October 14, 1981 Regular Meeting4251
A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held
on October 14, 1981, at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room,
9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice - Chairman;
William H. Baker; Rhoda W. Maddox; R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
City of Winchester Charles Zuckerman, Mayor; William Mote; Charles
Pine; George Garber; Dick Kern; Tommy Kremer; Jim Wilkins, Jr.; William
Shendow and Elizabeth Minor.
Planning Commission Langdon Gordon; Frank Brumback; Jim Golladay;
French Kirk; Domenic Palumbo and Lynn Myers.
Frederick - Winchester Service Authority C. Robert Solenberger; Wendell
Seldon; Jim White; Wellington Jones and Jay Givens.
Sanitation Authority James Diehl; G. W. Borden and Allen Jobe.
State Water Control Board E. R. Simmons; L. P3. Simmons; Jim Hensley
and Rick Fauley.
Camp, Dresser, McKee Jack Rattray and Jonathan Curtis.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION
The invocation was delivered by the Reverend Malcolm Lerch of the
Stephens City Lutheran Church.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mr. Stiles stated that he had two items of correspondence that he would
like to discuss with the Board.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and
passed unanimously, the agenda was adopted as amended.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Malcolm requested the following correction in the Board minutes of
September 23, 1981:
Page 2, with reference to the appointment of the at -large member to the
Planning Commission, it should be stated that he did talk with Mr. Light by
phone.
Mr. Stiles requested the following correction:
Mr. "Leight" should be spelled "Light ".
Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles
and passed unanimously, the minutes of the Board of Supervisors Meeting of
September 23, 1981 were approved as amended.
426
WORKSESSION WITH BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY OF WINCHESTER
FREDERICK- WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY AND PLANNING
COMMISSION - DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL SEWER PLANT
Mr. Koontz welcomed everyone to the meeting and recognized all
officials in attendance.
Mr. Solenberger, Chairman of the Frederick - Winchester Service
Authority, stated that this was not a public hearing and he would like to
ask Mr. Givens, of the City and Mr. Jones, of the County, to give a brief
background synopsis concerning the history of sewage treatment in both the
County and City. In summation Mr. Jones and Mr. Givens submitted the
following information concerning the status of the regional plant at present:
Congress passed PL96 -403 which repeals the industrial cost recovery (ICR
provisions) .
Senator Robert Stafford (R -VT) got through an amendment which
introduced new legislation known as industrial cost exclusion (ICE).
Essentially this legislation prohibited the use of federal funds for that
portion of treatment capacity attributable to industrial flow. The
introduction of ICE has added approximately 2.5 million to the local cost of
regional facilities and the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority has voted
that this additional cost must be paid by affected industry.
The adoption of ICE has forced industry to reevaluate their
participation in the regional plant. Present indications are strong that
they will not participate in the regional wastewater facility and will
instead opt for land application as a form of self treatment. The State
Water Control Board and EPA, realizing the significant implications of ICE,
agreed in July, 1981 to allow the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority to
submit a Step II design application for a reduced flow wastewater facility.
It was however, stipulated that the various fruit processing industry must
make a committment by January 1, 1982 on whether they plan to participate
in the regional facility. It was further stipulated that prior to final
design, the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority would perform an
optimization investigation consisting of evaluating the waste load without
the fruit processing waste; and evaluation of process at the regional site
versus upgrading the existing City and County facilities. The optimization
study does not include a reevaluation of flow service areas, for population
projections as these areas fall under facilities planning. The plan will
only provide information pertaining to whether a new facility or upgraded
facilities will be designed should industry pull out of the regional system.
On October 6, 1981 the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority was advised
that EPA had approved a Step II- Design Grant in the amount of $1,682,850.00
(Total design costs are $2,058,058.00). Once formal notification of the
grant is received the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority will have 21
days in which to accept the award. Acceptance of the award will permit
Board movement towards solving the wastewater problems of the area as
required by City and County consent orders with the State Water Control
Board. Financially, the local share of the design costs will be
$405,200.00, 50$ of which ($187,604.00) will be advanced by the City.
Presently the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority has approximately
$140,000.00 available plus a reimbursement of $71,000.00 from the EPA for
Step I work still to be received. The above monies, ($211,000.00) means a
local share of $164,208.00 still must be advanced (City: $82,104.00).
