December 10, 1973 to December 19, 1973.197
At a Special Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, held on the loth day of December,
1973, in the Board of Supervisros meeting room at 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT:
Board of Supervisors: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Donald R. Hodgson; Richard
F. Madigan; and Dennis T. Cole.
Board of Education: Dr. Melton Wright, Superintendent of Schools; John Solenberger; Ray Boyce; Roscoe Bowers;
Clyde Logan and Robert E. Aylor III.
Mr. Sandy stated thatthe purpose of this special meeting called by the Board of Supervisors, is to
have figures presented to us by the School Board, for the purpose of additional space for high school students.
Six or seven months ago building plans were announced in Frederick County to pursue two building programs which
would include two elementary schools. At that time, figures were presented to us for an addition to James Wood
High School connecting it to Kline Elementary School. We have five alternatives: (1) to keep James Wood as
it is, (2) to connect James Wood to Kline, (3) to go to one large high school (4 s 5) to go to two schools in
Frederick County.
Mr. Ray Boyce, Chairman of the Board of Education stated that after three meetings the majority of
the school board felt we needed a large consolidated high school and we.are here tonight to discuss this with the
Board. of Supervisors.
Dr. Wright introduced Mr. Oliver Stein, architect on the current project. The below figues were then
presented:
A NEW JAMES WOOD HIGH SCHOOL
Pupils - 2,850
Land - 75 Acres at $5,000 =
Sewer Connection Service
Architects, Engineers, Design Costs
Project Representative (30 months)
Equipment (128 of Bid)
Contingency ( 56 of Bid)
New Building: 2,850 pupils X 125 square feet X $32.00
Total Estimated Cost
WOODBRIDGE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
Pupils - 2,850
350,815 square feet
123 square feet per pupil at $23.62 per square feet
( Cost of.Building - $8,288,653 + land, architect and equipment
Date of Bid - September 1971
same building at $32.00 per square feet would be
350,815 X = $11,226,080 + land, architect, etc.
EXHIBIT B
Cost Estimate 1500 Pupil High School
Site 50 Acres @ $5,000
Site Development and building construction 1500' X 125' X $32.00
ISewer Connection service
Soil investigation add tests
Design and related costs
Project representative (1200 X 28 mo. X 1.5) + misc.
Equipment $6,000,000 X .12
Contingency
TOTAL
$ ~375,000
$ 150,000
$ 684,000 (68)
$ 72,000
$ 1,368,000
$ 750,000
$11,400,000
$14,799,000
$ 250,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 125,000
$ 10,000
$ 375,000
$ 50,000
$ 720,000
$ 395,000
$ 7,925,000
r-�
Dr. Wright stated that the school board has contacted the State Department of Education Building Ser-
vice to discuss an architect contractor agreement prior to initiating a new building. He further stated, that
if we use this approach it is felt that we could reduce the building time which in turn would reduce the cost
up to 89.
Mr. John Solenberger stated that the largest obstacle of this project was the problem of what to do
with James Wood. In addition, he stated that spending five million dollars on James Wood does not seem feasib]
because it is within the city limits, and there is no abutting acreage to the present site to buy. Mr. Solen-
berger further stated that if we add classrooms we would have to add parking space which is not available. Mr.
Solenberger felt that James Wood could possibly be used for the county offices. He futher stated that financia
ly one new school is more feasible than two.
Robert E. Aylor, III stated we should go with a consolidated high school in order to get all our
programs into one unit.
Dr. Wright stated that two advantages of one large school are that it would reduce operation costs and
would provide broader opportunity in program offerings. He went on to say that the advantage of two smaller
schools is transportation because you could have transporation to serve a high school, junior high school and
elementary school in two parts of the county. if you end up with two central schools of different grade levels
you add appreciably to your transporation problem because you have to take students to the central high school
grades 11 6 12 and students to the other junior high school with grades 9 6 10 which would add problems in makir
out bus schedules and add to the cost factor. Dr. Wright went on to say that he talked last week to the State
Treasurer concerning the Virginia Public School Authority purchasing bonds for us. Dr. Wright said he was in-
formed by the State Treasurer that you cannot get bonding through in the amounts of 10 or 12 million dollars
unless you extend it over a long period of time and the number of years mentioned to me would make it highly
impractical because all the buildings would be up and filled by the time we got the money. Dr. Wright went on
to say that when you have a financial involvement up to $15 million in bonds we should go:.to a referendum. Dr.
Wright said that we have been talking for 10 to 12 years about James Wood's physical condition and limitations
and we have had two study committees and we must move row. Dr. Wright informed us that the fire marshall visite
James Wood last week and although he did not have his written report, Dr. Wright felt that the fire marshall
will make us move the desks out of the halls, and the only place to put them is in the library.
Richard Madigan asked if this was the only proposal the School Board had to present tonight.
Dr. Wright replied saying, that this is the proposal for a consolidated high school, yes.
Mr. Sandy asked why there was a difference in the square footage at Woodbridge High School and the
proposed new high school (Woodbridge being 123 square feet per student and the proposed new school being 125
square feet per student). Mr. Sandy asked how these figures had been established.
Mr. Stein stated that these were very broad figures and the state average is approximately 123
thousand square feet. Mr. Stein said that the 125 square feet is just a round figure at this point becuase therf
is not a proposal. Mr. Stein further stated that it was much easier to come down in figures than it is to go up
and this can be adjusted accordingly to the needs.
Mr. Sandy asked what areas are lost if you cut back?
Mr. Stein said that it would probably cut back the overall program.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Stein if the proposed $5,000 per acre was projected by his firm.
Mr. Stein replied that this was suggested to his firm as a figure that could be used in this area.
Mr. Madigan asked Dr. Wright and Mr. Solenberger if it had been determined whether James Wood could
be sold at its retail value.
Dr. Wright stated that the only time we got an estimated price was during the annexation proceedings
and we tried to sell James Wood to the Winchester School System.
Mr. Madigan asked if they would buy it now.
Dr. Wright replied that becuase the Middle School has been built it is not likely they would need it.
199
Mr. Madigan asked if it would be possible to find a buyer.
Dr. Wright stated that yes it would be possible, anything is possible, however
the longer we delay the worse the problem will become.
Mr. Solenberger asked the Board's feeling for leaving James Wood as our high school.
Mr. Madigan stated that we need more school facilities. Mr. Madigan further stated
could see our way clear to pay for that new school I would have open ears. Mr. Madigan
stated that as of yet no one has shown him how we can pay for a new school, and he would be
' afraid to expect a lot of money until after 1977.
Dr. Wright stated that it was up to the county to raise the money for the school
and not the school board. Dr. Wright further stated that something must be done about James
Wood and it is not going to solve our problem by adding a room here and there. Dr.
Wright stated that if the Board of Supervisors cannot find a way to raise the money for
a new school to advise the school board of such and we will have to come back with an alterna-
tive. Dr. Wright stated that James Wood has been used for 25 years and it is depreciating
in value.
Mr. Madigan stated that if you can show me how the people of this county can afford
a 14 million dollar school you can have it.
Mr. Solenberger stated that it is not our job to show you how to raise the money.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Solenberger if he considered a tax increase of $3.70 to $6.55
a big tax increase.
' Mr. Solenberger replied sure it is a big increase.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Stein, the architect, what the general condition of the James
Wood facility is as far as structure.
Mr. Stein stated that it is sound but archaic. It is attractive but not very
adaptable. Mr. Stein further stated that this was why we did not consider tearing down walls
and adding etc. Mr. Stein stated that for the most part we are using it as is and just
adding better lights, etc.
Mr. Sandy asked how adequate the wiring was.
Mr. Stein stated that the lighting was poor by* State Standards and Air Conditioning
is needed which will have to be rewired. Mr. Stein further stated that it can cost just
as much to rewire a old building as to wire a new building.
Mr. Madigan stated that it would raise our taxes so much that it would be a burden
' to the residents. Mr. Madigan again asked about selling James Wood.
Dr. Wright stated that -as far as James Wood being sold that he would go back to the
Winchester School System to see if they are interested. Dr. Wright further stated that
if we do not have space to educate our students then we have to go to other types of
programs such as shifts and double schedules. Dr. Wright stated that Gainesboro, and Stephens
' City have crowding problems and the only alternative he could see is a double schedule which
means that some students would go to school in the morning and another group will go in
the afternoon. We have 225 students in the halls.
Mr. Russell stated that we do not know how we will come out of annexation but one
thing we do not want to do is sell James Wood or lease it. He further stated that the
school is -sound and should be used for a school.
Mr. Madigan asked how many students there are in trailers.
that there was too much money tied up in the James Wood
High School to
just give it up. If
we could sell it or convert it into cash and apply that
money to a new
high school and if I
could see our way clear to pay for that new school I would have open ears. Mr. Madigan
stated that as of yet no one has shown him how we can pay for a new school, and he would be
' afraid to expect a lot of money until after 1977.
Dr. Wright stated that it was up to the county to raise the money for the school
and not the school board. Dr. Wright further stated that something must be done about James
Wood and it is not going to solve our problem by adding a room here and there. Dr.
Wright stated that if the Board of Supervisors cannot find a way to raise the money for
a new school to advise the school board of such and we will have to come back with an alterna-
tive. Dr. Wright stated that James Wood has been used for 25 years and it is depreciating
in value.
Mr. Madigan stated that if you can show me how the people of this county can afford
a 14 million dollar school you can have it.
Mr. Solenberger stated that it is not our job to show you how to raise the money.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Solenberger if he considered a tax increase of $3.70 to $6.55
a big tax increase.
' Mr. Solenberger replied sure it is a big increase.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Stein, the architect, what the general condition of the James
Wood facility is as far as structure.
Mr. Stein stated that it is sound but archaic. It is attractive but not very
adaptable. Mr. Stein further stated that this was why we did not consider tearing down walls
and adding etc. Mr. Stein stated that for the most part we are using it as is and just
adding better lights, etc.
Mr. Sandy asked how adequate the wiring was.
Mr. Stein stated that the lighting was poor by* State Standards and Air Conditioning
is needed which will have to be rewired. Mr. Stein further stated that it can cost just
as much to rewire a old building as to wire a new building.
Mr. Madigan stated that it would raise our taxes so much that it would be a burden
' to the residents. Mr. Madigan again asked about selling James Wood.
Dr. Wright stated that -as far as James Wood being sold that he would go back to the
Winchester School System to see if they are interested. Dr. Wright further stated that
if we do not have space to educate our students then we have to go to other types of
programs such as shifts and double schedules. Dr. Wright stated that Gainesboro, and Stephens
' City have crowding problems and the only alternative he could see is a double schedule which
means that some students would go to school in the morning and another group will go in
the afternoon. We have 225 students in the halls.
