Loading...
May 12, 1982 Regular Meeting529 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on May 12, 1982, at 7:00 P.P.I., 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; David L. Smith and Kenneth Y. Stiles. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by the Reverend Robert Woodward of the First Baptist Church. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Baker stated that the Personnel Committee had an addendum to the Finance Committee report as a result of the Finance Committee meeting held on May 11. Mr. Baker further stated that he had two individuals from the governmental system that had asked to be present at tonight's meeting to make a presentation to the Board. Mr. Smith requested that the Virginia Lakeside Water and Sewer request be heard under "County Officials ". Mr. Owings stated that he had an announcement under "County Officials ". Mr. Smith stated that he too had a question under "County Officials ". Mrs. Maddox stated that she hoped the Board was not going to make a practice of accepting agenda items that called for the Boards' vote after the close of the agenda. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by William H. Baker and passed unanimously, the agenda was adopted as amended. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED 1982 -83 B UDGET Mr. Koontz stated that there were rules to be followed concerning those that would like to address the Board concerning the proposed budget. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IT HAS BEEN CALLED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1982. THIS BUDGET IS PREPARED FOR INFORMATION AND FISCAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. SO THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY HAVE THE BENEFIT OF YOUR COMMENTS, IT IS OUR DESIRE TO HAVE AN ORDERLY HEARING. IN AN EFFORT TO ACHIEVE THIS, THE FOLLOWING RULES OF ORDER 530 WILL PREVAIL: 1. ALL SPEAKERS MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 2. EACH SPEAKER SHOULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND ADDRESS THEIR COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 3. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. 4. EACH SPEAKER SHOULD BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE AND LIMIT HIS REMARKS TO NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES. 5. NO SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK MORE THAN ONCE UNTIL ALL WHO WISH TO SPEAK HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO DO SO. 6. SPEAKERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO BE DIRECT, TO THE POINT AND AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. 7. PLEASE WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 8. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING TO RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET. IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING FOR THE BOARD TO DEBATE QUESTION-, ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH SPEAKERS, NOR TO MAKE COMMENTS THEMSELVES. 9. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A DEBATE AND COMMENTS TO THE AUDIENCE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. 10. UNRULY OR RUDE BEHAVIOR WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. 11. THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO LIMIT THE LENGTH OF THE HEARING, ESPECIALLY IF NO NEW INFORMATION IS BEING PRESENTED. (AT CLOSE OF HEARING) IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICI- PATION. YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AT THIS HEARING ARE AN IMPORTANT PAR OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. I DECLARE THIS HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Stiles requested that a letter that was addressed to the Board from Mr. John Penney, member of the Board of Directors of the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District, be included as part of the minutes of this meeting. May 12, 1982 TO: Members of Board of Supervisors, Frederick County FROM: John Penney RE: Reinstatement of $100.00 to Request of Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District As I am unable to attend the meeting in person tonight, I am sending this letter to request reinstatement of $100.00 to the budget request submitted by the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. A reading of the memorandum of understanding between the district and Frederick County will give you an idea of the breadth of activities the district is involved in; the loss of $100.00 from our budget will severely curtail what we can do as we are already operating on a miniscule budget. Please give every consider- ation to reinstating the $100.00 amount. Respectfully submitted, 531 /s/ John W. Penney John W. Penney Member, Board of Directors Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District Mr. Owen, a County School Teacher, stated that he felt there was a controversy between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board and that he would like to suggest that in the future the two Boards try to have a better working relationship. There was no further public comment concerning the proposed budget. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, that the Public Hearing of the proposed budget for 1982 -83 be closed. COUNTY OFFICIALS Mr. Lee Boppe, President of the Winchester - Frederick Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Board and presented them a copy of the Magna Carta and a certificate showing the dates of the viewing of the Magna Carta within the City of Winchester. REAPPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD - TABLED Mr. Koontz stated that there was a letter in the agenda from Mr. Charles Poe, Director of the Division of Court Services, stating that he had contacted Mr. William Nethers with reference to him continuing his service on this Board and that Mr. Nethers agreed to be reappointed. Mr. Stiles stated that he felt this contact should be made by the Board and that he would like to have this reappointment tabled until the next Board Meeting. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by William H. Baker and passed unanimously, the reappointment of Mr. Nethers to the Community Corrections Resources Board be tabled until the next Board Meeting. MR. J. D. SHOCKEY RESIGNS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONF OF INTEREST Mr. Owings stated that the Industrial Development Authority had received a letter from Mr. J. D. Shockey stating that he was resigning from the Industrial Development Authority due to a possible conflict of interest effective immediately. Mr. Koontz asked that if anyone had any suggestions for this appoint- ment to please notify the Board and stated that this was not a District appointment. -032 Mr. Smith stated that he had hoped to have his nomination for the School Board seat from Shawnee District at this meeting, but for various reasons this was not possible and that he would be making the announcement at the Board Meeting on May 26. He further stated that the Personnel Committee had met on May 6 and at this meeting it was brought to his atten- tion that Mr. White had been appointed a voting member of the Personnel Committee and he would like to have this clarified. Mr. Koontz stated that this was correct. Mr. Smith stated that he would hold his comment inasmuch as this was to be brought up later in the meeting. REQUEST OF LAKESIDE WATER AND SEWER COMPANY - APPROVED Mr. Koontz stated that a letter had been received from Mr. Wellington Jones, of the Sanitation Authority, recommending approval of the request from Lakeside Water and Sewer Company. Upon motion made by David L. Smith, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the application of Virginia Lakeside Sewer and Water Company to this Board, pursuant to Section 56 -265.3 of the Code of Virginia, for 1950, was presented to this Board for an increase in allotment of territory to take in an additional portion of the Ralph M. Wakeman and Mae C. Wakeman property by service of said utility company, and it appearing to the Board of Supervisors that said application for an increase in allotment of territory is in accordance with said Code Section and is in the public interest and not in conflict with the plans of the Sanitation Authority of Frederick County, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Super- visors of Frederick County does hereby grant its consent for the filing of an application of said utility company with the State Corporation Commission for an increase in the size of its allotment territory as shown on its plat to be filed with the said Commission. CODE AND ENGINEERING COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Owings presented the following Code and Engineering Committee Report and Recommendations: The Code and Engineering Committee met on May 6, 1982 with all members present. Also peresent were James White and Landfill Superintendent, Eddie Wright. The Committee makes the following report and recommendations: FY83 Landfill Budget Review 533 The Committee reviewed the FY83 Budget and noted the following: A. The budget reflects a reduction of man -power from eight to six. (Two m /y's are proposed to be picked up in refuse collection) B. The budget proposes to sell three of the four pieces of equipment presently being used at the Landfill: Equipment 1. D -8 (Bulldozer w /pan) Status Sale Price Not suitable for Est. 50,000 shale and rock 2. IH -250 (Tracked Loader) 3. 955 (Tracked Loader) 4. 816 (Compactor) Buy -back guarantee 50,000 Needs engine overhaul Est. 12,000 Retain as back -up The Committee noted maintenance costs for equipment has increased. Total estimated income from sale of equipment, $112,000. C. Purchase outright two used large capacity dump trucks to move cover material estimated at $30,000 total. D. Lease /Purchase three pieces of equipment to include one compactor, one tracked loader and one wheeled loader with staggered lease periods such that one piece would be for three years, four years, and five years respectively. 1 Tracked Loader Est. 5k /MO (3yr.) 1 Wheeled Loader Est. 4k1MO (4yr.) 1 Compactor Est. 3k /M0 (5yr.) E. Rate Structure - As Follows: FY 1983 - $6.50 /ton FY 1984 - $7.00 /ton FY 1985 - $7.50 /ton FY 1986 - $8.00 /ton There was significant discussion regarding a proposal by Winchester that the owners (Winchester- Frederick County) be given a rate differential. For example: During FY83, Winchester and Frederick County be charged $6.00 /ton while all other users be charged 6.80 /ton. The charge for non -owner users would be based on historical usage figures. The Committee will be submitting a recommendation concerning differentiated fees at the next meeting. F. The total budget for FY83 would result in a positive fund balance of approximately $78,000 which would be invested for the purchase of a new Landfill. G. The Committee noted with pleasure, that the Landfill had just received the eighth consecutive "excellent" rating from the State Inspector for the Department of Health Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Review of Collections Budget The Committee reviewed the FY83 Collections Budget: A. There are fourteen collection sites (less Landfill) County wide. Four are compactor equipped