economy looks brighter and the State budget problems are resolved. Pat dark of the Newport District stated if the Board keeps approving development, the County would have to borrow more.. money than it is borrowing now. He stated the Board needs to determine if it is legal or not to delay some. of the development requests when .they .come in. He stated he understands for a moratorium. to be legal, it must be shown that life is affected in some way and in the last year two (2) residents were concerned about the fact that the rescue units .could not respond to their calls, and one (1) or both of them died as a result. Rick Bodson of the Newport District stated he believes the County must keep business going in he County, and these are improvements that are necessary to keep- the County viable. He stated interest rates are at historic lows and prior debt can be retired. He stated believes it is a good sound business decision to move forward. Chairman Claud closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Chairman Claud stated all of the projects proposed are badly needed. He stated if the Board delays these. items, then what year should the County fund- them. He stated if the County does not fund projects on an on-going basis, it will get to a Level that it is so far behind that it can not catch up. He stated interest rates are at an historical low. and if there is any time to issue ...bonds and fund some of the projects, the time is now. He stated the Board. has a responsibility to be fiscally responsible and also maintain the quality of life for the citizens in the County.. 22 1 . eo~~ 21 f~~r335 Supervisor MacManus moved the Board adopt the following Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds of Isle- of Wight County, Virginia, in the Maximum Principal Amount of $8,900,000:, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF ISLE ~OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $8,900,000 . WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(b) of Article VII ` of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 15.2-2639 .(formerly Section 15.1- 227.40) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Code"), Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), has elected by affirmative vote of the qualified voters of the County, to be treated as a city for the purpose of issuing its bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY -THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIAS. II 1, It is determined. to be necessary and expedient for the County to finance, in .part, the acquisition, construction and equipping of various public .improvements, including administrative, utility .and public works - facilities, school. facilities, public safety and communications facilities, erosion control facilities, .public park. facilities and industrial -park facilities (collectively, the "Project"), to borrow money for such purpose and: to issue the County's general obligationpublic improvement bonds therefor. 2. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, there are authorized to be issued general obligation public improvement bonds of the County in .the maximum principal amount of $8,900,000 to provide funds to finance, in .part, the cost of the Project. 1 3. The bonds shall bear such date. or dates, mature. at such time or times not exceeding 40 years from their dates, bear interest at such rate or rates, be in such denominations and form, be executed in such manner and be sold at such time or times and in such manner as the Board may hereafter provide by appropriate resolution or resolutions. 4. The bonds shall be general obligations of the County for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on which its full faith and credit shall be irrevocably pledged 5. The Clerk of the Board, in collaboration with- the County. Attorney, is authorized. and directed to see to the immediate filing of a certified copy of this resolution in the Circuit Court of Isle. of Wight County, Virginia. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately.The motion was adopted by a vote of (S-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, 23 . e4o~ 21 ~a~~336 Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion. Supervisor Bradshaw stated while he did not vote.. in opposition to the previous motion, he does not support the County moving forward with these projects. He stated the first thing done in the business world. is cut o:,-t capital projects ,and spending. He stated- he supports the position taken by his fellow Board- members. in order to secure a good bond market. Chairman Claud called for a public hearing on the following: G. The Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sate of General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series of 2003, of Isle of Wight .County, Virginia, ~ in a Principal Amount Not to Exceed $22,700,000, :Providing for the Form, Details and. Payment Thereof, and Providing for the Refunding of Certain General Obligation School Bonds of the County. Chairman Claud called for persons to speak in favor of in opposition to the pz~oposed Resolution. No one appeared. Chairman Claud closed the public hearing and called for comments from the Board. Supervisor MaeManus moved the Board adopt the following Resolution .Authorizing -the Issuance of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, in the Maximum Principal Amount of $8,900,000: .RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND REFUNDING BONDS,., .SERIES OF 2003, OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO E%CEED 522,700,000, PROVIDING