Loading...
May 08, 2002 Regular Meeting 001 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on May 8, 2002, at 7:15 P.M., (Closed Session was scheduled for 6:45 P.M.), in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administrator's Office, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Robert M. Sager; Margaret B. Douglas; Sidney A. Reyes; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. BOARD RETIRED INTO CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the Board retired into Closed Session in accordance with the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 2.2-3711, Subsection A (5) to Discuss an Economic Development Industrial Prospect. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the Board withdrew from Closed Session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board reconvened into Regular Session and certified nothing other than what was noted as reason for going into Closed Session was discussed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05108/02 002 Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye INVOCATION In absence ofthe scheduled minister, Supervisor Sager delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Administrator Riley advised that he had no additions or deletions. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the agenda was adopted, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley advised that Supervisor Reyes had requested to have Tab C pulled, as he would like to have that proclamation read. 1. Resolution Re: Request for Installation of "Watch for Children" Sign - Woodchuck Lane (Route 654) - Tab D; 2. Parks and Recreation Commission Report - Tab G. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the consent agenda, as spelled out above, was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Doug Dolan, Red Bud District, advised that last evening, he attended the meeting of the County Transportation Committee. He noticed how they tried to handle a rather difficult task given Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 003 them by the Board of Supervisors in trying to create a primary road plan without Route 37. You can't remove one piece of a comprehensive transportation plan and expect all the other pieces to work like a clock, it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, he feels they had kind of a gridlock. He can understand now why Governor Byrd placed primary road control under the State and not the localities. He feels it is time for the whole story to be told and not just parts of it. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, takes the opposite view point from Mr. Dolan. He addressed Tab M of the Agenda - Discussion of Ordinance Amendment Re: Definition ofImmediate Family Member. It does not feel there should be an exemption to allow small lots far from public sewer and water. Henry Buettner, Gainesboro District, feels there needs to be more objectivity from the descending voters on the Board concerning the 37 eastern bypass. He referred to the recent meeting in Staunton wherein some ofthe Board members attended. He advised that when Supervisors Tyler, Forrester, and Reyes had spoken before the Commonwealth Transportation Board, they left the meeting. He feels they should have stayed in order to hear what those who are in favor of Route 37 had to say in order to be objective. He referred to the letter that was sent to this same meeting by ten members ofthe county Planning Commission endorsing the Route 37 Plan, and the criticism that they have received from certain Board members for doing so. He feels the Planning Commission does a very good job, and that they were within their rights to let their thoughts be known concerning this project. He further addressed a letter that he had received from Supervisor Reyes, written on county stationary, concerning the Democratic Party and the need for the Democrats to attend a particular meeting He is not sure that is in the best interest of the county, as it was not a county matter; therefore he feels the county stationary was inappropriate. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, feels Frederick County is at a crossroads, especially in the area of growth and water. As has been shown, not everyone can work beyond their own personal agenda and his or hers own biases. This in turn works against teamwork, partnership and relationships. This happens when there is no planned vision. Life in a community does demand a partnership. She feels a temporary moratorium in decision making is needed in order that the over- all vision can be finalized and allow the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeastern Land Use Plan to be revisited. She feels a small part of the county's rainy day fund could be used to hire a survey research team to objectively survey county residents on a number of key issues. This would allow Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 004 the Vision, the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan an unusually high degree of internal consistency. Rick Ours, Opequon District, and Planning Commission Member, advised that it was with some dismay, but very little surprise, that he read of Supervisor Reyes' recent accusations and comments toward members of the Planning Commission and his choice to resign as liaison to the Commission. During the past months there has been a constant battle of words and retoric involving the Board and Planning Commission. He has chosen to remain publicly silent regarding the many dubious decisions and flammatory accusations handed out by certain members of this Board, he has done for two reasons. His position has always been that while he might disagree with your politics he does agree with the Board's right to their own opinion. Furthermore, it has always been his position as a Frederick County citizen appointed to the Planning Commission, he should leave the political maneuvering to the professionals; however, Mr. Reyes, this time you have gone too far. In your letter to Board Chairman Mr. Shickle resigning as the Planning Commission Liaison, you stated that our signing of a letter in support of Route 37 quote, "serves to destroy the moral fabric of our local democracy," are you saying Mr. Reyes that by disagreeing with you and those that side with you on the Board is undemocratic? That is funny because I thought the freedom of speech and the right to disagree with our government is part ofthe fabric upon which our country was built; however, it seems any disagreement with your position is considered undemocratic. The new American dictionary defines democracy as the common people considered as the primary source of political power, that is the people Mr. Reyes, not one individual or special interest group. If you and your friends had it your way Planning Commissioners and staff would be little more than puppets whose strings you can pull to fit your political whims. You said, those of us who signed the letter, were insubordinate and unethical and that by sending the letter to