Mr. Russell stated that we do not know how we will come out of annexation but one
thing we do not want to do is sell James Wood or lease it. He further stated that the
school is -sound and should be used for a school.
Mr. Madigan asked how many students there are in trailers.
200
Mr. Gordon, Principal at James Wood stated that there are about 250 students in
trailers.
Mr. Madigan asked how many students are usually in a class room.
Mr. Gordon stated that there are about 26 or 27 students in a class room.
Mr. Madigan asked how many rooms are in Kline Elementary.
Mr. Gordon stated that there are 14 rooms plus 3 trailers. '
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Solenberger if he would reiterate the reasons for not going
to a two school system.
Mr. Solenberger stated that operation and building cost is our concern. He further
stated that you have to duplicate physical education facilities and many other facilities. ,
Mr. Madigan asked if Mr. Solenberger felt that a large school caused a loss of
identity?
Mr. Solenberger stated he did not feel this would happen because there are ways
of bringing students and administrations together.
Dr. Wright stated that Fairfax County, for example, has a school within a school.
Dr. Wright stated that the figures
You can plan the program and the organization of the school so that grades 9 and 10, except
were related to what we-were
for using the auditorium, would be in one part of the building and they would have a principal
'
and guidance counselors. This is just one of the organizational procedures that can be used.
figures
The main thing is to have enough space, facilities and teachers that the students can have
by the time
the opportunity to be involved in learning processes. Dr. Wright further stated that this
we got that project finished which would be
can be done effectively regardless of the number of students.
1975 or 76 we would have 2150
Mr. Madigan asked what the school board would recommend to be done with James Wood
if we build a new high school.
,
Dr. Wright stated that James Wood could be used as a career center, a diagnostics
some of
treatment center, which we are now talking about, certain types of special education,
and quite frankly depending on the growth factor, which we can not predict, we might be
faced with an overflow at our Jr. Highs and the James Wood school could be used -to handle
the overflow. There are many ways James Wood could be used that we did not visualize
when this study was made.
Mr. Madigan asked how far off are we on the study of 1969 as far as population.
Dr. Wright stated that we are fairly accurate. The figures seem to be most
reliable at this point.
Mr. Madigan asked if those figures would indicate a need for a 2800 student school
in 1980 or 1981.
Dr. Wright stated that the figures
we used
were related to what we-were
doing at
'
James Wood and the prognostication of those
figures
was that in grades 9 thru 12
by the time
we got that project finished which would be
around
1975 or 76 we would have 2150
9 thru 12
grade students. Dr. Wright further stated
that the
vocational schools relieved
some of
the classrooms in the afternoons. Dr. Wright went on to say that the State committee that '
studied this said to build a new school and we said financially we could not do this. So,
as a result of this, build one school and then plan in the early 80's for your second high
school.
Mr. Madigan asked how much would it cost to up date the physical education depart-
ment at James Wood.
Dr. Wright stated that those figures would have to be brought back to the board.
201
Stephenie Hahn of the National Honor Society Committee at James Wood stated that
they conducted a survey of the students at James Wood. She went on to say that there were
four alternatives for overcrowded conditions at James Wood with the results as follows:
The most popular alternative was a New School 60.5%
Two new schools grades 11 -12 27.2%
9 -10 27.2%
' Two schools divided 7.0%
James Wood extenddd 5.3%
A citizen asked why Miss Hahn thinks the students prefer one large high school.
should be asking ourselves is what are our needs. We know there is a need and financially
the longer that we wait the need will worsen. The cost will go up monthly. Mr. Zimmerman
stated we are talking about how much money we need but we do not have enough space and
we want to know how much we need. We need enough for 3000 students, and we have three
alternatives. Mr. Zimmerman said that he would like to hear more about the two school
program. We want to put the school where the children are and, if we can, minimize
driving the children through the mountains. Mr. Zimmerman said that if we divide the county
into two squares our economy in school busses will help off set duplication. Mr. Zimmerman
' stated that this is what I feel we need to analyze. A super gym is going to cost more than
two gyms. A super principal is going to need some assistance. There must be a ratio of
administrative people and teachers to students. Mr. Zimmerman went on to say that I would
rather my children go to a school with 1500 students rather than 3000. Again I go back to
what do we need. We need so many class rooms for so many children. Mr. Zimmerman stated
that our three alternatives are (1) spend 14 million dollars for a new school, (2) modifi-
cation of an old school, (3) modifications of a old school and build one new school. We
may find out by 1973 -74 standards we cannot afford any of the alternatives. However it
is academic because we have to have more space. Mr. Zimmerman stated that we may have to
go to the people because we have a need and the need must come down to how many class rooms
we need in 1975 and that is when we can afford to go ahead with our 1980 needs. We cannot
Miss Hahn replied to the effect that the
students were the ones that had to
live
'
with the crowded conditions.
are changing the students
are learning more
than we
did and I want my son to have that
Ed Zimmerman stated that I
think perhaps
we are putting the cart before the
horse.
You don't go looking at a $3,000 home
and say can
I afford it. You ask yourself what
do
stated that I have seen the plans for the
I need. Mr. Zimmerman stated we are
talking about
how much money we need and what we
really
should be asking ourselves is what are our needs. We know there is a need and financially
the longer that we wait the need will worsen. The cost will go up monthly. Mr. Zimmerman
stated we are talking about how much money we need but we do not have enough space and
we want to know how much we need. We need enough for 3000 students, and we have three
alternatives. Mr. Zimmerman said that he would like to hear more about the two school
program. We want to put the school where the children are and, if we can, minimize
driving the children through the mountains. Mr. Zimmerman said that if we divide the county
into two squares our economy in school busses will help off set duplication. Mr. Zimmerman
' stated that this is what I feel we need to analyze. A super gym is going to cost more than
two gyms. A super principal is going to need some assistance. There must be a ratio of
administrative people and teachers to students. Mr. Zimmerman went on to say that I would
rather my children go to a school with 1500 students rather than 3000. Again I go back to
what do we need. We need so many class rooms for so many children. Mr. Zimmerman stated
that our three alternatives are (1) spend 14 million dollars for a new school, (2) modifi-
cation of an old school, (3) modifications of a old school and build one new school. We
may find out by 1973 -74 standards we cannot afford any of the alternatives. However it
is academic because we have to have more space. Mr. Zimmerman stated that we may have to
go to the people because we have a need and the need must come down to how many class rooms
we need in 1975 and that is when we can afford to go ahead with our 1980 needs. We cannot
needs. It does not help out the consideration of classrooms which is our main problem. Ms.
' Hilbrink further stated that it does give a new gym and new offices we need class space.
Ms. Hilbrink stated that a two school system would meet many*of our needs but the new school
would be in the southern part of the county where there is a new school present Aylor Jr,
High. We don't
sit here and say how much
can we afford, we
have a
need. Mr. Zimmerman stated that times
She went to a large school and nevep felt a loss of identity
are changing the students
are learning more
than we
did and I want my son to have that
'
atmosphere.
It is very comfortable but I feel
the school should be also
Cindy Hilbrink,
a teacher at James
Wood,
stated that I have seen the plans for the
addition to James Wood and
I would like to
say that
I do not feel that this plan meets our
needs. It does not help out the consideration of classrooms which is our main problem. Ms.
' Hilbrink further stated that it does give a new gym and new offices we need class space.
Ms. Hilbrink stated that a two school system would meet many*of our needs but the new school
would be in the southern part of the county where there is a new school present Aylor Jr,
High. We don't
want to divide the county, we should stick together'.
Ms. Hilbrink stated she
was in favor of
a larger school.
She went to a large school and nevep felt a loss of identity
It is up to the
individual. Ms.
Hilbrink asked Mr. Madigan if it is
necessary to have carpet
in the Board of
Supervisors Room.
It is very comfortable but I feel
the school should be also
Ms. Hilbrink stated that she does not feel there is anything too good for-the students of
Frederick County and you can't put a mon tary value on students.
202
A citizen stated that he feels very strongly about the concept of a huge high school
He continued to say that the larger you get the less you get in quality education, and I can
see that disciplinary problems could happen in Frederick County. He further stated that some-
one earlier said that it is cheaper to build one large building than two smaller ones but that
is not true when you already have one built.
A teacher at James Wood stated that we know'that`something_needs to be done now. He '
further stated that the students are so cramped that when classes changed you have to move the
way the crowd does. He went on to say that personal attention is determined by how many s
are in a classroom and the need is to get something done so we can give this personal attentiod.
He concluded by saying that I feel two schools would be the best for personal attention.
Joe Swack a guidance counselor at James Wood stated that if we go to a two school
'
concept we are going to split our county and people and he hates to see this happen. He
further stated that if we go to a two school system he only suggests that we do not divide
the county.
Mr. Bowers stated that our neighboring county has three high schools, and he agreed
with Mr. Zimmerman that it is necessary to build where the students are. Mr. Bowers further
stated that he believes you have more of a chance for individual participation in two smaller
schools because in larger schools you do not get to know the other students as well as in a
smaller school.
Mr. Cole stated that we need cost figures on what it would take to have a high school
we could be proud o£. He did not agree with the addition to be put onto James Wood because we
would have half a million dollars tied up in wiring and plumbing and not a foot of new school
room. Mr. Cole stated that James Wood could be used better as a 1100 student school. He
'
further stated that that afternoon it was determined that James Wood needed new physical
education facilities and this construction could go on while the students are still in school.
The library, guidance and administration offices need to be improved. He felt we can utilize
this building., Mr. Cole further stated that he would hate to see the school done away with,
and so would the taxpayers. He stated that what we are really asking for is additional
information. A 20 million dollar building program gave us a tax rate of $6.35 which is
double taxes and to double them in a 2 or 3 year period is asking too much.
Dr. Wright stated that the school board will go away from this meeting assuming
that the members of this Board of Supervisors do not want to support the recommendations and -
will come back with a alternate recommendation.
Mr. Sandy stated that it is not that we do not want to support these recommendations
but it is a question of being able to. Mr. Sandy further stated that we have a reassessment
,
coming up which may give a 10% increase in tax base which may give a poor fellow a 30% increase
in taxes. So this is what we are up against. Mr. Sandy asked what Dr. Wright thought a 20
million dollar bond issue would do to this county and its people which is who we represent.
Dr. Wright stated that whether we have a bond issue or not we have a problem at
James Wood that cannot be delayed.
'
Mr. Madigan stated that what we need is additional cost figures for renovating
James Wood.