Mr. Larry Simmons, State Water Control Board, stated that the State
Water Control Board had developed a consent special order which provided
interim effluent standards under Grant funds available and pursuant to this
the City and County have interim permits capable of being by the plants but
they are not meeting stream standards.
Mr. Jack Rattray of Camp, Dresser, McKee, stated that at present it
looks as if participation of all the apple industries is unlikely and at the
present design had been done with the apple processors included, thus if the
processors pull out, this will bring change in flow, thus calling for a
change in design of the plant. He further stated that it was his belief
that there would be a 50 -50 chance of the two existing plants being upgraded
if in fact the apple processors decided to pull out. He further stated
there would be no proceeding on final design until (a) the optimization
study is complete and (b) there is final resolution of the question of
whether or not the apple industries will participate. He further stated
that the grant offer as it is currently made through the authority is based
on Step II Grant funding with a minimum of 75% federal funding, with the
actual level of funding pending on what final processing recommends as we
have qualified for innovative alternative funding, and that the processors
currently conceive some of the design will be eligible for 85% funding. Mr.
Rattray noted that one of the requirements of the Grant Program is that a
value engineering effort be undertaken during the development of the final
design. He further stated that a one week workshop should take place, which
would consist of a group of experts, not involved in the design of the
428
facilities, who would do an in -depth study of the proposed design and look
at where there may be elements of that design with significant cost savings.
He further stated that Camp, Dresser, McKee would prefer that this be
undertaken by another firm other than themselves.
Mr. Wellington Jones presented the following funding report:
$154,000.00 to the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority for the
facilities plan, $75,000.00 has been used to date; $140,800.00 cash on hand
by the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority, $91,000.00 still due;
$405,200.00 share of design cost; $173,400.00 net need; $85,000.00 cost per
jurisdiction; $3,000.00; this is not included in total cost, it is for land
aquisition. He stated that the Service Authority would like to have a reply
to EPA by November 13th.
Mr. Palumbo, Planning Commission member, stated that he was concerned
about the allowance for industrial growth.
Mr. Malcolm asked if it is determined that regional is the way to go
and for some reason we do not go regional, what implication does that have
on the body that decides not to go regional as far as further funding,
further cooperation is concerned.
Mr. Ernie Simmons stated that they will look at the most cost effective
alternative. If you do not accept the money that is offered to implement
that alternative, then it is left up to them to decide what they wish to do,
basically at that time.
Mr. Malcolm stated that any subsequent requests would not be looked
upon too favorably by the State Water Control Board.
Mr. Simmons replied, essentially, that is what we are saying right
now.
Mr. Rattray stated that the grant would have to be approved before the
optimization study could begin and this study would be completed in 90
days.
Mr. Stiles stated that what you are essentially saying is that we have
to buy it first and then find out what we bought after it has been paid
for.
Mr. Rattray stated that, yes and no. You have to accept the grant in
order to proceed with the optimization study and you can stop the
proceedings at the end of the optimization study if you so desire.
Mr. Stiles inquired as to how much money was in the current fiscal year
federal budget for construction of sewer plants.
Mr. Simmons replied, zero.
Mr. Malcolm inquired as to how many times the Stream Standards have
changed in the last 10 years.
Mr. Simmons replied that the water quality standards have not changed
per se.
Mr. Malcolm stated this means that in the process of deliberations in
working with the State Water Control Board they have been working with
different sets of figures in the course of this operation.
Mr. Simmons replied there had only been one instance of change in the
effluent.
Mr. Givens stated that according to his records there were two, one
being in 1973 and the other when the update was done.
Mr. Stiles referred to a GAO study that had been conducted on May 30,
1980 on EPA funding and its effectiveness. He further stated that there
were a number of questions that had not been answered here tonight.
Mr. Solenberger suggested to Mr. Stiles that he put these questions in
writing and submit them to Mr. Jones and the Frederick- Winchester Service
Authority would try and answer them.
Mr. Jim Golladay inquired about the population growth that Camp,
Dresser, McKee had for Gainesboro and Back Creek Districts in the latest
facilities update for the year 1985.
Mr. Stiles inquired as to whether Senator Warner's Office should be
contacted about conducting a GAO study for this regional project.
Mr. Delmar Robinson stated that he felt another firm, other than Camp,
Dresser, McKee, should do the optimization study.
Mr. Givens stated that he was concerned about the delays that may be
caused in hiring an alternate firm.