FOR THE FORM, DETAILS AND PAYMENT THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN GENERAL OBLIGATION .SCHOOL BONDS OF -THE COUNTY WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(b) of .Article. VII of the Constitution of Virginia and Section 15.2-2639 (formerly .Section 15.1- 227.40) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Code"), .Isle of Wight County, Virginia (the "County"), has elected. by affirmative vote of the qualified voters of .the .County, to be treated as a city for the purpose of issuing its bonds; 24 1 1 11 F~ D soon 21;~~c33? WHEREAS, the issuance of general obligation. public improvement bonds of the County in the maximum principal amount of $8,900,000 was authorized by a resolution adopted. by the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") on November 21, 2002, to provide funds to finance, in part, the .acquisition, construction and equipping of vari©us public improvements, including administrative, utility and public works facilities, school facilities, public safety and communications facilities, erosion control facilities, public park facilities and industrial .park facilities (collectively, the "Project''); WHEREAS, on December 23, 1991, the County issued its $10,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series of.1991. (the "1991 Bonds"); WHEREAS, on September 7, 1993, the County issued its $8,000,000 General Obligation. School Bonds, Series of 1993(the "1993- Bonds"); WHEREAS, on April 26, 1994, the County issued .its $6,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series of 1994 (the "1994-Bonds"); WHEREAS, on June 1, 1995, the County issued its $8,100,000 General Obligation. School Bonds, .Series of 1995. (the "1995 Bonds"); WHEREAS, the County administration, in consultation with Public Financial Management, the County's financial advisor (the. "Financial Advisor"), has determined that the County can effect considerable savings by issuing general obligation refunding bonds to refund some or all of (a) the outstanding 1991 Bonds maturing on January 1, 2004 through 2006, in the aggregate principal amount of $1,800,000 (the "Refunded 1991 Bonds"), (b) the outstanding 1993 Bands maturing on August. 1, 2004 through 201.1, in the aggregate principal amount of $5,250,000 {the "Refunded 1993 Bonds"), (c) the outstanding 1994 Bonds maturing on ,July 1, 2004 through 2006, in the aggregate principal amount of $2,000,000 (the "Refunded 1994 Bonds"), and (d) the outstanding 1995 Bonds maturing on July 1, 2009 through 201.3, in the aggregate principal amount of $3,850,000 (the "Refunded 1995 Bonds" and, together with the. Refunded 1991 Bonds, the Refunded 1993 Bonds and the Refunded 1994 Bonds, the "Refunded Bonds"), and to pay the costs of advance refunding the. Refunded Bonds and of issuing. the refunding bonds; and n WHEREAS, the County's administration and the Financial Advisor have recommended to the Board that the County issue and sell such a single issue of general obligation public improvement and refunding bonds in the maximum principal amount of $22,700,000; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 25 eoo~ 21 ~~v~3~8 L :Issuance of Bonds. There shall be issued and sold, pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including 'the Public Finance Act of 1991, general obligation public improvement and refunding- bonds of the .County in ,the maximum principal amount of $22,700,000 (the "Bonds"), as follows: (a) a maximum of $8,900,000 to provide funds to finance the Project, (b) a maximum of $13,800,000 to provide funds to refund the Refunded Bonds, including.. funds to pay principal of and premium and interest on the Refunded Bonds when. due and (c) to pay the costs. incurred in connection with refunding the- Refunded Bonds and issuing the Bonds. 2. Bond Details.. The Bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding .Bonds, Series of 2003," or such other designation as .shall be determined by the County Administrator, shall be in registered form, shall be dated such- date as determined by the County Administrator, shall be in denominations of .$5,000 and .integral multiples thereof, and shall be numbered R-1 upward. Subject to Section 8, the issuance and sale of the Bonds are authorized on terms as shall be satisfactory. to the County Administrator; provided, however, that the Bonds (a) shall have a "true" or "Canadian" interest -cost not to exceed 7.00% (taking- into. account any original issue discount or premium), {b) shall be sold to the purchaser at a price not less than 99.5% of the principal amount thereof (excluding any original issue. discount), and (c) shall mature or be subject to mandatory .sinking .fund redemptions in annual installments .beginning no later than. December 31, 2004. and ending no later than December 31, 2023. Principal of ,the Bonds shall be payable annually and interest on the Bonds shall be payable., semiannually on dates determined by the County Administrator. Each Band shall bear interest at such rate as shall be determined at the time of sale, calculated on the basis of a -360-day year of twelve 30-day months, and .payable semiannually on dates determined by the County .Administrator. Principal. shall be payable to the .registered owners upon surrender of Bonds as they become due at the office of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined). Interest shall be payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their addresses as they .appear on .the registration books kept by the Registrar on a date prior to each interest payment date that. shall be determined by the County Administrator (the "Record Date"). Principal and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Initially, one Bond certificate. for each maturity of the Bonds shall be issued to and registered in the name ofThe Depository Trust Company, New York, New York .