the Commonwealth Transportation Board it sounded as if the Planning Commission officially disagreed with the Supervisors. Here is a news bulletin Mr. Reyes, we did disagree with your decision by voting 9 to o on March 6 to support the secondary road plan that included Route 37. All the letter did was reinforce to the Commonwealth what is already a matter of public record, that the Planning Commission does disagree with you. If your view ofthc role of the Planning Commission is that we are to be the puppets of the Board of Supervisors, then I'm sorry, I strongly disagree. Whether we signed the letter in support of Route 37 identified us as Planning Commissioners or not is Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 005 immaterial, in that the basic rights guaranteed all of us not just those who agree with you Mr. Reyes, is the right to disagree with our government and voice our opinions. It seems that every time the going gets tough, you Mr. Reyes get going by resigning. First it is the Chair of the Democratic Party, now as the liaison to the Planning Commission. Finally Mr. Reyes, the role of the Planning Commission is to advise, so my advice to you is to keep with going with what works for you and resign again. If you listen closely, people out there are laughing at Frederick County because of you. Gene Fisher, Shawnee District, Planning Commissioner, Member-at-Large, addressed the recent action of Supervisor Reyes. Mr. Reyes' accusations of insubordination and official malfeasance of duty are at best ridiculous. His comments and actions I believe reflect on his ethics or should I say lack thereof. First, the letter sent to the Board Members and Planning Commission Chairman were marked confidential. There is a document called the Freedom of Information Act which negates such letters from being confidential. For the record, when he spoke with Chuck DeHaven, Chairman of the Planning Commission, to question him about the resignation, he said the letter did state that Mr. Reyes did resign, but since the letter was marked confidential, he thought it best not to tell him about the contents of the letter. At the last Commission meeting there was no announcement made about Mr. Reyes' resignation nor did Mr. Reyes show up to address the Commission. However; on Thursday, there is an announcement on the radio with the resignation, and on Friday the local paper announced the resignation, so much for confidentiality. Mr. Reyes is the liaison, but has acted more like a Commissioner, questioning applicants, staff, engineers and stating opinions, criticizing their plans. However; during our meetings of discussion and public hearings on the transportation plan, at no time did Mr. Reyes mention any problems, criticism or opposition to Route 37. The Commission passed the transportation plan with no opposition. Then out ofthe blue a revelation must of come to Mr. Reyes at the Board of Supervisors meeting and he voted to move Route 37 from the Plan, ethical, hum! As a member of the Planning Commission I felt blind sided and stabbed in the back. Is this the way the Board is going to communicate and give direction? Let's look at the issue from another perspective. The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Board. The Board serves in an advisory capacity to VDOT. VDOT has got the primary road plan responsibility, so since the Board disagrees with VDOT, does that make the Board insubordinate and committing official malfeasance also? When the Board had an opportunity to meet with Mrs. Welsh, four of you didn't show up. He attended the meeting, but he could not Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 00 comment, some of you could have spoken and represented the citizens, but you were not there. The Board could have publicly addressed the issues of conflicts of interest and conspiracy. Is this how the county is going to address issues by avoiding open discussion, when the Chairman doesn't get his way with the Democratic Party, he resigns. When a liaison doesn't agree with the Commission, he resigns rather than stay involved and try to improve the process. We need leaders that are going to stand up and represent the people, not avoid tough situations or refuse to communicate in what appeared to be hidden agendas. He asked Supervisor Reyes to consider rescinding his resignation and consider coming back to the Planning Commission and let's work out our differences and work for the betterment of Frederick County. Kenneth Y. Stiles, Stonewall District, referred to comments made earlier by Ms. Kennedy wherein she referred to hap hazard decision making and lack of a vision. The county went through, ten to twelve years ago, a project 2020 which was intended to layout a vision for Frederick County. The transportation plan was examined by the Winchester Area Transportation Study that laid out the plan for the future. The remarks she has made about this is just not true. Comments about the actions on the Rutherford Farm, he feels this property should have been zoned commercial. The claims made that this represents a new way of doing business, a new day, it raises the bar, this is laughable. He addressed Mr. Reyes' letter, stating that this is the second time that he has accused people that disagree with him of committing a crime. He falsely accused Charles Omdofflast fall of violating the FOIA regarding executive sessions, and this was found by the courts not to be legitimate. Now he is accusing Planning Commissioners of malfesances. Malfeasance is a specifically defined crime by public officials, and to accuse somebody of a crime by disagreeing with him is outrageous. He further advised that Mr. Reyes noted in his letter that the Planning Commission is only intended to provide technical advice and guidance, but he didn't seek that advice on his decision, he made no effort to seek the advice ofthe Planning Commission. All the Planning Commission did was restate a position that they had taken. He stated that Mr. Reyes said the Planning Commission should never associate such opinions with their official position; however, he stated in the paper that it was okay for the Historic Resources Advisory Board to do the same thing, because they agreed with him, this is an outrage. He cannot go around accusing people of committing crimes just because he does not happen to agree with their political positions, and ifhe thinks that is the proper thing, there is no place for him in the government of Frederick County. This Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 001 Board is continuing to turn the government of Frederick County into a forest and an embarrassment to the people of Frederick County, and if you are not hearing that from the people, then you are not listening. Bob Howard, resident of Gainesboro District, advised that he is ashamed to admit that we have a Supervisor that is acting the way he is. It reminds him of a child's marble game, and ifhe is not winning, he picks his marbles up and goes home. He feels it would be good for Frederick County, and especially Gainesboro District, ifhe were to pick up his marbles, resign, and go home. MINUTES Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the minutes ofthe Regular Meeting of March 27, 2002 were approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS JANET CARBAUGH REAPPOINTED TO THE LORD FAIRFAX EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNCIL (LFEMS) Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, Janet Carbaugh was reappointed to the Lord Fairfax Emergency Medical Services Council (LFEMS) as representative from Frederick County. This is a three year appointment. This term will begin on July 1,2002 and expire on June 30, 2005. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye KRISTEN GOFF REAPPOINTED TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD FROM BACK CREEK DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Sager, Kristen Goffwas reappointed to the Social Services Board from Back Creek District. This is a four year term. The term will begin on July 1,2002, and expire on June 30, 2006. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 008 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye JUDITH A. MORRIS REAPPOINTED TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD FROM SHAWNEE DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, Judith A. Morris was reappointed to the Social Services Board from Shawnee District. This is a four year appointment. The term will begin on July 1, 2002 and expire on June 30, 2006. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. HARRINGTON SMITH. JR.. REAPPOINTED. AS COUNTY REPRESENT A TIVE TO THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, W. Harrington Smith, Jr., was reappointed as county representative on the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. This is a four year term. The term will begin on July 1, 2002, and expire on June 30, 2006. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PROCLAMATION (# 009-02) EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) WEEK- APPROVED Administrator Riley read the following resolution: WHEREAS, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and WHEREAS, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 009 recovery rate ofthose who experience sudden illness or injury; and WHEREAS, emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and WHEREAS, emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others; and WHEREAS, approximately two-thirds of all emergency medical services providers are volunteers; and WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands ofhours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and WHEREAS, Americans benefit daily from the knowledge and skills ofthese highly trained individuals; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and WHEREAS, injury prevention and the appropriate use ofthe EMS system will help reduce national health care costs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the week of May 19-25, 2002 as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourages the community to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. ADOPTED this 8th day of May, 2002. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye RESOLUTION (#042-02) RE: REOUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF"W ATCH FOR CHILDREN" SIGN - WOODCHUCK LANE (ROUTE 654) - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the 1997 Session ofthe Virginia Assembly amended the Code of Virginia adding Section 33.1-210.2 relating to the installation and maintenance of "signs alerting motorists that children may be at play nearby," and WHEREAS, this act provides for the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of any county requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to install and maintain this type of sign, and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meetiug of 05/08/02 01 WHEREAS, the source of funding for the installation of this sign shall come out of the secondary system construction allocation to the affected county. The costs of maintaining such sign shall be paid out of the secondary system maintenance allocation to the affected county; and WHEREAS, Woodchuck Lane, Route 654, is located in a residential area and is within the secondary road system and is a viable candidate for a "Watch for Children" sign, and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby request that the Department of Transportation install a "Watch for Children" sign in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-210.2 of the Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Passed this 8th day of May, 2002. RESOLUTION (#043-02) AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE HP HOOD. INC. EXPANSION - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board advising this appropriation in the amount of $200,000 is designated to the Frederick County Industrial Development Authority, and the funds will be disbursed to HP Hood, Inc. to implement a building and equipment expansion as spelled out in the following resolution: WHEREAS, HP Hood, Inc. currently operates in Frederick Facility and has made known its intent to expand its operations; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Fund as established by the Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby appropriate $200,000 to be designated to the Frederick County Industrial Development Authority. Funds will be disbursed to HP Hood, Inc. to implement a building and equipment expansion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said funds are subject to an executed Memorandum of Understanding outlining a performance criteria of the county. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia does authorize the county administrator to execute this document on its behalf. ADOPTED, this 8th day May, 2002. THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, dated , 2002, evidences the agreement among FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County"), the INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "IDA"), the WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, a joint commission of the City of Winchester and Frederick Minnte Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 011 County, Virginia (the "Commission"), and H. P. Hood, Inc. ("the Company"), regarding a building and an equipment expansion in their Frederick County facility. Inducement To Expand: To induce the Company to implement this building and equipment expansion and, thereby invest $15,000,000.00 in machinery and tools and $3,500,000.00 in a new building addition in Frederick County, Virginia and create thirty (30) new jobs by December 31, 2002, (the "Project"), the County agrees to make a cash grant to the IDA in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) and the IDA, in turn, shall make a cash grant to the Company in an identical amount for equipment expansion purposes within its Frederick County, Virginia facility (the "Facility") as an incentive to implement this expansion in Frederick County. The IDA hereby agrees to convey such funds to the Company no later than July 1, 2002 or the date in which the new machine line becomes operational, whichever comes last. This grant shall be used by the Company for the purpose of payment for or reimbursement of equipment purchases and related costs. Conditions. The Company shall diligently pursue such application and procure such approvals from various commercial lending interests to pursue adequate funds to equip the Facility with the new equipment. All incentives described herein shall be provided as and when indicated. Cooperation. The County and the Commission agree to cooperate with the Company, its equipment suppliers and its equipment contractor in connection with helping the Company meet its equipment implementation deadline so that the Facility is equipped by no later than December 31, 2002. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to require the County to issue any permits unless and until all conditions for such permits have been met. Binding. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors upon the date of the acceptance of this Memorandum of Understanding. Default. In the event the Company fails for any reason to 1) have fully operational $15,000,000.00 in new machine and tool investments and invest $3,500,000.00 in a new building addition and existing building modification by December 31,2002,2) create thirty (30) net new jobs associated with this Project by December 31,2002,3) maintain the level of investment and jobs create through the Project for a period not to exceed two years, 4) remain located in Frederick Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 012 County for a full four (4) year period, beginning December 31, 2002, and upon written demand of the IDA, the Company shall refund to the IDA such portions of the $200,000.00 grant from the County as is proportionate to the Company's shortfall in fulfilling the applicable requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ifthe Company has met 90 percent (90%) of the investment and employment goals set forth in this agreement by December 31, 2002, maintained the level of investment and jobs create through the Project for a period not to exceed two years and remained located in Frederick County for a full four (4) year period, beginning December 31, 2002, then and thereafter, the Company is deemed to have substantially complied with this Memorandum of Understanding and is no longer obligated to repay any portion ofthe grants provided to it hereunder. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by any party. Exoiration of Agreement. If the Company has not executed this Memorandum of Understanding by July 1,2002, or has not begun the implementation process for this project by July 1,2002, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be null and void. THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA By John R. Riley, Jr. This day John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator ofthe County of Frederick, appeared before me, a notary public for the State of Virginia, at large, and did acknowledge his signature above fixed all in my state aforesaid. My commission expires Given under my hand this day of ,2002. Notary Public INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA BY: TITLE: DATE: FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA BY: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 013 TITLE: DATE: WINCHESTERlFREDERICK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BY: TITLE: DATE: H. P. HOOD, INC. BY: TITLE: DATE: Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above resolution and Memorandum of Understanding was approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye JAMES WOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL REVISED RENOVATION PROJECT COST - APPROVED Superintendent Dr. Bill Dean appeared before the Board advising that the primary construction bids for the J ames Wood Middle School renovation project were received in April 2002. He further advised the total cost of the project is expected to be $11,750,000. Previous construction estimates, dated 1998, totaled $8,900,000 and did not include asbestos abatement, transition costs, inflation, or equipment. He further advised that both the FY02 capital improvement plan and the FY02 school construction budget reflect the original project estimate of$8,900,000. He advised that approval by the Board ofthe revised project cost of$11,750,000 is requested. If this is approved, understanding by the Board is sought for the transfer of existing FY02 appropriation in the amount of $2,850,000 from the 11 th elementary school project, which was delayed, to the JWMS project. Administrator Riley advised ofthe article in the local paper wherein the information provided was incorrect as far as the procedure that was to be used for this transaction. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above request Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 01 of Superintendent Dean was approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jf. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The parks and Recreation Commission met on April 16, 2002. Members present were: Charales Sandy, Robert Harman, Joyce Goff, Victoria Keelon, Lynda Tylef. Submitted for Board Information Only 1. Mr. Hartman moved to recommend to the Planning Department that the fiscal impact of new development for recreational faci9lilties and services be calculated at 100% ofthe total impact indicated by the Frederick County capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model, seconded by Mrs. Keelon, carries unanimously (4-0). 2. Public Relations Committee Report - Mf. Hartman reported that the committee met on March 19, to review new and fresh programs. The committee recommends the Commission approve the following new programs: Buddy Camp Adventure, Youth Floor Hockey, American Red Cross Babysitting Camp, Boating Safety, Kreative Kidz, second by Mrs. Keelon, carried unanimously (4- 0). PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT Supervisor Tyler presented this report to the Board. The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except Jim Wilson. The following items were discussed: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Review Bids for Warrior Road - ADD roved Four (4) bids (as outlined in attachment #1) were received for the proposed Warrior Road Project. A motion was made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr. and seconded by Jim Vickers to accept the low bid submitted by Perry Engineering Company Inc. in the amount of$1,911,554.05. The motion was unanimously approved. The Public Works Director indicated that an alternate deduct item was being considered by G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. for the use of a long span arch in lieu ofthe proposed box culvert crossing at Wrights Run. Acceptance ofthis alternate would further reduce the price to $1,889,047.05. This price would be forwarded to the Commonwealth's Transportation Board for their action after review and approval by the board. The committee considered comments from Mf. Joe Eckert whose property borders the proposed project. He expressed concern about the close proximity of the road to his back property line and asked if the road could be relocated further into the park's property. Further discussion by the staff revealed that this option had been evaluated and would require action by the Federal Park Service similar to the previous land acquisition for the proj ect. It is estimated that this process would take approximately one (1) year to complete. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 015 In addition to this option, the committee discussed alternative methods for buffering the area between the residential property and the road curbing. These alternatives included berms, wood fencing, dense landscaping or a combination ofthese items. A preliminary landscaping scheme and details will be developed for the next board meeting. Director Ed Strawsnyder advised the Board of what staff had done in order to help take care of some ofthe concerns of this project. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. Revised Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance - Approved The revised erosion and sediment control ordinance was presented by Joe Wilder for the committee's final review. This ordinance has been included as Attachment #2. A motion was made by George Ludwig and seconded by Jim Vickers to endorse the final draft and submit it to the board for a public hearing. The motion was unanimously approved. The revised ordinance will be submitted to code and ordinance for their review during the public hearing advertisement process. Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the revised ordinance was approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 3. ProDosed Rate Increases at the Animal Shelter - ADD roved The committee reviewed and approved a request from the animal shelter staff to increase adoption fees from $10 to $15 and neuter deposits from $40 to $45 and $65 for cats and dogs, respectively. Attachment #3 summarizes these changes and provides a comparison with the local SPCA. Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above request was approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 01 ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Reauest from Buildin2 Official to Purchase a New Vehicle The Building Official, Mr. Jolm Trenary, presented a request to purchase a new truck to replace a vehicle with high mileage. This request was previously deleted from the budget. This request is being made in light of the fact that inspections' actual revenue will exceed projected revenue by approximately $200,000. A motion was made by George Ludwig and seconded by Jim Vickers to endorse this request which will be forwarded to the finance committee for their review. The motion was unanimously approved. (Attachment #4) 2. Discussion on West Nile Virus Mr. Dave Burleson presented a brief overview of a conference sponsored by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) concerning the West Nile Virus. A copy of a brochure is attached. Basically, the VDH would be responsible for the field evaluation and treatment guidance. Frederick County would, most probably, be ultimately responsible for implementation of the treatment. Further discussion will be held with the local VDH to clearly define responsibility and procedures. (Attachment #5) 3. Rilev Farm Purchase The final payment for the Riley farm was transferred on April 29, 2002. The final deed transfer will be circulated for signatures from the three (3) jurisdictions involved in the landfill. The Clarke County Board of Supervisors will vote on the special use permit at their next scheduled meeting in May, 2002. The public hearing for this permit has already been held. 4. Chickens/Turkev Waste The committee was briefed about the landfill's efforts to assist the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in accepting euthanized chickens and turkeys that have been exposed to the Avian Flu. The oversight committee members were informed about this request and verbally approved this action subject to certain limitations established by the landfill staff. These limitations included restricting the number ofloads to an average of12 loads per week or four (4) loads per day on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. In addition, the loads would be delivered between 1 and 4 P.M. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would be responsible for decontaminating the equipment. A motion was made by George Ludwig and seconded by Jim Vickers to endorse the plan proposed by the landfill staff. The motion was unanimously approved. As gratitude for our cooperation, the DEQ has indicated that they will be more than willing to approve our proposed vertical expansion. Staff will travel to Richmond on May 1, 2002, to capitalize on this proposed goodwill. Written documentation will be obtained to guarantee DEQ's goodwill promises. 5. Environmental Mana2ement System Mr. Kris Tierney, assistant county administrator, presented a brief overview of a conference he attended with the Director of Public Works and Deputy Planning Director concerning environmental management systems. An environmental management system is basically an insurance program aimed at avoiding or minimizing the impact of environmental problems and associated liability. Attachment #6 provides a brief description of an environmental management program. Mr. Tierney indicated that the City of Winchester is currently involved in a program to implement an environmental management system for a cost of approximately $15,000. This program is sponsored by Virginia Tech and includes on site environmental audits, computer software, consultation and four (4), three (3)-day training sessions. This training will lead to Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 017 developing an environmental compliance policy as well as individual employee training. After discussing this issue at length, a motion was made by George Ludwig and seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr. to endorse the environmental management program for Frederick County. The motion was unanimously approved. 6. Creation of New Position After reconvening the committee from a closed session, a motion was made by Jim Vickers and seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr. to create a new position titled Solid Waste Manager and promote Gloria Puffinburger into this position. The position would be a level 23 with a salary range from $36,923 to $54,567. The committee endorsed a starting salary equivalent to the second step ofrange 23 or $38,780. The motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Puffinburger's current position as the Recycling Coordinator would be vacated and left unfunded until such time that the curbside trash program would be implemented. At that time, funding derived from the curbside trash program would allow us to fill the recycling coordinator position. This request will be forwarded to the Personnel Committee for their review prior to presentation to the board. (Attachment #7) 7. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report (see Attachment 8) b) Recycling Report (see Attachment 9) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (see Attachment 10) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (see Attachment 11) PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT - REOUEST OF ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB FOR ANNUAL SUMMER RIDE. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86. FESTIVALS: SECTION 86-3 C. PERMIT REOUlRED: APPLICATION: ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT FOR ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB. ANNUAL SUMMER RIDE. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY. JUNE 1. 2002. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ROSE MCDONALD. ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB. INC.. 1085 COLLINSVILLE ROAD. CROSS JUNCTION. VA - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Ms. McDonald appeared before the Board on behalf of her request. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Outdoor Festival Permit request of Rocky Top Riding Club was approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of OS/08/02 01 PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE - SALARIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO FIX THE ANNUAL SALARIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS FOLLOWS: CHAIRMAN. $10.800: VICE CHAIRMAN. $10.200: AND EACH OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT $9.000 - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, advised the Board that he felt this j ob was most important one in the county, and the Board members should be paid more. He further stated that he felt their pay should be more in the same range as the county administrator. BE IT ORDAINED, the annual salary for each member of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2002, shall be as follows: Chairman, $10,800; Vice Chairman, $10,200; and each other member of the board of supervisors at $9,000. Upon motion made by , and seconded by , the above was by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, at a regular meeting and public hearing held on May 8, 2002, by the following recorded vote: Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the above ordinance as approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 165. ZONING ORDINANCE. ARTICLE IV. SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS. SECTION 165-27E.PARKING LOTS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO MODIFY THE REOUlREMENTS FOR DRIVE-IN LANES - APPROVED Planner II Jeremy Camp presented this request to the Board advising that DRRS considered a proposal to amend the requirements for drive-in lanes serving commercial and public land uses. The current requirements call for a minimum width of 12 feet and for a stacking allowance of five (5) automobiles. He further advised that staff had prepared an amendment which clarifies the requirements for drive-in lane design. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the following Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 019 ordinance amendment was approved: Proposed Zonin!: Ordinance Amendment 1 65-27E(1O) Drive-in lanes. Drive-in lanes shall be required for all drive-in or pickup facilities. Drive-in lanes shall be designed to provide for a A sepalate laue, willI c1I11illi111U111 wiJllI uf twdv", (12) [",lOt, "llall be plovidcd EOl all chive-in 01 pickup facilitics. minimum width of nine (9) feet and a minimum stacking distance of ninety (90) feet. Canopy supports and raised concrete pads designed to support pneumatic tubes, automatic teller machines and other structures shall not be located within the area requiredfor minimum drive-in lane widths. All drive-in lanes Such lanes shall be clearly separated from parking spaces, travel aisles, maneuvering areas and driveways. Sufficient chive-in lane length shall bc plovidcd to MIMI thc stacking offivc (5) automobilcs pCI chive-in \'I ilido w. The Zoning Administrator may reduce the minimum stacking distance of drive-in lanes for retail uses with less than 150 square feet of floor area if it can be demonstrated that the vehicular frequency for the use does not warrant multiple vehicle stacking. WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, Code of Frederick County, Drive-In Lane Requirements, was considered by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) on October 24,2001 and consequently recommended for approval; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on April 17, 2002; and, WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance amendment on May 8, 2002; and, WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest ofthe public health, safety, welfare, and convenience; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Section 165-37E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is amended as described on the attachment. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 165. ZONING ORDINANCE. ARTICLE IV. SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS. SECTION 165-37E. ROAD EFFICIENCY BUFFERS: AND ARTICLE XXII. DEFINITIONS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO MODIFY THE REOUlREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL ROAD EFFICIENCY BUFFERS PERTAINING TO THEIR LOCATION AND LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS. AND TO PROVIDE FOR SUPPORT DEFINITIONS - APPROVED Planner II Jeremy Camp presented this request to the Board advising that the proposed road efficiency buffer amendments have been discussed by the DRRS, the Planning Commission and the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 020 Boar ordin Effici (D onA ordin ordin that S attac Prop 165-3 (l)A arteri Trans buffe Inte acc Full Red Maj Full Red (2) begin right- orth porti perm ofar activ Minut Board d of Supervisors. All bodies felt the proposed amendments were appropriate. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the following ance amendment was approved: WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, Code of Frederick County, Road ency Buffers, was considered by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee RRS) on January 24,2002 and consequently recommended for approval; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption pril17, 2002; and, WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ance amendment on May 8, 2002; and, WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors ection 165-37E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is amended as described on the hment. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. osed Zonint! Ordinance Amendments 7E Road efficiency buffers II residential structures shall be separated from interstate, limited access, primary, major ai, minor arterial or major collector roads, as designated by the Virginia Department of portation or the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency rs: Road Type Distance Buffer Required Inactive (Minimum feet) Active (Maximum feet) Total (feet) rstate/ arterial/limited ess Distance Buffer uced Distance Buffer 50 40 50 40 100 80 or collector Distance Buffer uced Distance Buffer 40 Z5 40 40 Z5 10 80 50 Such All road efficiency buffers shall b" 111"'elsmed ftom the principal stmcMe to the neatest at the edge ofthe road right-of-way, with the inactive portion "tell t;l1g, at the abutting the road of-way as shOwl:' ill HI'" "'Ac1111pl", Jielo1c1111. All required elements of the full distance buffer e reduced distance buffer identified in Section 165-3 7E(3) shall be located within the inactive on of the road efficiency buffer. The inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer is itted to count towards the required percentage of common open space; however, no portion esidentiallot shall be located within the inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer. The e portion of the road efficiency buffer may be permitted to be located within a residential lot e Book Number 28 of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 021 provided that the primary structure is not located within the buffer area. Accessory structures may be located within the active portion of the road efficiency buffer provided that the structures meet all applicable setback requirements. Access roads serving as the primary means ofvehicular travel to property residential subdivisions tlnough thcsc bl1[[(,1S are permitted to traverse road efficiency buffers. (3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain alVW vf evergreen trees intended to reach a minimum height of six twenty (20) feet at maturity. These plants evergreen trees shall provide a continuous screen, with trees plantings spaced no more than eight ten (10) feet apart. The full distance buffer shall contain a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. The load df.C~C11Cy 1uffc'lUay 1.:, lcduccd as d,:,s':'lmcd abovc If fall sC1eenl11g 15 fHvv~Jo::d a" d\"""I~bcd ~11 Hils sectIon. The reduced distance buffer shall contain an earth berm that is six feet in height above the average road grade and shall contain a single row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. La11J""ap~l1o Alternative landscaping shall be permitted near entrance drives to ensure not obstJ. nct safe sight distances. A full buffc1 shall be l"YU~I"J ~f l<11,J""ap~l1o "<11111Vt 1" p1Vv~J\"J Ju" tv "~oltt J~"t<111"" I"YU~IClilCl1tS. The Planning Commission may allow for alternative designs which meet the intent of the section in the event of topography or sight distance constraints. 165-156 Definitions. BUFFER, ROAD EFFICIENCY ACTIVE PORTION - A distance buffer which may be located within a residential lot that is permitted to contain accessory structures. BUFFER, ROAD EFFICIENCY INACTIVE PORTION - A distance buffer which is located outside of a residential lot that is required to contain all landscaping elements of a full distance buffer or all landscaping and opaque elements of a reduced distance buffer. Editor's Note: The definition for Road Efficiency Buffer needs to be eliminated due to the inclusion of the definition for Buffer, Road Efficiency added 9-12-2001. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Supervisor Forrester asked ifthe county would be going back to look at the POA' s( Property Owners Association). Administrator Riley explained what could be done with this issue, and staff can look at the POA's. OTHER PLANNING ITEMS DISCUSSION - CONCERNING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER This is being presently solely for discussion and to get the Board's input. Supervisor Sager advised that he felt the definition, as stated, is fine. Supervisor Smith, moved with Supervisor Douglas seconding the motion, for staffto proceed Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 02 with the amendment, as presented. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Reyes advised that he was unable to attend the going away luncheon for Director Evan Wyatt and would like to make the following statement to be made part of the record: The way things are going these days between Frederick County and my photography business my schedule did not allow me to attend the reception given by Frederick County for you last week. He wanted Evan to know his thoughts about his leaving the Planning Department as he is saddened to know this. It has been a distinct pleasure for him to work with Evan over the past two years. As a new supervisor he has had much to learn about the operation ofthe planning department, and feels this could have been overwhelming without him, Kris Tierney, and the planning staff. He thanked Evan for always being there and willing to provide his professional advice and guidance to him. He felt this guidance made it more comfortable for him in understanding so many complexed matters. He referred to a statement Cisaro made "we live on the shoulders of the giants". His interpretation ofthis is that there are certain individuals, among us, who lead by example in getting things done and carry the ball for most of us. Now that you have moved on to pursue further career opportunities I wish you all the best and have no doubt that you will continue to succeed. He knows this is a sad time for Frederick County for he feels that last Friday, Frederick County lost one of its giants. God Bless you and good luck. Chairman Shickle - Advised that he had a couple of items. I trust that my comments will be taken as an attempt to deliver opinions to those who seek opinions, and not in any way a criticism. Mr. Reyes took it pretty hard on the chin during the "Citizen Comment" section, and that is not my intent here, but, I would like to talk and encourage the Board to talk about Mr. Reyes' letter. I probably would have preferred that Mr. Reyes shared his concerns with the Planning Commission when it happened, or at their next meeting, but that didn't happen. I do not think that the incident merited a press release, the public embarrassment to the Planning Commission it caused, nor the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 023 media attention it received. I don't think there is a cause for censure, nor do I think I am empowered to do so if it were merited, but I think Mr. Reyes may appreciate it, and I would like to know where the other Board members are on the subject and what they feel about it. So I guess what I am asking is that we consider Mr. Reyes' key words, in his letter, unauthorized petition, breach of ethical standards, insubordination, official malfeasance, destruction of the moral fabric of our local democracy and censure. I'm probably really looking for, yes I agree, no I don't agree with the letter. But I would encourage each Board member to say whatever they would like to say. Mrs. Tyler would you mind going first. Supervisor Tyler - I'm just wondering why we need to make an opinion. Chairman Shickle - No comment, I think would be appropriate. I thought - - this is my effort to have something discussed among Board members when they are all together. I was asked by the press for comments and declined. Mr. Reyes has asked me to do something which I don't think I can do, nor do I want to do. It is not meant to be criticism, it is meant to have dialogue. Supervisor Tyler - I prefer, no comment. Supervisor Douglas - I think I would be better off to make no comment. Supervisor Smith - I was always considered the fiery one on this Board. I would speak my mind and blow my stack, pound on the table at times, but as you get a little older you grow a little bit, you learn a little bit so I sort of play it cool right now. Supervisor Sager - Well, it was addressed to me by members of the Planning Commission and two of those members I appointed. I guess they were looking for guidance. One of the things they asked me is a reiteration of a statement I made a long time ago when I appointed them to the Planning Commission. First of all, I said I don't want you to think like I think. I don't want you to do like I do. You are independent people, you are intelligent, you are well qualified to represent the county in the position that you have on the Planning Commission. I will certainly honor any decision you make concerning what direction you give the Board and your resolutions to the Board. I wouldn't expect these people, because they spoke what they felt they should, their feelings were, and what they should do. I don't feel I could support any type of censure. I could support nothing that involves disciplinary type measure even to indicate that they did anything wrong. I feel ifthese people that I appointed can't be directive and speak their mind and say what they feel, then you know they certainly don't belong on the Board and I commend them for the job they do. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 024 Supervisor Forrester - No comment. Chairman Shickle - Mr. Reyes I hope you receive the opinions - - and with the intent that they were delivered and that was without malice. The second item is I did receive several phone calls about the item that Mr. Buettner brought up. They were people upset. Personally I do not think it was proper to use tax payer resources, and it probably constituted a donation to the Democratic Party from Frederick County. My instincts tell me that it is probably illegal, but did it happen. I did not see the letter. Supervisor Reyes - I would ask Mr. Ambrogi to - - - County Attorney Ambrogi - Did what happen? Chairman Shickle - Did Mr. Reyes send the letter in support and advertisement of the Democratic Party on Frederick County letterhead? Attorney Ambrogi - I am not aware of what you are talking about. I know several- - - Chairman Shickle - No I was asking the question of Mr. Reyes. Attorney Ambrogi - Oh, I thought you were talking to me. Supervisor Reyes - Let me give you my explanation. At one point and time when there was a fund raiser,. I had asked the counsel, Mr. Ambrogi, if it was okay for me to use county letterhead for that type of business. I think Mr. Ambrogi said, yes, it was okay. So with that being the case, I was asked to put together a letter to see if we could get the Democratic Party back on track and have a reorganization meeting, and I used my stationary again based on the same principle that Mr. Ambrogi advised me. My stationary is paid for by me, for that information. The county does not pay for my stationary, but the issue here is whether or not I was allowed to use the stationary, and I sought counsel before I did that, and that was at the first time. I didn't seek counsel the second time because I thought it was a continuation of the same practice. IfI used stationary that I shouldn't have, then I say, ma-i-culpa, I apologize, if that is the case. If it is the legal opinion that I should not have used it, then I stand corrected, but I was going on advice of counsel to use that, and it is stationary that I payout of my own pocket, the county does not provide the stationary. Chairman Shickle - Mr. Ambrogi could you work with Mr. Reyes to give him advice on this subject and then counsel all Board members on what is- - - Attorney Ambrogi - That is what I am for, and he did call me before he sent, I remembered when he reminded me of it. It was several months ago. I believe it involved the Democratic Primary Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 25 for Lieutenant Governor, I'm relying on my memory now. I believe he was doing a fund raiser, or someone was for Allen Diamonstein. He called me before he ever wrote the letter, and I told him I didn't see any problem with it. I still don't. It was a letter on county stationary, that had the county letter head with his name. He holds a political office. It was for a political fund-raiser. This is done quite often. I'm sure all of you get letters from Senators, Congressmen, State Senators, Members of the House of Delegates from time to time about political matters, but on their official State stationary. It wasn't really a difficult decision, I had to think about it a little bit, but I was able to advise him before he did it, and he relied on that advice. Chairman Shickle - And you extend that to this last issue, or are you uncertain? Attorney Ambrogi - I don't know all the facts and details about the last issue. I have heard some talk about it. Chairman Shickle - Because it has been sensitized could you work with Mr. Reyes to ?? and then share counsel with all Board members about what you find out. Attorney Ambrogi - I doubt that you are talking about any criminal activity, to be convicted of a crime, whether it's a misdemeanor or felony, you have to have - - - Chairman Shickle - Those people that called me assumed that it was Frederick County owned stationary. I have not seen the letter. Attorney Ambrogi - I don't know, I may have a copy of it, but I'm not certain. I thought you were talking to me when you were talking to Mr. Reyes, because I wasn't aware of that issue. But I know on the other issue. I remember that. Chairman Shickle - The only reason I did that was I wanted to see if an incident even existed before I questioned it. Supervisor Reyes - The county symbol is on my stationary, but I paid for it. I sought counsel to use it. Attorney Ambrogi - Even ifthat were wrong, he is protected because he inquired of me first and I told him it was okay. I'm not saying it was wrong, in fact I know it wasn't wrong, it was really not a difficult issue. Chairman Shickle - All ofthe other Board members clear. Thank you Mr. Reyes. Any other comments from Board members. (There were none.) The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02 26 UPON MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR SAGER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED (TIME: 8:34 P.M.). n () 1"1 ' \~~~ Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: ,A~,....)- T ~ t ~j Carol T. Bayliss Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 05/08/02