Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 14 2011 Agenda Packet W a AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 7:15 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Call To Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Adoption of Agenda Pursuant to established procedures, the Board should adopt the Agenda for `-- the meeting. Consent Agenda (Tentative Agenda Items for Consent are Tabs: E) Citizen Comments (Agenda Items Only, That Are Not Subject to Public Hearing.) Board of Supervisors Comments Minutes (See Attached) ------------------------------------ --- - -- ---------------------------- - - - - -- A 1. Regular Meeting, August 10, 2011. 2. Work Session, August 30, 2011. County Officials 1. Committee Appointments. (See Attached) ------------------------------------ - - - - -- B 2. Memorandum Re: Amendment to Board Rules of Procedure. (See Attached)------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- C AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE 2 3. Request from Commissioner of the Revenue for Refunds. (See Attached) ------ — ------------------------------ -- ------ -------------------------------- D Committee Reports 1. Parks and Recreation Commission. See Attached ----------- - - - - -- E 2. Finance Committee. (See Attached) ------------------------------ _------------------ F Public Hearing 1. Proposed School Bond Financings by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County ") will Hold a Public Hearing in Accordance with Section 15.2 -2606 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as Amended, on the Issuance of Two Series of General Obligation School Bonds (the 'Bonds ") of the County in an Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed $15,785,000 to Finance (i) a New Pupil Transportation Facility; and (ii) Other Capital School Improvement Projects for Public School Purposes. The Board will Consider Two Separate Resolutions Authorizing the Issuance of the Bonds at Its Meeting on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. All Interested Parties are Invited to Attend and Present Oral or Written Comments. (See Attached) --------------- ------------- --------------------- G Planning Commission Business Public Hearing 1. Rezoning #01 -11 of Carmeuse NA— Clearbrook Rezoning, Submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates and Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, to Rezone 92 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with Proffers. The Properties, with Addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, are Located Between the Intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836), and are Identified by Property Identification Numbers 44 -A -83, 44 -A -83A and 33 -A -144 (Portion Of), in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (See Attached) ------ - - - - -- H 2. Draft Update of the 2012 -2017 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans Establish Priorities for Improvements to the Primary and Interstate AGENDA �.. REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 PAGE 3 Road Networks Within Frederick County. Comments from the Transportation Committee will be Forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the Priorities Adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be Forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for Consideration. (See Attached) ------------ - - - - -- -------------------------------------- 3. Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, Section 165 - 204.26 Public Utilities; Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, Section 165 - 401.05 Minimum Lot Size; and Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, Article V Design Standards, Section 144 -24 Lot Requirements - Revision to Minimum Lot Size and Setback Requirements for Lots that Contain Public Utilities. (See Attached) ---- - - - - -- J Board Liaison Reports (If Any) Citizen Comments Board of Supervisors Comments Adjourn ,:�� FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 2011 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at 7:15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice - Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Christopher E. Collins; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gene E. Fisher; and Gary A. Lofton. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Reverend Daniel Hess, Harvesters of Hope, delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice - Chairman Ewing led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA — APPROVED AS AMENDED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised he had one addition to the agenda. He added a request for a pump and haul permit for 220 Lucas Lane, Gore, VA as item 4 under Planning Commission business. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the agenda as amended. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant 1 CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following items for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda: - Resolution of Appreciation for Gary W. Dove — Tab B; and - Public Works Committee — Tab G. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board approved the minutes from the July 27, 2011 meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant 2 COUNTY OFFICIALS APPOINTMENT OF GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT SEAT —ROSS P. SPICER APPOINTED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board nominated Ross P. Spicer to fill the unexpired term of Gary W. Dove as Gainesboro Magisterial District Supervisor. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board closed the nominations. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant Ross P. Spicer was appointed Gainesboro Magisterial District Supervisor by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR GARY W. DOVE — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION SUPERVISOR GARY W. DOVE, GAINESBORO DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Gary W. Dove served the citizens of Frederick County, Virginia, for over seven (7) years as Gainesboro District representative to the Board of Supervisors; and 3 WHEREAS, during his tenure he held seats on numerous committees, including that of member and chairman of the Code and Ordinance Committee, Public Works Committee, and Public Safety Committee, Planning Commission Liaison (2005); Industrial Development Authority Liaison Qanuary 2004 July 2011); Economic Development Commission Liaison Qanuary 2004 July 2007); Fire & Rescue Association Liaison (January 2005 - December 2008); Air Quality Task Force Qanuary 2006 July 2011); Landfill Oversight Committee Qanuary 2006 July 2011); and Shen -Air Qanuary 2008 July 2011); and WHEREAS, Supervisor Dove was a tireless worker for not only the constituents in his district, but for all of the citizens of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, this Board will always consider Supervisor Dove a colleague and friend. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors extends its sincerest thanks to Supervisor Gary W. Dove and wishes him all of the best in his future endeavors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution be spread across the minutes of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for all citizens to reflect upon the accomplishments of this citizen legislator. ADOPTED this 10` day of August, 2011. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD FOR AUGUST, 2011— APPROVED CRAIG A. ROBINSON Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved Craig A. Robinson as Employee of the Month for August 2011. Employee of the Month Resolution Awarded to: Craig A. Robinson WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for this award may be nominated by any County employee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, 4 WHEREAS, Craig A. Robinson, who serves as a Sergeant with the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, Craig A. Robinson, the Community Inmate Workforce Supervisor at the Regional Jail, instituted the Jail's first Inmate Farm Program in May, then additionally directed a month -long major facility improvement project at the NREP building for the Division of Court Services relocation that was done in June. In all, Sergeant Robinson's contributions in reducing costs and providing a better work environment for County is deserving of special recognition NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 10` day of August, 2011, that Craig A. Robinson is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for August 2011; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Craig A. Robinson for his outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes him continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Craig A. Robinson is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with this award. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF GARY A. LOFTON AS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' LIAISON TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - APPROVED Administrator Riley inquired if Mr. Spicer would assume former supervisor Gary Dove's committee assignments. Chairman Shickle responded that he would review the assignments. Administrator Riley asked about filling the board liaison to the Frederick County Industrial Development Authority and the Winchester- Frederick Economic Development 5 Commission. Supervisor Lofton agreed to serve as the liaison to both organizations. Chairman Shickle announced the Supervisor Lofton would serve as the liaison. REQUEST FROM FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOLS TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR FALL 2011 VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY (VPSA) AND QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION (QSC) BOND SALE. — APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING Administrator Riley advised the school board requested a public hearing be held on September 14, 2011 for two bond issues; the proceeds of which will be used for the construction of the new transportation facility. The public hearing will encompass: - Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) school bonds for $8,785,000, a traditional tax - exempt bond sale; and - Qualified School Construction Bonds for $7,000,000, which are non - traditional taxable bonds provided through the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with a zero or near zero interest cost, 14 to 16 year maturity, and the interest payment is offset by sinking fund interest earnings and federal subsidy. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board scheduled the public hearing for September 14, 2011. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant REQUEST TO SCHEDULE WORK SESSION RE: FIRE STATION POLICY AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN — APPROVED WORK SESSION FOR AUGUST 30, 2011 Administrator Riley advised the Board there were two items pending, which required a joint work session with the Board and some of its standing committees, in particular the Public 6 Works and Public Safety Committees. The first issue was the development of policy regarding the construction or county owned fire stations and the construction/reconstruction of volunteer owned fire stations. The second item was the Regional Water Supply Plan and proposed drought ordinance. He went on to say staff was seeking a date for a noon work session to discuss these two matters. The Board selected Tuesday, August 30, 2011 at noon as the date and time for the work session. COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA A meeting of the Public Works Committee was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except Bob Wells and Chris Collins. The following items were discussed: ** *Items Requiring Action * ** 1. Regional Water Supply Plan and Proposed Drought Ordinance NSVRC Natural Resources Program Manager, Ms. Jill Keihn, presented the regional water supply plan for the Northern Shenandoah Valley with an emphasis on the impacts to Frederick County. An executive summary of her presentation is attached. In addition to the regional water supply plan, Candice Perkins, Department of Planning and Development, presented a brief overview of a proposed drought ordinance which is required as a part of the local and regional water supply planning. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached. At the conclusion of the presentations and subsequent discussions, the committee recommended that the regional water supply plan and draft ordinance be submitted to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for their review and approval prior to submittal to the Board of Supervisors. In the interim, it was recommended that a work session be scheduled with the board to discuss the contents and impacts of both documents prior to scheduling a public hearing. (Attachment 1 and 2) ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Discussion of Rural Road Requirements In May 2011, the Board of Supervisors requested that the Public Works Committee evaluate the existing standards applicable to rural subdivision roads. Acting on this request, the Public Works staff, in conjunction with staff from Planning and Development, prepared a brief 7 overview of the current requirements which included a PowerPoint presentation of examples of rural roads that have been built to current standards, as well as past practices. The latter varied from "dirt" roads to asphalt pavement of varying widths. These presentations were intended to generate discussion which could eventually lead to recommendations regarding how rural roads will be addressed in the future. This topic will be placed on the next Public Works agenda to general additional discussion and ideas. As food for thought, staff provided copies of the current ordinance related to minor and major rural road requirements, as well as ideas related to how to address rural roads in the future. Copies of these documents are included as Attachment 3. 2. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report (Attachment 4) b) Recycling Report (Attachment 5) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (Attachment 6) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 7) TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - APPROVED The Transportation Committee met on July 25, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Members Absent Chuck DeHaven (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) James Racey (voting) George Kriz (liaison PC) Chris Collins (voting) Bryon Grigsby (voting) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) ** *Items Requiring Action * ** 4. Tiger Grants Staff notified the Committee that there is another round of Tiger Grants available for transportation. These are highly competitive federal funds which have led to large awards in the successful localities. We notified the MPO of this opportunity and also make the following recommendations. 1. Make application through the MPO (due to regional applications being scored higher) for the following projects: a. Route 37 with segments being prioritized to allow for potential awards for segments if we are not successful with something larger, b. Russell 150 improvements, specifically the bridge and connections to Tevis Street and Route 522. 2. That, due to the rigorous and highly competitive nature of this particular application, a 8 consultant be procured to aid in the application process. The Committee was supportive of these recommendations. Staff would further note that it would be worthwhile to encourage the MPO to expedite this process, particularly getting the consultant on board as soon as possible. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board adopted the Committee recommendation. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Back Mountain Road Speed Concerns Staff advised the Committee that VDOT has been fielding complaints regarding unsafe driving and high speeds on Back Mountain Road. The Committee has authorized staff to coordinate with VDOT on the issue and potentially return to request a speed study that could result in a speed limit reduction on that roadway. 2. Route 277 Improvements Resolution The Board was updated and acted on this item on July 27, 2011. 3. MPO Long Range Plan Update Staff presented the draft Vision Plan project list to the Committee and requested that they review the material and provide feedback. To date, no feedback has been received and the Board will be kept updated as to what is received. This item will be returning as it continues to be modified. 5. Other PUBLIC HEARING 9 OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT REQUEST OF CONCERN HOTLINE —12 v ANNUAL FRIDAY FISH FRY. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 86, FESTIVALS; SECTION 86 -3, PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE OR DENIAL; FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2011, FROM 4:00 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M., ON THE GROUNDS OF GROVE'S WINCHESTER HARLEY DAVIDSON, 140 INDEPENDENCE DRIVE, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA. PROPERTY OWNED BY BARBARA GROVE. - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was an application for an Outdoor Festival Permit request of Concern Hotline for the 12 Annual Fish Fry. The event will be held on Friday, September 2, 2011 from 4:00 -9:00 p.m. at Grove's Winchester Harley Davidson. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the Outdoor Festival Permit for Concern Hotline — 12 Annual Fish Fry. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #06 -11 OF HORTON'S NURSERY FOR A RETAIL NURSERY. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT 2731 FRONT ROYAL PIKE (ROUTE 522 S), AND ARE IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 76 -A -61, 76 -A -62, 76 -A -63, 76 -A -64, AND 76 -A -65 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. (PUBLIC HEARING HELD JULY 27, 2011 BOARD MEETING) - APPROVED Zoning Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board regarding this item. He 10 advised this was a request for a conditional use permit to expand an existing nursery. The Planning Commission recommended approval on July 6, 2011. The Board of Supervisors v previously conducted a public hearing on this application, but postponed action to allow the applicant to address outdoor storage and site development issues. He went on to say all site improvements are to be in place by May 1, 2012. He concluded by saying staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. In lieu of an engineered site plan, the applicant shall implement the site improvements as noted with the signed property owner statement dated August 2, 2011. As noted in the statement, the improvements shall be in place by May 1, 2012. 3. One non - illuminated, freestanding business sign shall be allowed on the property; the sign shall be limited to 25 square -feet in area. The sign shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 4. Any storage of heavy equipment shall take place within an enclosed structure. 5. Approval of this CUP will void CUP #06 -06. 6. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Supervisor Lofton asked for a definition of heavy equipment. Zoning Administrator Cheran responded the applicant had a few backhoes and front -end loaders. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved Conditional Use Permit #06 -11 with the conditions listed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 11 Gainesboro District Vacant DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — LOT SIZES AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES. - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this proposed amendment would allow the zoning administrator to authorize the creation of lots smaller than the current zoning district requirements for lots utilized for the sole purpose of public utilities; the amendment also allows for the elimination of the on -site sewage disposal requirement and reduces the access easement width requirement. The Development Review and Regulations Committee endorsed the proposed amendment and the Planning Commission recommended that it be forwarded to the Board for review. Staff is seeking direction from the Board of Supervisors regarding whether or not to send this item forward for public hearing. Supervisor Lofton asked if 15 feet was an adequate sized easement. Senior Planner Perkins responded that the Development Review and Regulations Committee felt 15 feet was adequate. She noted that it had originally started at 20 feet. Supervisor Lorton noted the word "for" should be inserted in §165-204.26 A (1) "...lots used for public utility purposes." Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing regarding Chapter 165, Zoning and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land; Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II — Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165- 204.26 — Public Utilities; Article IV — Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District, 165 - 401.05 — Minimum Lot Size; Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V — Design Standards, 144 -24.0 — Lot Access. 12 WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Department has been directed to prepare modifications to Chapter 165, Zoning and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land to enable the Zoning Administrator to establish the minimum lot size and setbacks for public utilities. WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) recommended approval of this amendment on July 28, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance on August 3, 2011 and recommended that a public hearing be held; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, directs the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding amendments to Chapter 165, Zoning and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land to enable the Zoning Administrator to establish the minimum lot size and setbacks for public utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider revisions to Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II — Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165- 204.26 — Public Utilities; Article IV — Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District, 165- 401.05 — Minimum Lot Size; Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V — Design Standards, 144 -24.0 — Lot Access, to enable the Zoning Administrator to establish the minimum lot size and setbacks for public utilities. Passed this I 01 day of August, 2011 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant MEMORANDUM RE: PUMP & HAUL REQUEST FOR 2340 FRONT ROYAL PIKE (PRESENTLY OWNED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP.) - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a request for a permanent pump and haul permit for 2340 Front Royal Pike. She noted this property must comply with the criteria in Chapter 161. The Health Department has determined the existing system cannot be repaired and there is not enough room on the site 13 for a replacement system. She concluded by saying a decision by the Board of Supervisors was being requested. Supervisor Fisher asked why an alternate system would not work. Senior Planner Perkins responded that the Health Department determined that no alternate systems could be accommodated on the property. Chairman Shickle asked if connection to a public line was feasible. Senior Planner Perkins responded if the property was within 300 feet of a public line it would be required to connect; however, this property is 380 feet. She concluded by saying she was not sure if the owner had looked into connecting. Supervisor Lofton asked if the Board would have the ability to take the permit away in the future if there was an opportunity to connect to public sewer. Senior Planner Perkins responded it would be up to the owner's discretion at that time. Amy White Stickel, Realtor, advised with the age and value of the property the value was not there to justify a connection. The cost to connect to a public line would be $20,000. The property is listed at $109,000. She noted the buyer had tried to go to through the church and the homeowners' association to get access to the sewer; however, everyone would need to agree. She concluded by saying if the permit is turned down the property will probably be made vacant. Chairman Shickle asked what kind of disclosures had been given to the buyer. Miss Stickel responded the only disclosure they have is from the company regarding the number of times the tank will be pumped and the cost. Supervisor DeHaven asked if the pump and haul agreement signed by the current owner would transfer successively to the new owners. County Attorney Rod Williams suggested the agreement could be recorded in the land 14 records in an effort to make it more binding. Supervisor DeHaven stated we have a requirement of a permit; however, one party will not be around. He did not think this seemed to be a perfect solution. He went on to say if sewer becomes economically available does the board have the authority to go back and require a connection? As the ordinance is currently written, we do not. He stated the ordinance needed to be reviewed in this regard. Supervisor DeHaven expressed his concern about the number of pump and haul permits in Frederick County. He went on to say we need to get a handle on these. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the pump and haul permit for 2340 Front Royal Pike. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Nay Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant MEMORANDUM RE: PUMP & HAUL REQUEST FOR 220 LUCAS LANE, GORE, PROPERTY OWNED BY TIMOTHY DOOLAN - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a request for a pump and haul permit for 220 Lucas Lane, Gore, Virginia. She advised the existing system was not functional and could not be repaired. The applicant is seeking a decision from the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Lofton stated the applicant had contacted him and asked that this item be placed on the agenda this evening. He went on to say this appears to be a matter of timing and the applicant has a sales contract pending. He advised the timing of the sales contract with the next board meeting did not work. He noted the property is not located in the Sewer and Water 15 Service Area and the Health Department says there is no other option. Chairman Shickle asked if the Health Department could be questioned about why an alternate system was not suitable for this site. He noted the determination surprised him. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the pump and haul permit request for 220 Lucas Lane, Gore, Virginia. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gainesboro District Vacant BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Phil Griffin, Chairman of the Top of Virginia Regional Chamber of Commerce, invited the Board to the Hob Nob in the Valley to be held on Friday, September 9, 2011. He noted Congressman Frank Wolf's attendance had been confirmed. He concluded by thanking the Board for providing a business friendly community. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Fisher stated he was not satisfied with the Health Department answers. He went on to say he did not know if this needs a work session with the Health Department. Chairman Shickle suggested Supervisor Fisher meet with the Health Department and pass along any information received to the Board. He concluded by saying he would like to know if there is anything to know. 16 Supervisor DeHaven stated there were a couple of issues with the pump and haul ordinance that need to be reviewed. Administrator Riley suggested that staff review the ordinance and process and once the information is collected it would go to the Public Works Committee. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR COLLINS, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (8:00 P.M.) 17 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MINUTES JOINT WORK SESSION WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEES AUGUST 30, 2011 A joint work session of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Public Works and Public Safety Committees was held on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 at 12:00 P.M., in the _ Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA. PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice - Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Christopher E. Collins; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gene E. Fisher; Gary A. Lofton; and Ross P. Spicer. OTHERS PRESENT: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Director of Planning and Development; Candice Perkins, Senior Planner; John Bishop, Deputy Director of Planning — Transportation; LeeAnna Pyles, Director of Public Safety Communications; Robert T. Williamson, Sheriff, Dennis Linaburg, Fire Chief; Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Director of Public Works; Joe Wilder, Deputy Director of Public Works; Public Safety Committee member Tim Price; Public Works Committee members George Ludwig, Whit Wagner, and Robert Wells; Uwe Weindel, Engineer /Director, Frederick County Sanitation Authority; Chester Lauck and Elwood Patterson, Round Hill Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company; and Martha Shickle, Executive Director of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, and Jill Keihn, Natural Resources Manager for the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the work session to order. COUNTY OFFICIALS County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. reviewed the agenda for the afternoon's work session. He then introduced Jill Keihn, Natural Resources Manager for the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission. 1 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN Jill Keihn, Natural Resources Manager for the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, provided a brief overview of the water supply plan and the planning process. In 2008 the 20 localities in the region approved a resolution to participate in the regional plan. The plan is a State mandate and will be reviewed every five years and resubmitted to the state every 10 years. She went on to say a Technical Advisory Committee was appointed. She noted that FCSA Engineer- Director Uwe Weindel and Planning Director Eric Lawrence participated on that committee. She explained that the plan used data from 2002, 2003 and 2008 and then projected water demand up to the year 2040. The components of the plan are: - Existing water sources; - Existing water use; - Assessment of projected water demand; - Drought Response Plan; and - Statement of future need. The Drought Response Plan contains the triggers for the various drought stages (i.e. watch, warning, and /or emergency) along with the enforcement component, which is the drought ordinance. The results of the study showed water would be supplied by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority with the projected demand being met through the year 2020. There would be a water supply deficit between the years 2020 -2030. She concluded by saying this plan would be presented to the Board for public hearing at its September 28, 2011 meeting. Uwe Weindel, Engineer- Director of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, advised the authority was looking at both long and short-term water supplies. Chairman Shickle asked what the most important things were that need to be worked on 2 if the plan was adopted. Ms. Keihn responded it would be important to identify future water sources, expand existing capacities, and look at alternatives. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Riley to help coordinate those items. Supervisor Spicer asked if there were any financial consequences associated with any inter- municipal agreement. Engineer- Director Weindel responded the existing contract between the City and the Authority allows three extensions and will go out to the year 2037. The Authority is allotted 2 million gallons per day with the ability to obtain 4 million gallons per day, if there is capacity within the system. Administrator Riley advised that one benefit of an adopted plan would allow Frederick County to work with Warren County to look at a regional treatment plant on the Shenandoah River. He hoped the plan would breed regional cooperation. PROPOSED DROUGHT ORDINANCE Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board and committees regarding this item. She advised this proposed drought ordinance is a mandate of the Code of Virginia. The proposed ordinance includes a local drought response and contingency plan that outlines the drought stages, voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures, and enforcement procedures for violations. Staff is seeking comments from the Board and committee regarding the proposed ordinance. She concluded by saying the plan must be adopted by September and submitted to the Virginia Department of Water Quality by November 2011. Supervisor Collins asked who would declare the watch, etc. Senior Planner Perkins responded that the Sanitation Authority would provide 3 information to the county administrator. The Board would then certify the designation. Supervisor Collins asked about the implementation of the conservation rates which would raise rates 20 %. Engineer- Director Weindel responded the intent of the increase was the role economics play in conservation. They would be implemented only during an emergency situation. He noted this was a deterrent and nothing else. Supervisor Spicer asked how a drought warning might affect a commercial carwash. Engineer- Director Weindel responded that during an emergency that might be an area the Authority would address; however, in this instance the focus is on the private person washing their vehicle in their driveway. He noted the verbiage could be clarified. Sheriff Williamson agreed the language needed to be tightened up. Supervisor Fisher asked about enforcement. He noted the Sanitation Authority stated enforcement was not in their by -laws. He asked if the details regarding who can write citations have been worked out. Senior Planner Perkins responded the Authority would be authorized under this chapter. Sheriff Williamson stated he had not received any information on the cost of printing and processing the citations and who would be responsible for payment. Chairman Shickle expressed concern because there appeared to be a number of departments issuing citations, one fine collector, and one person who can waive the fee. He asked if anyone had talked to the Treasurer about the collection of fines. Senior Planner Perkins responded no. Chairman Shickle stated the process needed to be clarified. Administrator Riley advised that language should be included in the ordinance regarding 4 the declaration of emergency, which mirrors that in the State Code. Vice - Chairman Ewing stated the proposed 20% rate increase during emergency periods is a "hiccup" for him. Chairman Shickle stated that does add insult to injury and it is unfortunate this happens during an emergency declaration. (Public Works Committee Member James Wilson arrived.) Chairman Shickle asked if this proposed ordinance would govern privately owned water systems such as Lake Holiday and Shawneeland. Ms. Keihn responded that she would check. She believed Augusta County included private systems in their ordinance. Under that proposal system owners had the ability to enforce the drought stages by a monetary fee. Fire Chief Dennis Linaburg advised that from a fire and rescue standpoint, they would want to look at the plan in more detail because rationing would affect buildings that are sprinkled. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FIRE STATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTION AND /OR RELOCATION OF EXISTING FIRE STATIONS County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised the purpose of this afternoon's work session was to update the Board with an overview of additional discussions held by the joint committee comprised of the Public Works and Public Safety Committees regarding the development of a construction policy to govern county owned fire and rescue stations and the relocation/rebuilding of existing volunteer company stations. Staff is seeking feedback and direction from the Board regarding the development of a formal policy which will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at a future meeting for final approval. He gave some background as to the catalysts for this policy development and a timeline 5 of the various meetings that have been held. He noted the County has received a number of unsolicited PPEA proposals for construction of a new fire station in the Route 277 area. In addition, the Round Hill Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department is in need of a new facility. The County received 3 to 4 acres of land as part of the Silver Lake (Lutheran Home) rezoning for the relocation of the Round Hill Fire & Rescue Department, along with $1 million to be used towards the construction of this new facility. Joint meetings of the Public Safety and Public Works Committees were held regarding the development of a policy to govern the construction of new county -owned fire stations and reconstruction/relocation of existing fire stations. Members of the Round Hill Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department were in attendance at the various joint meetings, as part of those meetings focused on issues specific to the Round Hill facility. He went on to say the joint committee reported out to the Board of Supervisors at the March 23, 2011 joint work session. At that work session, the Board heard and responded to the committees' assumptions regarding ownership of land, maintenance responsibility, need, and funding; as well as, provided feedback to the various unanswered questions. Following the March 23, 2011 work session, the fire chief was tasked with surveying localities served by a combined (i.e. career /volunteer) system to inquire about specific data relative to constructing new and replacement of existing fire and rescue stations. The fire chief reported to the joint committee on June 28, 2011. At the conclusion of that meeting, the committees endorsed various criteria regarding construction of new and replacement of existing fire stations. Today's work session was an opportunity for the Board to review the committees' endorsements and provide input, which would lead to the development of a formal policy. Administrator Riley then reviewed a summary of the Board's input, which was received at the March 23, 2011 meeting. These points were in response to the various unanswered 6 questions regarding the distribution of proffers to include whether previously collected proffers would be made available to fund these construction/relocation projects and how proffers could be best applied to a county -wide fire and rescue effort. In addition, there were questions regarding the provision of satellite office space for the Sheriff, Commissioner of the Revenue, etc. and finally, ownership of land, particularly the land on which the social hall would be constructed. He explained that the fire chief surveyed localities in Virginia served by combined fire and rescue departments. The survey focused on ownership, funding solutions, whether or not the locality had any written policies, and finally, general construction practices. There were a variety of funding options utilized for replacement fire stations. Funding was derived from the local budget, lease - purchase options, bonds, local tax funds, and revolving loan funds. In some localities, a service plan was created which outlined the planned architectural, engineering, and construction of new fire and rescue stations over the next five to ten years. The plan also included plans for renovating existing fire stations. This plan was aligned with the local capital improvements plan (CIP). Inception of the project was based on community development, population growth and existing station needs. All aspects of the plan were reviewed annually. At the conclusion of the survey, the fire chief found that ownership of the station was dependent upon whether the station was new or existing. In all of the localities surveyed, new fire stations were owned by the county while existing stations remained the property of the volunteer company. There was no one set funding method. All of the localities utilized a variety of funding methods to include funding construction through proffers, bonds, or lease - purchase agreements. Only two localities addressed the issue of social halls, but there was no information regarding ownership or funding, etc. Finally, there was only one locality that had a policy /plan 7 regarding construction of fire and rescue stations. Administrator Riley then showed a floor plan of the proposed prototype fire station, which consists of an approximately 11,000 square foot facility with two stacking bays — bays can accommodate two apparatus per bay, excluding specialized equipment such as a ladder truck. The facility would also contain bunk rooms, showers, kitchen, conference room, and offices. The committee believes this prototype meets the needs of a county -owned fire station. It should be noted these new stations are not meant to be the primary service provider in the area, but rather would supplement the operations of the existing volunteer companies. For example, the Route 277 area station would supplement the efforts of Stephens City and Millwood Station. He advised that the committees endorsed the design of the prototype station. They also endorsed county financing, construction, and ownership of the new fire stations. With regard to replacing existing stations, Administrator Riley stated the committees believed the prototype station should be the model for replacement stations. If the replacement stations were to be larger than 11,000 square feet cost sharing between the county and the company should be required. The replacement station would be maintained by the personnel, both career and volunteer, assigned to each station. The volunteer company would own and maintain its equipment. The replacement stations would be financed and owned by the county, with the exception of those stations larger than 11,000 square feet then the financing would involve cost sharing between the county and the company. The committees discussed the concept of county owned fire stations on volunteer company owned land. It was their consensus that a long -term lease agreement between the county and the company could adequately address any concerns. Finally, the committees discussed the issue of social halls. It was the committees' recommendation that the social hall 8 should be either connected to or built adjacent to the fire station. As a matter of cost savings, the committees recommended the social hall be constructed simultaneously with the fire station. The volunteer company would be responsible for maintaining the social hall. He concluded by saying the committees have tried to develop some direction for the policy development process and were looking to the Board to provide the input and direction needed to move forward to construct a policy based on the committees' input. Vice- Chairman Ewing stated he did not see the issue of existing stations addressed. He asked if a volunteer company dissolved would the county take over providing the service. Administrator Riley responded that the county would be responsible for the provision of service. He went on to say he believed the assets would transfer and we would operate the station. Chairman Shickle asked the board for comments regarding the endorsements. Supervisor DeHaven offered the following comments: - Agreed if the county builds the station then the county should own it. - The prototype station should be the only one we build. - Anything that will not fit in the prototype is a more strategic station and is specific to the area served. Building additional Millwood Stations is wrong. - Any station built with taxpayer dollars should be owned by the taxpayer. - Why would a volunteer group invest money in a facility they do not own? - Construction of a social hall on one parcel and physically connecting it to a fire station on another parcel is not impossible, but we would get into zero lot lines. - A long term lease is not equitable for the taxpayers' investment. Chairman Shickle asked if the bullet points were entitlements or a guide. Administrator Riley responded they were a guide. 9 Chairman Shickle stated that anything proposed per the guidelines should have the mutual approval of all parties. Supervisor DeHaven stated he did not believe there was enough on paper to form a policy. Administrator Riley reminded the Board that Round Hill was in a go position. Supervisor DeHaven stated we need to find a path for them. Supervisor Fisher advised the intent of this policy is to work from an all encompassing perspective. He went on to say there was a need to do something such as social halls. Supervisor DeHaven stated we need to be careful how we finance them Supervisor Fisher stated he thought the issues could be kept separate. Administrator Riley advised the social hall would be paid for by the volunteer company while the fire station would be owned by the county. Fire & Rescue Association President Tim Price stated that ownership of the property seems to be a sticking point for some stations. The issue revolves around financing because the company's use the land and building as collateral to fund equipment purchases. Supervisor DeHaven advised that he did not have an issue with social halls and taxpayers financing or helping fund, as long as there are protections. Vice - Chairman Ewing stated he wanted to see the county work in some sort of arrangement where we are assured debt service can be provided for the social hall. Administrator Riley stated he would like to try to put together a draft document entitled Guidelines for County Constructed and Replacement Volunteer Stations. Chairman Shickle believed most issues could be addressed with some change in wording. He also suggested that the guidelines have equity follow the contribution. 10 Sheriff Williamson advised the consensus concern of the volunteers that he hears from has to do with the fact that they own and maintain the equipment, but wonder how that funding will be raised without a social hall. Administrator Riley stated that in the Round Hill instance we have to figure out where to build the social hall near the station. He went on to say that each area would be different. Chester Lauck, Chief of Round Hill Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, stated that he had heard some things that were disheartening. He advised the volunteers need ownership also. He went on to say if the companies put money into stations then the system will be station rich and apparatus poor. He stated Round Hill was on a time crunch, needed to move forward, and needed help from the county. He went on to explain that the members need to feel like they are a part of it. He stated the prototype floor plan does not meet their needs and the county needs to think about that when they begin putting a plan together. He concluded by asking to be included in future discussions. Fire Chief Dennis Linaburg stated we are on new ground here, but believed that together we could make decisions regarding taxpayer dollars. He went on to say this issue is being looked at from a system wide approach. He concluded by saying he thought there was common ground to be found. Supervisor Lofton asked what was next following this meeting. Administrator Riley responded that he would like to take the comments from today and put them into a guidelines format dealing with the two issues. He hoped to get the document before the Board to see if this was something they could adopt. He acknowledged this was not perfect, but should be enough to take an application or the Round Hill request and work on it. He concluded by saying the draft guidelines should be ready by October. 11 Supervisor DeHaven asked Administrator Riley if he intended to run this back through the committees. Administrator Riley responded he would distribute them. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. 12 NOW 41C� CO q COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 1138 540/665 -5666 l a E M O R' A N D UM Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: jriley @co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administr o DATE: September 8, 2011 RE: Committee Appointments Listed below are the vacancies /appointments due through December, 2011. As a reminder, in order for everyone to have ample time to review applications, and so they can be included in the agenda, please remember to submit applications prior to Friday agenda preparation. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. VACANCIES /OTHER Shenandoah Valley Workforce Investment Board (WIB) A vacancy exists on the Workforce Investment Board for an individual from the private sector to represent business interests for the County of Frederick. Private sector members are nominated by the Board of Supervisors or City Council of their respective jurisdictions. Members serve a four year term. Official Appointment is made by the Governor. (See Attached Correspondence) JUNE 2011 Social Services Board Reverend Philip W. Roby — Stonewall District Representative 4478 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 Home: (540)664 -2708 Term Expires: 06/30/11 Four year appointment (Members may only serve two terms. Mr. Roby is not eligible for reappointment.) 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Memorandum — Board of Supervisors September 8, 2011 Page 2 JULY 2011 ShawneeLand Sanitary District Advisory Committee David J. Beeler, Jr. 107 Gilmore Trail Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)877 -1927 Term Expires: 07/13/11 Two year term Ann Stant 127 Geronimo Trail Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)877 -1906 Term Expires: 07/13/11 - Two year term (The Advisory Committee is comprised of five members made up of resident property owners and serve a two year term. AUGUST 2011 Conservation Easement Authority James R. "Richie" Wilkins 13 S. Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Office: (540)662 -7215 Home: (540)722 -0779 Term Expires: 08/24/11 Three year term (Staff has been advised that Mr. Richie Wilkins does not wish to be reappointed. The Conservation Easement Authority was established in August, 2005. The Authority consists of seven citizen members, one member from the Board of Supervisors and one member from the Planning Commission. Members shall be knowledgeable in one or more of the following fields: conservation, biology, real estate and /or rural land appraisal, accounting, farming, or forestry. Members serve a three year term and are eligible for reappointment.) Memorandum — Board of Supervisors September 8, 2011 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 2011 No appointments due. OCTOBER 2011 No remaining appointments due. NOVEMBER 2011 Industrial Development Authority John L. McKenzie — Stonewall District Representative 468 Glendobbin Road Winchester, VA 22603 Home: (540)667 -9021 Term Expires: 11/10/11 - Four year appointment Handley Regional Library Board Nancy L. Comer — Frederick County Representative 100 Tyler Court Stephens City, VA 22655 Home: (540)869 -4026 Term Expires: 11/30/11 Four year appointment. (The County has 5 seats on the Handley Regional Library Board as a result of the Joint Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the City. As stated in the library by -laws, members may only serve two terms. Ms. Comer has served one full term and is eligible for reappointment. Staff has been notified by the Library Director that Ms. Comer is willing to continue serving if it is the desire of the Board.) DECEMBER 2011 Memorandum — Board of Supervisors September 8, 2011 Page 4 Board of Equalization James I. Brumback —(Back Creek District Resident) 5699 Middle Road Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)869 -3724 Term Expires: 12/31/11 Three year term (The Board of Equalization is composed of five members. Members must be free holders in the county. Recommendations are made by the Board of Supervisors and submitted to the Judge of the Frederick County Circuit Court for final appointment.) Board of Zoning Appeals Eric F. Lowman — Red Bud District Representative 221 Canyon Road Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)678 -1989 Term Expires: 12/31/11 Five year term. James W. Givens — Back Creek District Representative 860 Laurel Grove Road Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)678 -0291 Term Expires: 12/31/11 Five year term. Robert W. Wells, - Member -At -Large 5114 Laura Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Home: (540)869 -1168 Term Expires: 12/31/11 Five year term. (There are seven members on the Board of Zoning Appeals. Recommendations are made by the Board of Supervisors and submitted to the Judge of the Frederick County Circuit Court for final appointment.) Memorandum — Board of Supervisors n_ September 8, 2011 Page 5 Chapter 10 Board Fred S. Vondy - Frederick County Representative c/o Adrian & Vondy PLC 125 W. Boscawen Street Winchester, VA 22601 Home: (540)858 -3337 Term Expires: 12/31/11 Three year term. (The Chapter 10 Board is composed of representatives from each of the jurisdictions within the planning district. The county has three seats on the Chapter 10 Board. Members serve a three year term and may only serve two terms. Mr. Vondy has almost completed his second term and is not eligible for reappointment.) JRR /tjp Attachment U: \TJP \committeeappointments\ Memos \BoardCommitteeAppts(091411 Mtg).docx S HEN AND O A H V A L LEY Jeff Stapel, Chair I B' Jerry Lewis, Sec./Treas. 'ke Lowe, Vice -Chair Bob Satterwhite, Executive Director WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD May 18, 2011 John R. Riley, Jr. Administrator Frederick County - 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: A vacancy exists on the Workforce Investment Board for an individual from the private sector to represent business interests for the County of Frederick. If the Frederick County Board of Supervisors would like to nominate an individual, please complete the enclosed Nomination Form. You need only respond to the high - lighted items. The thirty -one member Workforce Investment Board, representing the sixteen political jurisdictions of Local Workforce Investment Area 4 (Augusta, Bath, Clarke, Frederick, Highland, Page, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Warren, Buena Vista, Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, Waynesboro, Winchester), is the entity for the local implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. The Board plans, administers, monitors and evaluates various employment training and placement programs contracted to assist adults, youth, and dislocated workers. Members serve on a voluntary basis but are compensated by the Board for mileage to and from meetings. Meetings convene four times per year, on Thursday mornings, at the BB &T Community Conference Room in Harrisonburg. A membership term lasts four years. Private sector members are appointed by the City Council or Board of Supervisors of their respective jurisdictions. Section 117 (b) (1) of the Workforce Investment Act indicates representatives of the private sector shall constitute a majority of the Workforce Investment Board's membership, and that "those members are owners of businesses, chief executives or operating officers of businesses, and other business executives or employers with optimum policymaking or hiring authority; represent businesses with employment opportunities that reflect the employment opportunities of the local area, and are appointed from among individuals nominated by local business organizations and business trade associations." P.O. Box 869 • 1909 A East Market Street • Harrisonburg, VA 22803 -0869 • Telephone: 540.442.7134 Fax: 540.434.0803 • TDD: VA Relay Center 800.828.1120 • e -mail: svwib @valleyworkforce.com • valleyworkforce.com AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Program Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities Please send your completed Nomination Form and letter of appointment to me at P.O. Box 869, Harrisonburg, VA 22803. All information contained on the forms will be treated as confidential and will be used only by individuals directly concerned with the recommendation and appointment process. The official appointment will be made by Governor McDonald. Should you, or your nominee(s), have questions or require additional information, please call me at (540) 442 -7134. 1 am always happy to talk to, or meet with, anyone interested in becoming a member of the Workforce Investment Board. Sincerely, r Bob tte.re Executive Director Commonwealth of Virginia Workforce Investment Act 1 orJ r d—lop n1 Y i„ 1 /Ind lea ny I I I I , I cM1r 1 9J 1 -Name (First, MI, Last) 2 -LWIA # l' at 4- Street Address 13- Nominee Characteristics Gender: Male ❑ Female ❑ 6 -Count Race: 5 -City y White ❑ Black ❑ Hispanic ❑ Amer. Indian ❑ 7 -State Virginia 8-ZIP Native Alaskan ❑ Asian ❑ 9 -Home Phone (include area code) 10 -Work Phone (include area code) Pacific Islander ❑ Other ❑ 14- Recommended for (see section number) 11 -FAX 12 -E -Mail 16- Community-Based Organization (CBO) ❑ 17- Private Sector (Business) ❑ 15 -LWIA Name 18- Education ❑ 19- Economic Development ❑ 16 -CBO Representative 20- Organized Labor ❑ 21- One -Stop Partner ❑ Title Organization 22 -Other ❑ 17- Private Sector (Business) Representative Yes No Minority -Owned Business ❑ ❑ Title Female -Owned Business ❑ ❑ Urban ❑ Suburban ❑ Rural ❑ Business Number of Employees Type of Business 18- Education Representative 20- Organized Labor Representative Title Title Institution Affiliation Local Ed. ❑ Post - Secondary ❑ Voc. Ed. ❑ 19- Economic Development Representative 21- One -Stop Partner Representative Title Title Partner /Entity 23- Nominator 22 -Other Representative I hereby recommend the above -named person for membership on Title the Local Workforce Investment Board. Agency Signature Date 24- Action by Chief Local Elected Official Subject to certification required by Section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act Printed /Typed Name &Title of Nominator of 1998 and Policy 99 -2 of the Virginia Workforce Council, the person nominated herein has been duly appointed to the Local Workforce Investment Board by the Chief Elected Officials. Nominator Organization Term of Appointment: From To Phone FAX c E -Mail Signature of Chief Local Elected Official Date a 41C� COtr W ".44 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. °' "� County Administrator 1778 MEMORANDUM Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rile @co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator SUBJECT: Amendment to Board Rules of Procedure DATE: September 7, 2011 Staff has worked with the chairman to draft an amendment to the Board's Rules of Procedure in order to give the Board more flexibility to deal with the postponement of items. As you might recall, the Board's proceedings are currently governed under Robert's Rules of Order, Simplified and Applied. A strict interpretation and application of Robert's Rules regarding motions to postpone allows the Board to only postpone an item until the next regular meeting. Given the complexity of many of the land use and zoning issues that come before the Board it often takes more than two weeks to get the various issues resolved or comments addressed. While the Board's proceedings shall still be governed by Robert's Rule of Order, Simplified and Applied, the proposed amendment to Section 1 -9 of the Rules of Procedure would allow the Board to postpone items for a duration decided by the Board and in conformance with the Code of Virginia. The full text of the proposed amendment is below shown in underline italics Section 1 -9. Robert's Rules of Order; Suspending Rules The proceedings of the Board of Supervisors, except as otherwise provided in these rules and by applicable State law, shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, Simplified and Applie with the exception of motions to postpone. Motions to postpone shall be for durations as decided by the Board ofSupervisors and in conformity with the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended as applicable These Rules of Procedure of the Board may only be suspended on presentation of a motion to that effect, which is carried by majority vote of the members present and voting. If the Board agrees with the proposed amendment, a motion to approve would be appropriate. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. JRR/j et 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 - COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney . 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors CC: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney DATE: August 30, 2011 RE: Commissioner of Revenue Refund Requests Attached, for the Board's review, are requests to authorize the Treasurer to refund the following entities: 1. McCarthy Tire Service Company of Virginia ($5,287.23); 2. Solution Services Corp. ($3,915.33); 3. D L Peterson Trust (6,887.84); 4. Singh Sapandeep (5,940.62). Roderick B. Williams County Attorney Attachments 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue Frederick County Board of Supervisors CC: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney DATE: August 15, 2011 RE: Refund — McCarthy Tire Service Company of Virginia Inc. I am in receipt of the Commissioner's request (copy attached) dated August 12, 2011 to authorize the Treasurer to refund McCarthy Tire Service Company of Virginia Inc. the amount of $5,287.23, for adjustments to a business license filed and paid for 2011 prior to the business moving into the City of Winchester. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1- 3981(A) of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), I hereby note my consent to the proposed action. Further pursuant to Section 58.1- 3981(A), the Board of Supervisors will need to act on the request, as indicated in the Commissioner's memorandum. derick B. Williams County Attorney Attachment 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick County, Virginia Ellen E. Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, VA 22601 • A email: emurphy(a.co.frederick.va.us Telephone (540) 665 -5681 Fax (540) 667 -6487 TO: ROD WILLIAMS, COUNTY ATTORNEY FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: ELLEN MURPHY, COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE DATE: AUGUST 12, 2011 RE: REFUND TO MCCARTHY TIRE SERVICE CO Please authorize the Treasurer to refund $5,287.23 to McCarthy Tire Service Company of Virginia Inc. This is for adjustments to business license filed and paid for 2011 prior to business moving into the City of Winchester. Adjustment is proration of gross receipts and ultimate tax for period of move out. The Commissioner's staff verified all data and have the necessary information on this refund. Everything appears in order. Substantiating documents are located in the Commissioner's office and contain secure data. Total of refund is $5,287.23. Attachment 8/0 /11 UPDATE Business Licens Primary Screen (SS Mask= M,P,N) User /ChgDt Acct : 016663 *Sts p SS #1: FED1: _ Mailing Information SS #2: _ FED2: _ 8/08/2011 Name: ;Trd Name: MCCAgTHy TIRE SERVTCR O OF Nam2: iTrd Nam2: VTRC; NTA IN Adrl : AT TN KATT TAM R T j Adl Ndr2: 340 KTDDER ST jAd2 204 _ M- HRF RD ,dr3: WTTKES BARRE PA iApt Ada: WINCHESTER VA Phone #: ( 570 ) 822 - Ce11 000 ) 000 - 0000 �� 0000 Bus Ph #: ( 570 ) 822 - 31c7 Email: JSAITKTTT,YA pM .CA TT4YTTR OM Fax #: ( 570 ) - 866 WebAd: Dates........: mm/dd /yyyy Internet Est.: Internet Ases: 3/07/2011 Entry......... 7/24/2007 Estab ........ . Assessed...... 3/07/.011 Issued........ 3/09/2011 Notice........ Closed........ 5/09 /2011 Fict.Trd.Nmel: Fict.Trd.Nme2: Fict.Trd.Name: Ll (y /N) Wrk Comp Yr..: 0000 Zoning Appr..: Zoning Appr..: y (y /N) * Codes and Dates: Allow Estimated Rcpts after 3 yrs: N (y /N) 1. 00100 RETAIL MERCHANT 2. 00384 MISCELLANEOUS SERV 3. 4. 5 6. F2 =Cmts F3 =Exit *F4= Prompt FS= Abtmts F7= Assmt.Hsty F8= Pymt -Hsty F21 =CmdLn F9= Assmnt F10= Prt.Appl Fll =Msgs F14= Secdry.Scr F16= BPP.Act F18= Cnsumr.Act ENTER 8/08/2011 Abatement Register - UPDATE- * *TX306ABP ** Page 1 l COUNTY OF FREDERICK FOR DATE - 8/08/2011 ACCOUNTING PERIOD - 2011/08 Type Dept Ticket# Date Amt. Charged Customer Tran# - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- ------ -- - - -- -- - - - --- - - - -- ABA BL2011 00034010001 8/08/2011 $5,287.23- MCCARTHY TIRE SERVICE CO OF 17717 -------- ------ Total for Dept. $5,287.23 - Total for Tran Type $5,287.23 - Abatement count = 1 Total for Company $5,287.23- c.ov T J e. D G L�' a COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue Frederick County Board of Supervisors CC: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney DATE: August 23, 2011 RE: Refund — Solution Services Corp. I am in receipt of the Commissioner's request (copy attached) dated August 19, 2011 to authorize the Treasurer to refund Solution Services Corp. the amount of $3,915.33, for adjustment to a business license filing that included non - taxable amounts. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1- 3981(A) of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), I hereby note my consent to the proposed action. Further pursuant to Section 58.1- 3981(A), the Board of Supervisors will need to act on the request, as indicated in the Commissioner's memorandum. Roderick B. illiams County Attorney Attachment 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick County, Virginia Ellen E. Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 107 North Kent Street �c a Winchester, VA 22601 '• � email: emu rphy(aD-co.frederick.va.us Telephone (540) 665 -5681 Fax (540) 667 -6487 U TO: ROD WILLIAMS, COUNTY ATTORNEY FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: ELLEN MURPHY, COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE DATE: AUGUST 19, 2011 RE: REFUND TO SOLUTION SERVICES CORP Please authorize a refund $10,851.32 and authorize the Treasurer to issue a check for $3,915.33 of that amount to Solution Services Corp. This is for adjustment to a business license filing that included non - taxable amounts. The taxpayer notified our office and we have audited and adjusted accordingly. The Commissioner's staff have verified all data and have the necessary information on this refund. Everything appears in order. Check need is $3,915.33. Attachment 8/19/2011 Abatement Register - UPDATE- * *TX306ABP ** Page COUNTY OF FREDERICK FOR DATE - 8/19/2011 ACCOUNTING PERIOD - 2011/08 Type Dept Ticket# Date Amt. Charged Customer Tran# ---- ---- — ----- - — - -- ------ - --- -------- ----- ABA BL2011 00031450003 8/19/2011 $10,851.32- SOLUTION SERVICES CORP 2461 -- ---- ------ -- Total for Dept. $10,851.32 - Total for Tran Type $10,851.32 - Abatement count = 1 Total for Company $10,851.32- ' AiL U v - 33 3 g 1�: } COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue Frederick County Board of Supervisors CC: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney DATE: August 29, 2011 RE: Refund — D L Peterson Trust I am in receipt of the Commissioner's request (copy attached) dated August 25, 2011 to authorize the Treasurer to refund D L Peterson Trust the amount of $6,887.84, for the normal proration of leased commercial vehicles for 2011. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1 - 3981(A) of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), I hereby note my consent to the proposed action. Further pursuant to Section 58.1- 3981(A), the Board of Supervisors will need to act on the request as indicated in the Commissioner's memorandum. od ick B. Williams County Attorney Attachment 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick County, Virginia °` "r� Ellen E. Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, VA 22601 f� .IL email: emu rphy�a co.frederick.va.us Telephone (540) 665 -5681 Fax (540) 667 -6487 TO: ROD WILLIAMS, COUNTY ATTORNEY FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: ELLEN MURPHY, COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE c DATE: AUGUST 25, 2011 RE: REFUND TO D L PETERSON TRUST Please authorize the Treasurer to refund $6,887.84 to D L Peterson Trust. This is for the normal proration of leased commercial vehicles for 2011. The Commissioner's staff has verified all data and the necessary information on this refund. Everything appears in order. Substantiating documents are located in the Commissioner's office and contain secure data. Total of refund is $6,887.84. Attachment Date: 8/25/11 Cash Register: COUNTY OF FREDERICK Time: 12:08:58 t Total Transacti Cu Name: D L PETERSON TRUST Customer Transactions: 20 Options: 2=Edit 4=Delete 5=View Dept Trans Ticket No. Tax Amount P=l 13 0012146015-5- Penalty/Int Amount PP2011 14 00121460156 $120.89- $.00 8 g- PP2011 15 00121470023 $362.68- $.00 $362.68- PP2011 16 00121470024 $59.54- $.00 $59.54- PP2011 17 00121470025 $178.60- $.00 $178.60- P $828.23- $.00 $828.23- P2011 18 00121470026 PP2011 19 00121470027 $993.87- $.00 $993.87- P $828.23- $.00 $828.23- P2011 20 00121470028 $993.87- $.00 $993.87 - Multiple Pages Total $6,887.84 F3=Exit F14=Show Map # F15=Show Balance F18=Sort-Entered F21;i �mdLi�ne Date: 8/25/11 Cash Register: COUNTY OF FREDERICK Time: 12:08:58 Total Transactions: 40 Customer Name: D L PETERSON TRUST Customer Transactions: 20 Options: 2=Edit 4=Delete S=View ------------------------------------ Dept Trans Ticket No. Tax Amount Penalty/Int Amount P=1 00121460031 $112.79 $.00 $11T.79- PP2011 2 00121460032 $338.38- $.00 $338.38- PP2011 3 00121460063 $59.23- $.00 $59.23- PP2011 4 00121460064 $355.39- $.00 $355.39 - PP2011 5 00121460065 $40.50- $.00 $40.50- PP2011 6 00121460066 $243.00- $.00 $243.00- PP2011 7 00121460073 $80.29- $.00 $80.29 - PP2011 8 00121460074 $481.15- $.00 $481.75- _ PP2011 9 00121460105 $120.08- $.00 $120.08- - PP2011 10 00121460106 $360.25- $.00 $360.25- - PP2011 11 00121460107 $47.18- $.00 $47.18- _ PP2011 12 00121460108 $283.09- $.00 $283.09 - Multiple Pages Total $6,887.84 F3=Exif F14=Show Map # F15=Show Balance F18=Sort-Entered F21=CmdLine COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 " Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue Frederick County Board of Supervisors CC: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney DATE: August 29, 2011 RE: Refund — Singh Sapandeep I am in receipt of the Commissioner's request (copy attached) dated August 29, 2011 to authorize the Treasurer to refund Singh Sapandeep the amount of $5,940.62, for overpayment on two 7 Eleven stores. These stores are numbered 32356A and 18775A. This is for adjustments to business license filed and paid for 2011. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1- 3981(A) of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), I hereby note my consent to the proposed action. Further pursuant to Section 58.1- 3981(A), the Board of Supervisors will need to act on the request, as indicated in the Commissioner's memorandum. R liams County Attorney Attachment 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick County, Virginia �` G ` "•� Ellen E. Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, VA 22601 c IL email: emu rphyC@-co.frederick.va.us �� Telephone (540) 665 -5681 Fax (540) 667 -6487 TO: ROD WILLIAMS, COUNTY ATTORNEY FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: ELLEN MURPHY, COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENU I, A DATE: AUGUST 29, 2011 RE: REFUND TO 7 ELEVEN STORES Please authorize the Treasurer to refund $5,940.62 to Singh Sapandeep for overpayment on two 7 Eleven Stores. These stores are numbered 32356A, and 18775A. This is for adjustments to business license filed and paid for 2011. The taxpayer paid with the original 2011 filing for the entire year and has now paid under his new corporate name from the effective date of incorporation. This created an overpayment and need for a refund. Adjustment is proration of gross receipts and ultimate tax for period of overpayment. The Commissioner's staff verified all data and have the necessary information on this refund. Everything appears in order. Substantiating documents are located in the Commissioner's office and contain secure data. Total of refund to Mr. Singh is $5,940.62. Attachment 8/25/2011 Abatement Register - UPDATE * *TX306ABP ** Page COUNTY OF FREDERICK FOR DATE - 8125/2011 ACCOUNTING PERIOD - 2011/08 Type Dept Ticket# Date Amt. Charged Customer Tran# - --- - - - -- - it ABA BL2011 00008910001 8/25/2011 $4,755.34- 7 ELEVEN STORE #32356A 17744 C u ABA BL2011 00008920001 8/25/2011 $1,185.28 7 ELEVEN 18775A 17745Sii►�h w rp Total for Dept. Total for Tran Type Abatement count = 3 Total for Company fit) 0 �� ,CK COG a COUNTY of FREDERICK w 9 CD Parks and Recreation Department 540- 665 -5678 1JtR FAX: 540- 665 -9687 www.fcprd.nct MEMORANDUM -mail: fcprd(cc;co.frcderick.va.us TO: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator , FROM: Jason L. Robertson, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept. SUBJECT: Action Taken by Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: August 24, 2011 The Parks and Recreation Commission met on August 23, 2011. Members present were: Charles R. Sandy, Jr., P.W. Hillyard, III, Ronald Madagan, Cheryl Swartz, and Marty Cybulski. Items Requiring Board of Supervisors Action 1. None Submitted for Board Information Only 1. None Standing Committee Reports 1. Finance Committee - The Finance Committee recommended reducing the gym rental rate at the community center gymnasiums by $5.00 per hour and establishing a pool admission rate of $3.00 for all admission categories except for under 3 and the last hour. The Committee also recommended all other department fees and charges remain unchanged, second by Mr. Cybulski, carried unanimously (5 -0). 2. Buildings & Grounds Committee - The Building and Grounds Committee recommended to approve the request by Sherando High School to use Sherando Park Fields #5 and #8 for girls softball games and practices, charge a fee for home games from approximately 5:00 to 6:30 pm, and set up a PA system announcing team lineups and playing the National Anthem, second by Ms. Swartz, carried unanimously (5 -0). Copy: Charles R. Sandy, Jr., Chairman Christopher Collins, Board Liaison 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 7 COUNTY of FREDERICK Finance Department Cheryl B. Shiffler Director 540/665 -5610 Fax: 540/667 -0370 E -mail: cshiffle aco.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Finance Committee DATE: August 17, 2011 SUBJECT: Finance Committee Report and Recommendations The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. Members Gary Lofton, Stephen Swiger and Richie Wilkins were absent. ( ) Items 1, 2 and 4 were approved on consent agenda. 1. (H) The Sheriff requests an FY12 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $1,000. This amount represents two reimbursements from the Army Corp of Engineers. No local funds required. See attached memos, p. 1— 2. 2. ( ) The Sheriff requests an FY12 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $296.65. This amount represents donations to the DARE program. No local funds required. See attached memos, p. 3 — 4. 3. The Public Works Director requests the following FY12 Supplemental Appropriations. These amounts represent carry forwards of unspent FY11 funds for various projects. See attached memos, p. 5 — 9. The committee recommends approval. a. General Fund (10) - $18,000 b. Landfill Fund (12) - $380,000 c. Shawneeland Fund (16) - $150,000 4. ( The Public Safety Communications Director requests an FY12 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $2,000. This amount represents a grant from the Virginia E -911 Wireless Education Program. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 10 —11. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Finance Committee Report and Recommendations August 17, 2011 Page 12 5. The Commonwealth's Attorney requests an FY12 General Fund Budget Transfer from a personnel line item in the amount of $13,000. This amount represents savings from staff turnover and will be used to fund an electronic document imaging system. No local funds required. See attached letter, p. 12 —15. The committee recommends approval. 6. The IT Director requests an FY12 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $23,115. This amount represents a carry forward of unspent FY11 funds to be used for the support of a 50 Mb Internet service. See attached memo, p. 16. The committee recommends approval. 7. The County Administrator requests an FY12 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $10,688 for the purchase of (13) Apple I -Pad 2s to be used by the Board of Supervisors for paperless agendas. Local funds required. See attached memo, p. 17. The committee recommends approval. 8. The Assistant County Administrator requests an FY12 Lake Holiday Sanitary District Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $46,056.63. This amount represents a carry forward of remaining FY11 funds for the construction of a temporary access road. See attached memo, p. 18. The committee recommends approval. 9. The Assistant County Administrator requests an FY12 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $83,000. This amount represents a carry forward of FY11 funds proffered for the Bowman Library for the installation of an overflow parking lot. See attached memo, p. 18. The committee recommends approval. 10. The Assistant County Administrator requests the use of proffer funds and an FY12 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $65,905.03 on behalf of the Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company for upgrades to the fire station. See attached information, p. 19 — 21. The committee recommends approval. Finance Committee Report and Recommendations August 17, 2011 Page 13 11. The Assistant County Administrator requests an FY12 Lake Holiday Sanitary District Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $402,985 for the October 2011 and April 2012 debt service payments. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 22 — 23. The committee recommends approval. 12. The Finance Director presents the June 2011 Quarterly Financial Newsletter and requests discussion. See attached, p. 24 — 34. The committee recommends expanding the distribution. 13. The Zoning Administrator requests an FY12 Fund 27 Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $5,653.45. This amount represents a carry forward of unspent bond funds for Whitacre Farms. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 35. The committee recommends approval. INFORMATION ONLY 1. A letter of appreciation from the Youth Development Center is attached. See attached letter, p. 36. 2. The IT Director provides the July 2011 Information Technology Assessment Report for your review. The report will be a discussion item at the next Finance Committee meeting. See attached report, p. 37 — 68. 3. The Finance Director provides a Fund 10 Transfer report for FY12. See attached, p. 69. 4. The Finance Director provides the FY11 year end Open PO Report. See attached, p. 70 — 73. Finance Committee Report and Recommendations August 17, 2011 Page 14 Respectfully submitted, FINANCE COMMITTEE Bill Ewing Richard Shickle Charles DeHaven Ron Hottle By Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director i e rick County Sher lfp, ce d ROBERT T. WILLIAMSON 3 ` MAJOR R. C. ECKMAN Sheriff � " " Chief Deputy 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662 -6168 Fax(540)504 -6400 TO : Finance Department FROM : Sheriff Robert T. Williamson SUBJECT : Payment — Range Use 10FL DATE : June 13, 2011 3- tO - yu I D - ocf9 Attached please find a check in the amount of $500.00 from US Army Corps of Engineers. This represents the quarterly amount due for use of the firing range. We are requesting this amount be posted to 3 -010- 019110 -0058 and then appropriated into 3102 - 5409 -00. Thank you. C .s� L RTW /asw CC 1 Eck County Sheriff ROBERT T. WILLIAMSON ; MAJOR R. C. ECKMAN Sheriff "' Chief Deputy 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540 )662.6168 Fax(540)504 -6400 TO Finance Department FROM Sheriff R. T. Williamson SUBJECT Reimbursement — Corps Of Engineers DATE August 3, 2011 We are requesting the $500.00 check posted to revenue line: 3 -010 - 019110 -0058 (10FL) — copy of memo attached - for quarterly reimbursement from the Corps Of Engineers for the use of our range be appropriated into our operating budget line of 3102- 5409 -000. Thank you. RTW /asw Frederick County RECEIVED AUG 3 2011 Finance Department 2 Eck county Sherib"s ROBERT T. WILL[AMSON MAJOR R. C. ECKMAN Sheriff ` " " Chief Depury 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662 -6168 Fax(540)504 -6400 TO : Finance Department FROM : Sheriff Robert T. Williamson SUBJECT : Donations - DARE Program J DATE : June 13, 2011 Attached please find checks made payable to the DARE Program totaling $200.00. These checks represent donations to the DARE Program. We are requesting this amount be - posted to 3010 - 018990 -0015 and then appropriated to the DARE operating budget line of 3102 -5413 -001. Thank you. C .5 RTW /asw c. 3 Eck County Shermp ede ���c ROBERT T. WILLIAMSON ; MAJOR R. C. ECKMAN Sheriff �` "' Chief Deputy 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662 -6168 Fax (540) 504 -6400 TO : Finance Department FROM : Sheriff R. T. Williamson SUBJECT : Revenue — DARE Program 'OO DATE : July 13, 2011 Attached please find a copy of a memo sent to Angela Whitacre, Treasurer's Office, in reference to donations received at a DARE fundraiser. We are requesting a supplemental appropriation in the total amount of donations received, - , to our DARE program budget line of 3102- 5413 -001. , We (0 5 Thank you, c. RTW /asw Attachment 89107 W OjI � t7 4 41GY+ COQ COUNTY of FREDERICK ;A Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 17- FAX: 540/678-0682 FR derick County MEMORANDUM L 0 6 2011 Finance Department TO: Cheryl B. Shiffler, Director of Finance FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Workil�t SUBJECT: Carry Forward Requests Fiscal Year Budget 2010/2011 to Fiscal Year Budget 2011/2012 DATE: July 6, 2011 - During a regularly scheduled meeting on June 28, 2011 the public works committee unanimously endorsed the carry forward requests highlighted in the attached memoranda. I ain requesting that these carry forward items be included in the agenda of the next scheduled finance committee meeting. HES /rls Attachments: as stated cc: file T:IRHONI)MBUDGET V10 -1I FINCONICARRYFORWARD.DOCX 107 North Kent Street • Win5ester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERIL _ w Departm6nt of Public Works 540/665-5643 >u FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Joe C. Wilder, Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Carry Forward Request Fiscal Year Budget 2010/2011 to Fiscal Year Budget 2011/2012 DATE: June 15, 2011 During Fiscal Year 2009/2010, we received a grant in the amount of $7,600 from the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund through the State of Virginia. The grant was obtained for the purpose of developing an educational and outreach program associated with the new stormwater regulations and program recently approved by the Commonwealth. The main stipulation for receiving the grant funding was that it be used solely for the purposes listed above; otherwise, the county will be required to return the money. The stormwater law will be approved in October, 2011. It is anticipated that the program will be developed during 2012. Therefore we are requesting that the funds in the amount of $7,600 be carried forward from Fiscal Year 2010/2011 budget line item 10- 4201 - 5412 -00 — Educational Supplies and be placed in the same line item in the Fiscal Year 2011/2012 budget. JCW /rls cc: file T :\RHONDA \BUDGET \ PWCOMGRANTCARRYFORNVARDFYIO- 11.DOCX 6 4�G� coG w COUNTY of-FREDERICK Department of.Public Works 540/665-5643 Ma FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P. Director of Public Works FROM: Gloria M. Puffinburger v Solid Waste Manager / RE: Carryforward Request; FY 10/11 DATE: June 28, 2011 The purpose of this memo is to request that a total of $10,400 be carried forward from the FY 10 /11 Refuse Collection (4203) budget to the upcoming FY 11/12 budget. The breakdown and justifications are as follows: ■ $4,000 from 10- 4203 - 3004 -03 (Repair and Maintenance /Buildings and Grounds) in the FY 10 /11 budget to 10 -4203- 3004 -03 in the FY 11/12 budget in order to complete drainage improvements at the Middletown citizens' convenience site. ■ $2,200 from 10- 4203 - 9001 -00 (Lease /Rental of Equipment) in the FY 10/11 budget to the FY 11/12 budget in order to complete drainage improvements at Middletown. ■ $4,200 from Revenue Line Item 100 G (3- 010 - 024040 -0017) in the FY 10/11 budget to 100 G (3 -010- 024040 -0017) in the FY 11/12 budget in order to fund school assemblies on water quality during the upcoming school year. A transfer request will be made later in order to expend funds. No local funds are required. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at Extension 8219. /gmp cc: file 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601.5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK w Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee Q� FROM: Steve Frye, Landfill Manager J" THROUGH: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Carry Forwards to 2011/2012 DATE: June 16, 2011 We are requesting that the following funds be carried over from the 2010/2011 budget into the new 2011/2012 budget. The total amount of this request is $380,000 and is itemized as follows: • 124204- 3002 -00 Professional Services We are requesting that $300,000 be carried forward and allocated to line item 12- 4204- 3002 -00 for professional services. These funds were allocated for construction management of the landfill gas to energy project, the development of a debris management plan. It will also be used to improve on the Permit 40 storm water infiltration design. These projects are ongoing and will require funding in the 11/12 budget. • 12 -4204- 8006 -00 Construction Equipment We are requesting that $30,000 be carried forward and allocated to line item 12- 4204- 8006 -00 for construction equipment. We are anticipating the purchase of a used sky crane. This equipment will be used for maintenance and cleaning at the gas to energy plant (radiators, filters, etc.), along with roadway clearing. This purchase is being made in lieu of constructing permanent catwalks for access at the gas to energy plant. • 12 -4204- 8900 -00 Improvements Other Than We are requesting that $50,000 be carried forward and allocated to line item 12- 4204- 8900 -00. This funding will be used to minimize storm water infiltration in the old permit 40 landfi 8 COUNTY of FREDERICK Sanitary District of Shawneeland AN Kevin Alderman District Manager Office: 540/877 -1035 Fax: 540/877 -1361 MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey E. Strawsnyder Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works FROM: Kevin C. Alderman, District Manager, Shawneeland Sanitary District SUBJECT: Carry forward of funds FY 2010 -2011 DATE: June 1, 2011 The Shawneeland Sanitary District Advisory Committee has requested that the unused funds from line item 16- 8108- 8800 -00- Buildings in the amount of $150,000.00 be carried over into the FY2011/2012 budget. The carryover will make it possible to replace the existing mail house structure at Rosenberger Lane entrance. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. 107 North Kent Street 50 Tomahawk Trail Winchester, VA 22601 -5000 9 Winchester, VA 22602 -1351 4�G� COGS a� COUNTY of FREDERICK, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS 5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 LeeAnna Pyles Director TO: Finance Committee FROM: LeeAnna Pyles, Director, Public Safety Communications CJ DATE: July 27, 2011 REF: August Committee Agenda I would like be placed on the Finance Committee's August agenda for grant appropriations for the Department of Public Safety Communications. The grant, from the Virginia E -91 1 Wireless Education Program, is in the amount of $2,000 for training and education. There is no match for this grant. If you have any questions please call me at your convenience. o� 103 JbL 2011 r.� DEPT. 10 Sharon Kibler From: Leeanna Pyles Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:47 PM To: Sharon Kibler Subject: RE: FinComm Agenda It was a grant awarded to my department for 911 Public Safety Communications education /training. The grant is for lodging and registration. We would pay the costs for the education /training, submit receipts to the Wireless 911 Services Board and will be reimbursed. There is no match and it is for any type of training or education for communications personnel. Respectfully, LeeAnna Pyles- Director Frederick Co. Public Safety Communications 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester VA 22602 Phone 1 -540- 665 -6356 Fax 1- 540- 723 -8848 email 1pyles(a)co.frederick.va.us "1 tookthe one leas traaefedby arufthat made off tfie difference. " From: Sharon Kibler Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:39 PM To: Leeanna Pyles Subject: FinComm Agenda LeeAnna, I am preparing the August Finance Committee agenda and you have a request regarding a $2K grant. Do you have any additional information that you would like to include? ----------------- - - - - -- Sharon Kibler Assistant Director County of Frederick, VA Finance Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540 -722 -8286 phone 540- 667 -0370 fax skibler *co.frederick.va. us www.co.frederick.va.us/Financelfinance.htm 1 11 m onwealth of Vir �j • C�� nla COUNTY OF FREDERICK GLENN R. WILLIAMSON C. TODD GILBERT _ Commonwealth's Attorney to Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney ' ROSS P. SPICER ERIC W. HEFLIN Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Investigator ANDREW M. ROBBINS ° MELISSA D. RICE Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney . Victim /Witness Director - 665 - 6369 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 107 NORTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540) 665 -6383 FAX (540) 667 -3454 August 4, 2011 1, Mr. John Riley, County Administrator 1 Members of the Finance Committee Frederick County FR deric C�hr 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 G 9 2011 Re: Proposal to Reassign Budgeted Funds Finance Department Dear Mr. Riley and Members of the Finance Committee: With the departure of C. Todd Gilbert from his position as an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney for Frederick County, certain funds allocated in our current budget for the payment of his salary are now available for re- staffing of the position, and potentially to fund other specific needs of this office. As you may be aware, Mrs. Fahnda Hashish has accepted an offer of employment with my office and will assume Mr. Gilbert's duties beginning Monday, August 8, 2011. Under the terms of her employment, a percentage of Mr. Gilbert's budgeted salary will be available for other specific uses. In recent years, the caseload of this office has increased significantly, which has resulted in an exponential growth in the number of "closed" files that must be securely maintained by this office. Our current office space can no longer contain this number of "closed" files. I have attached three photographs to support this contention. It is my desire to establish a digital system for the collection and secure retention of this material. Specifically, I have obtained an estimate from Unity Business Systems for the implementation of their "Laserfiche" document management system. As you may know, many of our Frederick County departments are already using this system, which will greatly reduce the cost of implementing it in our office. The attached estimate will detail the initial set -up costs as well as the annual renewal and 12 maintenance fees associated with the "Laserfiche" system. In addition to the Seven Thousand, Sixty five dollar ($7,065.00) estimate, the acquisition of a high- capacity digital document scanner will also be required. The addition of this hardware will add approximately Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to the set -up cost, bringing the total outlay for this project to just over Twelve Thousand dollars ($12,000.00). As the salary requirements of Mrs. Hashish will not exhaust the funds currently budgeted for her position, I propose that all excess funds in that budget line not earmarked for the payment of her salary be transferred to a budget line that will allow them to be expended on this project. As I indicated, our need to control the "closed" file problem in a time, cost and space efficient manner has become a significant priority for this office. The transfer of the requested funds from the salary line to another appropriate budget line will allow us to implement a long -term solution to this problem. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Sincerely, Glenn R. Williamson, Commonwealth's Attorney 13 imp ``I ril � 11 1° a � 1 � � 1 � � •ti's ,�-- --��., �� -_ w N r SUBS a /Teas M Y Prepared by: Barry Weinstein Account Rep Phone: 240 -405 -9132 374 Wythe Creek Rd, Poquoson, VA 23662, Phone (757) 873 -0233 Fax (757) 873 -0894 Barry.Weinstein @UnitySystems.i3iz Quotation For: Quote Title: Attorney Account Frederick County Virginia Quote M 061411bw Contact Patrick Fly Phone 540 -665 -5614 Date: 6/14/2011 Valid through: 7/14/2011 Email pfly.