("DTC"), or its nominee. The County shall heretofore entered into a Blanket Letter of. Representations relating to a book-entry system to be maintained by DTC with respect to the Bonds. "Securities Depository" shall mean DTC or any other securities depository for the Bonds appointed pursuant to this Section. 11 26 ~I 800M ~~ %A0~ IJ,,~7 1 i~ In the event that (a) the Securities Depository determines not to continue to act as the securities depository for the Bonds by giving notice to the Registrar, and the County discharges its responsibilities hereunder, or (b) the County in its sole. discretion determines (i) that benef cial owners of Bonds -shall be able to obtain certificated Bonds or (ii) to select a new Securities Depository, then its-chief financial officer shall, at the direction of the County, attempt to locate another qualified securities- depository to serve as Securities Depository and authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the new .Securities Depository or its nominee, or authenticate and deliver certificated Bonds to the: beneficial owners or to the Securities Depository participants on behalf of beneficial owners substantially in the form provided for in Section 5; provided, however, that such form shall provide for interest on the Bonds to be payable {A) from the date of the Bonds if they are authenticated prior to the first interest payment- .date, or (B) otherwise from the interest payment date that is or immediately precedes the date on which the Bonds are authenticated (unless payment of interest thereon is in default, in which case interest on such Bonds shall be payable from the date to which interest has been paid). In delivering certificated Bonds, the chief financial officer shall be entitled to rely. on the records of the Securities: Depository as to the beneficial owners or the records of the Securities .Depository participants acting on .behalf of beneficial owners. Such certificated Bonds will then be registrable, transferable and. exchangeable as set forth in Section 7. So long as there is a Securities Depository for the Bonds (1) it or its nominee shall be the registered owner of the Bonds, (2) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Resolution, .determinations of persons entitled to payment of principal and interest, transfers of ownership and exchanges and receipt of notices shall be the responsibility of the Securities Depository and shall be effected pursuant to rules and procedures established by such Securities Depository, (3) the Registrar and .the County shall not be responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained- by the Securities Depository, its participants or persons acting through such participants, (4) references in this Resolution to registered owners of the Bonds shall mean such Securities Depository or its nominee and shall not mean the beneficial owners of the Bonds and (5) in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Resolution and the provisions of the above-referenced Blanket Letter of Representations such provisions of the Blanket Letter of Representations, except to the extent set forth in this paragraph and the next .preceding paragraph, shall. control. 3. Redemption Provisions. The -Bonds .may be subject to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the County on or after dates, if any, determined by the County Administrator, in whole or in part at any 27 BQOA 21 ~A~:34O time, at a redemption price not to exceed 102% of the principal amount of Bonds to be redeemed, together with any interest accrued and unpaid to the redemption date. -Any term bonds may be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption upon terms determined by the County Administrator. If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the County's chief financial officer in such manner as the chief financial. officer may determine to be in the best interest of the County. If less than all the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemption, the. Bonds within such maturity to be redeemed shall. be selected by the Securities Depository pursuant to its rules and procedures or, if the book-entry system is discontinued, shall be selected by the Registrar by lot in such manner as the Registrar in its discretion may determine. In :~ .either case, (a) the- portion of any Bond to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of $5,000 or some integral multiple thereof and (b) in selecting Bonds for redemption, each Bond shall be .considered as representing that number of Bonds that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Band by $5,000. The County shall cause notice of the call for redemption identifyingthe Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed to be sent by facsimile transmission, registered or certified mail or overnight express delivery, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner of the Bonds. The County shall not be responsible for mailing notice of redemption to anyone other than DTC or another qualified Securities. Depository or its nominee :unless no qualif ed Securities Depository is the registered. owner of the Bonds. If no qualified Securities Depository is the registered owner of the Bonds, .notice of redemption. shall be mailed to the registered owners of the Bonds. If a portion of a Bond is called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount .equal to the unredeemed portion thereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender thereof. 