Dr. Wright stated that we will bring back programs for James Wood and a new high
school of 1500 students and the cost figures will be based on the need for programs and not
arbitrary figures.
203
Mr: Solenberger asked what are you really telling us?
Mr. Madigan stated that we are saying we cannot build a 3000 student high school
because we cannot afford it. Mr. Madigan further stated that maybe it would be feasible
after 1977.
Mr. Solenberger asked if that was what the whole Board was saying.
' Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel we can support a new school now because of the
new Apple Pie Ridge School and the Stephens City school. The majority of people I have
talked to feel two high schools would be best. Mr. Cole further stated that later we may
be able to afford it but not now. Recently we have doubled our Sheriff Department and the
student school and then build a 1500 school do not unbalance the schools.
Mr. Solenberger asked what does the Board say we can afford?
Mr. Madigan stated we talked about 7.2 million dollars and that scared us.
Mr. Solenberger stated that with that we can fix -up James Wood.
Mr. Boyce asked what we plan to do with the students while we are building the
new 1500 school.
Mr. Sandy suggested that we might have to double shift at James Wood and also
use Kline School.
Mr. Madigan stated that we have 12.6 million dollars in schools. I£ you can tell
me the minimum that we can get by with renovating James Wood he would add that figure to
' $12.6 and subtract $8 million for the new school and then we will have the balance we will
have to pay for.
Mr. Sandy stated that we have to run our county as a business.
Mr. Boyce stated that the School Board appreciated the interest and time provided
for tonight's meeting and thanked the citizens for coming.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DO NOW ADJOURN.
• 0 • & - = M -
S retary, Board of Supervisors
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held on the 12th day of December, 1973, in the Frederick County Board Room,
' 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Dennis
T. Cole; Richard F. Madigan; and Donald R. Hodgson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
' READING AND APPROVAL OF.MINUTES
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the minutes of the meetings of this Board held on November 14, 1973, November
15, 1973 and November 20, 1973, as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Ilentire county
l a i n
real estate taxes
only brought in
one million six
thousand
dollars.
I
Mr.
Gordon stated in
asking the school
board to come
back with
figures on a 1100
student school and then build a 1500 school do not unbalance the schools.
Mr. Solenberger asked what does the Board say we can afford?
Mr. Madigan stated we talked about 7.2 million dollars and that scared us.
Mr. Solenberger stated that with that we can fix -up James Wood.
Mr. Boyce asked what we plan to do with the students while we are building the
new 1500 school.
Mr. Sandy suggested that we might have to double shift at James Wood and also
use Kline School.
Mr. Madigan stated that we have 12.6 million dollars in schools. I£ you can tell
me the minimum that we can get by with renovating James Wood he would add that figure to
' $12.6 and subtract $8 million for the new school and then we will have the balance we will
have to pay for.
Mr. Sandy stated that we have to run our county as a business.
Mr. Boyce stated that the School Board appreciated the interest and time provided
for tonight's meeting and thanked the citizens for coming.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DO NOW ADJOURN.
• 0 • & - = M -
S retary, Board of Supervisors
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held on the 12th day of December, 1973, in the Frederick County Board Room,
' 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Dennis
T. Cole; Richard F. Madigan; and Donald R. Hodgson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
' READING AND APPROVAL OF.MINUTES
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the minutes of the meetings of this Board held on November 14, 1973, November
15, 1973 and November 20, 1973, as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
204
REAL ESTATE-TAX RELIEF FOR - THE "ELDVRLY.ORDINANCE
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance for Tax Relief for the Elderly in full.
Mr. Cole stated
that
he was concerned with regard to Paragraph C
in Section 2
who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total.
wherein the provision was
set
forth concerning relatives living within the
dwelling, but he
interests,
felt that this was pretty
well
covered.
year, of the
I
Upon motion made
by
Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T.
Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED,
That
the Board of- Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
does herein approve, on third and final reading the following - ordinance:
REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY I
ORDINANCE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
An ordinance to provide real estate property tax relief to certain circumstanced elderly
persons. Section 58 -760.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, authorizes local
governing bodies to enact an ordinance providing for exemption of taxes on real estate of
certain circumstanced elderly persons.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County Virginia that:
Section 1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have
the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
"Affidavit" shall mean the Real Estate Tax Exemption Affidavit.
"County" shall mean Frederick County, Virginia.
"Dwelling" shall mean the full -time residence of the person or persons claiming
exemption. '
"Exemption" shall mean exemption from the Frederick County Real Estate Tax accord-
ing to the provisions of this Ordinance.
"Taxable Year" shall mean the calendar year, from January 1 until December 31, for
which exemption is claimed.
Section 2. Eligibility for Exemption.
Exemption from real estate tax shall be subject to the following provisions:
(a) The head of the household occupying the dwelling.and- owning title or partial
title thereto shall have reached the age of sixty -five (65) prior to the taxable year for
which the exemption is claimed.
(b) The title or partial title to the real estate for which exemption is claimed
shall be owned on January 1 of the taxable year by the person or persons claiming such
exemption. ,
(c) The total combined income during the immediately preceding calendar year
from all sources of the owners of the dwelling living therein and of the-owners'-relatives
living in the dwelling does not exceed seventy -five hundred dollars, provided that the first
twenty -five hundred dollars of income of each relative, other than
the spouse,
of the owner,
who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total.
,
(d) The net combined financial worth including equitable
interests,
as of the
thirty -first day of December of the immediately preceding calendar
year, of the
owners, and of
the spouse of any owner, excluding the value of the dwelling, and
the land, not
exceeding
one acre, does not exceed twenty thousand dollars.
205
Section 3. Claiming of an Exemption..
(a) Application for exemption shall be made annually between February 1 and May 1
of each taxable year for which the exemption is claimed. The person or persons claiming
such an exemption must make application on the forms supplied by the County. The application
must be filed with the Commissioner of Revenue.
(b) The affidavit shall set forth, in a manner prescribed by the Commissioner
of Revenue, the names of the related person(s) occupying the dwelling for which exemption
is claimed, their gross combined income, and the total combined net worth of the owners
and spouses.
(c) If after audit and investigation, the Commissioner of Revenue determines that
the person or persons are qualified for exemption, he shall so certify to the Treasurer of
Frederick County who shall deduct the amount of the exemption from the claimants real
estate tax liability.
(d) If any person applies for exemption but is determined to be ineligible by
the Commissioner of Revenue, such a person shall be notified in writing by the Commissioner
of Revenue.
Section 4. Amount of Exemption.
For eligible claimants, the amount of exemption from real estate tax for any
taxable year shall be as follows:
Amount of Income
$ 0 to $4,000
$4,001 to $4,500
$4,501 to $5,000
$5,001 to $5,500
$5,501 to $6,000
$6,001 to $6,500
$6,501 to $7,500
Section 5. Change in Status.
Percentage of Exemption
100%
95%
80%
65%
55%
35%
20%
Any change in respect to total combined income, net combined financial worth,
ownership of the dwelling exempted, or other factors, which occur during the taxable year
for which the affidavit is filed, and which has the effect of exceeding or violating the
limitations and conditions of this ordinance, shall nullify any exemption for the then
current taxable year, and the taxable year immediately following.
Section 6. Claimant Death.
If an eligible claimant should die during the year, the exempted taxes will be
pro rated to the day of death and the remaining years taxes will be paid by the new
owner providing the new owner, is not also exempt by provisions found in this Ordinance.
in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance, including the right to require
answers under oath, as may be reasonably necessary to determine eligibility for exemption.
The Commissioner of Revenue may also require the production of certified tax returns to
establish total combined income or net combined financial worth.
Section 8. Violations.
Any person or persons falsely claiming an exemption or deferral shall be guilty
S ection 7. Administration of this Ordinance.
The exemption from real estate tax
for elderly persons
shall be administered by
'
the Commissioner of Revenue according to the
provisions of this
Ordinance. The Commissioner
of Revenue is hereby authorized to prescribe,
adopt and enforce
such rules and regulations
in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance, including the right to require
answers under oath, as may be reasonably necessary to determine eligibility for exemption.
The Commissioner of Revenue may also require the production of certified tax returns to
establish total combined income or net combined financial worth.
Section 8. Violations.
Any person or persons falsely claiming an exemption or deferral shall be guilty
206
of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than fifty dollars
($50) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.) for each offense.
Section 9.
Should any section or provision of this ordinance be decided to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such a decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any
other section or provision of this ordinance.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
J. Robert Russell, Dennis T. Cole, Richard F. Madigan and Donald�R. Hodgson all voting "Aye"
JUNK CAR ORDINANCE - THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
Mr. Madigan then read the introduction to the ordinance and presented the correct
definition to be used in the ordinance for "Inoperable Motor Vehicle ". He stated that
Section 12 -1.11. "Age Requirements for operators of certain public vehicles" would
be included in the ordinance.
Mr. Aaron Zuckerman, owner and operator of Frederick Motor Company, asked if he
would be charged the fee of $10.00 per vehicle for each inoperable vehicle on his premises
and Mr. Berg stated that this was covered in the ordinance under Section 12 -1.7 wherein
automobile graveyards are exempt under this ordinance.
Mr. Wilkins stated that he had approximately 25 abandoned vehicles on his property
located about 2000 yards from the highway. He asked if he would be required to pay the
$10.00 fee per vehicle. Mr. Renalds stated that according to the State Code, Section 33.1 -348,
more than five vehicles constituted an automobile graveyard and would be under the jurisdiction
lof the Highway Department. He further stated that Mr. Wilkins would be exempt from this
ordinance because the number of vehicles on his property exceeded five.
Mr. Joseph Manuel of Gainesboro District appeared before the Board and stated that
(there was a junkyard right next to his property and he asked if this ordinance would have
(control over this type of thing inasmuch as the vehicles are parked right along the highway.
Mr. Sandy stated that more than five vehicles constitutes an automobile graveyard
and therefore it would be under the jurisdiction of the Highway Department.
Mr. John Black appeared before the Board and stated that he objected to the section
lof the ordinance wherein a tax is being placed on a vehicle located on private property
because many people keep an abandoned vehicle in order to use the parts from it. He stated
that he felt it was unfair to tax individuals and not the junkyards.
Mr. Renalds stated that any vehicle screened from a public right -of -way or kept
in a completely enclosed structure would be exempt under the ordinance.
Mr. Black stated that to build a structure to enclose the automobile would not be
economically feasible. He further stated that he felt automobiles manufactured prior to
1947 should be classified antiques and be exempt from this ordinance. He stated that many
people own automobiles such as these and use their parts to maintain their antique car
hobby.
Mr. Berg stated that this had not been included in the ordinance because it was
quite difficult to define what constitutes an antique car.