@co.frederick.va.us Terms: Net 20 Pr+�uct Description Amoun Quan Total SubTotal S are: Laserfiche Additional Repository RME for MS SQL $ 3,000.00 1 $ 3,000.00 Laserficeh Quick Fields $ 595.00 1 $ 595.00 Laserfiche Real Time Look up with Validation Package $ 595.00 1 $ 595.00 Laserfiche Bar Code with Validation Package $ 1,695.00 1 $ 1,695.00 Sub -Total of software $ 5,885.00 Annual Software Maintenance & Support Laserfiche Additional Repository RME for MS SQL $ 600.00 1 $ 600.00 Laserficeh Quick Fields $ 120.00 1 $ 120.00 Laserfiche Real Time Look up with Validation Package $ 120.00 1 $ 120.00 Laserfiche Bar Code with Validation Package $ 1,695.00 1 $ 340.00 Sub -Total of software $ 1,180.00 Sub Total $ 7,065.00 UBS Turn -key Solution Total $ 7.065.00 6/15/2011 1 15 41�� CMG COUNTY OF FREDERICK Information Technologies (540) 665 -5614 MEMORANDUM To: Finance Committee Members From: Walter Banks Subject: Carry forward of FY10 -11 funds Date: July 11, 2011 I am requesting to carry forward funds in the amount of $23,115.00 from the account 04 -010- 012200 -5299- 000 -000 (Internet Access) into the 2011 -2012 Fiscal Year. The funds are needed to support the 50Mb Internet service provided by Comcast Business — Systems. These funds were realized as a result of savings from reducing costs of equipment and project contracts in the 2010 -2011 FY. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me. 540 722 - 8261, wbanks@co.frederick.va.us Respectfully, 7 co to M FRS ��� 2411 p �L C 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5039 ndunleava,co.frederick.va.us or fax 540- 722 -2169 16 4 lGK � Cr COUNTY of FREDERICK w John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665 -5666 MEMORANDUM Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: jriley@co.freder1ck.va.us TO: Finance Committee FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administra SUBJECT: Request for Supplemental Appropriation for I -Pad purchases DATE: August 9, 2011 I am providing the Board of Supervisors, through the Finance Committee, a paperless solution for Board meeting agendas. If the Finance Committee concurs with this solution then I would respectfully request Finance Committee approval for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $10,687.40 for the purchase of thirteen (13) Apple I -Pad 2s with WI -FI and 3G capabilities for use by the Board of Supervisors. The I -Pads will allow the Board agendas to become paperless, which will save an average of $2,400 per year in paper and copying charges. Additional savings will be recognized through a reduction in the amount of staff time needed to assemble and deliver the agendas. The 3G data plans for the I -Pads will be approximately $477 per month. In reviewing various budget line items, staff believes sufficient funds are available in the budget to cover the cost of the monthly data plans. The I.T. Director is inquiring of the service provider to see if, based on the number of users, we would qualify for a group or discounted data plan. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. JR.R/jet 107 North Kent Street - inchester, Virginia 22601 4 COUNTY of FREDERICK W �f Kris C. Tierney "'�*» MEMORANDUM Assistant County Administrator 540/665 -5666 Fax 540/667 -0370 TO: Finance Committee E -mail: ktierney @co.frederick.va.us FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrato �� RE: Carry Forward Request - LHSD Access Road and Bowman Library Overflow Parking DATE: August 8, 2011 Staff is requesting a carry forward in the amount of $46,056.63 in tine item number 29 -1229- 8900 -02 — Improvements Other than Buildings and $83,000 in line item number 4- 010- 073020- 5605- 000 -004 for the Bowman Library. The $46,056.63 is funding for the construction of a temporary road to provide access to residents of the south side of Lake Holiday during the period that the dam spillway is under construction. The access road construction began in late May and is nearing completion with the surface treatment scheduled to take place this week. Final completion should be accomplished prior to the end of August. The $83,000 was funding proffered for the Bowman Library. The funds were recently appropriated to cover the cost of installation of overflow parking at the library. Staff is still finalizing details of the surface parking implementation and hopes to have the project completed this-fall. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. 107 North Kent Street - 18 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick Courtly C RECEIVED 4 JUL 0 6 2011 COUNTY of FREDERICK Finance Department Kris C. Tierney NDUM Assistant County Administrator 540/665 -5666 Fax 540/667 -0370 TO: Finance Committee E -mail: ktierney@co.frederick.va.us FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator_i � RE: Request from Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company DATE: July 6,2011 Attached is a letter from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company requesting to access proffer funds to be utilized for upgrades to the Greenwood Fire Station. Based on the County's adopted proffer policy (copy attached) and the information provided, the project would be considered a capital project (cost in excess of $5,000 and a useful life in excess of five years). The project is also listed in the County's CIP. As of July 1, 2011 the total proffer funds available for Greenwood Fire and Rescue was $65,905.03. In accordance with the policy, the request is being brought to the Finance Committee for a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the appropriateness of the use of the funds for the requested purpose. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. 107 North Kent Street • W� 1 inchester, Virginia 22601 r -� Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Company, Inc. PO BOX 3023 .•" - Winchester, VA 22604 7 3031 -- 1 (540)667 -9417 ry r I t N UD ` o NIP f June 28, 2011 Mr. john Riley Frederick County Administrator 107 N. Kent St. Wmchester, Va. 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: Greenwood Vol. Fire and Rescue is requesting the release of the proffer money to use on our CIP project. This will be partial replacement of apparatus bay floor, construction of a concrete apron, and the installation of storm water drainage system. This project is expected to be $92,321.00 by Pine Knoll Construction. This is number one on our CIP plan projection. S' rely, Daniel Cunningham President William Schuller Sr. Building Chairman 20 Frederick County Cash Proffer Policy As approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 28, 2009. Proffered funds received by Frederick County will be held for the use specified by the proffer language. In the case of funds proffered to offset impacts to fire and rescue services, in the absence of other proffered specifications, the funds will be earmarked for the first due company in the area of the subject rezoning at the time the proffered funds are received All proffered funds will be collected, held, and will accumulate until such time as a capital project funding request is received from a qualifying County department, agency, or volunteer fire and rescue company. Qualifying agency or departmental requests to access proffered funds shall be submitted to the County's Finance Department for processing. In order to qualify as a capital project the following criteria must be met: 1) the item or project must have a minimum value of five thousand dollars ($5, 000), and; 2) the itenvproject must have an anticipated useful life of at least five (5) years. The Finance Department will forward requests to the Finance Committee for a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the appropriateness of the use of proffered funds for the requested - purpose. To assist the Finance Committee and Board in their deliberations requests to utilize proffered funds should include the following: 1) the amount of funds requested, 2) the total project cost, 3)a detailed description of the desired capital project or purchase including a discussion of how recent or anticipated development contributes to the need for the expenditure, and, 4) indicate whether or not the item or project is listed on the County's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). In order to comply with State Code §15.2 -2 -2298 (A) the Planning staff, working in conjunction with the County Attorney, will attempt to insure that cash proffers associated with future rezonings are appropriately addressed through inclusion of relevant capital projects in the County's CIP prior to acceptance of the proffered funds. For the purpose of determining whether a project or item is appropriate for individual listing on the CIP only, a threshold value of $100,000 and useful life of at least five year shall be utilized. (This would not preclude the purchase of capital items valued at less than $100,000 utilizing proffered funds, where other relevant criteria are met and procedures followed.) CAMYFILEM01110THERIADOPTED PROFFER POLICY 1 29 09.DOCX 21 4 C � G 'L w COUNTY of FREDERICK Kris C. Tierney MEMORANDUM Assistant County Administrator 540/665 -5666 Fax 540/667 -0370 TO: Finance Committee E -mail: ktierney@co.frederick.va.us FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administratot�/ RE: Request from Lake Holiday Sanitary District Supplemental Appropriation for Debt Service Payment DATE: August 5, 2011 The first (interest only) debt service payment on the Lake Holiday Sanitary District (LHSD) bond financing for reconstruction of the Lake Holiday dam spillway will be due October 1, 2011. As Committee members will recall, the LHSD was established primarily as a financing mechanism in order to fund the required reconstruction of the spillway at Lake Holiday. The project budget (shown below) will be paid for through a tax on Lake Holiday property owners. The first half of the 2011 LHSD tax billing that took place in June, to date, has yielded $456,867; the second half payment will be due in December. Staff is requesting an appropriation of $402,985.02 in line item number 4- 029 - 091010 -9201 -000- 001 to cover the $182,506.89, October 1, 2011 interest payment and $220,478.13 for the second payment due April 1, 2012. Break Down of LH Spillway Proiect Cost Construction Bid $6,451,710 15% contingency $ 967,756 Debt Service Reserve Fund $ 729,888 Underwriter /insurance /fees $ 200,000 Construction Administration $ 170,000 Inspections /testing $ 100,000 Geo -tech Services $ 300,000 Access road Construction $ 250,000 Financial Advisory Services $ 25,000 Bond Counsel $ 50,000 Total Amount Financed $9,250,000 An amortization table is also attached for your information. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 DEBT SERVICE Virginia Pooled Financing Program Lake Holiday Sanitary District Final Numbers Period Principal Coupon(]) Yield (1) Interest Total Annual Ending Debt Service Debt Service 10/1/2011 182,506.89 182,506.89 4/1/2012 220,478.13 220,478.13 402,985.02 10/1/2012 295,000.00 3.971% 3.971% 220,478.13 515,478.13 4/1/2013 214,621.25 214,621.25 730,099.38 10/1/2013 310,000.00 3.969% 3.969% 214,621.25 524,621.25 4/1/2014 208,470.00 208,470.00 733,091.25 10/1/2014 320,000.00 3.972% 3.972% 208,470.00 528,470.00 4/1/2015 202,115.00 202,115.00 730,585.00 10/1/2015 335,000.00 3.970% 3.970% 202,115.00 537,115.00 4/1/2016 195,465.63 195,465.63 732,580.63 10/1/2016 345,000.00 3.971% 3.971% 195,465.63 540,465.63 4/1/2017 188,616.25 188,616.25 729,081.88 10/1/2017 360,000.00 3.971% 3.971% 188,616.25 548,616.25 4/1/2018 181,468.75 181,468.75 730,085.00 10/1/2018 375,000.00 3.971% 3.971% 181,468.75 556,468.75 4/1/2019 174,023.13 174,023.13 730,491.88 10/1/2019 390,000.00 3.971% 3.971% 174,023.13 564,023.13 4/1/2020 166,279.38 166,279.38 730,302.51 10/1/2020 405,000.00 3.971% 3,971% 166,279.38 571,279.38 4/1/2021 158,237.50 158,237.50 729,516.88 10/1/2021 425,000.00 3.969% 3.969a/a 158,237.50 583,237.50 4/1/2022 149,803.13 149,803.13 733,040.63 10/1/2022 445,000.00 5.269% 5.275% 149,803.13 594,803.13 4/1/2023 138,080.00 138,080.00' 732,883.13 10/1/2023 465,000.00 5,270% 5.276% 138,080.00 603,080.00 4/l/2024 125,826.88 125,826.88 728,906.88 10/1/2024 495,000.00 5.270% 5.277% 125,826.88 620,826.88 4/1/2025 112,782.50 112,782.50 733,609.38 10/1/2025 520,000.00 5.270% 5.276% 112,782.50 632,782.50 4/1/2026 99,081.25 99,081.25 731,863.75 10/1/2026 550,000.00 5.270% 5.276% 99,081.25 649,081.25 4/l/2027 84,588.75 84,588.75 733,670.00 10/1/2027 575,000.00 5.271% 5.277% 84,588.75 659,588.75 4/1/2028 69,435.63 69,435.63 729,024.38 10/1/2028 610,000.00 5.269% 5.275% 69,435.63 679,435.63 4/1/2029 53,364.38 53,364.38 732,800.01 10/1/2029 640,000.00 5.271% 5.225% 53,364.38 693,364.38 4/1/2030 36,498.13 36,498.13 729,862.51 10/1/2030 675,000.00 5.271% 5.225% 36,498.13 711,498.13 4/1/2031 18,710.00 18,710.00 730,208.13 10/1/2031 710,000.00 5.270% 5.225% 18,710.00 728,710.00 4/1/2032 - 728,710.00 9,245 S 778 398.23 15,023 398.23 15,023 398.23 (1) Includes Annual Administrative Charge. Davenport & Companry LLC May 18, 20023 FINAL NUMBERS County of Frederick Financial Newsletter June 30, 2011 J FY 1 1 revenue and c xpendIIures have not been finalized at this time. Final year end information will be provided at a later date. Performance At A Glance Special points of interest: • Gas to Energy Project Update Year t0 Page • Regional Electronics Recycling Date Reference • Treasurer's Office Gas to Energy Project �Po�f�ve 2 • NW WORKS • Commissioner's Office — Regional Electronics Recycling Program 3 Staffing level Neutral 4 Inside this issue: Gas to Energy Project Update 2 Unemployment Data 5 Regional Electronics Recycling 8 HR Employment Activity 4 Proffer Collections Neutral 6 Unemployment Data 5 Proffer Collections 6 Treasurer Positive: 7 Treasurer 7 Parks and Recreation Positive 8 Parks & Rec Usage 8 NW Works 9}} Commissioner of the Revenue 10 NW Works P ©sCl��e: 9 Vision & Headlines 11 Commissioner of the Revenuer a 10 24 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Page 2 FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER Gas to Energy Project Update The second quarter of order in the amount of 2011. These credits could 2011 has proven to be a $300,000 to the original add an additional $1.50 time of learning for landfill contractor to install a per megawatt hour of staff operating the gas to treatment process in front power produced. In addi- energy plant. During this of the engines that will tion, we have started the time period, we have ex- help remove the siloxanes process to become members " perienced several periods and allow for a more rou- of PJM (the regional trans - of down time for the gen- tine maintenance schedule. mission authority) in order to erators. These down times The additional infrastruc- represent ourselves in the Power Plant were caused by several ture for this process is market. This will allow us to factors including interfer- scheduled to be completed realize a $7,500.00 ences due to construction of by the end of September monthly increase in revenue. new gas piping associated 2011. Removal efficien- with the cap installation of cies will be closely moni- Overall, the project contin- Phase 1 cells B and C. tored and updates will be ues to be successful. The Another issue discovered provided in future newslet- issues that we have faced during this time period was ters. during this past quarter will the affect that siloxanes help us to better under - have on the engines. Silox- Financially, the power stand, prepare and operate anes are organic based plant is averaging $47.39 the plant in the future. We silica compounds that are per megawatt hour of have an excellent operator found in landfill gas which brown power since start who is learning quickly and Month re venue is impacted by can have a detrimental up. This is higher than the continues to monitor the en- seasonalf/uctuation along with effect on internal combus- original estimates of gines for potential issues. tion engines. They con- $42.50 per megawatt This position has proven to plant output. Historically, July taminate the engine oil and hour. Staff continue to be critical to our success. and,4ugustprovide the highest cause a build up on pistons work on generating renew- Knowledge that he is gain- price per megawallhour. The and cylinder walls increas- able energy credits and ing will surely benefit the ing maintenance schedules. anticipate being accepted County as we continue for- operating expenses for the into several programs by ward in this endeavor. project at 6130111 are $170,115 We have issued a change the fourth quarter of compared to 5395,441 in gross re venue. Gas to Energy Revenue and Expenses FY2011 90000 - - - 80000 70000 1 60000 50000 40000 _ __" FY2011 Expenditures 30000 _ _ - FY2011 Revenue 20000 Facility Overview 10000 0 l _..._,_ ----- __ .._. to 4' 4' > V C i L ? C Q to O Z Q � LL 2 Q 2 —' 25 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Page 3 FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER Regional Electronics Recycling Program Frederick County's Regional Works Committee, Landfill Outside of logistical sup - Electronics Recycling Pro- Oversight Committee and port from the landfill, gram, initiated in 2001, is the Board of Supervisors, eCycle operates as a fee. _ one of the state's oldest per- a well- received pilot was - sustaining program, col - manent electronics diversion conducted in September lecting end user fees for efforts. Serving as a model of 2001. Building on this televisions, computer for numerous programs success, an on -going col- screens and battery back - across Virginia, it remains lection program was es- ups. All other items are Jason Breen of the one of the most successful. tablished and a ban pro- accepted free of charge. landfill loads Each month, eCycle sends hibiting the landfilling of electronics for shipment approximately 18 tons of these items was instituted. Once transported by the p broken and obsolete televi- county's vendor, informa- sions, computers, printers, Although subsequent legis- tion is wiped from hard copiers, cell phones, stereos lation has forced manu- drives, and some items and the like off for recy- facturers to institute take- are packaged for refur- cling, diverting this material back programs generally bishment. Most, however, from the local landfill. operated through retail- are dismantled into their ers, eCycle's twice- various components - Discarded electronics are the monthly collection events metals, glass, plastic— and fastest growing portion of at the landfill's citizens' remanufactured. Com- the U.S. waste stream. Based center are frequented by puters are about 95% on this fact, and the pres- about 150 participants recyclable and the f -Cycle operatesasafee- ence of potentially harmful eager to recycle "nearly county's vendor either substances such as lead, anything with a cord ". reuses or recycles 100% sustoiningprogram, Mll cling mercury, cadmium, chromium During FY 10, 218 tons of of the a - waste it re - end user fees for tele visions, and barium, the U.S. Environ- a -waste was collected. ceives. Plastics and metals computerstreens and hattery - mental Protection Agency are sold as scrap and and Virginia Department of Events are manned by a used in the manufacture backups. All other items are Environmental Quality rec- combination of landfill of new products. Glass is acreptedfree of charge. ommended that television staff and members of the marketed and used to and computer screens be Community Inmate Work- make new television and diverted from landfills. With force. Events are open to computer screens. the support of the Public residents and businesses in the landfill service area. Regional Electronics .�r Recycling Program Revenue Y f $44,572 i r $14,313 e FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 i __.__._.._..-- .--- - _ - - 26 Page 4 COUNTY OF FREDERICK FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER Department of Human Resources The main focus of the Hu- utes to the success of the We recognize the impor- man Resources Department County government. Thus, tance of a quality work life ( "HR ") is people. The HR works diligently to by offering excellent County government sur- create an atmosphere benefits, health insurance, f -- vives and thrives because where people are given flexible spending accounts, of the capabilities and the resources to perform an Employee Assistance performance of its people. meaningful work to the Program, ample paid HR uses the very best prac- best of their ability in or- leave time, many holidays, tices to effectively recruit, der to achieve career and other programs that develop, and retain the goals. enhance employee well outstanding people who being as well as maximize ' serve Frederick County's HR develops and imple- employee motivation, com- Raymond Clarke citizens. ments policies, standards, mitment, and productivity. systems, and processes sorts and bags used HR is responsible for that carry out the strate- HR is committed to ensure shoes collected matching skilled, qualified gies set by the County. the continued improvement through the County individuals and the capa- We are tasked with en- and growth of both the Save -a -Sole program, bilities of the current work- suring that personnel and individual employees and force with the County's on- management practices the County, thus securing its going and future business confirm to federal, state future success. plans and requirements. and local labor laws and Bringing out the best in its regulations as well as employees vastly contrib- ethical business practices. Employment Activity 2010 -2011 15 "w 13 Go online for the Hu to ,0 man - ° 2 2 0 oN.- Resources ces website for = 9 '� "' n 0 7 7 [ 7 E 66 6 6 6 6 6 3 I } employment 5 3 5 q 3 , 3 3 opportunities' 2 {/ M..ec.unc 625 626 630 631 632 6 625 6 626 6 /www. (o. frederick. viz us, July A, Seel od Nov Dac J F.6 Ma Mey J ' human resources, .5 2 vacandes.aspx 6 -10 Essential Positions Filled 2010 -2011 25 23 20 15 d 12 r 0 M E 10 w d Z 5 5 5 5 Tom Cooper mulches 2 , cut trees during the 0 s County's annual Tree � ��, �`9 Cycle program. C% 27 Page 5 COUNTY OF FREDERICK FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER Frederick County's Reduced Workforce For the past two years, all number, sixty -three posi- Not all positions that were county positions that be- tions have been elimi- eliminated were vacant. came vacant were consid- nated from the budget. When the county reduced ered frozen. Only posi- This equates to a 9 per- its workforce through lay - tions that were emer- cent workforce reduction. offs, those employees gency service critical, or were eligible for unem- were in a department Savings related to elimi- ployment benefits that Bowman library that had already been nated positions have re- are directly reimbursed reduced in size were sulted in gross savings of by the County to the Vir- given consideration by $3.2 million. This amount ginia Employment Com- the County Administrator. includes the fringe benefit mission. Seventy -eight positions costs associated with have been frozen. Of that those positions. Unemployment Rate - Frederick County, VA k 10.0% r 9.0% ; 8.0% L e_ �_ a 6.0% - x. FY2009 5.0% Winchester Regional 4.0% - - - - fFY2010 Airport 3.0% _. - _ FY2011 1.0% 0.0% Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun I� Unemployment Claims (reported quarterly) Frederick County $25,000 - - Unempioyment Ckhnl- $20,000 $15,000 - June 2009 $8,827 June 2010 ,519,000 $10,000 June 2011$2,249 $5,000 _ $ Sept Qtr Dec Qtr Mar Qtr June Qtr frederief teuoty is hi /led by the YKfor oduo/ claims poid " " '"�°FY2011 28 Page 6 COUNTY OF FREDERICK FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER PROFFER COLLECTIONS FIVE YEAR COMPARISON Other Designated Schools Parks Fire & Rescue Projects Total FY2007 521,472 88,241 68,499 56,496 734,708 ,309 77,281 79,210 217,163 824,963 FY2008 451 FY2009 469,160 81,673 50,426 281,663 882,922 FY2010 210,378 40,161 133,566 89,585 473,690 SHERANDO PARK FY2011 90,876 21,033 76,086 43,638 231,633 Bike /Pedestrian Trail Total 1,743,195 308,389 407,787 688,545 3,147,916 Proffer Project 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 CIE 400,000 300,000 A proffer is an offer of 200,000 cash or property. This 100,000 Y prop- ��a ; ���� --- usual) refers to ro �i erty, cash or structural improvements offered b Schools Parks Fire & Other Total p y Rescue Designated developers Projects in land development projects W FY2007 ! FY2008 - FY2009 W FY2010 . FY2011 PROFFER BALANCE AT June 30, 2011 3,000,000 6/30/11 Balance Schools $1,067,746 2,500,000 Parks $284,661 2,000,000 Fire &Rescue $394,824 1,500,000 Other Projects $767,572 Total $2,514,803 1,000,000 500,000 Schools Parks Fire & Rcsi:ue Olhcr ToLdl Dc'si�;nalc'd Pr>iCil; 29 Page 7 COUNTY OF FREDERICK FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER FREDERICK COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE One of the duties of this used by the Virginia 2008, the office has is- office is tax collection. Compensation Board, sued 17,322 DMV regis- 4 ; The two primary taxes which oversees the work- tration stops. We do en- collected are real estate load studies of all consti- courage payment plans and personal property. tutional offices. As noted, for those that have pay These are billed semi- the current delinquent ment difficulties. Please annually and due in June balances in comparison to do not hesitate to contact County and December. The the charges billed over a the Treasurer's office for Administration amount of each of these five year period show a payment plan informa- Complex taxes has steadily in- collection rate of over tion. creased over the past ninety -nine percent for The Frederick Count three years (see chart both taxes. below). Treasurer's Office works Methods used to collect diligently to ensure that One of the performance delinquent taxes include everyone pays their por- measures of the Treas- bank liens, employer tion, so that uncollectible urer's Office is its collec- liens, distress warrants, balances are not an issue tion rate. This calculation DMV registration stops, that causes everyone's is based on the standard and tax sales. Since taxes to increase. FIVE YEAR COMPARISON OF REAL ESTATE AND Collection Rate at 6130111: PERSONAL PROPERTY CHARGES AND DELINQUENCY REAL ESTATE 99. ?% CALENDAR REAL ESTATE PERSONAL PROPERTY Real EstateSYear Personal Property YEAR CHARGES CHARGES Delinquency 5YearDelinquency 99.1 PE/PSONAL PIPOPP.1% 2006 $ 36,511,311.21 $ 39,016,955.46 $ 56,168.55 $ 112,583.42 2007 $ 38, 469, 683.55 $ 39, 981, 387.66 $ 76, 202.55 $ 173, 884.65 2008 $ 40,073,054.27 $ 40,769,730.18 $ 129,247.64 $ 259,273.68 2009 $ 40,493,111.37 $ 40,889,623.70 $ 267,648.38 $ 392,985.13 2010 $ 40,995,446.34 $ 42,206,912.05 $ 566,499.74 $ 799,295.68 TOTAL* $196,542,606.74 $ 202,864,609.05 $ 1,095,766.86 $ 1,738,022.56 gat 6/30/11 Visit the Treasurer's website for personal property and real estate tax information and payment. www.fredtax.com 30 Page 8 COUNTY OF FREDERICK FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER Frederick County Parks and Recreation The Frederick County Parks ters, pools and paddle- boat usage. Weather plays and Recreation Department boats. Community Center a vital role in pool admis t -� -- (FCPRD) continues its effort attendance includes the sions, as seen by incredible to maintain the highest stan- fitness rooms, racquet- June numbers from 2010. dard in the provision of af- ball /wallyball courts, and Weather will sometimes have fordable parks and recrea- gymnasium and meeting an effect on aquatic pro - tion services for Frederick room use by FCPRD and gromming, but it is not as County residents. FCPRD all other users. As ex- large a factor as it is in gen- maintains two district parks, pected, Community Center eral pool admissions. Last Fitness Room at three neighborhood parks, attendance peaks in the summer, 1,456 participants Greenwood Mill and five community centers. winter. We are seeing, enrolled in group swim les- The community centers are however, steady summer sons with FCPRD. As of June located at four Frederick usage in fiscal 2011 with 30, 2011, there is a slight County Public School ele- new programming initia- increase over last year. mentary schools and Sher- tives such as a new youth There has been a surge in ando High School. These summer basketball league swim team enrollment for the centers are part of the Co- and the increase in the departments' two teams with operative Use Agreement number of fitness enthusi- 239 participants, an all time with Frederick County Public asts art Greenwood Mill high! Some of this is attribut- Schools. continues to climb. able to the Youth Develop- ment Swim Team which pre- You will find below two Pool attendance, aquatic pares swimmers for competi- charts outlining attendance program enrollment, and tive swimming. from the last three fiscal paddleboats make up the Sherando Park years at the community cen- swimming and paddle - COMMUNITY CENTERS USAGE FY11 3,500 Community Center 3,000 attendance peaks in the 2,500 winter; however, we are 2,000 seeing steuoy sumIner 1,500 usage in fisca 11011 with 1,000 - -- - - - ne w programming 500 initiatives. JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FY2009 - - FY2010 FY2011 Last summer, 1, 456 SWIMMING POOL AND PADDLEBOAT USAGE participants enrolled in - 20,000 group swim lessons with 15,000 - -- - KPRO. As of June 30,1011, 10,000 - -- - - there is a slight increase 5,000 over last year P Q �e O �w 5 e V FY2009 N FY2010 FY2011 31 Page 9 COUNTY OF FREDERICK FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER N W Works Relocation ,. Frederick County is proud on Shawnee Drive. NW to be a partner in the Works received a completion and celebra- $1,000,000 Community tion of the new NW Development Block Grant Works building. The non- in 2009. These funds z profit, which gives people were funded through with disabilities a chance federal stimulus dollars to work again, moved into and attached to the Fre- r the 58,660 square foot derick County site on building on January 3, Shady Elm Road. With 2011. the help of former Gov- ernor Timothy Koine and While NW Works can be former state Senator Rus- commended for its 40 sell Potts, the funds were years of longevity, the transferred. In a part - most recent relocation hit nership, Frederick County a snag when the agency officially oversaw a pro - changed gears from new ject that was located in construction along Shady NW Works, Inc. the City of Winchester. Elm Road to a renovated, Open House April 11,2011 former Melnor building, ._ Photos by IDS, LLS �t x M v f� J 32 Paqe 10 COUNTY OF FREDERICK FINANCIAL NEWSLETTER Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue's Office Business Division Businesses are required to several years, the soft- staff, that number more than obtain a business license ware system for online doubled with 2,524 online �► within 30 days of opening business license applica- renewals in 2011. and to renew it annually tion and renewals as it Businesses are also required thereafter. The Business was being developed to annually file returns for Division assesses or adjusts and refined by Bright & their tangible personal COR promotes "Going approximately 7,000 busi- Associates Inc. This sys- property business equip - nesses in Frederick County tem is now used by multi- ment machinery tools Green! Use online yearly. COR (Commissioner ple jurisdictions in Vir y It's and processing equipment. forms & p rog rams. of the Revenue) staff ginia. Thus far in 2011, COR staff simple and quick as a guides licensees through The Business Division has has processed approxi- click! the multi -step application been at the forefront of mately 5,292 business process and then issues promoting "going green" equipment returns, 160 ma- business licenses after re- by using online forms chinery and tools returns, ceipt of all applicable and programs. Every and 5 processor returns. documentation payment of Business Division form is This includes approximately the business license tax. available on our website 1200 online filings made by Business licenses must be at licensees and 405 filings renewed by March 1 and WWW frederickcountyva.g entered by COR staff to paid for by April 1 each ov biztax. Also pro- encourage use of our online year. Businesses can range vides easy, step -by -step program. from food service, contrac- instructions. In 2010, we tors, merchants and retail- COR staff also handles an offered the availability of 227 month) ers to those providing fi- of online business license average y nancial, real estate, repair renewal and received filings of meals and lodging County Administration and professional services. taxes (almost half of which Complex approximately 1,000 e filed online), 18 quar- Frederick County was the online filings. As a result are are filings a short -term only locality in the Com- of the encouragement rental property tax (all of monwealth to test, over and assistance of COR which are filed online), and 3 semi - monthly filings of BUSINESS DIVISION public utility tax. Average Nu mber of Items Processed or Adjusted Annually The Virginia Department of Business Assistance has launched and maintains the Virginia Business One -Stop Licensin €, website that was created to be a quick one -stop source for information related to business in Virginia. Freder- Excise Taxes ick County has been asked to participate in a pilot pro- gram when Virginia Business One -Stop is enhanced with direct links to localities. Apportionment 0 1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 33 Frederick County's Vision Statement and Core Values were adopted on December 9, 2009. It states: Insuring the quality of life of all Frederick County citizens by preserving the past and planning for the County of Frederick future through sound fiscal management. • A government that is accountable and dedicated to pro- Department of Finance viding responsible stewardship for county funds and to 107 North Kent Street insure the citizens receive the best services possible Winchester, Virginia 22601 for the funds expended. Phone: 540-665-5610 • A government concerned with long range planning that Fax: 540-667-0370 protects our rural heritage and directs its future E -mail: bwaybrig @co.frederick.va.us growth through .planned infrastructure. • A government concerned with expanding commercial and industrial tax base in order to insure a viable and thriving economy. • A government that looks to the future and implements plans to insure that the quality of life for future generations is preserved. • A government that emphasizes a quality education WE' RE ON THE WEB! through a cooperative effort with the school board. • A government that recognizes the importance of main- FREDERICI(COUNTYVA.GOV taining a highly trained public safety program to pro- vide efficient services and protections to county citi- zens. • A government that promotes the spirit of cooperation with its regional local government partners. • A government unit based on honesty, trust, integrity, and respect that understands the importance of clear communication and a willingness to listen. News Headlines • Italian automaker Fiat • Amazon.com reached a up from $55.12 billion purchased the U.S. gov- licensing deal with CBS last year. ernment's remaining that will allow Amazon stake in Chrysler for Prime customers access • UPS reported quarterly $560 million. to the network's TV li- profit jumped 26% to brary at no additional $1.06 billion. • Wells Fargo's 2nd quar- cost. ter profit rose 29% to • Unemployment rates $3.9 billion from a year • U.S. home prices rose rose in more than 90% 6ii earlier. 