4. Execution. and Authentication. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, shall be .countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board and the Board's seal shall: be affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided, however, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, no Bond shall be valid until it has been ..authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee of -the Registrar and the date of authentication noted thereon. 5. Bond Form. The Bonds shall. be in substantially the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officers signing the Bonds,. whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution-and delivery of the Bonds: 28 1 1 800 ~~ rAO; :~41 11 7 6. Pledge of Fult Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit. of the County _ are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and premium, if any, an interest on the Bonds.. Unless other funds are lawfully .available and appropriated. for timely payment of the Bonds, the Board shall levy and collect an annual ad valorem .tax, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount,. on all locally. taxable property in the County sufficient- to pay when due the principal of and premium,, if any, and interest on the Bonds, 7. Registration, Transfer and Owners of Bonds. SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is appointed .paying agent and registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). The Registrar shall maintain registration. books for the registration and registration of transfers of Bonds. Upon presentation and surrender of any Bonds at the corporate trust office of the Registrar, together with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or his duly authorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar, the County shall execute and the Registrar-shall authenticate, if required by Section 4, and deliver in exchange, a new Bond or Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized denominations, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate, and registered in names. as requested by the then registered owner or his duly authorized .attorney or legal. representative. Any .such. exchange shall be at the expense of the County, except that the Registrar may charge the person requesting such exchange the amount of any -tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect thereto The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and .interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person. shown as owner on the registration books on the Record Date. 8. Sale of Bonds... The Board approves the following terms of the sale of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold by competitive bid in a principal amount to be determined by the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, and subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 1, and .the County Administratorshall receive bids for the Bonds and award the Bonds to the bidder providing the lowest "true" or "Canadian" interest cost, subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 2. Following the sale of the Bonds, the County Administrator shall file. a certificate with the Clerk of the Board setting forth the final terms of the Bonds. The actions of the County Administrator in selling the Bonds shall. be conclusive, and no further action with respect to the sale and issuance of the Bonds shall be necessary on the. part of the Board.. 9. Notice of Sale. The County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor,. is authorized and directed to take all proper steps to advertise the Bonds for sale substantially in accordance with the form of Notice. of Sale attached hereto,. which. is approved, .provided that the County 29 ,I BOOR ~~rA~(~4G Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, may make such changes in the Notice. of Sale not inconsistent with this Resolution as he may considerto be in the best interest of the County. 10. Official Statement. A draft of a Preliminary OfFcial Statement describing the Bonds, copies of which -have been provided to the members of the Board, is approved as the form of the Preliminary Official Statement by which the Bonds will be offered for sale, with such ,completions, omissions, insertions and .changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, may consider appropriate. After the .Bonds have been sold,. the. County Administrator, in collaboration with the Financial Advisor, shall make such. completions,..omissions, insertions and changes in the Preliminary Official Statement not inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable to complete it as a finale Official Statement,.. execution thereof by the .County '' Administrator to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such ', completions, omissions, ,insertions .and changes.. The County shall arrange for the delivery to the- purchaser. of the Bonds of a reasonable number of copies of the final Official. Statement, within seven business days after the Bonds have been sold, for delivery to each potential investor requesting a copy of the Official Statement and. to each person to whom such purchaser . initially sell Bonds. 