Mr. Cole stated that the question of screening had been discussed in committee and
the committee had decided that if a person had an antique vehicle he could cover it with
plastic which would provide screening and also preserve the automobile.
207
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Black where he resided -and Mr. Black stated that he was
a resident of Clarke County. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Black what value he placed on his antique
automobile and Mr. Black answered that he paid taxes to Clarke County -on the assessed
valuation, whatever that might be.
Mr. Hodgson asked that the comments be restricted to the residents of Frederick
' County.
Mr. Clarke Loy of Winchester Motor Service appeared before the Board and asked
the definition of the word "Graveyard" as defined in the dictionary. Mr. Sandy stated
that the definition of graveyard as set forth in the ordinance was taken from the Code
I of Virginia.
Mr. Madigan read the definition of "automobile graveyard" as set forth in the
ordinance.
Mr. Joseph Huffman stated that he felt the ordinance should cover junk other
than junk cars and that in his opinion the tax was unfair in that people are paying real
estate and personal property tax to the County and this is.an additional tax. He further
stated that he felt individuals should be able to keep articles on their property without
being taxed for them.
Mr. Cole stated that many people are not paying taxes on these automobiles.
Mr. Hugh Copenhaver stated that he has old cars and he has them assessed. He
further stated that he operates a machine shop and this is not covered under the ordinance.
,Several people expressed their support of cleaning up the County, not only the
junk cars but various other types of junk. Mr. Sandy stated that many of these complaints
' would be handled by the Health Department.
Mr. Cleveland Smedley of Mt. Falls Route appeared before the Board and stated
that he felt a person should have the right to keep items -on his property without having
to pay taxes on them.
Mr. Sandy thanked the public for their comments.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
does hereby approve on third and final reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
FREDERICK, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE.I, SECTION 12.1,
PERTAINING TO LICENSING AND CONTROL OF INOPERATIVE
AND /OR ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLES AND THE PARKING
AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES NOT FIT FOR HIGHWAY
USE.
' BE IT ORDAINED, By the County of Freddrick.as, follows:
Section 12 - 1. Definitions
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have
the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section.
' "Abandoned Motor Vehicle" as used in this ordinance means a motor vehicle,
trailer or semi - trailer or part thereof that:
(a) .Is inoperative and is left unattended on public property for
more than forty -eight (48) hours, or
(b) Has remained illegally on public property for a period of more
than forty -eight (48) hours, or
(c) Has remained on private property without the consent of the
owner or person in control of the property for more than
forty -eight (48) hours.
W
"Demolisher" shall mean any person, firm, or corporation whose business is to con-
vert a motor vehicle, trailer or semi - trailer into processed scrap or scrap metal or other-
wise to wreck or dismantle such vehicles.
"Division" shall mean the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles.
"Junkyard" shall mean an establishment or place of business which is maintained,
operated or used for storing, keeping, buying or selling junk, or for the maintenance or ,
operation of any automobile graveyard, and the term shall include garbage dumps and sanitary
fills.
"Inoperable Motor Vehicle" shall mean any vehicle which, by reason of dismantling,
disrepair or other cause is incapable of being propelled under its own power, and is ,
economically impractical to make operable.
"Automobile Graveyard" shall mean any lot or place which is exposed to the weather
and upon which.more than five (5) motor vehicles of any kind, incapable of being operated,
and which would not be economically practical to make operative are placed, located or found.
"Junk" shall mean old or scrap copper, brass, rope, rags, batteries, paper, trash,
rubber, debris, waste, or junked, dismantled, or wrecked automobiles, or parts thereof, iron,
steel, and other old or scrap ferrous or nonferrous material.
Section 12 -- 1.2 Authority to Take into Custody
The County may take into custody any abandoned motor vehicle. In such connection
the County may employ its own personnel, equipment and facilities or hire persons, equipment
and facilities or firms or corporations who may be independent contractors, for the purpose of
removing, preserving and storing abandoned motor vehicles.
'
Section 12 - 1.3 Notice to Owner of Vehicle Taken into Custody
(a) The County when it takes into custody an abandoned motor vehicle under the
provisions of this article, shall notify, within fifteen (15) days thereof, by registered
or certified mail, return receipt requested, the owner of record of such motor vehicle and
all persons having security . interests therein of record, that the vehicle has been taken into
custody. The notice shall describe the year, make, model and serial number of the abandoned
motor vehicle, set forth the location of the facility where the motor vehicle is being held,
inform the owner and any persons having security interests of their right to reclaim the
motor vehicle within three (3).weeks after the date of the notice, upon payment of all towing,
preservation and storage charges resulting from placing the vehicle in custody, and state
that the failure of the owner or persons having security interests to exercise their right
to reclaim the vehicle within the time provided shall be deemed a waiver by the owner, and
'
all persons having any security interest, of all right, title and interest in the vehicle.
(b) If records of the Division contain no address for the owner or no address of
any person shown by such records to have a security interest, or if the identity and
addresses of the owner and all persons having security interest cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty, notice by publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in
'
the area where the motor vehicle was abandoned shall be sufficient to meet all requirements
of notice pursuant to this article as to any person who cannot be notified pursuant to the
provisions of subsection (a) of this section. Such notice by publication may contain
multiple listings of abandoned motor vehicles. Any such notice shall be within the time
requirements prescribed for notice by mail and shall have the same contents required for
notice by mail.
209
(c) 'The consequences and the fact of failure to reclaim an abandoned motor
vehicle shall be as set forth in a notice given in accordance with and pursuant to this
section.
purposes of wrecking, dismantling or demolition shall not be required to obtain a certificate
of title for such motor vehicle in his own name. After the motor vehicle has been demolished,
processed or changed so that it physically is no longer a motor vehicle, the demolisher shall
' surrender to the Division for cancellation the certificate of title or sales receipt there-
fore.
(b) A demolisher shall keep an accurate and complete record of all motor vehicles
purchased or received by him in the course of his business. These records shall contain
' the name and address of the-person from whom each such motor vehicle was purchased or
received and the date when such purchases or receipts occurred. Such records shall be
open for inspection by the Division and the Sheriff's Department at any time during
normal business hours.
Section 12 - 1.7 Authority to Restrict Keeping of Inoperative Automobiles on Private Property
The County of Frederick imposes a license tax in the amount of ten dollars ($10.00)
annually, upon the owners of inoperable automobiles which:
Section 12 - 1.4 Vehicles Abandoned on Private Property or in Garages
Any motor vehicle, trailer, or semi - trailer or part thereof left for more
'
than ten (10) days on private property or in a garage operation for commercial purposes
after notice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner to pick
up the vehicle, or for more than ten (10) days after the period when, pursuant to contact,
the vehicle was to remain on the premises, shall be deemed an abandoned motor vehicle, and
may be reported to the County Sheriff.
All abandoned motor vehicles left on private property or in garages may be taken
into custody by the County in accordance with Section 12 - 1.2 and shall be subject to the
notice contained in Section 12 - 1.3; provided, that if such vehicle is reclaimed in
accordance with section 12 -1.3; the .person reclaiming -such vehicle shall, in addition
to the other.charges required to be paid., pay the of garage keeper, if any.
Except , as - otherwise provided in.this..article, nothing herein shall be construed
to limit or restrict any rights conferred upon any person under Section 43 -32 through 43 -36
of the Code of Virginia.. _
Section 12 - 1.5 Disposition of Inoperable Abandoned Vehicles
Notwithstanding'any other provisions of this article, or the provisions of Section
46.1 - 88 of the Code of any motor vehicle, trailer, semi - trailer or part thereof
'
which is inoperable and which, by virture of its condition, cannot-be feasibly restored to
operable condition, may be disposed of to a- demolisher by the person, firm or corporation
(or the County) on whose property or in whose possession "such motor vehicle, trailer or
semi - trailer is found. The demolisher, upon taking custody of such motor vehicle, trailer,
or semi - trailer shall follow the notification and sale procedures required of the County
by Section 12 - 1.3 _
Section 12 - 1.6 Surrender of Certificate of Title, etc.; Where Motor Vehicle
Acquired for Demolition; Records to be Kept I RX Demolisher
- -
(a) Any demolisher who purchases or otherwise acquires a motor vehicle for
purposes of wrecking, dismantling or demolition shall not be required to obtain a certificate
of title for such motor vehicle in his own name. After the motor vehicle has been demolished,
processed or changed so that it physically is no longer a motor vehicle, the demolisher shall
' surrender to the Division for cancellation the certificate of title or sales receipt there-
fore.
(b) A demolisher shall keep an accurate and complete record of all motor vehicles
purchased or received by him in the course of his business. These records shall contain
' the name and address of the-person from whom each such motor vehicle was purchased or
received and the date when such purchases or receipts occurred. Such records shall be
open for inspection by the Division and the Sheriff's Department at any time during
normal business hours.
Section 12 - 1.7 Authority to Restrict Keeping of Inoperative Automobiles on Private Property
The County of Frederick imposes a license tax in the amount of ten dollars ($10.00)
annually, upon the owners of inoperable automobiles which:
210
1. Are in public view from U. S. or Virginia State Highways, and
2. Do not display current license plates or stickers, and
3. Which are not exempted from the requirements of displaying such
license plates or stickers under the provisions of Sections 46.1-
42 through 46.1 - 49 and 46.1 - 119 and 46.1 - 129, Code of
Virginia, (1950),.as amended,
'
4. Are not in a public dump, or in an "automobile graveyard" as
defined in Section 33.1 - 348, Code of Virginia (1950), as
Amended, or
S. In the possession of a licensed automobile dealer.
Nothing in this section shall apply to any vehicle within a fully enclosed building or
'
structure on private property.
Section 121.. 1.8'. Validity
Should any section or provision of this ordinance be decided by any court to be
unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall riot affect the validity of the ordinance
as a whole or any part thereof other than the part that is so decided to be unconstitutional
or invalid.
Section 12 - 1.9 No Visible Junk Yards Within Certain Distances or Streets and
Highways may hereafter be Established
No junk yards shall be hereafter established, any portion of which is within
one thousand (1,000) feet of the nearest edge of the right of way of any interstate or
U. S. highway or within five hundred (500) feet of the nearest edge of the right of way
'
of any State of Virginia Highway, except as follows:
(1) Junk yards which are screened by natural objects, plantings, fences or
other appropriate means so as not to be visible from the main - traveled way of the highway
or street, or otherwise removed from site.
(2) Junk yards which are not visible from the main - traveled way of the highway.
Section 12 - 1.10 Penalties
It shall be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor for any person to violate
any of the provisions of this ordinance, and upon the conviction of said violation shall
be subject to a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than three hundred
dollars ($300.00). It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of Frederick County and his
deputies to enforce the ordinance.