0.7% in June, the third of U.S. cities in June, Millwood Station consecutive monthly in- mirroring a national pn Fire Com • Harley - Davidson's 2nd crease, according to slowdown in hiring. Company quarter earnings more CoreLogic. than doubled to $190 million. • GM's U.S. vehicle sales rose 7.6 %, Ford 's in- • General Electric's 2nd creased 9% and Chrys- quarter profit increased ler's surged 20% in 21.6% to $3.69 billion. July. • McDonald's 2nd quarter . Back to school spending earnings rose 15% to is expected to reach $1.41 billion. $68.8 billion this year, 34 c0 �'Y q COUNTY of FREDERICK w Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 MEMORA J TO: Finance Department FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator /7i &c RE: Request to Carry Forward Funds from Fiscal Year Budget 2010/2011 to Fiscal year Budget 2012/2013 DATE: August 11, 2011 �ptl o� 0(a I am requesting that the following 2010/2011 Budget line item be carried forward into the4ft 13'tsudget. This request is in the amount of $5,653.45 and is itemized below. Whitacre Farms - 4027 - 12270 -5413- 000 -005 The request is for the for the amount of $5,653.45 to be carried forward and allocated to line item 4027- 12270- 5413 -000 -005 for professional services. These services were allocated to complete the Whitacre Farms subdivision. This is an ongoing project and will require funding in Fiscal Year- 3912;26i"udget. �_ aal� ja�1a MRC /dlw cc: James M. Stewart, Erosion and Sediment Control Program Administrator, Dept. of Public Works Fmdeatck County RECEIVED AUG 112011 Fmenw Departrtrent 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 r Vinchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Y-be information Technology Assessment Report 2011 Information technology is a critical component of providing modern government IT services. This is reflected in the growing investment and proposed investments by Frederick County into its acquisition of information technology assets, including personnel, systems and bandwidth to support operational IT services. Frederick County provides many Information Technology (IT) support services to its internal departments and the community we serve. These services include informational services, billing, payment collection, data collection /warehousing and reporting which are critical to the day to day operation of the county. As the request for IT services and information access has grown, the County has acknowledged the need for an ongoing comprehensive Information Technology Strategic Plan. This IT Strategic Plan should continue to provide guidance for all future IT acquisitions, deliver the best services at the lowest possible cost and allow us to explore opportunities to advance "our better to our best" for supporting our community. ?Managing your problems can only make you good, whereas building your opportunities is the only way to become great.'- Jim Collins 38 Documentation Order I. Current Mission and vision statements It. Staff Assessments III. Equipment Assessments IV. Applications and Services V. SWOT VI. Appendixes 39 I. Mission, Vision and Core values (from the current IT plan set to expire 2012) MISSION STATEMENT "The mission of Information Technologies (IT) is to lead in the development and management of an Enterprise technology system - central to all Frederick County departments; ensuring that information and geographic data can be shared across all functional levels and management hierarchies; and eliminating information fragmentation, caused by networking multiple information systems, through creating a centralized data warehouse and a standardized software/ hardware infrastructure, while protecting assets through intensified network security." VISION STATEMENT "The Vision of Frederick County, Virginia, information Technologies is to provide a secure and fully operational county -wide electronic information system that - supports every county employee or citizen that needs and uses county digital data; improves organization operations and efficiency; that exceeds the high accuracy and standards required by today's State and Federal guidelines; stays current with state and national trends in electronic technology and data management; encourages participating users to excel in seeking out new standardized technologies; and build expertise and teamwork to improve data storage and distribution required in decision making within the County of Frederick." CORE VALUES The IT Director, in coordination with IT staff, will strive to ensure that all employees of the department recognize and adhere to Frederick County's Core Values: 1. To understand the importance of clear communication and the willingness to listen through respect, honesty, trust, and integrity. 2. To respect the County's cultural diversity and provide effective and efficient service with dependability, a willingness to accept change and dedication to cost effectiveness. 3. To formulate and apply regulations, policies and procedures that are fair, consistent, and flexible. 4. To provide a safe and secure working environment for our professional employees. 40 S. To work diligently to provide county citizens with an accurate and efficient structure numbering system that will ensure timely response during emergencies and times of need. 6. To be accountable and dedicated in responsibly conducting county business and properly managing funds appropriated for the IT budget. 7. To work diligently to provide options and future planning for IT advancement. 8. To provide an IT support system that promotes equality, freedom, and genuine concern for all of Frederick County's employees and citizens. 41 11. Staff Assessment Previous to May 2011 the IT department essentially consisted of two components; they were Management Information Systems (MIS -AS400 operations) and Information Technology ( "IT- technical PC windows environment "). These two areas functioned as two separate entities which at times were in direct conflict with one another. The plan to merge the two divisions into a single operational department brought about my arrival in late May, of this year. Over the last 6 weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with department administrators, IT staff and some end -users in an effort to get a feel for both the technology and service environments. I was impressed with the perception of service and encouraged by the building administrators at Kent, Public Safety (PSB) and NRADC in my quest to learn about the IT infrastructure, capabilities and culture. The technical staff that provides the day -to- day support is as follows (appendix B- IT Organizational Chart): County -wide resources: 1- IT Director 1 - Network Analyst 1- GIS Manager 1- Web Manager 1- MIS Director 1- GIS Technician 1 - Assistant MIS Director 1- Network Technician 1 - GIS Analyst 3 -PC Technician 1- Secretary 3- Technicians 1— AS400 /dotNet Programmer provided by buildings GIS assigned staff 1— Planning 1— Revenue Non- Technical Staff 1— PC /Network Tech 1— PC/ Network Tech 42 1— PC Tech Total 22 - Supporting 519 + workstations in three main locations (not including all of our remote locations which we provide various levels of support. (See appendix -A) Staff report and recommendations - Over all, the IT department seems to have a great service philosophy and reputation. I am very impressed with the condition of the service environment, particularly at the network level, GIS and data delivery divisions (MIS). The remote sites, NRADC and PSB (Including Fire and Rescue), maintain a technical staff. This staff has had no formal training in the area of deploying computers within a network environment but has done a good job managing local IT resources. Experience aside, ALL staff remains motivated and excited about formal and informal training opportunities. It was communicated to me that there have been very few opportunities to receive training. 1. Recommendation: Develop a strong training plan/ standards and encourage offsite visits to seminars and other county agencies to engage the IT staff members. Cost - $10 -15K Responsible —IT Director 2. Recommendation: Develop strong internal relationships that allow the county -wide resources to assist the remote sites in acquisition, support and implementation of critical systems. Back- up and redundancy should never be an afterthought when developing key IT systems. This is an area we can improve easily and at no additional cost. — Cost $0 Responsible — IT department staff 3. Recommendation: Establish service level needs and agreements, both internally and externally, to ensure systems remain operational and expectations are met. — Cost TBD Responsible — IT department staff Desktop acquisitioning has been consistently researched and recommend through a county purchasing policy for IT (appendix —B). However, the procurement of servers, switching and routing equipment has demonstrated a gap in equitable technologies. Examples of identified opportunities are the capacity for "Gigabit (GB) to the desktop" and a low capacity for wireless networking. 4. Recommendation: Look to centralize the purchase of necessary enterprise licensing and equipment (Microsoft, anti - virus, Laser fiche... etc.) —Cost TBD Responsible —IT Director, IT Steering committee and IT Managers 43 5. Recommendations: Continue to support centralizing all purchases (whenever possible) to create an environment that can result in standard for technology at the county level. Cost $0 — Process commitment. Responsible —IT Director and internal managers 6. Recommendation: Publicize all IT goals that will directly impact end- users. Responsible —IT Director and internal managers 44 Ill. Equipment Assessment: Inventory — Kent - 214 computers Inventory- PSB — 280 computers Inventory -NRADC -105 computers Quick facts- ➢ Desktops and Servers standardized (Dell some "white - boxes ") ➢ Windows platform MS Office Suite -word processing ➢ TrendMicro virus protection (transitioning to AVG anti -virus —due to cost and level of coverage) 9 Outlook and Outlook web access for email ➢ AS400 — data warehouse structure Document imaging — Laserfiche in most areas 9 Nortel PBX phone systems 9 Various backup systems in place b The majority of the workstations are on an informal refreshment plan —very successful. The server environment at all three locations is stable however there are some immediate needs in the areas data recovery and disaster recovery (referencing COOP). I have had the opportunity to meet with key administrators about the present server environment. During these meetings we discussed the potential of minimizing recovery risks by developing strategies which addressed the AS400 (which serve as the foundation for most of our key functionality) and the standard Microsoft server environment (application services, email... etc.). At this time, we have multiple points of failure in regards to servers nearing end -of -life and critical equipment that cannot be easily repaired /replaced in the event of an outage. In short, we have "data recovery" and very limited capacity for disaster recovery. 7. Recommendation: To develop an entry plan into virtual technologies which allows the county to meet COOP guidelines and be less dependent on physical hardware. This technology would also allow the county to have development areas for testing in GIS and patch requirements for critical systems. This would potentially be phased -in over three years - Year 1- initial virtual environment at Kent location Year 2- Establish mirror at second location -using existing 1GB link Year 3 —10GB link between two locations 45 "Reasons for Moving to Virtualization" • It saves money: Virtualization reduces the number of servers you have to run, which means savings on hardware costs and also on the total amount of energy needed to run hardware and provide cooling. • It's good for the environment: Virtualization is a green technology through and through. Energy savings brought on by widespread adoption of virtualization technologies would negate the need to build so many power plants and would thus conserve our earth's energy resources. • it reduces system administration work: With virtualization in place, system administrators would not have to support so many machines and could then move from firefighting to more strategic administration tasks. • It gets better use from hardware: Virtualization enables higher utilization rates of hardware because each server supports enough virtual machines to increase its utilization from the typical 15%' to as much as 80 %. • It makes software installation easier. With software vendors tending more and more towards delivering their products preinstalled in virtual machines (also known as virtual appliances), much of the traditional installation and configuration work associated with software will disappear. Referenced from: http:llwww. dummies. com /how- to /content/virtualization- for - dummies cheat- sheet.html #ixzz1T$KFQfmf Resources video - http:l1youtu.belp1I1JOnALS4 Responsible —IT Director, internal managers, iT steering Committee S. Recommendation: To seek a feasible warm /hot site to allow for office space and technical equipment for our AS400 6 series capability- site duplication (business continuity). Cost TBD Responsible —IT Director, internal managers, IT steering Committee .46 Current Network infrastructure and capacity (appendix -C WAN diagram) - KENT - 1000Mb / 1GB to desktop Some wireless capacity Connected via fiber 1000Mb PSB. — 10 /100Mb Limited wireless capacity Connected via fiber 1000Mb PSB — 10/100Mb Connected via fiber 1000Mb Phone System- currently (Kent location) we have digital PBX based system which controls the telephony access between the three locations. The base system is a Nortel (BCM400) call manager and is capable of 4 digit routing. The concerns with the current system surround the calling features and the 4 "tree" limit for automated call -in menus. Based on several requests, I have had the service provider research the system and prepare options for possibly upgrading or replacing the system. Based on the cost associated with either option we may need to wait until sufficient funds are available before committing to this initiative. 9. Recommendation: Investigate possible upgrade or replacement of current system. Cost TBD Responsible: IT Director and IT steering committee Server base — AS400 The AS400 hardware is stable at this time and the core departments (Treasury, Revenue and Finance) are satisfied with its performance. The county's investment in both financial and human resources to this point have resulted in great achievements in data usage and access capability (online data access, payment information, financial data, GIS ... etc.). There has been an identified need to provide other departments with alternative systems to allow them to access and manage operational data through more "user- friendly " systems /interfaces; which are common in mixed environments for ease of data entry and reporting. The county currently maintains a manager, assistant, and an off -site programmer to support these data warehousing services. Going forward, there may be opportunities to begin access programming suited to mobile devices and broadband wireless technologies- as service needs begin to increase. The county may wish to examine alternative data warehousing technologies to continue to meet expectations for both internal and external organizational needs. 47 10. Recommendation: Ensure that training is provided to internal staff for cross - training (report access, query and data retrieval). Cost TBD Responsible: MIS and IT Director 11. Recommendation: continue developing creative ways to extend the performance and life of the existing AS400 platform and /or develop a transition plan to address current limitations and future needs reflected in the RHJ analysis. Responsible —IT Director, internal managers, IT steering Committee 12. Recommendation: possibly investigate systems which integrate with the current AS400 technology and allow departments to acquire applications that are able to co -exist within the data warehouse structure. Responsible —IT Director, internal managers, IT steering Committee 48 IV. Applications and Services The county supports many applications and services. The core areas of the county's financial and data collection/ reporting are supported by modules/ applications developed by Bright and Associates (BAI) for the AS400. This strategy translates to the libraries and objects which are formed and stored within the AS400. Connections are established by applications/ services to this data which provides standard data to applications and systems. At this time, the county has acquired systems that require manual/ automated /semi- automated data collection to avoid data duplication between systems. This practice called data warehousing is well -known in IT environments and should continue. Additionally, the county's server and desktop environment functions on a Windows platform — operating system, enterprise email, web services, data collection SQL, Internet access and monitoring. Again, this is a strategy that has worked well and presents opportunities for improvement. GIS is a major benefit /service within our portfolio. This system is used by almost every department and provides valuable information to the public. Standard GIS data is supplied by the state and links to our A5400 via ARCGIS services. The county'recently released a much anticipated GIS service which allows the general public to research the county's geography through a user friendly web service. We have also provided a service called pictometry, oblique 45 degree aerial imagines, that renders a "curb- side" view of any location within the county. Internally, this has been beneficial to our public safety and planning departments. h � K• Mq Figure 1- Pictometery Example 49 13. Recommendation: The consolidation of services and platforms. Identifying systems that require expanded capability or "resources on demand" (Processors, memory, disk space...etc.) Investigating desktop virtualization would be an option to expand our need to replace desktop equipment and secure network data. By adopting this strategy there may be opportunities to reduce hardware costs, provide high availability of systems and address the need for disaster recovery of key systems. Cost TO Responsible -IT Director, internal managers, IT steering Committee 14, Recommendation: Expand wireless capacity and kiosk options to increase public access to useful data and services. Cost TBD Responsible -IT Director, internal managers, IT steering Committee 15. Recommendation: Continue to support our GIS initiatives with data, development and training resources. Cost TBD Responsible — GIS manager, internal directors, IT steering Committee 50 V. SWOT- Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats St�e,igths. .Weaknesses 1. Outstanding attitude/ internal perception to 1. Limited technical documentation customer service 2. Multiple single points of failure within the 2. Departments have managed computer inventory server infrastructure with a reasonable refresh schedule (3 -5 year max) 3. No established training plan for technical and 3. Strong library of relevant software titles non - technical staff 4. Good management of assurance and maintenance 4. Limited Disaster Recovery Plan(DRP) contracts S. History of communication issues resulting in 5. System failure rate managed well bad internal relationships 6. Knowledgeable staff members- real team focus 6. Key project bench marks not met — as per IT 7. Leadership open to reviewing current processes Work Plan and ownership practices- key for change 7. No IT Strategic Plan management 8. Learning curve for new IT director — 8. AS /400 MIS section is experienced and service environment /culture driven 9. Hardware spec and procurement practices 9. AS /400 and Bright working well with internal 10, IT policies outdated — Acceptable Use Policy — county processes need AUP based on new technologies 10. Negotiated solid Internet service contract (50 Mb 11. Change management practices not defined bandwidth for lead strategy) within IT 11. WAN Infrastructure 1Gb fiber links with option to 12. Highest OS domain windows 2003 increase to 10Gb 13. No Active Directory structure at PSB nor 12. Stable website presence NRADC 13. AS /400 programmer resource —county "owned" 14. Solid data recovery capacity at KENT location 15. Consolidated ordering -good communication to IT for IT purchases 16. Centralized email (exchange 2003) 17. Active Directory is current utilized at KENT location 18. Implemented document imaging system - available, 51 r •Ext'•rnal —`� — e — ,' — : Y Y . ..� .i.." rtunties . " 'T j t , 1. Training opportunities will lift IT staff spirits and 1. Equipment failure continue to engage staff members 2. Relationship with FCPS for internet connectivity 2. Virtualization will enhance data recovery capacity 3. NO Disaster Recovery Plan- some data recovery and add disaster recovery expectations 4. AS /400 limitation and staffing concerns - 3. Potential to program in our current MIS format as retirement(cross trained staff) we look to possibly adapting an Enterprise Resource 5. Lack of mobile technology access Planning strategy - universal plan/ application for 6. IT policies out dated all facets of our enterprise applications 7. No consolidated purchasing plan - individual 4. Selection and implementation of a feature rich departments budget for IT needs content management system to supplant our 8. Security current web infrastructure - adding content storage 9. Need for documented plans and workflows 10. AS /400 identified as a data structure with 5. Consolidate service approach to IT through the potential high Total Cost of ownership -TCO implementation of an operational framework -i.e. and limited capacity to support full Enterprise iTIL ... continuous improvement model Resource Planning- ERP philosophy 6. Development of activity kiosk to serve our communities 7. Wireless implementation technologies 8. Mobile web -based application development as we seek to take advantage of broad -band technologies 9. Implementation of disaster recovery plan 10. Implementation of multi- tiered security plan 11. Development of technical documentation and cross - training practices 12. The opportunity to reach out to establish relationships with internal and external entities for better IT services 13. Upgrade to windows 2008 R 2 AD at all locations 14. Upgrade to exchange 2010 email/ messaging platform 15. Video conferencing and social networking for better public exposure by advertise available county services 16. Social medium 17. Staffing turn -over - GIS tech, Split business manager position to add 2 technical support staff 18. Opportunity to explore cloud computing 52 s SWOT Analysis Summary The services provided by the members of the IT staff have been exemplary to this point. Moving forward the county has the opportunity to develop an IT strategic plan that addresses current needs (disaster recovery, portfolio development and staff training) as well as the provision for future county services/ capacity, 53 VI. Conclusion Over the next 6 months I propose we work to develop a second 3 -5 year plan with the intent of supporting the county's IT mission. We will look to use the current creative structure (IT steering committee, department administration and central administration group) to collect input and organize the county's diverse stakeholders to focus on the concept of what IT services need to "look- like" over the next 3 -5 years. They will be centered on the concept of proactively seeking out new solutions to information technology opportunities and challenges. Vision: "I see a world where IT is..." Mission: "In that world, IT intends to..." Strategy: "We will achieve this mission by..." This includes internal process support as well as providing citizens with the means to conduct business with county departments through the Internet, as well as providing constituents with information about County activities and services. In the development of the Strategic Plan, I recommend we address six common IT principles, against which each goal and objective will be _. measured. These information technology guiding principles are: ✓ Support the operational objectives and policy initiatives of the County Board of Supervisors. ✓ Treat information as a valued strategic resource and establish priorities. ✓ View ALL technology investments from an enterprise perspective. ✓ Seek to take advantage of "access" technologies (i.e. conducting county business online). ✓ Provide the public secure access to identified County information and services via the web. ✓ Support value based budgeting for future IT procurement. An IT strategic plan guided by these principles will provide a foundation for an enterprise wide approach to the development and management of information technology. This is not intended to limit department or agency creativity but to provide a stable infrastructure and environment in which to solve common business problems faced by many agencies and to allow the agencies to collaborate on significant efforts. A Continuous Process Improvement strategy is a key part of the Strategic Plan. The Plan is a living document —IT Department and its steering committee will review the Plan periodically, and update it as needed. 54 Appendix A Entry Plan Data Collection Process Steps Data collection ■ Meet with IT staff, various IT groups and committees ■ Meet with leadership at each facility to gain an understanding of culture and operational roles • Interview users ■ Collect inventory data • Review policies and IT documentation Recommendations ■ Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis ■ Plan Development- for 2012 -2013 FY Follow -up for continuous improvement assessment ■ Ongoing through process review and policy update 55 Appendix B— Organizational Chart 56 S i .___________________________________ _____________ __ _____ ___________ t 9' r'iWalter Bank, Ni�D,,l,,11Y - i jaT Ufrec@'r ` � \ f, j r Benny Tysom ` Jeremy Coulson Patric Fly l "WIISiDectoo + ! r Tim Barlow ir - Weti:Manager';' y G15'iN ager, Nbtwor! Analyst ------------- David Jarret ; '.6r bra'Clrttps;, Ellen Peng Lindsey Felton Criag Grubb E:e Nugent David Bruns Christy Usa AS400 Programmer 'Asst MiS;Diieao�• ` GIS Analyst GIS Technician PC Technician chnician Network Technician PC Technician 3 y iw ------------------------- -- ---- ----------- --- ---- ---- -- ------ -- - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- --- -- -- ----------- - - - - -- - --- --------------------- Frederick County IT Department - ► - - - ;- --- --- ► - ------ I t �Sherriff: �Coli B jinbert •+ Le- AnnwPVes: 'i Sheerlff'Robert� ruceic( her , i c 'VJilfiamson° i;, Public Safety..,, , Williamson t1 Capt. Kathy Sasser f I Lt. Joey Henry Christy Usa PC Technician i _._._.