1 L Official .Statement Deemed Final.. -The -County Administrator is authorized, on behalf of the County, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement in final form, each to be final as of its date within the .meaning of Rule 1 Sc2-12 (the "Rule") of the Securities and Exchange .Commission (the "SEC"), except for the omission in .the .Preliminary Official Statement of certain pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant. to the Rule. The distribution of the f if hll I Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement 1n ma orm s a be conclusive evidence that each has been deemed final as of its date by the Cnt~nty, except for. the omission in the Preliminary Official Statement of such pricing and other information permitted to be omitted pursuant to the Rule.. 12. Preparation and Delivery- of .Bonds. After bids have .been received and the Bonds have been awarded, the Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk, or Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have .the Bonds prepared and executed in accordance -with their terms.. and to deliver the Bonds to the purchaser thereof upon payment therefor. 13. Escrow.. Deposit Agreement. The County Administrator is authorized and .directed to execute an escrow deposit agreement (the "Escrow Agreement"} between the County and SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is hereby appointed .Escrow Agent (the "Escrow Agent"). The Escrow Agreement shall be in substantially the form of the draft which has been .provided to the members of the Board, and shall provide for the. deposit 30 R ~, eoo~ 21 racr343 and investment of a portion of the Bond proceeds for the defeasance of the Refunded Bonds. The Escrow Agreement shall be in such final form as approved by the County Administrator, in collaboration with the County .Attorney and the County's bond. counsel, the execution thereof by the County Administrator to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of the Escrow Agreement. The Escrow. Agreement shall provide -for the irrevocable deposit. of a portion of the Bond proceeds in an escrow fund which shall be sufficient, when invested in noncallable, direct obligations of the United States Government (the "Government Obligations"), to provide. for payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Refunded Bands; provided, however, that such Bond proceeds shall be invested in such manner that none of the Bonds will be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal. Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations issued pursuant thereto (the "Code"). The Escrow Agent is authorized and directed if requested by the County Administrator to execute. the final subscription form for the purchase of the Government Obligations. 14. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. Either the County Treasurer or the Director of Budget and Finance is authorized -and directed (a) to provide for the delivery of the refunding portion of the Bond proceeds to the Escrow Agent for deposit in the escrow fund established by the Escrow Agreement, in an amount that will be sufficient, together with the interest thereon when invested as provided in the Escrow Agreement, (i) to .pay .when .due the interest- on the Refunded Bonds to the first date on .which .they may be redeemed at the. option. of the County and (ii) to pay upon the earlier of maturity or redemption the principal. of the Refunded Bonds, plus. any. interest accrued and unpaid to such redemption date, plus the applicable redemption premium, and (b) to provide for the deposit of the remaining. proceeds of the Bonds in a special account to be used to pay the costs of .refunding the Refunded Bonds and issuing the Bonds. Either the County Treasurer or the Director of Budget and Finance is further authorized and directed to take all such further action as may be necessary or desirable in connection with the payment and refunding of the Refunded Bonds. `l 15. Redemption of Refunded Bonds. The County Administrator is authorized and directed to determine which, if any, 1991 Bonds, 1993. Bonds, 1994 Bonds and 1995 Bonds shall constitute the Refunded Bonds. The refunded maturities of the 1991 Bonds and. the 1993 Bonds are specifically-.and irrevocably called for redemption on the earliest date that the County Administrator determines to be both practical and in conformance with the terms of the resolutions pursuant to .which the 1991 Bonds and the 1993 Bonds, as the case may be, were issued.. The refunded maturities of the 1.994 Bonds .are specifically and irrevocably called for redemption on July 1, 2003. -The refunded maturities of the 1995 Bonds are specifically and irrevocably called for redemption on July 1, 2005. The Escrow .Agreement shall provide for notice of redemption to be given in accordance with the resolutions providing for the issuance of the Refunded Bonds to the registered owners of the. Refunded Bonds. 31 ' BOQK ~~ r~~~E~4~ 16. Arbitrage .Covenants.. (a) The County represents that there have not :been issued, and covenants that there will not be issued, any obligations that will be treated as part of the same issue of obligations as the :Bonds within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.130-1A(c). (b) The County covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking. or omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning. of Section. 148 of the Code, or otherwise cause interest. on the Bonds to be includable, in the .gross income of the registered owners thereof under existing law. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the. County shall comply .with .any provision of law which may require the. County at any time to rebate to the. United States any part of the earnings derived. from the .investment of the gross proceeds of the Bonds, unless the 'County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that.. such compliance is not .required. to prevent interest orr the Bonds from .being includable in -the gross income of the registered owners thereof under. existing law. The County shall pay any such required rebate from. its legally available funds. 17. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Elections. Such.. officers of the County as may be requested are authorized and directed, to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth the, expected use and investment. of the proceeds of the Bonds in order to show that such expected use and investment will .not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code, and any elections -such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United. States .for purposes of complying with Section 1.48 of the Code. Such certificate. and elections shall be in such form as may be requested by bond counsel for the County. 18. Limitation on Private Use. The County covenants. that it shall not permit the proceeds of the Bonds or the facilities financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds to be used in any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities financed or refinanced,with such proceeds being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or the facilities financed or refinanced with such proceeds being used with respect to any output facility (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code,. or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the County receives- an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bonds from being.. includable" in the gross income for federal income tax ', purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the. County ~' need not comply with such covenants. 11 1 ~I 32 R ,~ 1 LJ eo~~ 21 racf345 19. .Continuing Disclosure Agreement.. The .Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a continuing disclosure agreement (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreement") setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary to assist the purchasers of the .Bonds in complying with the provisions of the- Rule promulgated by the SEC. The Continuing Disclosure Agreement shall be substantially in the form of the draft which has been provided to members of the Board, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes that are not inconsistent with this Resolution. 20. SNAP Investment Authorization. The Board has heretofore received and reviewed the Information Statement (the "Information Statement") describing .the State Non-Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Contract Respecting the State Non-Arbitrage Program (the "Contract"), and the Board authorizes the . County Administrator to utilize SNAP in connection with the investment of the non-refunding proceeds of the Bonds if the County Administrator determines such investment to be in the best interest of the County: The Board acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth 'of Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any ,way liable to the County in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. 21. -Other Actions.. All other actions of officers of the County in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance .and sale of the Bonds are approved and confirmed. The officers of the County are .authorized and .directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments and to take all .such further action as may be considered- necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. 22. Repeat of Conflicting Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. 23. .Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) .with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and no Supervisors voting against the motion... f/ Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Board return to the regular order of the agenda. The motion was adopted unanimously (S-0). // Mr. Hartley distributed a copy of a letter dated October 30,.2002 from Kurt A. Falkenstein, Windsor Town Manager, referring to a request from the 33 eooM 21 {a~~~46 Town of Windsor for the County's input on a rezoning request from Windsor Woods, LLC. He stated -the Annexation Agreement requires that the Town of Windsor refer the matter to the: Board. Supervisor MacManus commented that the developer is proposing 110 lots and there are no proffers on the. thirty-two (32) new lots. Supervisor. Bradshaw moved the Board endorse the 'recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning the Windsor Woods rezoning application. -The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors MacManus, Bradshaw, Bradby, Claud and Clark voting in favor, and na Supervisors voting against the motion. // At 9:00 p.m, Supervisor Clark moved the Board adjourn. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). // Supervisor Clark moved the Board reopen the meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Supervisor Clark .moved .the Board -amend its agenda to add the Board's recommendation to the Circuit Court Judge that. Nancy Guill be appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-0). Supervisor Clark .moved the Board recommend to the Circuit Court Judge that Nancy Guill be appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The motion was adoptedunanimously (5-0). I/ At 4:05 p.m., Supervisor Clark moved-.the Board adjourn its meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously (5-O). ~~~ Robert C. Claud, Sr., Chairman 34 ..