12th DAY OF December 1973.
,
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON THE
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
J. Robert Russell, Dennis T. Cole, Richard F. Madigan and Donald R. Hodgson all voting "Aye ".
PRESENTATION - ANCILLARY MANPOWER PLANNING BOARD III
Miss Sally Andrews, Coordinator of the Ancillary Manpower Planning Board, appeared
before the Board and delivered a presentation on the Governor's Ancillary Manpower Planning
211
Council. Miss Andrews explained how the Manpower Planning system had been set up and the
functions of the Board. She stated that the Governor had divided the State into eight
areas; each served by an Ancillary Manpower Planning Board and that this area was served
by the Ancillary Manpower Planning Board III. Miss Andrews stated that she had been
requested to get comments from the Board on the division of our area into two districts
' wherein one Manpower Planning Board would serve the Lord Fairfax Planning District and
another would serve the Central Shenandoah Planning District, Each Board would then serve
five counties. She explained that the division had been requested because it was felt an
area containing ten counties was too large to be effective.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt the program had a lot of merit and he felt it
would be beneficial to have it operate on a local level.
Mr. Sandy thanked Miss Andrews for her presentation.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CECIL BOYCE - DENIED
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board representing Mr. Cecil Boyce.
Mr. Sandy stated that the staff had recommended disapproval of this conditional
use permit_per.terms of a letter from Mr. R. C. King wherein the highway department stated
that the property would have storm drainage problems.
Mr. Cole read the letter in full from,Mr...King.
Mr. Butler asked if the property had been inspected by members of the Board
to see if this condition does exist and Mr. Cole stated that there is water standing on
the lot at the present -time.
Mr. Manuel DeHaven appeared before the Board and stated that the problem does
exist at the present time.
Mr. Butler stated that according to Mr. Boyce, the Health Department had stated
that there was no water problem on this property.
Mr. Butler asked if the Board had contacted the Health Department concerning
the alleged water problem and Mr. Berg stated that the Health Department had been contacted
but as yet no reply had been received.
Mrs. Kline, an adjoining property owner, stated that the property does indeed
have a drainage problem.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Boyce if he had had problems with water on the property and
Mr.
Sandy asked if
the workload was such to require
the division into two districts
area.
and Miss Andrews stated that
there was sufficient workload to
warrant such division.
Mr.
Madigan stated
that he was in
favor of the division
and thought it would be
years and
beneficial to
the program.
property properly.
Mr.
Mr.
Hodgson stated
that he was in
agreement with the
division.
found the area to be a flood plain and the
Mr.
Cole stated that
he had heard
this presentation
at the Lord Fairfax Planning
District Commission meeting
and agreed with
the division.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt the program had a lot of merit and he felt it
would be beneficial to have it operate on a local level.
Mr. Sandy thanked Miss Andrews for her presentation.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CECIL BOYCE - DENIED
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board representing Mr. Cecil Boyce.
Mr. Sandy stated that the staff had recommended disapproval of this conditional
use permit_per.terms of a letter from Mr. R. C. King wherein the highway department stated
that the property would have storm drainage problems.
Mr. Cole read the letter in full from,Mr...King.
Mr. Butler asked if the property had been inspected by members of the Board
to see if this condition does exist and Mr. Cole stated that there is water standing on
the lot at the present -time.
Mr. Manuel DeHaven appeared before the Board and stated that the problem does
exist at the present time.
Mr. Butler stated that according to Mr. Boyce, the Health Department had stated
that there was no water problem on this property.
Mr. Butler asked if the Board had contacted the Health Department concerning
the alleged water problem and Mr. Berg stated that the Health Department had been contacted
but as yet no reply had been received.
Mrs. Kline, an adjoining property owner, stated that the property does indeed
have a drainage problem.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Boyce if he had had problems with water on the property and
Mr. Boyce
stated that he had had no problem since he had
made corrections to the drainage
'
area.
Mr.
DeHaven stated that there had been a water
problem on the property for
years and
the
culverts were not large enough to drain the
property properly.
Mr.
Berg stated that the staff had been out to
the site and the Building
Inspector
had
found the area to be a flood plain and the
staff had found that due to the
topography of
the area it was definitely a drainage area.
212
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein deny the application for conditional use permit of Cecil Boyce to establish a trailer
park on his property on Route 11 North in Stonewall Magisterial District inasmuch as said
property is in a flood area and is not properly drained.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Mr. Sandy presented the bills for the month of November, 1973. Mr. Boyd stated
r
that there was an additional amount to be added to the bills for State and Local Hospitali-
zation payments in the amount of $4,477.16.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the.bills for the month of November, 1973, in the amount of $50,182.54 and
orders that the same be paid by Warrants #04637 through #04967.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
Mr. Sandy presented the payroll for the month of November, 1973. There were
no additions or corrections.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the payroll for the month of November, 1973, in the amount of $45,853.05
and orders that the same be paid by warrants #04653 through #04736.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1 19.7.3 PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15.1 -493 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, does
herein approve, on first and second reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15.1- 493.OF THE_CODE OF VIRGINIA, (1950),
AS AMENDED. 0
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DOG WARDEN REPORT AND CLAIMS - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the following claims and order the same be paid.
1. Dr. Sam Whitacre, 1 ewe at an assessed value of $20.00
2. William Lee Whitacre, 3 ewes at an assessed value of
$15.00 each or $45.00
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Harold Whitacre, Dog Warden, appeared before the Board and his monthly
report. Mr. Whitacre stated that he had a claim from Mr. Carl Bayliss for the loss of a calf
(which had been stillborn, prematurely, as the result of the cow being chased by dogs. He
tasked what the Board would desire him to do with a claim such as this.
Mr. Cole stated that he knew this could happen and he felt the Board should take
�I
u
Ithis matter under consideration.
213
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Renalds to research the minutes to see what previous boards
have done in this situation.
WATER AND SEWER PERMIT - COUNTRY CLUB APARTMENTS - TABLED
Mr. Sandy stated that the application for a water and.sewer permit for Country
Club Apartments was being resubmitted. He read the recommendation from the Engineering
'
Committee wherein it was recommended that the permit be awarded only when and if the
capacity is available at the Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant and the odor problem is
corrected.
Mr. Cole asked if the staff had been in touch with the State Water Control Board
'
to see what the present status of the Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant is and Mr. Renalds
stated that the staff had been in touch with the State Water Control Board and had been
advised that the original certificate on the Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant had been
issued in approximately 1949 and since that time they had made some additions to the plant:
He stated that at the present time the Health Department and the State Water Control Board
are in the process of re- evaluating the Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant and hopefully
within thirty to sixty days another certificate will be issued to specify the design and
loading of the Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant.
Mr. Hodgson stated that•the odor problem was of great significance in the
Senseny Road area.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein postpone action on the application for water and sewer permit of Country Club Apart-
'
ments until such time as information is received from the State Water Control Board per-
taining to the capacity of the Winchester Sewage Treatment'Plant.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
CIVIL DEFENSE BASIC PLAN - APPROVED
The Board reviewed the Civil Defense Basic Plan as presented. Mr. Sandy stated
that the Engineering Committee had recommended approval of the plan.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the Civil Defense Emergency Operations Plan, Basic Plan as submitted by
the Deputy Coordinator of Emergency Services of Frederick County and on file in the
office of the County Administrator.
The above resolutiori passed unanimously.
'
LEASE - A. & N. STORE - APPROVED
Mr. Cold that it was the feeling of the County Administrator and the
Engineering Committee that the County would have no use, at the present time, for the
property being leased by the A. & N. Store and therefore recommended approval of the lease
'
to said company.
Mr. Renalds stated that the proposed lease would reduce the terms of the lease
to one month for the rear storage area and three months for either, or both of the store
front sections. He further stated that the lessee was agreeable to a rent increase which
would cover the downtown development tax.
Mr. Cole stated that the rent would be increased from $400 to $422.27 per month.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
214
0
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the Addendum to the A. & N. Store Lease as recommended by the Engineering
Committee and does herein direct the County Administrator to execute said lease addendum.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RURAL ADDITIONS LISTING - APPROVED
Mr. Cole presented the Engineering Committee's recommendation on Rural Additions ,
Listing and explained why these recommendations had been made.. He stated that if the
priorities assigned were adhered to there is a possibility that funds available for these pro-
jects could be lost due to all preconstruction requirements not being met for the first
priority project. He stated that the Committee recommends to the Board of Supervisors that '
it take whatever action is necessary, now and in the future, to approve projects listed
when pre- construction requirements are met whether the project be listed as top priority or
not
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board would review the priorities at the next work
session and then perhaps the Board could update them and make whatever changes are necessary.
SUBDIVISIONS
- Withdrawn: Mr. Berg stated that Woodchuck Heights Subdivision had been
withdrawn inasmuch as a complete plat had not been submitted.
Nottoway Subdivision - Final Plat - Referred Back to Department of Planning and Development:
Mr. Berg stated that a final plat of this subdivision had been approved previously but had
expired and therefore had been resubmitted.
Mr. Sandy asked why the Board was being asked to consider approval of a final plat
when construction had already occurred. He asked how the building permits had been acquired ,
and Mr. Berg stated he did not know.
Mr. James Nicely stated that the preliminary plat had been approved prior to
construction.
Mr. Berg stated that the townhouses built on the property could be rented, thereby
making subdivision unnecessary, and the developer could wait until the construction was
complete before obtaining approval.
Mr. Cole asked if the recreation fee had been paid per unit and Mr. Bob Fletcher
stated that this had been handled by the previous administrator and the fee had been paid in a
lump sum of $2,000.
Mr. Sandy asked for research on this development to see what had transpired. He
stated that rules and regulations should be followed by everyone.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, I
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
refer the subdivision plat of Nottoway Subdivision back to the Department of Planning and
Development for review and recommendation.