------- ----- ------------ , i Gene Boyce Madan Nepal I ------ - - -- - -- -------------------------------------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------ - - NRADC ------------------------------------ ---------------- Pubhc Safety Group Appendix C- WAN Connectivity 58 9 FC GOV Fire r ASA Public Safety Bldg Station 200 MB Shared Internet Pipe FW 10.18.x.x . a9 GIGABIT 10.x.x.x 0 t LINK FREDCO Schools GIGABIT LINK GIGABIT 10.17.x.x NREP LINK ��■r■ . . Future Comcast 50MB Connection to Internet �\ 10.18.x.x County Bldg 10.17.x.x a NRJDCI .r. ti`tr Kent St ASA FW r ! (C omcastlVerizon Cloud , 10.17.x.x NRADC Site to Site VPN's Cal CO =. . r . .e 10.17.x.x Animal Shelter ■ Frederick County FireStations SUMMER 2011 WAN SCHEMATIC County WAN Summary FCPS — provides wireless connections for various Police fire and inspects entities 522 Comcast Headend 1GB Fiber n ..y fi I SGB Fiber Animal Shelter 1GB NRADC "' O :rr Kent iGB Fiber PSB SGB 1RDC 1GB yF Court Services 60 Appendix D- Virtuafization Opportunities 61 Virtualization 101 ��;:� fit# • T.''� I• f 62 RE PO . JL JULY i 2 010 High Vi li i-on I lk U: M w p . �a tza. i0 w ro�.. a re m ti .,Vt-y� Copyright 0 2010 1ntoWorld Media Group. Al rights reserved. Sponsored by IRON MOUNTAIN® 63 Vi u -liz� �o Deep DIve Virtualization for high availabilit y and disaster recover Use server virtualization to duplicate resources and create failover capabilities at lower cost— without compromising on reliability We build our infrastructures not just in case of fail- consisting of a few application servers, an email server, ure, but because we know failure will eventually occur. two database servers, and a file server. To deliver high That's why a tremendous portion of the money IT availability, you'd need to start by doubling the num- spends on infrastructure goes to maintaining high avail- ber of servers. Then you'd need to buy fairly expensive ability and business continuity. host -based replication software that can keep the pairs Server virtualization can play a huge role in deliver- of servers in sync. That software, however, might not ing the high levels of reliability that today's enterprises be supported on the database servers. So on one or demand, often at a lower cost and with less complex- both of the database servers, you might have to use the ity than traditional non - virtualized methods. The key database vendor's clustering software (potentially a sig- advantage, frequently, is that virtualization enables you nificant expense) and implement costly shared storage to design one high - availability scheme and apply it to just to make the clusters work. many situations, regardless of the applications involved. In other words, you've just duplicated your server Virtualization is not the answer to every reliability hardware budget, added to your software budget, and problem, of course. (Some applications, for example, given yourself the chore of monitoring and managing five may be better served by their own faster - acting high- different active pieces of replication software, two clusters, availability functionality.) But over the last few years, and a SAN. That's why you almost never see this configu- virtuaiization has improved data center efficiency more ration in the real world: lt's expensive and complicated. than any other new technology —and high - availability Faced with this cost and complexity, most compa- solutions typically benefit substantially. nies opt to protect only the most important parts of their infrastructures rather than attempting to protect THE ADVANTAGES OF VIRTUAL all of it. But what good is a clustered database platform OVER PHYSICAL if users can't log in to their desktops because the file Traditional high availability and disaster recovery often server isn't available? involve physical server clustering or agent -based host Using server virtualization, you could consolidate replication. These frequently require complex software those seven original servers down to two high- perfor- and application- specific infrastructure. manse virtualization hosts, add some third -party, virtu - If you implement this functionality in the virtualiza- alization -aware host replication software, and provide tion stack, however, you don't need to design and invest high availability to the entire server farm in one fell for each separate application. Instead, you can invest swoop. This configuration is arguably less complex and in those technologies once and reap the benefit for all possibly less expensive than the original and offers simi- virtualized applications. Moreover, many applications lar redundancy capabilities. lack built -in high - availability functionality entirely. For There will still be occasions when high - availability these applications, using tools offered by modern vir- functionality built into an application is preferable to tualization hypervisors may be the only way to ensure a virtualization -based solution. Sometimes this is sim- comprehensive reliability. ply because the application has more effective or con - Take the example of a small - business network sistent failover capabilities. More often, however, the INFOWORLD.COM DEEP DIVE SERIES JULY 2010 64 VAnuMl MDHDeep Dive application vendor simply fails to support virtualization- PHYSICAL SERVER FAILURE based high availability. In traditional, non - virtualized environments, its com- mon to see the use of host -based replication tools such ASSESSING YOUR RISKS as Neverfail or NS I's DoubleTake to provide high avail - If implemented properly, virtualization-based high avail- ability. These tools install on the operating system of a ability and disaster recovery can protect your organization physical server and synchronize that server to another from almost any kind of failure. But the cost of cover- piece of standby hardware that acts as a backup. Obvi- ing everything sometimes outweighs the potential value. ously, if you implement failover in this way across a That's why, before deciding how far your implementation large number of servers, you're talking about massive, should go, you should start by examining the types of pos- costly duplication of hardware resources. sible failures and the level of risk for each one. Fortunately, these same software packages can also Infrastructure risks range from high - probability, low- be configured to utilize a virtual machine as a replication impact failures (such as disk or power supply failures) all target. This kind of hybridized, physical -to- virtual failover the way to low - probability, high- impact failures (such as capability can be one of the only high - availability solutions losing an entire data center to fire or natural disaster). available to enterprises that operate applications that will Protecting your infrastructure from remote risks may run in a virtual environment but aren't supported by the seem prohibitively expensive. But when the alternative software vendors (sadly, there are still many of these). is a core infrastructure that could go down for days, the extra insurance is worth buying— especially if you can VIRTUAL HOST FAILOVER get it cheaper through virtualization. A number of methods provide redundancy for clusters of visualized hosts to ensure uptime in the face of total COMPONENT FAILURE host failure. Some are provided by third parties and can The most common type of failure is a hardware compo- be bolted onto an existing virtualization environment; nent that dies, such as a disk drive, power supply, or net- others can be implemented using the native functional - working /storage device. Most of these failures never rise ity of the hypervisor. to a level that demands a virtualization- specific approach. Popular third -party host redundancy software pack - Proper server, storage, and network hardware design ages include Vzioncore's vReplicator and NSI's Double - stipulate the use of fully redundant hardware compo- Take for Virtual Infrastructure. These tools integrate nents and dual -core meshed switching and storage fabric with the virtualization host at the hypervisor level and architectures that render most of these risks moot. provide the ability to continuously synchronize the local Nonetheless, virtualization can decrease the cost of storage of one virtual host with that of another. implementing these basic reliability measures. Take the One benefit of using this kind of tool is that shared example of providing redundant network connectivity storage (usually in the form of a SAN) isn't required. to 100 physical servers. In this scenario, you'd gener- Unfortunately, due to the amount of integration ally require at least two independently redundant server required for these tools to interoperate with the hyper - aggregation switches with enough port density to attach visor, there is often a lag in the tools' ability to support to each server, new hypervisor releases. This dependency may delay In a virtualized server environment, the number of upgrades to the newest or most feature -rich version of physical servers might be decreased to as little as 5 or the hypervisor. Additionally, using this approach also 6 high -end servers. Though these virtualization hosts results in inefficient duplication of the amount of direct - would each require more network connectivity than attached storage you'lI require. any one physical server they replace, the net decrease Using the built -in high availability features within the in redundant network switching for a datacenter this hypervisor usually yields the best outcome —if you can size is usually somewhere around 80 percent. This same afford it Almost all of those features — whether you're decrease in overall infrastructural requirements plays talking about VMware vSphere's high - availability (HA) out in many other areas, including the storage fabric, feature or clustering Microsoft Hyper -V servers — require INFOWORLD.COM DEEP DIVE SERIES JULY 2010 65 Virtual't� n Deep Dive 4 shared storage. Though the cost of entry- level, enter- several unpleasant flavors. The most dramatic involves prise -class SANS has fallen like a stone over the past few an extreme event where the datacenter succumbs to years, they still aren't cheap. Small organizations with fire or natural disaster — resulting in a collapse in WAN modest storage requirements may find that third -party connectivity, a power (and backup power) failure, or host replication. tools are more cost - effective. destruction of the disaster movie variety. Though you'll find variations in the way virtualiza- More typically, site failure results from less obvious von vendors implement virtual host high availability, the risks, such as power surges, vandalism, or catastrophic general concept is simple: Two or more virtual hosts are SAN failure. The last, of course, is less severe than a total built in a cluster and attached to a single shared storage site failure. But most organizations put SAN failure in device. The clustered hosts keep a record of the virtual the same category because it has the same catastrophic machine inventory and continuously monitor each other. effect (unless a redundant on -site SAN is in place— rare,' When one host fails or becomes isolated from the because the cost is too high). network or storage, the remaining hosts restart the vir- tual machines that the failed host had been running. WARM OR HOT SITES Depending upon the implementation, this usually takes The most common approach to dealing with the risk of a few minutes and results in the loss of user sessions site failure is to construct a redundant data center at a and any unsaved data— essentially as if the original host different physical location. This may be either a warm had been rebooted after an unexpected power failure. or a hot site. The line between the two is blurry, but in As compared to traditional physical server cluster- general, a hot site involves the full duplication of all of in& the response time of virtualized clustering can be the infrastructure located at the primary data center, significantly slower. However, the ability to apply this which is generally kept in sync with the primary through failover capability to literally any type of application that some form of data replication. can run in a virtual machine usually outweighs the extra A warm site is a scaled -down version of the primary minute or two the failover might take. data center —often with a minimum complement of If seconds of downtime make a difference, VMware's compute resources that together can run only the most Fault Tolerance (FT) feature may be of interest. In critical subset of the primary data centers production VMware FT, the virtual machine's entire active memory load. In addition, most warm sites lack the level of inter - image is kept synchronized across two virtual hosts. If nal failover capability found in either the primary data the host that is actively operating the virtual machine center or in a hot site. fails, the second host can pick up the processing of that Using virtualization in combination with a second - virtual machine almost immediately — usually far faster ary warm or hot site data center can result in signifi- than most application- specific failover technologies. cant efficiencies, mainly due to reduced hardware and As you might expect, implementing FT comes at software requirements. In fact, virtualization has led to a cost, both in terms of limits on the specification of a significant increase in the number of enterprises that the virtual machine and load on the virtual hosts. Like can afford to implement site redundancy. VMware HA, FT requires shared storage and has a lim- The largest challenge involved in implementing a ited hardware compatibility list. Unlike HA, FT has a secondary data center is replicating the underlying data very long list of virtual host and guest limitations, includ- from one site to another. Virtualization itself can't help ing the lack of support for more than one vCPU that you with that (although it can potentially make the site may make FT inappropriate for use in many of the cases failover process faster and easier to test). Instead, most where it would be most desirable. virtualization software vendors leave the task of mov- ing business data to third -party hardware or software. SITE FAILURES AND This can be approached in two different ways — either CONTINUATION SOLUTIONS through the use of SAN -to -SAN replication or third- The risk of complete site failure is both remote and party virtual machine replication tools. In fact, many of expensive to defend against. Site failure comes in the same third -party host replication tools used locally INFOWORLD.COM DEEP DIVE SERIES JULY 2010 66 Deep Dive can also be used over a WAN to replicate the storage SITE FAILOVER CHALLENGES of one virtual host to a second host at a remote site. Along with setting up and synchronizing a warm or hot site, you also need to automate the required stor- SAN REPLICATION age and networking changes necessary when failover Most enterprises contemplating a redundant data center actually occurs. will opt to implement a second SAN with block -level The process varies depending on the storage vendor, SAN -to-SAN replication. This solution is the most robust, but usually, it involves promoting replica volumes on because it is generally very reliable and scales easily. Of the secondary SAN to active volumes (usually discon- course, it also doubles your investment in SAN hard- tinuing any active replication in the process). For the ware —plus, many storage vendors charge a premium redundant virtualization hosts at the secondary site to for the software licensing required to enable replication. see and use the storage, this process must be repeated Then there's the cost of the bandwidth required to for all replicated volumes, and the hosts must be made keep an entire production data center in sync with a aware of the storage. remote data center_ In some cases, this dwarfs the cost In a virtual environment, the individual virtual of the storage hardware over its lifetime. machine configurations must be imported into the vir- lf both sites are located within the footprint of an tual hosts, reconfigured to use the secondary site's net - inexpensive, fiber -based telecom provider, bandwidth work resources, and brought online, costs may not be a huge deal. But if one or both sites These processes are time consuming to do by hand are located in a rural area with only leased -line services in a large environment, which is why you should script available as connectivity options, the cost may be pro- the storage failover and virtualization reconfiguration hibitive. Using a WAN accelerator such as Riverbed's process. To this end, VMware offers its vCenter Site Steelhead or Citrix's Branch Repeater can lighten the Recovery Manager (SRM) add -on to its vCenter host burden to some degree, but remember that in many management framework. cases bandwidth may be a showstopper. SRM automates site failover by generating and main - It's also important to consider the load that the rep - taining a failover script that handles the reprovisioning of lication will place on the storage infrastructure, both in storage at the secondary site, reconfiguration of the second - terms of additional capacity requirements and transac- ary site virtual hosts, and ultimately powering on the virtual tional performance. machines at the secondary site. SRM can also change the SAN replication comes in two distinctly different network configurations of the virtual machines. flavors: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous SRM also allows administrators to test the failover replication keeps the two storage infrastructures in sec- process without affecting the operation of the primary ond- to- second lockstep with one another. Write requests data center. This testing capability is invaluable to enter - issued to the primary SAN are not acknowledged as prises that must be able to demonstrate their failover complete until the secondary SAN has received and capability to auditors for regulatory compliance reasons. successfully committed the write. As such, synchronous replication demands very low latency between sites, WHEN YOU SHOULD AVOID which generally means a fiber connection with a maxi- VIRTUALIZATION- SPECIFIC mum distance of approximately 200 miles. HIGH AVAILABILITY Such high -end requirements ensure that all but the Virtualized high availability combined with SAN -based largest enterprises opt for asynchronous replication. replication to a warm or hot site yields a highly robust Rather than maintain full synchronization, the SANS and efficient system. But this solution isn't always bet - periodically synchronize with each other. In exchange ter than the reliability features native to some mod - for a much lower cost, you introduce the possibility ern applications. Microsoft's Exchange 2010 is a great that in the event of a failover, the redundant datacen- example of this. ter might not represent an up -to -the- minute version of Microsoft Exchange 2010 offers several layers of the primary one. built -in redundancy centering on its DAG (distributed INFOWORLD.COM DEEP DIVE SERIES JULY 2010 67 D i, ve availability group) feature. Basically, DAG boils down to situations, you may want to create a hybrid and use automated transaction log shipping, which many data- both the reliability features of the hypervisor and those base platform administrators will find familiar. natively present in the application. In so doing, you may When configured in a DAG group, two Exchange serv- be able to shorten failover response time (increasing ers can be configured to automatically ship each other reliability) or decrease the amount of data that needs copies of all of the writes that have taken place to each of to be shipped across the WAN (decreasing RPO and their mailbox databases — essentially providing both serv- WAN expenses). ers with a complete copy of the other's database. When a failure occurs on one host, the other host VIRTUALIZATION'S RELIABILITY BENEFITS can very quickly take over for the first —often much Virtualization provides massive amounts of flexibility to. faster than a hypervisor -based high - availability solu- IT administrators. Whether that flexibility comes from tion might be able to. This is because the hypervisor quickly and easily moving virtual machines from one must restart the virtual machine to recover it, while the piece of hardware to another —or the luxury of testing Exchange server needs only to mount the secondary the failover of an entire data center with the click of a copy of the database and start offering it to end - users. button —many of those flexibility enhancements trans - Moreover, when replicating to a secondary site, this late directly to increased reliability. type of transaction log shipping is almost always more You simply cant get those features without using bandwidth efficient than block -level SAN replication of virtualization. Although server virtualization does not a complete database. apply in every case —and in some instances the native Of course, applications with excellent availability high- availability features of individual applications work schemes such as Exchange can still be virtualized. There better —no other technology can be applied so broadly are many other benefits to server virtualization, such and with such economy of scale across the data center as hardware portability and consolidation. But in some to deliver high availability and disaster recovery. e, INFOWORLD.COM DEEP DIVE SERIES JULY 2010 68 Frederick County Public Schools to ensure all students are excellent education Executive Director of Finance frye1@frederick.k12.va.us DATE: September 8, 2011 To: John R. Riley, County Administrator FROM: Lisa K. Frye, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: Request for Approval of VPSA and QSC Bond Issues The school board requests consideration by the board of supervisors for two separate bond issues conducted by the Virginia Public School Authority. Proceeds from the bond issues will be used for qualifying school construction projects, specifically the construction of the new transportation facility and other capital school improvement projects for public school purposes. After the public hearing on September 14, 2011, approval is requested for: 1. Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) school bonds for $8,785,000 • Traditional tax - exempt bond sale 2. Qualified School Construction Bonds for $7,000,000 • Non - traditional taxable bonds provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with a zero or near zero interest cost 0 14 to 16 year maturity o interest payment is offset by sinking fund interest earnings and federal subsidy Thank you. Attachments (2) C: David T. Sovine, Ed.D., Superintendent Lisa M. Williams, Bond Counsel, McGuireWoods, LLP Cr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF FREDERICK FREDERICK, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION At a regular meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held on the 14th day of September, 2011, the following resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors by the following roll call vote, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting: PRESENT VOTE Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Bill M. Ewing, Vice Chairman Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Ross P. Spicer Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. ABSENT On motion of and seconded by which carried by a vote of 7 -0, the following was adopted: __ 1 A RESOLUTION ( #012 -11) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $8,785,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board ") of the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County ") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to exceed $8,785,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to finance (i) a new public transportation facility, and (ii) other capital school improvement projects for public school purposes (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on September 14, 2011 on the issuance of the bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2 -2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code "); and WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested, by resolution, the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) and has consented to the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $8,785,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested ") from the Virginia Public School Authority ( "VPSA ") in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective "), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to, the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of VPSA's bonds; and WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which circumstance the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds received by the County will be less than the amount set forth in paragraph 1 below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds of the County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,785,000 (the "Bonds ") for the purpose of financing the Project. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2 2. Sale of the Bonds It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price determined by VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved ( "Bond Sale Agreement "). 3. Details of the Bonds The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2011A" (or such other designation as the County Administrator may approve) shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi - annually on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date "), at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date ") and in the amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request of VPSA. 4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by VPSA, - provided that each interest rate shall be no more than five one - hundredths of one percent (0.05 %) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds "), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six percent (6 %) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the amounts of principal of the Bonds coming due on each Principal Payment Date ( "Principal Installments ") established by VPSA, including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may be requested by VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 26 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the Bonds The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: 3 (a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next succeeding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption; (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and (c) U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 7. Prepayment or Redemption The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2021, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2021 are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2021 and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2021, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2021, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2021 to July 14, 2022 . ......................... ............................... 101% July 15, 2022 to July 14, 2023 . .......................... ............................... 100.5 July 15, 2023 and thereafter ............................... ............................... 100; Provided however that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of VPSA or the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is authorized to approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates set forth above, as may be requested by VPSA. 8. Execution of the Bonds The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid 4 until authenticated by the manual signature of the Paying Agent. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit For the prompt payment of the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate, Non - Arbitrage Certificate The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non - Arbitrage Certificate, if required by bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code "), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non - Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non - Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment manager, and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and 5 Exchange Commission Rule 15c2 -12, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directed, and (ii) to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 13. Filing of Resolution The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 14. Further Actions The County Administrator, the Chairman of the Board, and such other officers, employees and agents of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect immediately. s The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 14, 2011, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the vote of each member, including any abstentions. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, this 14th day of September, 2011. John R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Frederick, Virginia (SEAL) Resolution No.: 012 -11 7 EXHIBIT A (FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND) NO. TR -1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK General Obligation School Bond Series 2011A The COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (the "County "), for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of Dollars ($ ) , in annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15, 20 and annually on July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 20_ (each a "Principal Payment Date "), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi - annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year commencing on January 15, 20_ (each an "Interest Payment Date;" together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date "), at the rates per annum set forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this Bond, U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, as bond registrar (the 'Bond Registrar ") shall make all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next succeeding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.2 -2624 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly -2- adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes. This Bond may be exchanged without cost, on twenty (20) days written notice from the Virginia Public School Authority at the office of the Bond Registrar on one or more occasions for one or more temporary bonds or definitive bonds in marketable form and, in any case, in fully registered form, in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, having an equal aggregate principal amount, having principal installments or maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid. This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment. The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before July 15, 2021 and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2021 are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2021, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2021 are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2021, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as -3- percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2021 through July 14, 2022 0 July 15, 2022 through July 14, 2023 .................... ............................... 