Mr. Robinson stated that it appears to him to be a conflict of
interest if Camp, Dresser, McKee is retained to do the optimization study.
It was the general consenus that there would be no additional information
available by the next Board of Supervisors Meeting, thus the Board had no
objections in asking for an extension from EPA.
Recess.
AT -LARGE MEMBER ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE DISCUSSED
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
430
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by William H. Baker and
passed unanimously, the At -Large appointment to the Planning Commission will
be discussed following Executive Session.
JUDICIAL CENTER STATUS REPORT
Mr. Malcolm stated that the brick and mortar to be used in both the
Parking Garage
and
the Judicial Center had been decided upon.
He further
stated that all the users had been
asked to respond to what the
architects
had worked up
and
there would be
a meeting next week to finalize action on
the final space
study.
He further
stated that the project would
be ready
for bidding by
late
winter or early
spring from the status of the
project at
this time.
Mr. Stiles requested that the following letter be referred to the
Finance Committee for review and that it be made a part of the minutes of
this meeting:
October 3, 1981
Dear Kenneth,
I feel the Board of Supervisors should restudy the notion of a
Privilege License arrangement.
This is the fairest tax
I can think of
for
doing business in the County.
The Merchants Capital
Tax is grossly
unfair.
In the antique business we have
high inventory items
that sit around
for two
to four years at 4% each year.
By the time it is sold,
in some cases,
the
profit is gone.
Last year we had a net loss of over $2,000 but the Merchants Capital
arrangement took no notice of this at all.
In checking around I find we are paying more than businesses grossing
up toward a million dollars a year - that ain't right.
I got a kick out of those Doctors and Dentists at the Supervisors
meeting, crying tears as big as horse turds. I know they are hurting trying
to stay in business in Frederick County.
A Privilege License would be easier to enforce, fair to everyone and
raise more money.
We are seriously thinking of quitting the piddling business we're in
because we can't afford the burden the County puts on us.
Thanks
/s/ C. G. Romine
C. G. Romine
BOARD INVITED TO RECEPTION FOR DR. BEVILACQUA
Mr. Stiles stated that the Board was invited to a reception on October
21, 1981 for Dr. Bevilacqua, of the State Mental Health and Mental
Retardation Department, at Dr. Martin Mayfield's home in Millwood.
CUP #014 -81 - WILLIAM D. AND CHARLOTTE A. PAYNE - OPEQUON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
431
Mr. Horne presented this conditional use permit request and stated that
the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Payne if he could live with the hours of operation
inasmuch as it was stated in one of the conditions that it would be daylight
hours. After discussion it was decided that the hours of operation would be
from 8 til 5 and Mr. Payne concurred with this.
Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and
passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does herein approve the conditional use permit #014 -81 of William
D. and Charlotte A. Payne, Rt. 1, Box 77, White Post, Virginia, requesting
a home occupation for a small engine repair shop in an existing garage.
This property is designated as parcel 8 -7 -12 and 3 -7 -12 on Tax Map 94A -1, in
Opequon Magisterial District.
CUP #013 -81 - PATRICIA A. ABBOT - BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT - APPROVED
Mr. Horne presented this conditional use permit request and stated that
the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and
passed unanimously, the Board
of Supervisors of
the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does
herein approve the conditional use
permit #013 -81 of Patricia
A. Abbot, Box
217 -C, hit. Falls
Rt., Winchester,
Virginia, requesting a home
occupation for
a beauty shop.
This property is
designated as Parcel 51 on
Tax Map 40, in
the Back Creek
Magisterial District.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER
21, ZONING, ADOPTED JULY 12, 1978 TO AMEND ARTICLE XI,
SECTION 21 -103 BY THE ADDITION OF (i)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER
21, ZONING ADOPTED JULY 12, 1978, TO AMEND ARTICLE X11,
SEC TION 109 BY ADDITION OF (k) - APPROVED
Mr. Horne presented this ordinance request stating that his office had
received a request from Mrs. Michele R. Gaudin to amend the B -2 Zoning
regulation to allow accessory residential uses in this zoning district. The
specific need of the applicant is in regard to hors. Gaudin's restaurant,
Michele's, (on Route 522 North), and the propriotors need to convert part of
the structure to a small apartment. The Planning Commission by unanimous
vote at their meeting on September 16, 1981 recommended these ordinance
changes. The ordinance amendments will not only change the B -2 regulations
but also the B -1 regulations to allow accessory residential uses.