The above resolution was passed unanimously. '
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DONALD L. FOWLER - APPROVED
Mr. Berg presented the application for conditional use permit of Donald L. Fowler
stating that Mr. Fowler intended to convert an unused filling station into a sales and
showroom for bathroom fixtures with a portion of the building being used to mold these
fixtures. He stated that this would be a clean operation and the Planning Commission
recommended approval.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
215
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the conditional use permit of Donald L. Fowler to operate a sales and showroom
and molding operation of bathroom fixtures on his property located in Sunnyside between
the Route 37 Bypass and the Winchester City limits provided the operations are kept unaer
cover within the confines of the building.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SMITH'S TRANSFER CORP. - APPROVED
Mr. Berg presented the conditional use permit application of Smith's Transfer
Corporation for an extension of the terminal dock building. He stated that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of this application.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the application for conditional use permit of Smith's Transfer Corporation
for extension of the terminal dock building on their property located on Route 522 North.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION PERMITTING SALE OF SURPLUS COUNTY CODES - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein direct the County Administrator's Office to sell surplus copies of the Frederick
County Code at such a price as will cover the full cost of the copy at the time of the
transaction; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution rescinds a previous resolution
passed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 12, 1966, concerning
the price of said code.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
BUILDING PERMIT FEE REFUNDS - APPROVED
Mr. Cole stated that the Engineering and Code Enforcement Committee had
recommended that churches and non - profit organizations should not be charged building
permit fees.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the following refunds for building permit fees:
1. Church of Christ, 134 West Piccadilly Street, Winchester,
Virginia, in the amount of $90.00, Permit Number 0849.
2. The People's Cbuntry Church, Siler Route, Winchester, Virginia,
in the amount of $45.00, Permit Number 2384.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE'- REQUEST'FOR REFUNDS'- APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the following refunds as recommended by the Commissioner. of the Revenue:
1. Glenn C. Hess, $13.20, real estate taxes erroneously paid.
2. Deborah Jean Jenkins, $5.00, erroneous purchase of county
sticker.
3. Larry D. Light, $79.55, personal property taxes erroneously
paid.
4. Evelyn D. Poling, $22.20, personal property taxes erroneously
paid.
5. Rollins Leasing Corporation, $82.33, personal property taxes
erroneously paid.
216
The above resolution was passea unanimously.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS REPORTS - ACCEPTED
After review, the Board of Supervisors accepted the reports of the Constitutional
Officers as submitted.
DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS - ACCEPTED
After review, the Board of Supervisors accepted the reports of the Department Heads ,
as submitted.
RESOLUTION - WINCHESTER DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented a resolution wherein permission would be given to the Winchester
Downtown Development Corporation for resurfacing the sidewalk in front of the A. &. N. Store
property and Court Square. '
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does hereby
give permission to the Downtown Development Corporation for resurfacing, at no cost to the
County. the sidewalk that fronts 12 North ,Loudoun Street and Court Square.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION - SEWAGE COMPLAINT
Mr. Madigan stated that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Board, rental
properties that have sewage systems that are malfunctioning with raw sewage on top of the
ground, namely a house in Frederick Heights. He stated that this property was vacant and
rented when the sewage was dried up somewhat; that it remained rented approximately four
to five months until the sewage began to appear again. He stated that he felt the Board
should do something about this.
'
Mr. Cole stated that he felt problems such as this should be referred to the
Engineering and Code Enforcement Committee for review and recommendation.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein direct that problems concerning specific individual complaints be referred to the
Committee on Engineering and Code Enforcement for review and recommendation.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
JAMES WOOD STUDENTS - REQUEST PLACEMENT ON BOARD AGENDA
Mr. Brian Snarr appeared before the Board representing a group of students from
James Wood High School and requested that they be placed on the Agenda for the December
26, 1973 meeting of the Board in order to make a presentation concerning the proposed new
high school.
'
Mr. Sandy requested that the group contact Mr. Renalds to see how much time could
be allotted them on the Agenda for that meeting.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DO NOW ADJOURN.
At a Special Meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on December 19, 1973 in the
Board of Supervisors Room at 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
0
PRESENT:
217
Board of Supervisors Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman;
Richard F. Madigan, Donald R. Hodgson and Dennis T. Cole.
Ad Hoc Committee: J. O. Renalds, III, Frederick County Administrator; Don Krueger,
Director of Frederick County Sanitation Authority; and S. Roger Koontz.
Sanitation Authority: William A. Morrison, James H. Diehl and T. G. Adams.
The meeting was opened by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Raymond C.
Sandy, who made brief comments about the - original appointment of the Ad Hoc Committee.
Mr. Sandy then turned the meeting over to Mr. S. Roger Koontz to make comments
' regarding the performance of the committee.
Mr. Koontz stated the committee had worked very hard to reach an agreement and
then outlined in brief what had been done and called attention of those present to the
written reports they had before them. He stated the recommendations made in the report
would establish a joint Authority to wholesale water and sewer service and solid waste
disposal.
Mr. Koontz statedithat a fifth member was yet to be named to the Committee and
requested if those in attendance had any person in mind for this position to please notify
Mr. J. O. Renalds, III.
Mr. Koontz then presented the following resolution:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SIGNIFYING THE INTENTION
OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER
AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY
TO CREATE THE "FREDERICK- WINCHESTER SERVICE
' AUTHORITY" UNDER THE VIRGINIA WATER AND SEWER
AUTHORITIES ACT AND SETTING FORTH ITS ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION
WHEREAS, the City of Winchester owns and operates facilities for furnishing
water and sewer service for the City and certain outlying areas, and Frederick County,
acting through Frederick County Sanitation Authority, owns and operates certain facilities
and is planning additional facilities for furnishing water and sewer service for certain
areas in the County; and
WHEREAS, the State Water Control Board has tentatively approved Federal and
State Grants to the City of Winchester and Frederick County aggregating approximately
$19,000,000 for sewage treatment facilities but has advised the City and the County that
as a condition to receipt of a major portion of such grant funds, the City and the County
shall designate or establish a single political entity to represent both the City`and the
County and it has been determined that this can best be accomplished by an authority to
' be created by the City and the County pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer
Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended) (the Act);
and
WHEREAS, the City of Winchester and Frederick County recognize that problems
' and concerns common to each of them render it desirable to place the responsibility for
water supply and sewage disposal for the City and the County under the supervision of the
same political entity;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER AND THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, IN SEPARATE MEETINGS ASSEMBLED:
Section 1. The Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of
Supervisors of Frederick County hereby signify their intention to create a service authority
under the Act, to be known as Frederick - Winchester Service Authority.
. 1
218
Section 2. The purposes for which the Authority is to be formed are stated in its
Articles of Incorporation hereinafter set forth.
Section 3. The Articles of Incorporation of the Authority shall be as follows:
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
FREDERICK - WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY
The Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of Supervisors of Fred-
,
erick County having signified their intention to create an authority pursuant to the Virginia
Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended), which shall be a public body politic and corporate, hereby certify:
(a) The name of the Authority' shall be "Frederick- Winchester Service Authority"
,
and the address -of its principal office shall be•Winchester,'Virginia:
(b) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of
Winchester, Virginia, and Frederick County; Virginia.
(c) The purposes for which the Authority is created are
(1) To acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain
facilities for providing a supply of potable water for the City
of Winchester and Frederick County, including sources of water
supply, water intakes, filtration and purification plants,
pumping stations, transmission lines and storage facilities,
together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances and
properties, rights, easements and franchises related thereto or
deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their opera- ,
tion, but not including water distribution facilities.
(2) To acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain
facilities for the abatement of pollution by the treatment of sewage
collected from the City of Winchester and Frederick County, including
treatment plants, trunks or interceptors and pumping stations,
together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances and properties,
rights, easements and franchises related thereto or deemed necessary
or convenient by the Authority for their operation, but not including
sewage collection facilities.
(3) To acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain
garbage and refuse disposal facilities for the City of Winchester and
Frederick County, including landfills, incineration and other disposal
facilities, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances '
and properties, rights, easements and franchises related thereto or
deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their operation,
but not including garbage and refuse collection facilities.
(d) The Authority may undertake any project in furtherance of the foregoing purposes. '
(e) The Authority may contract with the City, the County, or any authority therein
eated pursuant to the Act to furnish water and to treat sewage and dispose of garbage and
fuse delivered to the Authority's facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall determine
vided, however, that any such contract shall include as parties thereto the Authority,
City and the County (or an agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board
Supervisors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with any other party
219
desiring service, except upon the written consent of the City and the County (or any agency
of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of Supervisors), respectively.
(f) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a Board of five (5) members
consisting of the four (4) persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager
the first members are:
'
Wendell L. Seldon.
631: Pennsylvania Avenue
Winchester, Virginia 22601
James W. Givens
121 Linden Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
J. O. Renalds, III
Fredericktowne Subdivision, Route 1
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Don E. Krueger
530 North Braddock Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Winchester, Virginia 22601
The terms of the members of the Board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the
City and County shall expire upon their ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter
holding any such office shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor
in such office on the Board of the Authority. The initial term of the appointed member
shall expire on the 31st day of December, 1975, and his successor shall be appointed for a
term of two (2) years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term.
The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies
and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall
receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the Board of the Authority may
determine, but those members of the Board who are employees of the City, the County or
the Sanitation Authority shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed
the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties.
(g) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be
iI
made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or an independent certified public accountant
at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the
Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County.
(h) Pending completion of necessary engineering studies and estimates, it is
not practical to set forth herein preliminary estimates of capital costs and initial rates
for services of proposed projects.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Common Council of the City of Winchester, Virginia, and
the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, have caused these Articles of
Incorporation to be executed in the names of the City of Winchester and Frederick County,
respectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be affixed and attested by
their Clerks, this
day of , 197
of the City of
Winchester,
Utilities Superintendent of the City of Winchester, County
'
Administrator
of Frederick
County and Director of Frederick County Sanitation Authority and
a fifth person
appointed by
the concurrent action of the Common Council of the City of
Winchester and
the Board of
Supervisors of Frederick County. The names and addresses of
the first members are:
'
Wendell L. Seldon.
631: Pennsylvania Avenue
Winchester, Virginia 22601
James W. Givens
121 Linden Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
J. O. Renalds, III
Fredericktowne Subdivision, Route 1
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Don E. Krueger
530 North Braddock Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Winchester, Virginia 22601
The terms of the members of the Board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the
City and County shall expire upon their ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter
holding any such office shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor
in such office on the Board of the Authority. The initial term of the appointed member
shall expire on the 31st day of December, 1975, and his successor shall be appointed for a
term of two (2) years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term.
The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies
and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall
receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the Board of the Authority may
determine, but those members of the Board who are employees of the City, the County or
the Sanitation Authority shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed
the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties.
(g) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be
iI
made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or an independent certified public accountant
at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the
Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County.