and the remaining ten are open containers. Geographic population figures were studied. - 0 3J` B. The proposal to reduce the number of sites from 14 to 10 and equip them with County owned compactor units manned by 10 part time contract employees was discussed. The County would contract with a private hauler to service the 14 school sites using the surplus open -top containers. C. Proposal would transfer two man years to refuse collection to coordinate, drive and conduct maintenance. D. Refuse pick -up at all sites could be provided seven days a week which would result in cleaner sites and better service. E. The proposal requires lease /purchasing of: 12 - 40yd containers (2 spares for rotation) 10 - 2 yd compactors 2 - 1982 Diesel Trucks with roll -off chassis The Estimate would be $75,300 a year for five years after which the County would own the equipment. F. Four sites (Roundhill, Clearbrook, Scales and Albin) could be converted as soon as possible at a minimal cost. The cost of the other six sites would be directly related to availability of three phase 220 volt power and amount of excavation or fill material required. G. The total cost for the proposal would be approximately the same as the previously submitted budget. Site preparation and up- grading of sites would be supplemented by a carry forward of approximately 25 thousand from the FY82 Collection Budget, that was held in reserve for site improvements. H. The Committee noted that the proposal would require good management in order to be successful. Inspections Department Information Data was presented to the Committee regarding 1981 statistical information, the present fee schedule and a statement regarding the financial status of the department from 1972 until the present. A meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, May 13, at 10:00 A.M., to discuss the data. More information will be presented to the Board in subsequent meetings. The Committee recommends that the proposals for the equipment purchases for the Landfill and collection system be studied and when approved the staff be directed to proceed with requests for bids on both the sale and lease /purchase of the equipment. Mr. Owings stated that due to the volume of material covered during this meeting concerning the Landfill budget, the Committee felt more time was needed to digest this and that they would not make a recommendation to the Board at this time. He further stated that action would be taken on this matter at the next Board Meeting and that the Inspections Department would be discussed by the Code and Engineering Committee at a meeting scheduled for May 13 and a recommendation would be forthcoming concerning this at the Board Meeting on May 26, 1982. 535 Mr. Koontz stated that a representative of Browning Ferris Industries was present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Stiles stated that he had some questions in reference to Number 4 of this Committee report. He further stated that all of this information had been included in the request to the Capital Improvements Subcommittee and he was wondering if the Board was just going to toss that process in the trash bin. Mr. Owings stated that that was not the intention of the Committee, that this was being sent to the Board for informational purposes only. Mr. Stiles asked if it was the intention of the staff to pull this out of the Capital Improvements Program process. Mr. White stated it would be pulled out as a Capital Improvements request. Mr. Stiles stated that if we keep pulling things out and setting them aside, by the time we get done there won't be anything left. Mr. Koontz stated that he felt this needed to be discussed further in light of the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Stiles stated that the Capital Improvements Subcommittee felt it is at a standstill until it receives some direction from the Board on funding and until this is forthcoming, the staff and the Committee feels there is no purpose for having a meeting. The Board discussed how the Capital Improvements Subcommittee and the various Board Committees needed to meet in order to be able to make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Stiles questioned which equipment at the Landfill was operable and which was not. Mr. Harriman stated that the 955 Track loader was inoperable at this time and that it would cost approximately $18,000.00 to have it repaired. Mr. Stiles asked what a new model to do the same job would cost. Mr. Harriman replied, approximately $125,000.00. Discussion followed as to which would be most feasible for the County, have the County equipment repaired or purchase new equipment. The warranty on repaired equipment as compared to new equipment was also discussed. Mr. Stiles asked if. this was not a proposal for the County to get back into the trash collection business. He further stated that the County had gotten out of the trash collection business mainly because of the way it was handled and it was decided at that time the best way to get out of this was X36 to contract it out. Mr. Stiles asked how much the County had paid Mr. Shelly for rental equipment during the past year. Mr. Ed Wright stated that Mr. Shelly charged $35.00 per hour for his loader, but he did not know the exact figures, as to the amount, he had been paid during the past year. Mr. Stiles asked about the School system being included in this plan and the problems of odor involved with the School being put on a delayed basis with reference to container pick up. Mr. Rusty Stewart, of Browning Ferris Industries, was present and discussed with the Board the contract the County had had with Browning Ferris Industries concerning the dumpsters within the County. Mr. Harriman stated that he was proposing purchasing two trucks. These trucks would be put on a rotating basis using one truck each day and they would cover the ten sites within the County for pick up. After much discussion it was decided that the Board needed to meet in a worksession to discuss this proposal. Mr. Koontz asked Mr. White to set up a worksession to discuss this proposal with the full Board as soon as possible. Mr. Owings stated that a full report would be forthcoming to the Board at the May 26 Board Meeting. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Baker presented the following Personnel Committee Report and Recommendations: The Personnel Committee met on Thursday, May 6, 1982 with all members present and makes the following report and recommendations: Revised Job Descriptions for Animal Control Officer and Assistant Animal Control Officer The Committee reviewed and discussed revised job descriptions for the Animal Control Officer and the Assistant Animal Control Officer and recommends approval of these descriptions as submitted herewith. The Committee recognizes that use of the County vehicle to assist other agencies will be permitted only on a case by case basis with prior approval by the Director of Public Services and in emergency situations, the Director of Public Services or in his absence, the County Administrator, will be notified within 24 hours following such emergency. The Committee further recognizes that animal control duties will take precedence during assistance situations. 537 Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, the above was approved as presented. Job Description of Budget Analyst Position in Finance Department The Committee reviewed the proposed job description for the budget analyst position in the Finance Department and recommends approval as submitted herewith. The Committee notes that this position is provided for in the 1982 -83 fiscal budget. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by David L. Smith, the above was approved by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker, Rhoda W. Maddox and David L. Smith. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles. Certification of Department Head Evaluations The Committee reviewed the merit evaluations for Helen W. Locke, Information Systems Director and James E. Boyd, Finance Director and recommends review and approval of these evaluations. (An Executive Session would be appropriate to discuss these evaluations.) Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, it was decided that the Board would go into Executive Session to discuss Personnel under Section 2.1 -344 (a)(1) at the end of this meeting. Performance Evaluation Merit Matrix C The Committee reviewed the current performance evaluation merit matrix and submits the following information for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Based on the fact that salary increases are awarded in six month increments under the Frederick County Merit System, the actual cost to the County for an employee receiving a 10% rating in each of two evaluations broken down into 2 six month increments, is actually 7.625% over a 12 month period. (See Examples Below - Example A depicts a straight 10% annual increase paid over a 12 month period. Example B shows two 5% increments paid over a period of 6 months each.) Example A Range 7 Salary 10% increase -12 month Example B Range 7 $7,728.00 772.80 8,500.80 708.40 per month Salary $7,728.00 533 5 % - 6 month 386.40 First Increase $8,114.40 5 % -6 month 405.72 Second Increase $8,520.12 $8,114.40 -6 month - $676.20 per month or $4,057.20 $8,520.12 -6 month - $710.01 per month or $4,260.06 Total $8,317.26 Example A $8,500.80 - 10% 12 months Example B $8,317.26 - 50 6 month increments - net 7.6250 Because the next round of merit evaluations will not become effective until September I, 1982 and using a 5% increase for 6 month increments based on the projected July 1, 1982 payroll, the cost to the County to maintain the merit matrix at its current value for the next fiscal year would be approxi- mately $108,500 or 5.0625 %. Based upon the above information the Personnel Committee recommends that the merit performance matrix be maintained at its current value and not reduced to 8% as proposed by the Finance Committee. The projected cost of retaining the merit matrix values is within the limits of the budgeted merit reserves. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, the above was approved as presented. Personnel Committee Membership The Committee noted that the membership of the Personnel Committee includes two Board Members and the County Administrator as has been the practice in the previous years. The Committee raised the possibility of providing a citizen member as is the practice on the other Board Committees and have the County Administrator serve in a support function rather than as a voting member. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the above was approved as presented. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, that a citizen will be appointed to serve on the Personnel Committee as a voting member and that Mr. James M. White, County Administrator be on the Committee in a consulting fashion only. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Baker presented the following minutes from the Finance Committee meeting of May 11, 1982: Notes from Finance Committee 11 May 1982 Present: Bill Baker, Will Owings, Hugh Dailey, Jim White, Jim Boyd, Helen Locke, Al Toxopeus, Dorothy Keckley, Larry Ambrogi and Esten Rudolph. 