432
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by William H. Baker and
passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does herein approve the two following ordinances:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER
21, ZONING, ADOPTED JULY 12, 1978, TO AMEND ARTICLE XI,
SECTION 21 -103 BY THE ADDITION OF (i).
(i) Accessory residential uses which are within the principle
structure and are to be used solely by the owner and /or operator
of the principle commercial use.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER
21, ZONING, ADOPTED JULY 12, 1978 TO AMEND ARTICLE XI1,
SECTION 109 BY THE ADDITION OF (k).
(k) Accessory residential uses which are within the principle
structure and are to be used solely by the owner and /or operator
of the principle commerical use.
RIDGEFIELD SUBDIVISION, SECTION II - REDUCTION OF
CONSTRUCTION BOND - APPROVED
Mr. Horne stated that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority had informed
his office that all construction in Ridgefield, Section II has been
completed satisfactorily, and that Mr. King of the Highway Department has
suggested the reduction of this bond from $153,682.19 to $7,500.00 which
would cover any incidental repairs that may be needed due to continued
construction activity.
Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and
passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does herein approve the reduction of construction bond for
Ridgefield Subdivision, Section II to $7,500.00.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - APPROVED
Mr. Horne stated that the Capital Improvements Committee reviewed the
proposals for the conduct of a Capital Improvements Program from consulting
firms. The Committee noted that 12 firms had been reviewed for possible
consideration. He further stated that the Committee reviewed the proposals
based on the stated comprehension of the project by the consultant,
experience in capital project development, experience in local government
finance, relationship of the man hours estimated to complete the various
phases of the project, relationship of the fee to the estimated work effort.
He stated that the Committee unanimously recommends that the proposal of
Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates be accepted and that a budget allowance of
$15,000.00 be established for this project.
433
Mrs. Maddox stated that she felt this data was available locally and
that this could be done in our Data Processing Department.
Mr. Stiles stated that part of the reason this was necessary was due to
the fact that there had never been a capital improvements plan before and
after this work is completed and updating is necessary, it would not be
necessary to hire an outside consultant, as the background information would
already be available, which means that every year it would only be necessary
for the program to be updated pending on the events of that year. He
further stated that in his time on the Board he did not feel that he had
ever voted on any study that would provide more valuable information, at
less cost, than this proposed study.
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by William H.
Baker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the CIP proposal as submitted by
Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye -
Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, William H. Baker and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
Nay - S. Roger Koontz and Rhoda W. Maddox.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS COMMITTEE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mrs. Maddox presented the following Committee report and
recommendations:
The Law Enforcement and Courts Committee met on October 5, 1981.
Present were Mrs. Maddox and Mr. Stiles. Mr. Coverstone was absent. The
Committee makes the following report and recommendations:
Compensation for Sheriffs Department Personnel
The Committee reviewed a report prepared by the staff regarding
proposed changes in the pay schedule for enforcement personnel in the
Sheriffs Department. The Committee recommended adoption of the proposals
and forwarded them for consideration by the Finance Committee.
Reclassification for Administrative Assistant/ Investigator in the
Commonwealth's Attorney's Office
The Committee reviewed a staff analysis regarding reclassification of
the position of Administrative Assistant/ Investigator of the Commonwealth's
Attorney's Office. The Committee recommended adoption of the
reclassification and forwarded the recommendation to the Finance Committee
434
for consideration.
Crime Solvers Request for Contribution
The Committee reviewed a request from Crime Solvers for a County
donation. The Committee requested a list of contributors to the fund. The
Committee believes that fiscal support of the Crime Solvers Program should
primarily come from businesses and civic groups in the community. The
Committee has no recommendation for contribution at this time and will be
studying the Crime Solvers request more thoroughly.
Review of Court Services Program by Department of Corrections
The Committee received an updated report from Court Services Director,
Chuck Poe, regarding the study that had been requested from the Department
of Corrections regarding the organization of the Court Services function.
The Committee noted that the Department of Corrections report, which had
been scheduled for the end of September, has been delayed until the end of
October. The Committee received a copy of a report which had been prepared
for the Regional Jail Project by the Division of Justice and Crime
Prevention. The Committee noted that the diversionary programs which were
being conducted by the Division of Court Services can have a significant
impact on the demand for Jail space. The Committee noted that Mr. Poe was
proceeding with the development of a program for Court ordered victim
restitution. The Committee will be continuing to work with representatives
of the Department of Corrections and the Division of Justice and Crime
Prevention in studying the organizational needs of the Division of Court
Services.
FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. William Baker presented the following Committee report and
recommendations:
Request From Sch
IV C Grant in the
d to Add to the FY82 School Budget a Title
5,869
The Committee reviewed a request from Dr. Michael Morrison for addition
of the Federal money to the School budget. Dr. Morrision submitted
information pertaining to the proposed program. The Committee noted that
the amount involved is 100°% Federal money and recommends approval of the
request.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and
passed unanimously, the request from the School Board to add to the FY82
budget a Title IV C Grant in the Amount of $5,869 was approved.
435
Cost of Ridge Campus
The Committee met with School Superintendent Melton Wright to discuss
the questions that Mr. Stiles had presented to the Finance Committee
pertaining to the cost of the Ridge Campus. Dr. Wright noted that much of
the information that was requested had been previously reported to the Board
by himself, Ralph Shockey or the School Board in various presentations. Dr.
Wright noted that the Sanitation Authority hookup fees in the current budget
were $10,000 and that there was $20,000 left to pay in the subsequent
budgets over the next two fiscal years. Architect fees for the design of
outdoor athletic facilities would only be payable when and if the facilities
are actually developed. Dr. Wright noted that books are paid out of the
textbook fund which are fee supported. He noted that beyond the information
that had been previously reported he was unable to give conclusive answers
because he did not have the information from the non School Board agencies
that had also incurred costs.
Mr. Stiles stated that what he was asking for was a summary and a total
with
reference to the cost of the Ridge Campus.
He asked if the matter with
Mr.
Stratton, the Architect, had been resolved.
He further stated that he
felt
the Board was entitled to the figures
he had
asked for concerning the
total
cost of the new school.
Mr. Koontz suggested that Mr. Stiles
attend
the School Board Meeting
and
present these questions to the School
Board
for their reply.
Progress Report from Yount Hyde &
Barbour Regarding Organization
of the Treasurer's Office
The Committee noted that processing
the tax
bills via the lock box
system is currently underway and has worked well in its initial phases. The
Committee discussed with the Treasurer the need for additional part -time
help. The Committee acknowledged continuing support for additional help if
a formal request were to be forthcoming. The Committee noted that interest
income from the repurchase agreements for the months of August and September
is as follows:
August September
F &NI $5349.91 $6630.45
SVNB $1734.58 $3530.47
The Committee also reviewed a detailed report from Yount, Hyde &
Barbour regarding certificates of deposit, delinquent taxes and cash
transactions by funds. The Committee requested that the County Attorney be
433
asked to proceed as fast as possible to continue collections of delinquent
taxes in the Back Creek and Gainesboro Districts. The Committee also
discussed the need for office improvements. The Committee reaffirmed its
support for upgrading the furnishings of the office to improve the
efficiency of operations and the appearance of the office. The Committee
noted it is not willing to support at this time requests for improvements to
the building since it is anticipated that the Treasurer's Office will be
relocated following completion of the Joint Judicial Center. The Committee
requested the Consultant and the Treasurer to continue to develop
alternatives for furniture layouts.
Recommendations of the Law Enforcement and Courts Committee
The Committee reviewed the report of the Law Enforcement and Courts
Committee pertaining to the recommendations regarding compensation for the
Sheriff's Department personnel. The Committee recommends that items 1
through 8 of the Law Enforcement Committee Report and recommendations be
approved. The Committee had a long discussion regarding proper structure
for incentive pay. The Committee noted the lack of comparability of the
proposed incentive payment to compensation offered to School personnel for
advanced degrees. The Committee recommends holding action on the incentive
plan revisions but that the Board continue to pay incentive pay at the
dollar levels that applied before any changes in the pay grades for the Law
Enforcement personnel were made. The Committee notes that alternative
revisions to the incentive plan schedule should continue to be studied and
acted upon subsequent to completion of the merit evaluation program. The
Committee also reviewed the recommendation of the Law Enforcement and Courts
Comittee pertaining to the reclassification of the Administrative
Assistant/ Investigator in the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office. The
Committee recommends approval of the Law Enforcement Committee's
recommendation for reclassification.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and
passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors does herein approve the
following recommendations:
1. Personnel who enter the law enforcement department, i.e. field
personnel (deputies), with no experience and who meet the minimum
requirements be assigned at a Range 15, Deputy Trainee.