(h) Pending completion of necessary engineering studies and estimates, it is
not practical to set forth herein preliminary estimates of capital costs and initial rates
for services of proposed projects.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Common Council of the City of Winchester, Virginia, and
the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, have caused these Articles of
Incorporation to be executed in the names of the City of Winchester and Frederick County,
respectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be affixed and attested by
their Clerks, this
day of , 197
220
CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
(SEAL)
Attest:
erk, of Council
r
FREDE OUNTY, VIRGINIA
By
Ch an, Boar of upervisors
(SEAL)
Attest:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Section 4. The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by the Board in such
manner as it shall deem to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Winchester
and Frederick County, subject to the following guiding principles which, by the adoption
of this resolution by the Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of Supervi-
sors of Frederick County,'are deemed essential to securing their joint agreement to the
formation of the Authority, namely:
(1) The Authority shall forthwith proceed with the planning and con-
struction of a Regional Sewage Treatment Facility in the Opequon Creek
drainage area.
(2) Commencing two (2) years after the said Regional Sewage Treatment
Facility has been completed and put into operation, and at any time there-
after, the Authority shall acquire from the City of Winchester and the City
of Winchester shall sell to the Authority its water supply system, including
source of supply, intakes, filtration and purification plants, pumping stations,
transmission lines and storage facilities and all appurtenant equipment and
appliances, upon payment to the City of the fair market value thereof at the
time of the acquisition.
(3) The Authority may acquire from the City of Winchester, Frederick
County or Frederick County Sanitation Authority such other water supply facili-
ties, sewage treatment facilities or garbage and refuse disposal facilities as
the Authority may deem appropriate to the carrying out of its purpose.
(4) Nothing herein shall prevent or prohibit the City of Winchester,
Frederick County or Frederick County Sanitation Authority from acquiring,
financing, constructing, operating and maintaining water distribution systems,
sewage collection systems and garbage and refuse collection systems and facili-
ties; nor shall anything herein prevent or prohibit the City, the County or
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority from acquiring, financing, con-
structing, operating and maintaining such facilities for the supply of water,
treatment of sewage, and disposal of garbage and refuse as shall not be in
competition with systems or facilities owned or operated by the Authority.
r
221
I
Section 5. The first members of the Board of the Authority shall be those
persons specified in the Articles of Incorporation. Their terms of office shall begin
on the date of issuance to the Authority of a certificate of incorporation by the State
Corporation Commission and shall expire as specified in the Articles of Incorporation.
of his duties.
The
appointed
member shall receive such compensation not to
exceed $1,800 per year as
of
the
Board of
the Authority may determine, but those members
who are employees of the City,
and
the
County or
the Sanitation Authority shall serve without
compensation. Each member shall
in substantially
be
reimbursed
the amount of his actual expenses necessarily
incurred in the performance
of his duties.
the form set forth above, to cause the executed Articles of Incorporation to be filed with
the State Corporation Commission on or before the date of the earlier of the public
hearings required by Section 7 hereof, together with proof of publication of the notice
of such public hearings, and to do all things necessary and appropriate for the creation
of the Authority.
Section 7. Public hearings on this resolution shall be held by the Common
Council -of the City of Winchester at 7:30 P.M. on January 24, 1974 in its Council
Chamber in City Hall and by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County at 7:30 P.M. on
January 24, 1974, in the Board of Supervisors Room in the County Office Building.
Immediately following such public hearings or any adjournment thereof, each governing
body shall cause to be filed with the State Corporation Commission a record of the
' proceedings thereof which shall indicate whether such governing body desires to proceed
with the creation of the authority and whether such governing body called for a referendum
pursuant to Section 15.1 -1244 of the Act. A copy of this resolution shall be published
one time at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such public hearings in "The Winchester
Evening Star ", a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Winchester and Fred-
erick County, preceded by a notice as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS"
"Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held as set out below on
the following concurrent resolution heretofore adopted by the Common Council of the City of
Winchester, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, signify-
ing their intention to create a water and sewer authority as set out therein."
CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
r
(SEAL) Adopted , 197 _
pAttest:
ulerK of Council
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By /
Chai , Board of pervisors
(SEAL) Adopted 197 _
Attest:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Section 6.
The
proper-officers of
the City
of
Winchester and
Frederick County
are hereby authorized
and
directed to execute
Articles
of
Incorporation
in substantially
the form set forth above, to cause the executed Articles of Incorporation to be filed with
the State Corporation Commission on or before the date of the earlier of the public
hearings required by Section 7 hereof, together with proof of publication of the notice
of such public hearings, and to do all things necessary and appropriate for the creation
of the Authority.
Section 7. Public hearings on this resolution shall be held by the Common
Council -of the City of Winchester at 7:30 P.M. on January 24, 1974 in its Council
Chamber in City Hall and by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County at 7:30 P.M. on
January 24, 1974, in the Board of Supervisors Room in the County Office Building.
Immediately following such public hearings or any adjournment thereof, each governing
body shall cause to be filed with the State Corporation Commission a record of the
' proceedings thereof which shall indicate whether such governing body desires to proceed
with the creation of the authority and whether such governing body called for a referendum
pursuant to Section 15.1 -1244 of the Act. A copy of this resolution shall be published
one time at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such public hearings in "The Winchester
Evening Star ", a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Winchester and Fred-
erick County, preceded by a notice as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS"
"Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held as set out below on
the following concurrent resolution heretofore adopted by the Common Council of the City of
Winchester, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, signify-
ing their intention to create a water and sewer authority as set out therein."
CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
r
(SEAL) Adopted , 197 _
pAttest:
ulerK of Council
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By /
Chai , Board of pervisors
(SEAL) Adopted 197 _
Attest:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
222
Mr. Koontz also presented the following memorandum which he stated was an integral
part of the Ad Hoc Committee report and asked that it be recorded in the minutes of this
meeting along with the joint resolution:
December 19, 1973
JOINT CITY OF WINCHESTER - COUNTY OF FREDERICK AD -HOC COMMITTEE
MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Winchester City Council
SUBJECT Report on Regional Sewage Facilities
On August 30, 1971, the State Water Control Board called a meeting of representatives
of the City, County and engineers regarding a preliminary discussion on the need for and the
feasibility of a regional treatment plant.
As requested by the Water Control Board, a joint City - County Ad -Hoc Committee was
appointed. The City representatives, appointed by the President of Council September 9, 1971
were Councilman Roy W. Bayliss, Jr., Chairman of the Utilities Committee; Councilman H. W.
Butler, Jr., member of the Utilities Committee; and S. H. Reaves, Utilities Superintendent.
(Councilman H. W. Butler, Jr., was replaced by the City Manager upon termination of his
term as Councilman September 1, 1972 and S. H. Reaves continued to serve after his retire-
ment as Utilities Superintendent January 1, 1973.) The Chairman of the FCSA advised
October 21, 1971, that Mr. S. Roger Koontz, member of the FCSA; Mr. Don E. Krueger, Engineer -
Director of the FCSA; and Roger H. Alderman, Executive Secretary of the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors, were Frederick County's representatives on the Ad -Hoc Committee.
(Mr. J. O. Renalds, III, replaced Mr. Alderman upon his appointment as County Administrator
April 16, 1973.)
Also, as a result of this meeting, Alexander Potter Associates were authorized to
prepare a Study and Report on a Regional Plan for Sewage Treatment within the Opequon
Drainage Basin, by the City and FCSA on December 17, 1971.
This report was held up pending receipt of effluent quality standards of Abrams
Creek, Opequon Creek, and the Shenandoah River.
The Committee met intermittently and organized, with Mr. Bayliss being elected
Chairman and Mr. Reaves Secretary, while awaiting the effluent quality standards.
The Water Control Board was advised of the organization of the Ad -Hoc Committee
and the necessity of effluent quality standards February 4, 1972, June 20, 1972, and July
17, 1972. The Water Control Board Report on Water Quality for the Opequon Creek Drainage
Area was received March 5, 1973, and the Study and Report on Feasibility of a Regional
Plan for Sewage Treatment was presented at a joint City- County meeting November 15, 1973
by representatives of Alexander Potter Associates.
Upon receipt of this Report and the draft of the Metropolitan/Regional Water Quality
Management Plan of the LFPDC, the Ad -Hoc Committee held ten sessions, including meetings
with legal counsel, and have unanimously agreed on the attached draft resolution for both
governing bodies.
As the committee set about its work we considered both reports that had been made
which concerned the area under study (1) "Regional Water Quality Management Plan" prepared
by Wiley and Wilson for the Lord Fairfax Planning District and (2) "Feasibility of a
Regional Plan for Sewage Treatment" prepared by Alexander Potter Associates for Frederick
22.3
County Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester. We also had legal advice from
William A. Johnston of Winchester and Harry Frazier, III, of Richmond. Mr. Johnston has
been serving as legal adviser for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority..and Mr.
Frazier was the author of the agreement between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County.
' Members of the committee also visited-the "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: created
-r
by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and the "Sewer Authority" created
by the City of Harrisonburg and Rockingham County.
In our search for an "institutional arrangement" that would serve the community well
' we covered a lot of ground and a number of different plans. It would not serve any purpose
here to list the hours spent in this search, but it should be stated that during all of
our negotiations the attendance has been excellent and the spirit one of community concern.
To say that we have had differences would be an understatement, but at all times our primary
concern has been to come up with an "institutional arrangement" that would serve the entire
community of Winchester and Frederick County not only for today and tomorrow but for the
distant future as well.
The following items are submitted by the Ad -Hoc Committee which is charged with
recommending an institutional arrangement for the operation of proposed regional sewage
treatment facilities in the Opequon Creek Drainage Area. The purpose is to define
intent of the concurrent resolution presented to the governing bodies of the County of
Frederick and the City of Winchester.
parties as are addressed in the concurrent resolution.
2. It is the intent of the proposed concurrent resolution that a regional service
authority be established as the agency to provide the services as stipulated in Paragraph
one (1) above. It is acknowledged that these services shall be incorporated at different
periods of time in the life of the Regional Authority.
3. With regard.to Section 4 of the concurrent resolution which deals with the guiding
principles of the Regional Authority, the Committee deems it necessary to outline the
intent of each of the subsequent subsections under that Section.
Section 4. (1) The Regional Authority has as its first and foremost project the
planning and construction of a regional sewage treatment plant and interceptors in the
Opequon Creek Drainage area to serve both County and City.
Section 4. (2) The City's water supply facilities and transmission mains are to be
purchased by the Regional Authority if such purchase is economically feasible. The
County may make appropriate donations, loans or advances to the Regional Authority to effect
the economic feasibility should it so desire.
Section 4. (3) It is the intent in creating the Regional Authority that this Authority
shall become the technical and administrative agency for sewage treatment, water treatment
and refuse disposal and that all of the above mentioned facilities located within the
County and /or City may be acquired by this Authority should it desire.