53 Re: Discussion of efforts and procedures for collection of delinquent taxes. Mr. Baker opened the meeting with a discussion of the need to resolve problems in the procedures for the collection of delinquent taxes, noting that the Committee wanted specific information. • The attached information was presented by the Treasurer (A) and by Al Toxopeus of Yount, Hyde and Barbour (B) recapping the current status of outstanding delinquent taxes. • Mr. Ambrogi noted that for 1979 all people have been contacted and sued for judgements for payment of the taxes. Mr. Owings requested that Mr. Ambrogi prepare and submit to the Finance Committee a list of the suits filed and their current status. A major problem was noted by both Mr. Ambrogi and Mrs. Keckley that many of the delinquent tax records have insufficient addresses. Since 1979 State Code has required that the address of the Grantee be included on the receipt, which has been done by the Clerk. It was noted that while addresses now are being presented to the Commissioner of Revenue by the Clerk, many have become inadequate to successfully send a tax bill. It was estimated that 40 to 500 of the delinquencies may involve poor addresses. The group discussed possible techniques for improving the quality of the addresses. It was agreed: 1. Mrs. Keckley would present a report to the Board on 12 May regarding the current status of delinquent taxes, including information about how many delinquencies have poor addresses. 2. Mr. Ambrogi would: A. Prepare a resolution for the Board as soon as possible to request that the Clerk of the Circuit Court improve efforts to acquire a correct billing address. B. Begin efforts to sell property for back taxes owed from 1978 and prior years. 3. Mrs. Keckley will notify Mr. Ambrogi on 31 December 1982 of the delinquent 1979 taxes to be filed in the Clerk's Office so that Mr. Ambrogi may proceed with law suits to sell the property for back taxes. It was noted that this effort will become a continuing practice for each subsequent tax year. 4. Mr. Rudolph will review the current state statutes pertaining to the County's authority to secure correct billing addresses for Real Estate tax purposes. 5. Mr. Ambrogi, Mrs. Keckley and Mr. Rudolph will meet with Information Services Director, Helen Locke and submit in writing their needs for data processing services to support improved collection practices within a week. 6. Mr. Ambrogi will prepare unit cost estimates associated with proceeding with suits to sell property for back taxes and submit this information to the Finance Committee at its next meeting. The Board discussed at great length with Mrs. Dorothy Keckley, Treasurer; Mr. Larry Ambrogi, Commonwealth's Attorney and Mr. George Whitacre, Clerk of the Circuit Court, the problems their office has encount- ered in trying to collect delinquent taxes and what steps they felt were necessary in order that these taxes might be collected. Mr. Baker requested that Mr. Ambrogi prepare a resolution for the Board to review concerning the collection of these taxes. 540 Mr. Smith asked Mr. Ambrogi if the normal procedure was to have the Commonwealth's Attorney collect these taxes. Mr. Ambrogi stated that it was cheaper for him to do it than for the County to have to pay an outside attorney. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the minutes of the meeting of the Finance Committee on May 11, 1982 as reported to the Board were approved and that appropriate action be taken by those concerned in order that the delinquent taxes of the County be collected as soon as possible. Mr. Baker stated that Mrs. Keckley had agreed to work with Mr. Al Toxopeus in revamping the basic internal structure of her office as recommended in a report prepared by Yount, Hyde & Barbour. COMMITTEE APPOINTED FOR JOINT STUDY CONCERNING CITY AIRPORT Mr. Koontz stated that he would like to appoint a County Committee to sit down with the City of Winchester to discuss the City Airport. He further stated that he would like for Mr. Will Owings, Mr. David Smith and Mr. Don Ratcliff, a County citizen from Stephens City, to serve on this Committee. Mr. Stiles stated that he has heard a number of times as to how the County and the City should participate in more joint projects but he felt this had been a one way street so far. Mr. Koontz stated that he felt the City had been very cooperative with the County and that the County was not hurting in its dealings with the City. Mr. Stiles stated that that was fine but that this should be true with all of the projects involved and not just part of them. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, that the above persons serve on a Committee to meet down with the City of Winchester for the purpose of discussing the Winchester Airport. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by David L. Smith and I passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Section 2.1 -344 (a)(1) to discuss Personnel matters. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION 541 Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings 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. CERTIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT HEAD EVALUATIONS - APPROVED Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, that the merit evaluations for Department Heads Helen W. Locke, Information Systems Director and James E. Boyd, Finance Director, be approved as presented in accordance with Number 3 of the Personnel Committee Report and Recommendations. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. / II Ch r a , Bo rd of Sup isors�� 1 erk, Board of Supervisors