2. Deputies who have successfully completed their required training
and subsequently qualified be assigned a Range 16, Deputy I.
4371
3. Deputies who have completed their training, qualified and have
completed one year of service be assigned to Range 17; Deputy II
(qualified deputies) could be hired up to the third step on Range
17 base upon experience and qualifications.
4. Sergeants and Lieutenants would be placed on Ranges 19 and 20
respectively.
5. Investigators in virtually every locality contacted were found to
be on the same scale as Sergeants. We would recommend that our
investigators be assigned to Range 19 to clarify this inequity.
6.
The Administrative Assistant would be assigned a Range 21 and the
Chief Deputy would be assigned a Range 22.
7.
Correctional Officers would be assigned to Range
16,
the Assistant
Chief Correctional Officer a Range 18 and the Chief
Correctional
Officer a Range 20.
8.
Dispatchers would be assigned a Range 12.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded
by
Will L. Owings,
BE
IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of
the
County of
Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve tabling any action on changing the
percentages on incentive pay for Sheriffs Department personnel at this
time.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye -
S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker and R. Thomas Malcolm.
Play - Rhoda W. Maddox and Kenneth Y. Stiles; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does herein
acknowledge approval of recommendation #9 as follows as a result of a memo
sent to the Board dated October 16, 1981 and the subsequent telephone poll
conducted on October 23, 1981,
Field personnel (i.e. Deputies who carry weapons) would be awarded a
supplement of $50.00 per month in lieu of overtime pay.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye -
S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker, Rhoda W. Maddox, R.
Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and
passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does herein approve the reclassification of the Administrative
Assistant/ Investigator in the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office.
Request of Parks and Recreation Department
The Committee reviewed a memo requesting the utilization of the impact
money from Shawnee Disrict for completion of the Frederick Heights facility.
The request is for $7,171. The Committee recommends approval of the
request.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and
438
passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does herein approve the above request.
Civil Assessment
The Committee reviewed a proposed ordinance imposing an assessment of
one (1) dollar upon each civil action filed in the Circuit and General
District Courts of Frederick County for the purpose of establishing and
maintaining a Law Library. The ordinance draft was prepared by
Commonwealth's Attorney, Lawrence Ambrogi. The request for the development
of such an ordinance was submitted to the Finance Committee by the Judges of
the Circuit Court to defray expenses associated with the development of the
Law Library in the Judicial Center. The concept for such an ordinance for
the County was endorsed by the Board during the budget cycle but no formal
action had been taken adopting the ordinance. The Committee recommends that
the ordinance be advertised for public hearing and subsequent approval by
the Board of Supervisors as quickly as legally permissabie.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and
passed unanimously, the above was approved as stated.
Review of CIP Proposals
The Committee reviewed copies of the Request for Proposal for the
development of a Capital Improvements Program for Frederick County and
copies of four proposals that were received from consulting firms. The
Committee noted that a detailed review of the proposals was scheduled to be
undertaken by the Capital Improvements Committee of the Planning Commission
on Wednesday, October 7. A recommendation regarding the selection will be
forthcoming from the CIP Committee. (This item was voted on earlier in the
Agenda)
Year End Report
The Committee reviewed the year end report prepared by the Finance
Director. The Committee will be continuing to work with Yount, Hyde &
Barbour and the Finance Director to develop a series of reports that will
provide meaningful management information on a regular basis for the
governing body.
BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and
passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance
with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection (a)(1), to discuss personnel matters.
BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION
43 91
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and
passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session.
BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and
passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session.
L M. MCDONALD APPOINTED TO FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING
MISSION AS AT -LAR MEMBER - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and
passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does herein appoint Carl Melvin McDonald to the Frederick County
Plannning Commission as an At -Large member for a four year term, said term
to commence on November 1, 1981 and terminate on October 31, 1985.
Mr. Malcolm requested that the Finance Committee consider disabled
Veterans being eligible for free County stickers.
FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 10TH,
1981
Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles
and passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does herein approve the changing of the first regular meeting in
November to the 10th inasmuch as the 11th is Veterans Day.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY,
IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BARD OF SUPERVISORS O NOW ADJOURN.
II A
Chairman, B d of S �rvis,ey rk, Board of Supervisors