1. It is
the mutual feeling
and agreement of the Committee that though the Committee
was originally
formed to consider
regional sewage service only, that sewage treatment
facilities and
interceptors, water
treatment facilities and transmission mains, and solid
waste disposal
facilities, all should
be the responsibility of one agency. This agency's
intended function is to wholesale
the above services to the City, the County, and other
parties as are addressed in the concurrent resolution.
2. It is the intent of the proposed concurrent resolution that a regional service
authority be established as the agency to provide the services as stipulated in Paragraph
one (1) above. It is acknowledged that these services shall be incorporated at different
periods of time in the life of the Regional Authority.
3. With regard.to Section 4 of the concurrent resolution which deals with the guiding
principles of the Regional Authority, the Committee deems it necessary to outline the
intent of each of the subsequent subsections under that Section.
Section 4. (1) The Regional Authority has as its first and foremost project the
planning and construction of a regional sewage treatment plant and interceptors in the
Opequon Creek Drainage area to serve both County and City.
Section 4. (2) The City's water supply facilities and transmission mains are to be
purchased by the Regional Authority if such purchase is economically feasible. The
County may make appropriate donations, loans or advances to the Regional Authority to effect
the economic feasibility should it so desire.
Section 4. (3) It is the intent in creating the Regional Authority that this Authority
shall become the technical and administrative agency for sewage treatment, water treatment
and refuse disposal and that all of the above mentioned facilities located within the
County and /or City may be acquired by this Authority should it desire.
224
Section 4. (4) It is the intent of Section 4 (4) that the Regional Authority shall have
first right to construct and operate any subsequent proposed sewage treatment facilities and
interceptors, water treatment facilities and transmission mains, or refuse disposal facilities
within the County and /or City. However, nothipg shall prevent the Cpuntyror City, within thei
respective corporate areas, from constructing or acquiring these facilities in areas where the
Regional Authority elects not to exercise its right.
4. With regard to the purchase of facilities now owned by the County or City, the intent
of the Committee is that the purchase price of the facilities will be determined jointly by
engineers for the parties negotiating the purchase. Should the engineers be unable to agree
upon the purchase price, they shall retain an additional engineer to settle any and all
differences and establish a final purchase price.
After the Committee began meeting regularly, further information has come to the
attention of the Committee.
The State Water Control Board called a meeting September 12, 1973, attended by the City
and County and their engineer, Alexander Potter Associates, to review the information being
required with the submittal of a grant application by January 1, 1974. A staff progress
report was presented to the Water Control Board at their regular meeting December 11, 1973,
regarding City- County activities toward developing the necessary institutional arrangements.
The Water Control Board letter of.November 2, 1973, states that "if the Board feels
sufficient progress has not been made, they may elect to advise the City and County that the
necessary arrangement would have to be completed or the grant would be lost. The Board could
then direct the City and County to make the necessary changes so that stream standards are
met on the Opequon."
In view of the aforementioned information contained in this memorandum, the Committee
recommends that both governing bodies take affirmative action at their earliest convenience
to implement the recommendations.
The Ad -Hoc Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the governing bodies of both
the City and County for their confidence and patience and assures both that the attached
resolution and articles of incorporation has their complete support and acceptance.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF WINCHESTER
/s/ Roy W. Bayliss, Jr.
Councilman Roy W. Bayliss, Jr., CHAIRMAN
Utilities Committee
/s/ Samuel H. Reaves
S. H. Reaves, SECRETARY
Utilities Superintendent (Retired)
/s/ Wendell L. Seldon
Wendell L. Seldon
City Manager
FREDERICK COUNTY
/s/ S. Roger Koontz
S. Roger Koontz
Member, Frederick County Sanitation
Authority
4 -
225
/s/ Don E. Krueger
Don E. Krueger
Engineer- Director
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
/s/ J. O. Renalds III
B uqI J. O. Renalds, III
County Administrator
cc: Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Mr. Madigan stated that he had a question in that sometime in the future as
' Frederick County grows, it is very likely that we will have a County Engineering Department.
He stated, in his opinion, we would then want the County Engineer as a member on this
joint authority and in the absence of such an officer, the Director of the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority would suffice.
Mr. Renalds stated we could draw a comparison in this particular set up with
what Mr. Madigan suggested with the City of Winchester. He stated the City Engineer
handled streets and other public works and their Public Utilities Superintendent handles
all their water and sewer and it was his belief that if we ever go to a larger full time
engineering department it would be his understanding that the Sanitation Authority would
still retain the responsibility, at the Boards direction for water and sewer; whereas the
Engineering Department may handle other engineering tasks that may be assigned.
Mr. Renalds stated the larger document (the concurrent resolution) those present
' had before them does appear rather specific on a number of cases. This was done along
the lines of several other regional authorities that already have been started within the
state.
Mr. Madigan stated that he would like to see the control with the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Renalds stated the entire arrangement as outlined in this current resolution
was on a wholesale basis.
Mr. Madigan stated we must have a balance of power.
Mr. Renalds said that this would be a wholesale authority and that the only.
we would need a strong control would be in setting the rates.
Mr. Madigan stated he felt we should have a balance of power. He stated he did
not foresee any trouble at the present time but in order to safeguard our position in the
' future, he felt this should be one of the things we should do at the present time.
Mr. Cole asked how the Authority would be paid for this water system.
Mr. Koontz replied that in the memorandum of understanding referred to here, we
have it set up that the price itself would be established by an engineer confirmed from
the city and one from the county and if they could not reach a conclusion there would be
a third neutral firm involved to establish a price.
Mr. Krueger added that after the beginning of the Authority it would have to be
strictly a feasibility matter.
Mr. Sandy asked if the referendum referred to would be a county -wide referendum.
Mr. Koontz replied that it could be that the decision would be left with the
Board after a public hearing and that there is no code requirement for a referendum.
Mr. Renalds commented it was strictly an option of the Board.
226
Mr. Cole stated from this discussion tonight it seemed a joint venture was coming closer
and he felt that was what the majority of the people in Frederick County are interested in.
Mr. Renalds stated that the entire cost of the system would be paid for by the rates of
the users only. Mr. Cole asked if this would be up until the time the County might purchase
the City Water System and Mr. Koontz replied it would.
Mr. Sandy asked how the name for the Authority was reached and Mr. Koontz replied there
had been no real concern on this but if you took the names alphabetically, Frederick
naturally came first.
Mr. Cole questioned the part pertaining to the landfill.
Mr. Krueger stated there must be a contract negotiated. In Albemarle County it took
a year but depending on the contract and purchase prices etc. of what is to be purchased and
what is not to be purchased will determine how long it will take to work it out and get things
going.
Mr. Renalds stated that both the City and County own part of the new landfill site.
Mr. Sandy asked if all the hang -ups had been straightened out now and Mr. Koontz stated
they had.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Koontz if this was, in his opinion, the best contract we could get.
Mr. Koontz said it was.
Mr. Madigan again brought up the point of how the Authority would be controlled.
Mr. Renalds said the Board of this Authority by virtue of its intent as outlined in
the document is more along the lines of a technical authority. He stated that the engineer
serving on this authority should be a qualified water and sewer engineer.
Mr. Madigan stated there was only one thing he still did not go along with but he was
in accord with everything else.
Mr. Renalds stated they had been in contact with the State Water Control Board and
outlined to them the basic time frame as outlined in the document. They have indicated
the times set forth would be acceptable to them as far as reaching an agreement, holding
a public hearing and getting a final action on this document. However, this document is by
no means the last document. There is a detailed contract yet to be worked out. This
resolution does nothing more than form the authority and outline the areas of responsibility
and the general understanding between the City and County as to exactly what this authority
would do.
Mr. J. Robert Russell commended the committee for the work they had done.
Both Mr. Sandy and Mr. Madigan added their commendation to that of Mr. Russell.
Mr. Sandy stated the date for public hearing had been set tentatively for January 24th.
However there were a few citizens present this evening and he asked for anyone caring to
comment from this group to do so at this time.
Mr. Manuel Semples asked what would be the use of the temporary plants in the future.
Mr. Koontz stated that these plants are salvageable and it would be necessary to move
in some cases. Not all the plants would be salvageable but 50% to 75% would be. He said it
would be their intent to operate the plants in this manner.
Mr. Krueger stated that when this authority is put into operation the lines connecting
to the interim plants would connect to the regional facilities.
Mr. - Sandy asked Mr. Krueger if the basic plan on the interim plants was to size all the
collection lines and also the interceptors which would eventually lead to the joint plant.
Mr. Krueger stated it was.
r 1
J
Ci
227
Mr. Sandy asked if there was any more information on the time frame we are
talking about tonight.
Mr. Krueger said there was no definite time frame insofar as any of the committee
are concerned. He said while Mr. Semples had information from Mr. Paessler of the State
Water Control Board that it would be 3 or 4 years before the regional sewage treatment
I I plant was in operation, in Mr. Krueger's opinion, it will still not be operational
until 1980.
Mr. Sandy asked if the State Water Control Board had given any statement as to
priority for the Winchester - Frederick County area.
Mr. Krueger said no commitment had been made on this but it appeared the sooner
1we could adopt a plan of the nature of the one presented this evening the better it would
be for us.
Mr. Krueger stated the last word we had from the State Water Control Board
was to continue working along the present lines and report back to the Board at their
February meeting.
Mr. Sandy said he felt everyone preferred seeing government dollars spent rather
than Winchester - Frederick County dollars and he felt we should proceed as quickly as possible
to set priorities.
Mr. Semples stated at the last Board meeting of the Sanitation Authority there
was talk about an impact tax on the Kernstown project and he would like to know what was
needed to supply connection charges etc.
Mr. Sandy stated that there was an indication of rates given at that time.
' Mr. Semples stated he had heard one citizen make the remark that all that
needed to be done was take out one injunction and it would kill the entire project. He
stated he did not know what this remark was based on but if it were true it would be very
dangerous to the Kernstown, Red Bud and Abrams projects.
Mr. Krueger stated this was a bad statement.
Mr. Koontz said that anytime there is dissention there will be cause for such
remarks to happen. He said he felt once people understand what the committee is trying to
do everyone will pull in the same direction.
Mr. Semples said he felt the committee had done an excellent job and should be
commended very highly. He stated that he feels the extra member should come under the Board.
Mr. Renalds thanked Mr. Semples for his comments and stated while the document
was not perfect he felt it was the best that can be done.
Mr. Koontz thanked Mr. Krueger and Mr. Renalds for their efforts and expressed
his appreciation of being allowed to work with these two men and for Frederick County. He
also stated he felt this was the best document that could come out of the efforts put forth.
Mr. Sandy asked if there were any further comments.
' There were none.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED IT WAS ORDERED THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED.
Se etary, Board of Supervisors