100.5 July 15, 2023 and thereafter ................................. ............................... 100; Provided however that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without the prior written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK -4- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of Frederick, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman or Vice - Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated November 2011. COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA [SEAL] ATTEST: By: By: Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the Chairman, Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia County of Frederick, Virginia -5- ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to exchange said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed: (NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed Registered Owner by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Bond (NOTICE: The signature above must Registrar which requirements will include correspond with the name of the Registered membership or participation in STAMP or Owner as it appears on the front of this such other "signature guarantee program" as Bond in every particular, without alteration may be determined by the Bond Registrar in or change.) addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.) Cp�� BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1738 RESOLUTION (013 -11) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BOND, SERIES 2011, OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA, TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board ") of the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County "), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 and to issue its general obligation school bond (as more specifically defined below, the "Local School Bond ") for the purpose of financing (i) a new pupil transportation facility, and (ii) other capital school improvement projects for public school purposes, which constitutes a capital project for public school purposes (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on September 14, 2011, on the issuance of the Local School Bond in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2 -2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code "); and WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board authorize the issuance of the Local School Bond and consented to the issuance of the Local School Bond; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority ( "VPSA ") has offered to purchase the Local School Bond along with the local school bonds of certain other localities with a portion of the proceeds of certain bonds to be issued by VPSA in the fall /winter of 2011 (the "VPSA Bonds "); and WHEREAS, VPSA intends to issue the VPSA Bonds as "qualified school construction bonds" (referred to below as "QSCBs ") within the meaning of Section 54F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Tax Code "), which section was added to the Tax Code by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111 -5, 123 Stat. 355), enacted on February 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, VPSA intends to elect to treat the VPSA Bonds as "specified tax credit bonds" under Section 6431 of the Tax Code, as amended by the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (Pub. L. No. 111 -147, 123 Stat. 301), enacted on March 18, 2010, which status enables an issuer of a QSCB to receive a direct payment of a refundable credit in lieu of providing a tax credit to the purchaser or holder of the QSCB; and WHEREAS, the refundable credit payable with respect to each interest payment date will be equal to the lesser of (i) the amount of interest payable under the QSCB on such date or (ii) the amount of interest which would have been payable under the QSCB on such date if such interest were determined at the applicable credit rate determined under Section 54A(b)(3) of the Tax Code (that is, the rate used in computing the amount of tax credit that could be claimed by the QSCB holder absent the "specified tax credit bond" refundable credit election); and WHEREAS, subject to the terms and conditions set forth or referred to below, VPSA will transfer to the County the allocable portion of the refundable credit actually received in cash by VPSA with respect to the VPSA Bonds; and WHEREAS, the allocation of QSCB volume cap pursuant to which VPSA will issue the VPSA Bonds will be made by Executive Order to be issued by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Executive Order "), to finance the Project along with a number of other projects selected through a competitive evaluation process administered by the Virginia Department of Education; and WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $7,000,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested ") by the County from the VPSA in connection with the sale of the Local School Bond; and WHEREAS, VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Local School Bond which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Local School Bond's market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective "), taking consideration of such factors as the purchase price to be received by VPSA from the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the underwriters' discount and the other issuance costs of the VPSA Bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA Bonds; and WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Local School Bond having a purchase price other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue the Local School Bond in a principal amount that is less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) because the maximum authorized principal amount of the Local School Bond set forth in paragraph 1 of this Resolution cannot not exceed the Proceeds Requested, the purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Local School Bond and Use of Proceeds The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bond in a principal amount not to exceed $7,000,000 (the "Local School Bond ") for the purpose of financing the Project and the County's allocable share of (A) VPSA's costs of issuing the VPSA Bonds and (B) any upfront flat fees of VPSA as determined by VPSA to be necessary to compensate VPSA for the on -going costs related to administering the local school bonds purchased with the VPSA Bonds, including the County Local School Bond (such upfront fees may be in lieu of the Annual Administrative Fee described in paragraph 4 in this Resolution). The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and the Bond Sale Agreement. -2- 2. Sale of the Local School Bond The sale of the Local School Bond, within the - parameters set forth in paragraph 4 of this Resolution, to VPSA is authorized. Given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, the County acknowledges that the limitation on the maximum principal amount of the Local School Bond set forth in paragraph 1 of this Resolution restricts VPSA's ability to generate the Proceeds Requested, however, the Local School Bond may not be sold for a purchase price lower than 90% of the Proceeds Requested. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with VPSA providing for the sale of the Local School Bond to VPSA (the "Bond Sale Agreement "). The Bond Sale Agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 3. Details of the Local School Bond The Local School Bond shall be dated the date of its issuance and delivery; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bond, Series 2011B;" shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi - annually on dates specified by VPSA (each, an "Interest Payment Date" at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature annually in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date," and together with any Interest Payment Date, a "Payment Date ") and in the amounts (the "Principal Installments ") determined by the County Administrator, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Resolution. 4. Interest Rate and Principal Installments The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rate on the Local School Bond established by VPSA, provided that each interest rate may be up to five one - hundredths of one percent (0.05 %) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the VPSA Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, to the extent required by VPSA (the "Annual Administrative Fee "), and provided further that the true interest cost of the Local School Bond does not exceed seven and a half percent (7.50 %) per annum. The Payment Dates and the Principal Installments shall be specified by VPSA. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the final Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of VPSA based on the final term to maturity of the VPSA Bonds, requirements imposed on VPSA by the nationally- recognized rating agencies and the final principal amount of the Local School Bond; provided, however, that the principal amount of the Local School Bond shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution and the final maturity of the Local School Bond shall be no later than the earlier of December 31, 2031 and the latest maturity date permitted under Section 54A of the Tax Code. The execution and delivery of the Local School Bond as described in paragraph 10 hereof shall conclusively evidence the approval and acceptance all of the details of the Local School Bond by the County Administrator as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Certain Acknowledgements The County acknowledges that the interest rate on the Local School Bond will be set at the level necessary to pay the interest on the allocable portion of the VPSA Bonds plus the Annual Administrative Fee, if any, and that the County will be obligated to pay interest on the Local School Bond at the stated taxable rate thereon regardless of the elimination or reduction of the refundable credit to be received by VPSA due to (i) any amendments by Congress to Sections 54A, 54F or 6431 or any other applicable sections of the Tax Code, (ii) any failure or determination by Congress not to appropriate funds necessary to pay -3- the refundable credit, (iii) any guidance or changes to guidance provided by the U.S. Department - of Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service, or (iv) any action or omission by VPSA, the County or any other locality selling local school bonds to VPSA in connection with the VPSA Bonds that causes the VPSA Bonds to lose their status as QSCBs and /or specified tax credit bonds in whole or in part. It is also acknowledged that the County has the right to effect an extraordinary optional redemption of the Local School Bond in whole or in part upon the occurrence of any of these events as provided in the form of Local School Bond. 6. Certain Investment Earnings The Board hereby acknowledges that VPSA will (i) issue the VPSA Bonds with multiple maturities or with a single "bullet" maturity, in either case, with a final maturity date on or shortly before the latest maturity date permitted for the VPSA Bonds under Section 54A of the Tax Code, (ii) invest the Principal Installments for the benefit of the County until they are applied to pay the principal of the VPSA Bonds and (iii) either remit the investment earnings periodically to the County or credit the investment earnings against the County's obligation to make Principal Installments, at the option of VPSA. The Board further acknowledges that VPSA may cause a portion of such earnings to be deposited into a reserve fund or account to be applied by VPSA for use to pay the costs, fees and expenses described in paragraph 15 below. Any balance in such reserve fund or account attributable to investment earnings on the County's Principal Installments as reasonably determined by VPSA will be remitted or credited to the County on the final maturity date of the VPSA Bonds. 7. Form of the Local School Bond The Local School Bond shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar The following provisions shall apply to the Local School Bond: (a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Local School Bond, all payments of principal of and interest and premium, if any, on the Local School Bond shall be made in immediately available funds to, or at the direction of, VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next succeeding such Payment Date or date fixed for payment, prepayment or redemption. (b) The Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Local School Bond shall be the banking institution selected by VPSA for such purposes. 9. Prepayment or Redemption The Principal Installments of the Local School Bond may be subject to optional prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as determined by VPSA. The Principal Installments of the Local School Bond will be subject to extraordinary mandatory redemption (i) if certain proceeds of the Local School Bond have not been spent within three years after the date of its issuance and delivery (which three year period may be extended by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate), (ii) due to a loss of "qualified tax credit bond" and "qualified school construction bond" status of the VPSA Bonds corresponding to the Local School Bond under Sections 54A and 54F of the Tax Code, and (iii) if due to (a) any amendments by Congress to Sections 54A, 54F or 6431 or any other applicable -4- sections of the Tax Code or (b) any guidance or changes to guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service, there is a reduction or elimination of the direct payment of the refundable credit to be received by VPSA with respect to the VPSA Bonds. The Principal Installments of the Local School Bond shall be redeemed at the redemption prices and upon the other terms set forth in the Local School Bond. 10. Execution of the Local School Bond The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Local School Bond and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 11. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit For the prompt payment of the principal of and interest and premium, if any, on the Local School Bond as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Local School Bond shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and interest and premium, if any, on the Local School Bond as such principal and interest and premium, if any, shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 12. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the County a Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement (the "Tax Compliance Agreement ") setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Local School Bond and containing such covenants as may be necessary for the VPSA Bonds to qualify as and to remain as "qualified tax credit bonds," "qualified school construction bonds" and "specified tax credit bonds" under Sections 54A, 54F and 6431 of the Tax Code and the applicable regulations. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond will be invested and expended as set forth in the Tax Compliance Agreement and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Tax Code so that the VPSA Bonds will not lose their status as "qualified tax credit bonds," "qualified school construction bonds" and "specified tax credit bonds" under Sections 54A, 54F and 6431 of the Tax Code. 13. State Non - Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the Director of Finance to participate in the State Non - Arbitrage Program in connection with the Local School Bond. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Local School Bond by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. -5- 14. Continuing Disclosure Agreement The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix E to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2 -12, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 15. Fees, Costs and Expenses The County agrees to pay the following fees, costs and expenses incurred by VPSA in connection with its purchase and carrying of the Local School Bond within thirty days after receipt by the County Administrator of a written bill therefor: (A) The County's allocable share of (i) the fees, costs and expenses of the trustee, paying agent and bond registrar under the indenture pursuant to which VPSA will issue the VPSA Bonds and (ii) any fees, costs and expenses payable to third parties in connection with such indenture or VPSA's School Tax Credit Bond Program, as determined by VPSA; and (B) To the extent permitted by law, the reasonable fees, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, if any, incurred by VPSA in connection with any false representation or certification or covenant default by the County or any County or School Board official, employee, agent or contractor under the Local School Bond, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, the Tax Compliance Agreement, the Proceeds Agreement and/or any document, certificate or instrument associated therewith (collectively, the "County Documents "), or in connection with any extraordinary mandatory redemption of the Local School Bond as described in paragraph 9 above and the corresponding VPSA Bonds, any amendment to or discretionary action that VPSA makes or undertakes at the request of the County under any of the County Documents or any other document related to the VPSA Bonds. 16. Filing of Resolution The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia. 17. Election to Proceed under Public Finance Act In accordance with Section 15.2 -2601 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Local School Bond pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code. 18. Further Actions The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 19. Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect immediately. -6- The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, w, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 14, 2011, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. Members present at the meeting were: Members absent from the meeting were: . Members voting in favor of the foregoing resolution were: Members voting against the foregoing resolution were: Members abstaining from voting on the foregoing resolution were: WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, this 14' day of September, 2011. John R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Frederick, Virginia [SEAL] Resolution No. 013 -11 -7- EXHIBIT A [FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND] NO. TR -1 $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK General Obligation School Bond Series 2011B The COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (the "County "), for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY ( "VPSA ") the principal amount of SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ($7,000,000), in annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto commencing on June 1, 20_ and continuing each June 1 thereafter to and including June 1, 20_ (each a "Principal Payment Date "), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi - annually on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing 20_ (each an "Interest Payment Date," and together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date "), at the rate of % per annum, subject to redemption as hereinafter provided. The principal of and interest and premium, if any, on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of this Bond, U.S. Bank National Association, as bond registrar and paying agent (the "Bond Registrar "), shall make all payments of the principal of and interest and premium, if any, on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender hereof, to or at the direction of VPSA, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for redemption. If a Payment Date or date fixed for redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of the principal of and interest and premium, if any, on this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next succeeding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for payment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest and the premium, if any, on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County on September 14, 2011 (the "Local Resolution "), authorizing the issuance of this Bond provides, and Section 15.2 -2624, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code "), requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of A -1 the principal of and interest and premium, if any, on this Bond as the same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26, Title 15.2, of the Virginia Code, and the Local Resolution and a resolution duly adopted by the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes. This Bond is registered in VPSA's name on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for a substitute Bond, and register such substitute Bond on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment. The principal installments of this Bond are not subject to optional prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities without the prior written consent of VPSA, except as set forth below. Upon not less than 45 days' written notice from VPSA to the Bond Registrar and the County, this Bond is subject to mandatory redemption in whole or in part in an amount to be specified by VPSA on a date to be fixed by VPSA in the event that VPSA determines that a redemption of all or a portion of the VPSA Bonds allocable to this Bond is necessary to maintain the status of the VPSA Bonds as "qualified tax credit bonds" and "qualified school construction bonds" under Sections 54A and 54F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code "). Circumstances under which VPSA may make such a determination may include, but are not limited to, the failure of the County to cause 100% of the Available Project Proceeds to be expended by the end of the Expenditure Period for Qualified Purposes, or there occurs a Determination of Loss of QSCB Status with respect to all or any portion of the VPSA Bonds due to a default by the County under the Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement dated the dated date hereof (the "Tax Compliance Agreement "). The redemption price shall be equal to (i) the redemption price VPSA will be obligated to pay in connection with the optional redemption or extraordinary optional redemption of the allocable portion of the VPSA Bonds under Section 3.1 of the Fourth Supplemental Trust Indenture dated as of November 1, 2011 (the "Fourth Supplemental Indenture "), between VPSA and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, and (ii) any outstanding fees, costs and expenses for which the County is or will become obligated to pay under paragraph 15 of the Local Resolution, all as determined by VPSA. Upon not less than 90 days' written notice from the County to VPSA, this Bond is also subject to extraordinary optional redemption in whole or in part, as determined by the County, on a date to be fixed by VPSA if, due to (i) any amendments by Congress to Section 54A, 54F or 6431 or any other applicable sections of the Tax Code, or (ii) any guidance or changes to A -2 guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service, there is - a reduction or elimination of the refundable credit to be received by VPSA with respect to the VPSA Bonds. The redemption price shall be equal to (i) the redemption price VPSA will be obligated to pay in connection with the optional redemption or extraordinary optional redemption of the allocable portion of the VPSA Bonds under Section 3.1 of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture and (ii) any outstanding fees, costs and expenses for which the County is or will become obligated to pay under paragraph 15 of the Local Resolution, all as determined by VPSA. Unless otherwise defined, each of the capitalized terms used in the foregoing three paragraphs has the meaning given it in the Tax Compliance Agreement. No notation is required to be made on this Bond of the redemption of principal. In such circumstance, the outstanding principal balance of this Bond shall be equal to $7,000,000, less the aggregate amount of any and all redemptions of principal which may have been made on this Bond. HENCE, THE FACE AMOUNT OF THIS BOND MAY EXCEED THE PRINCIPAL SUM REMAINING OUTSTANDING AND DUE HEREUNDER. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A -3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia - has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of Frederick, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman or Vice - Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated , 2011. COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA Chairman, Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia A -4 ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to exchange said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Date: Registered Owner Signature Guaranteed: (NOTICE: The signature above must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears on the front of this Bond in every (NOTICE: Signature(s) must be particular, without alteration or change.) guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Bond Registrar which requirements will include Membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Bond Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A -5 SCHEDULEI AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE B -6 C O REZONING APPLICATION #01 -11 CARMEUSE NA — CLEARBROOK REZONING ® Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: September 7, 2011 1738 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/15/11 Tabled 45 days 08/03/11 Recommended approval Board of Supervisors: 09/14/11 Pending PROPOSAL To rezone 92 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with proffers. LOCATION The properties, with addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, are located on the east side of Route 11 between the intersections of Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 09/14/11 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The Carmeuse NA - Clearbrook rezoning application addresses some of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Applicant has provided the County with a revised proffer statement dated July 12, 2011 and a revised Exhibit 92 dated August 3, 2011. The proffer revision was signed by representatives on July 22, 2011 and July 26, 2011. A waiver request with a modified buffer was approved by the Planning Commission on August 3, 2011. This waiver enables a 50 -feet setback against Route 11 and the adjacent residences located on Route 11, rather than the required 100 foot and 200 foot setbacks, respectively. The modified buffer requires that additional landscaping is to be placed within this buffer area. This is a Planning Commission approval; no Board action on the waiver is required. The Planning Commission forwards a recommendation for approval of the rezoning with an additional recommendation that the Board work to resolve the issue with the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company's future site. Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this j application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. i Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/15/11 Tabled 45 days 08/03/11 Recommended approval Board of Supervisors: 09/14/11 Pending PROPOSAL To rezone 92 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with proffers. i LOCATION The properties, with addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, are located between the intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836). j i MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS 44 -A -83, 44 -A -83A and 33 -A -144 (portion of (see exhibit)) I PROPERTY ZONING RA (Rural Areas) District I PRESENT USE Vacant/Agricultural /Residential /Park i i i ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE j f North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Clearbrook Park South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential /Agricultural East: EM (Extractive Manufacturing Use: Quarry West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: School /Residential/VacanVFairgrounds Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 672. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Carmeuse Lime & Stone Rezoning Application dated February, 2011, address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right - of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal Plans approved. Clearbrook Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. — Follow Frederick County Fire & Rescue recommendations. (Note: The Volunteer Company stated at August 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting that an agreement has been worked out with Carmeuse to secure a future site for the volunteer company. A copy of the agreement has not been made available to the Planning Commission.) Public Works Department: 1. Refer to Site and Land Use History, page 3: The discussion references the quarry company's attempts to meet with adjacent residents to address concerns to insure minimal impact to the surrounding community. This discussion should be expanded to include the measures that will be employed to remediate the impacts of the open pit mining operations on the ten single family residents located along Route 11. In particular, we anticipate the impacts from the mining operations will include dust, noise, lower groundwater levels and possible damage to building structures. 2. Refer to Soils /Geology, page 4: Expand the discussion to include a description of the actual geological formations that will be impacted and extracted by the proposed mining operations. 3. Refer to Solid Waste Disposal, page 5: The proposed rezoning incorporates property that is currently leased by Frederick County for use as a citizens' refuse disposal site. Frederick County signed a lease with O -N Minerals to use this property which is located immediately east of the park's ball field. The lease included an initial ten year time frame with two, five year renewals. At the time the lease was executed, representatives from O -N Minerals indicated that they anticipated underground mining to remove the high calcium limestone. Based on the proposed rezoning, we understand that Carmeuse NA plans to continue the current open pit approach. Nevertheless, considering the investment that Frederick County has made to this site to accommodate citizen refuse, we would appreciate the continued use of this site until at least 2024. If this request fits within the proposed development time frame of the quarry operations, we would appreciate that it be included in the proffer statement. Sanitation Authority: No comments. Frederick- Winchester Health Department Health Department has no objection to the request so long as no existing or proposed drainfields and wells are negatively impacted. Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 4 Historic Resources Advisory Board Please see attached letter dated April 1, 2011, from Candice E. Perkins, A1CP, Senior Planner. (Note: Exhibit 2, dated July 28, 2011, represents the relocated berm and screening around the Martin House and the adaptive reuse of the Martin House, addressing the comments of the HRAB. ) Department of Parks & Recreation No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: We have completed a review of the proposed rezoning application and determined the rezoning should not impact operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Public Schools Please see attached letter dated April 18, 2011, from K Wayne Lee, Jr., Coordinator of Planning and Development. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated April 10, 2011, from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. Planning Department: Please see attached Memorandum dated April 15, 2011, from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood/Stephenson Quadrangles) identify the subject parcels as being zoned A -2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District. The balance of parcel 33 -A -144 not zoned RA was zoned EM during the County's comprehensive downzoning RZ #13 -80 completed in 1980. The most recent rezoning from RA to EM in the vicinity of this property occurred with RZ #010 -98 when W.S. Frey rezoned 31.74 acres at the southern end of their property. Numerous adjustments to the boundaries of the parcels in this area have occurred in recent years. The applicant has provided a plat which depicts a zoning boundary within parcel 33 -A -144. This line appears to accurately reflect the existing boundary of the EM zoned land. The County agrees that the location identified on the plat resolves any ambiguity as to the zoning boundary. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 5 facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use. The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the general area surrounding this property with an industrial land use designation. In general, the proposed Extractive Manufacturing (EM) land use designation for this property is consistent with this industrial land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. This consistency was confirmed during the approval process for the adopted Northeast Land Use Plan in 2010. The Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes the Northeast Land Use Plan as an approved Area Plan in Appendix I. Therefore, the proposed Comprehensive Plan would continue to recognize the properties consistency with the Comprehensive Plan from a land use perspective. Site Access. The impact statement and proffer statement describe that public road access will be provided to the rezoned parcel and that all traffic will continue to use the existing quarry entrance on Brucetown Road, Route 672. Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the properties shall not be limited. Environment Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5 -3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg (Please note the ownership of the quarries has subsequently changed). The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5 -3]. History A portion of the property for which the rezoning is being requested is included in the study area for the Third Battle of Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County identifies one historic structure on the site, the Zinn House (Martin Farm), and one adjacent to the site, Rose Farm. Both these properties are listed as potentially significant properties. Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 6 To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan covers this portion of the County. The Eastern Road Plan is comprised of the transportation components of the various Area Plans. The transportation component of the Northeast Land Use Plan identifies the need for an ultimate six lane improvement for the Route 11 corridor in the vicinity of this project. According to VDOT, the minimum right -of -way necessary for this improvement would be 120', or 60' from the center of the existing right -of -way. The dedication of right -of -way to support the widening of Route 11 should be addressed. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The southern property contains environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has not identified this in the impact analysis. Under C. Suitability of the site, Environmental Features, it is stated that the subject parcels contain no known environmental features. Section G. Historical Sites and Structures, describes that a Phase 11 Archeological Study is being conducted of the area adjacent to the spring near the historically significant Martin Farmhouse. County mapping and site observations indicate pond, stream, and wetland features on the property. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Oaklet- Carbo- Chilhowie soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone - carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summary. In evaluating the Carmeuse NA Clearbrook rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Clearbrook Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 7 request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance. The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be more significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to Route 11 could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site, including Clearbrook Park. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O -N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their March 16, 2011 meeting. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated April 1, 2011, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner). Transportation. Review of the application indicates that while the applicant contends that overall truck trips on the public road system will not increase, there is no proffer to support this. While it may be true that daily trips are not expected to increase, the fact remains that rezoning of this parcel would increase the overall impact to our transportation system over time through the enabling of additional mining activity. Numerous traffic impact analyses in this area have highlighted the need for improvements and alignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Road. In addition, the Northeast Land Use Plan calls for interchange modifications and transportation improvements to support the planned uses for this area. This includes the area that is proposed for rezoning. Established County policy is that new or additional development is responsible for implementation of the comprehensive plan which calls for it. Part of this responsibility is participating in the infrastructure needed to support development of that comprehensive plan. At this time it does not appear that this application adequately addresses that responsibility. Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 8 The transportation component of the Northeast Land Use Plan identifies the need for an ultimate six lane improvement for the Route 11 corridor in the vicinity of this project. According to VDOT, the minimum right -of -way necessary for this improvement would be 120', or 60' from the center of the existing right -of -way. The dedication of right -of -way to support the widening of Route 11 should be addressed. A TIA was not provided for this project. This determination was based upon a development scenario that has not been proffered. As transportation relates directly to land use it must be recognized that the Proffer Statement does not place a limitation on development beyond that permitted by the district. Therefore, the number of vehicle trips, and consequently the impacts, could be considerably higher than that described with the development of additional EM land uses. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of Carmeuse at the Clearbrook Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed from the historical perspective, consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Route 11, Martinsburg Pike which borders the proposed mining operation. Adjacent properties The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) district of the County's Zoning Ordinance provides for additional performance standards which are aimed at protecting surrounding land uses from adverse impacts. Specifically, the following two standards address excavations 1. (Front Setback). Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred feet from any road, street, or highway right -of -way. 2. (Side & Rear Setbacks). Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred feet from any property zoned RA. No excavation shall be located closer than 200 feet from any dwelling or platted residential subdivision. Waiver Request The applicant, Carmeuse NA - Clearbrook, is seeking a reduction in the setback requirement for Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 9 the EM Extractive Manufacturing District as it applies to their property to allow structures and excavations to be located closer to the front, side, and rear property lines than is currently permitted by Ordinance. More specifically, Carmeuse NA - Clearbrook, are requesting a waiver to Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts. The requested waiver is to Part 608 EM Extractive Manufacturing District, 165- 608.05 Setback and Yard Requirements, particularly 165- 608.05(A)(2), 165- 608.05(B)(1) and 165- 608.05(B)(2), to allow the setback requirement be reduced from 75 feet, 100 feet, and 200 feet, respectively, to 50 feet in all cases. Through a separate action, the Planning Commission should determine if the applicant has, through the use of measures such as landscaping or screening, effectively protected the adjacent properties, including the residential properties and Clearbrook Park, and along Route 11, the appropriate measure of protection and has not reduced the effectiveness of the buffering and screening. If the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated the effectiveness of the alternative buffer and screening to the Planning Commission, the proffer statement incorrectly reflects the current setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) Proffer Statement — Dated February 8, 2011 (Revised July 12, 2011) A) Allowed Uses: i. The Proffer Statement states that the Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the approved mining permit. It should be recognized that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Quarry operations, both here and in Middletown, and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. ii. Please refer to the list of permitted uses and the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance. As noted previously, the Impact Analysis states that the Applicant has proffered that activities such as asphalt or concrete mixing plants, cement Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 10 and lime kilns, and oil and natural gas extraction will be prohibited. The Proffer Statement does not prohibit such uses, or other EM uses. B) Access Management and Transportation. i. The applicant contends that overall truck trips on the public road system will not increase; however, there is no proffer to support this. While it may be true that daily trips are not expected to increase, the fact remains that rezoning of this parcel would increase the overall impact to the transportation system. ii. Numerous traffic impact analyses in this area have highlighted the need for improvements and alignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Road. In addition, the Northeast Land Use Plan calls for interchange modifications and transportation improvements to support the planned uses for this area. At this time it does not appear that this application adequately addresses the responsibility to participate in the infrastructure needed to support development as identified by the comprehensive plan. iii. The transportation component of the Northeast Land Use Plan identifies the need for an ultimate six lane improvement for the Route 11 corridor in the vicinity of this project. The dedication of right -of -way to support the widening of Route 11 should be addressed. The Applicant has proffered the provision for the dedication of 20' across the property whenever a demand is made for the same by Frederick County or VDOT (6.2). Please note that said dedication would be from within the proposed 50'setback, potentially reducing the buffer along Route 11 to 30'. C) Site Development: i.Proffer 2.2 recognizes Exhibit 2 as the document detailing the landscaping, berming, and excavation activity. The two sections shown on Exhibit 2 place the pit wall excavations approximately 53 feet from the road right -of -way and residential lots. This is also the same distance proposed from the County Park. Please recognize that without a waiver, Exhibit 2 proposes standards which conflict with the County's Zoning Ordinance. ii.Insufficient detail is provided in Proffer 2.2 or Exhibit 2 to accurately define the amount, size, mix, and spacing of the landscaping. Both Proffer 2.2 and Exhibit 2 relate to each other but do not adequately provide commitments in the landscaping and berming to guarantee the impacts to the adjacent residential properties within the existing platted subdivision, the Route 11 corridor, and the County Park can be adequately mitigated. iii.Proffer 3.1 addressing Historic Resources does not appear to be a valid proffer Rezoning 901 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 11 as it makes no commitment to do anything relating to the Martin Farmhouse, which the Applicant's Phase 1 Archeological Survey identified as having historical significance. Further clarification and commitment is needed with regards to this issue. The comments provided by the Historic Resources Advisory Board should be addressed. The Applicant has addressed this comment by providing a commitment for the adaptive reuse of the property and the relocation of the berm around the property. D) Mitigating the Impact of Development: i.This application does not address the impacts on Community Facilities. Particular attention should be provided to Parks and Recreation, and Fire and Rescue. The Northeast Land Use Plan recognizes the planned development of capital facilities that would be necessary to support the growth in this area of the County. A new fire and rescue facility in the Clearbrook area is recognized and is a top priority of the CIP. ii.A previous rezoning pertaining to the EM district with the same owner guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The proffer Statement should provide clarification that the future use of the property and the development of facilities to support the utilization of the groundwater resources are enabled by this rezoning request and Proffer Statement. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/15/11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Carmeuse NA - Clearbrook rezoning application addresses some of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1. The potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. z: rrie icee=rmzenufz irs er the Histe Z ' cc a ourEis- z-rcrc'i3ery - Bear u� 3. The potential impacts on adjacent properties. 4. The potential transportation impacts on Route 672 and Route 11 5. The concerns of the reviewing agencies, in particular the County Attorney. Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 06/15/11 MEETING: Six citizens from the Stonewall, Back Creek, and Gainesboro Districts, spoke in support of the rezoning. These citizens included employees of Carmeuse and private enterprises, which depend on Carmeuse for their business and donations. The applicants presented a number of letters of support and a petition signed by 3 0 Carmeuse employees. Included were 15 letters of support from neighbors in the Clearbrook/Brucetown area and five letters of support from adjoining property owners. The applicant's Area Operations Manager, Mr. James (Jim) Bottom, spoke about the numerous community meetings held with the residents of Brucetown, Clearbrook, Walters Mill Lane, and the small community across from the school, along with one -on -one meetings, to determine the concerns of the neighbors. He said issues ranged from noise, access, railroad crossings, location and type of berms, the historical house, and landscaping along property boundaries. Mr. Bottom said the proffers were written based upon residents' feedback and all review agency comments were answered by letter. He talked about communications with the Parks & Recreation Department to relocate the existing ballfields. A noise and vibration specialist, hired by the applicant, provided some technical information and an overview of the results of a noise study conducted. His conclusions concerning the long -term noise condition was that maximum noise levels would be 62 -65 decibels closest to the berm and as operations move away from the berm, noise levels will drop due to distance to the mid 50s. He concluded by noting the overall noise impact with the berm in place would be minimal and will be the same as background noise from I -81 and Route 11. The applicant's attorney, Mr. Ty Lawson, reviewed the revised proffers with the Commission. His points included: asphalt and concrete mixing plants were proffered out; the angles on either side of the berms were softened and would include random plantings; and the berm would be moved behind the Martin farmhouse to preserve historical viewshed. In addition, the Martin farmhouse will be placed into adaptive re -use. With regard to transportation issues, Mr. Lawson stated that VDOT was satisfied with the proffers offered; therefore, no TIA was produced. In addition, VDOT did not want any additional entrances on Route 11, which is reflected in their proffer, and they will continue to access Brucetown Road. No additional right -of -way for future widening of Route 1 I was offered, nor was any contributions toward the realignment of the Brucetown/Hopewell intersection. Planning Commission members asked the applicant about various unresolved issues such as, a date for when the relocation of the County's convenience center site would have to be moved so there will be ample time to relocate; the importance of the acquisition of right -of -way for the future widening of Route 11 as justified by the newly- adopted Northeast Land Use Plan; a guarantee that Frederick County will have access to the water now and into the future for its citizens; the potential of supplying several acres in this vicinity for the relocation of a fire and rescue building; and placing a new commercial entrance on Route 11 and removing the primary access on Brucetown Road, due to the poor site distance and curvature of Brucetown Road and the conflict it creates with dump trucks and passenger vehicles. There were also issues raised regarding some discrepancies with the language in the proffers and corresponding exhibits regarding the desire to see the berm "maintained" at ten feet. The issue of Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 13 the close proximity of the pit to adjoining residential properties was also discussed and practices that could be utilized to be certain that no disruptions occur to adjoining properties or water wells. The Planning Commission acted first on the requested waiver. By a majority vote, the Commission tabled the waiver request for 45 days in order to provide time for the applicant to revise their proffers. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO TABLE WAIVER 45 DAYS) Unger, Crosen, Manuel, Oates, Wilmot, Kriz, Lemieux NO : Ambrogi, Thomas, Madagan, Triplett, Mohn ABSTAIN Crockett The Planning Commission next acted on the rezoning application. By a majority vote, the Commission tabled the rezoning for 45 days to give the applicant time to address the issues raised by the Commission. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO TABLE REZONING 45 DAYS) Unger, Crosen, Manuel, Oates, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett, Lemieux, Mohn NO: Ambrogi, Thomas, Madagan ABSTAIN Crockett PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/03/11 MEETING Some members of the Commission had concerns regarding the waiver. They were concerned about the excavation pit wall coming within 50 feet of residential properties and the possibility of being left with a 30 -foot reduced buffer along Route 11 for the planned future expansion. Some Commission members were opposed to the Brucetown Road access and believed truck traffic should use Route 11. If Brucetown Road was used for truck traffic, they believed there needed to be a limit on the number of trucks, due to the possibility of other allowed uses in the EM District affecting the traffic volume. The absence of an offer of property in recognition of the fire and rescue facility was also raised as a concern. The President of the Board of Directors of the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company said that Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company and the quarry owners have come to a mutual agreement regarding a land exchange at a future date. A Commissioner asked the fire company if they would present their contract to the Board of Supervisors so their capital improvement request could be removed from the CIP. The applicant's attorney noted that this is an agreement between two private property owners. Other Commission members did not believe this properly agreement should preclude the fire company from being on the CIP; it was felt they are providing public service and should continue to be able to benefit from any proffer funds that may be collected. It was noted that the value of the CIP is not purely about property, but it also legitimizes public proffer funds being directed towards a fire company. Rezoning #01 -11 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning September 7, 2011 Page 14 There were no public comments. The waiver request with a modified buffer was approved by a majority vote. A recommendation of approval of the rezoning was made by a majority vote with an additional recommendation that the Board work to resolve the issue with the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL OF REZONING) Mohn, Lemieux, Triplett, Kriz, Madagan, Wilmot, Oates, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen NO: Unger ABSTAIN Crockett (Note: Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) 0StENM-' bE�' R E Z# 01 - 11 agRR S F a QR BgRq w armeuse - NAv 34A11A 34A11 cue ti � 0 G 00 O -N MINERALS FREDERICK LAND Llearbrook Rezoning SLLC b G�P�PS�O (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY COMPANY LC �G 1 PINs:44- A- 83,83A 9n &33 -A -144 N�w 33 A 78 HMC LP LLP c 34 A 20 33 A 1626 FREDERICK LAND -, 9 p ° y FREDERICK COMPANY LLC . COUNTY VIRGINIA ° l 24P a. O 44 A 80 a p �b P WHITE WAVERLY y A �bQGQQ\ HARRY S JR FARM I -+ � �� � 4 � y - ♦o ii i• . >' 33 A 144 O -N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY 45 A 7 0' �' •- aF v FREDERICK LAND 44 A 83 Q 4� COMPANY LLC 44 A 77A 0 -N MINERALS EDERICK (CHEMSTONE),COMPANY UNTY FAIR C a � 44 A 100 ANDERSON MARK D & "CHERYL L a 44 A 9 ? � FREDERICK LAND • COMPANY LC( o: n 44 A 103 r2nf. o GRAY 44 A 85 f�nya 44 A 96 MARK T W `i NEFF RONALD FREDERICK v ° g 45 A 8 W ETALS LAND COMPANY CARTER Bpryi ♦ more & phlo RR r 0 ROBERT W o 2 44 A 1088.. Z 44 A 115 BOHNENKAMP ��- �� 44 A 95 cEOec.E m HAINES T EARL 8 HAZEL T ' I ♦ 44 .. ... . OMPS B 44 A 199 COLE f • • DEXTER T ��,•" v.. .. ... Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. /� 117 East Piccadilly Street H 1 1 `+ \ Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Ruddy Organ izationlCompany: Frederick County Planning From: Ron Mislowsky, PE Date: May 19, 2011 Project Name /Subject: Carmeuse Clearbrook Rezoning PHR +A Project file Number: cc: In response to County requests we have prepared an exhibit depicting the existing zoning boundary on TM Parcel 33 -A -144 as we believe it can be bet described. Two copies are attached. Additionally we have revised the impact statement to clarify Paragraph C, Scope of Proposed Use. This revision brings the impact language in line with the current version of the proffer. We believe this completes the application and trust we can now move forward to Public Hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. MAY 192011 r L _; Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 1 17 East Piccadilly Street R+A Winchester, Virginia 22601 PH T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Ruddy Organization /Company: Frederick County Planning From: Ron Mislowsky, PE Date: May 6, 2011 Project Name /Subject: Carmeuse Rezoning cc: In February, PHR +A submitted a rezoning application to review agencies as required by the Frederick County procedures. The project site of 92 acres is located on the east side of U.S. Route 11, just south of the Clearbrook Park property. The intent of this application is to rezone all portions of tax map parcel 44 -A -83, 44 -A -83A and any portion of 33 -A -144 not currently zoned EM. The current zoning boundary is generally shown on Exhibit #l. This location is based on existing County records. As this line does not conform to a property line north of parcel 83A, the actual location is not tied to any fixed point of reference. If approved, this rezoning would remove any ambiguity as to the location of the EM zone boundary on parcel 144, `- relocating it to the existing property lines. We have received comments from the following agencies: VDOT Public Works - Comment Frederick County Fire Marshal Clearbrook Volunteer Fire Co. Parks & Recreation Frederick - Winchester Health Department Winchester Regional Airport Frederick - Winchester Service Authority Historic Resources Advisory Board — Comment Frederick County Attorney — Comment Frederick County Sanitation Authority (No Comment) Frederick County Public Schools Frederick County Planning Frederick County Transportation Planning Most agencies had no comment. In response to comments raised by the HRAB, the Applicant is looking at the berm locations in an effort to balance the needs to screen the quarry operations but also not to block the view of the Martin house. In response to Public Works' comments about the impact to adjacent residences, Carmeuse's operating permits require it to take the precautions to protect adjoining properties, and Carmeuse has had and will continue to have meetings with its neighbors concerning ongoing mining operations. Public Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum Page 2 Works also commented about the Convenience Center lease. Certainly Carmeuse intends to honor the existing leases and has entered into an agreement to address the adjacent ballfields. Planning raised a concern regarding setback requirements. We understand that a waiver will be required to reduce the setback to extracted mining operations to the proffered distance. Therefore, we have attached a Waiver Application to reduce the 200 ft. required setback. We believe the best approach is to let this request track with the rezoning application. As noted in previous correspondence, we understand that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority will not be providing a comment. However, we would request that some writing be generated by that agency to confirm the same. We certainly do not want the lack of a comment to be an issue in the processing of this rezoning application. We are also aware of comments from the Frederick County Attorney and your office concerning the assertion of a lack of clarity in the language of the Proffers. The Applicant will certainly review those comments. We will have obtained Mrs. Martin's signature on the Application and the Proffer Statement as has been requested by the County Attorney. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. We have attached all the comments sheets as well as copies of the Proffer Statement and Exhibit. Please let me know when this application will be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects p. \correspondence \karen \carmeuse dearbrook rationing \ltr to ruddy from r mZSl01YSky reP 5 -5.doc LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 .... POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 7224051 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • LAWSON(&ASPLC.COM May 18, 2011 Roderick B. Williams, Esquire County Attorney County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Carmeuse Lime & Stone Our File No. 462.013 VIA E -MAIL AND FACSIMILE Dear Rod: Thank you for your recent e -mail concerning Carmeuse's stalled rezoning application. Following your suggestion, I enclose a plat, which depicts a zoning boundary line, but also correctly confirms that the exact location of the boundary is uncertain and that with the proposed rezoning the uncertainty will be resolved by rezoning any un -zoned portion of this parcel to EM. Let me know if this plat is what you were thinking of when you sent me your last correspondence. I am hoping this fits the bill and that with its submittal the rezoni% application can proceed and this matter will be heard by the Planning Commission at its June 15` date. Thank you for your anticipated assistance and cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Very trul o s, Thom Moore L wson TML:atd Enclosure cc: Carmeuse Lime & Stone FROM ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE Box 602, FRONT ROYA[_ VIRGMIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415 • FACS]MILE: (540) 635 -9421 • E- MAIL:ISII.FK(iP NBONANDSILIJ COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUFFE 200, FAHRFAXC VIRGCHA 22030, TELEPHONE: (70I) 352 -2615 • FACSIMILE: (703) 352 -4190 • E- MAIL: THOMASOLAWSO4.or1, VERIZON.NET , m CFp H, �s UCET .. N a 2 T.M. 33, =144 TA 44 -A- Q� d� O E ZONING A Q�Q ?' / F- P OPOSED WING EM Q i I� (n M 1 0 BASED ON REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DOC E TS IN S C) ti��tr� I� THE POSSESSION OF FREDERICK COU Y PLANNING, U O EXISTING AR TO BE IN THE Of VICINITY FAN EXTENSION PROPER J O�S o" ii vy 'jmK - -/ E SOU AT N39 56'05" - 2601.16'. THE Q� b �O ��' r 4 - PROPOSE RESOLVE ANY Q� ? ; S AMBIGUITY OF LOCATIO ING BOUNDARY BY Z U ZONING ANY REMAINING ORTION CEL 144 WHICH IS IN RA ZONING 0 EM ZONING. ;' 3R Z (Aw 108.902 s hwc ra.7e7 ' $ BLOW UP AT 1" =300' t w41c� CO 4 COUNTY of FREDERICK w Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 ,RG1N/ FAX: 540/665-6395 1738 • , TO: Ron Mislowski, P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP�� Deputy Director RE: Initial Rezoning Comments: Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning. DATE: April 15, 2011 The following comments are offered regarding the Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 92 +/- acres from RA (Rural Areas) to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) with Proffers. The review is generally based upon the proffer statement dated February 8, 2011 and the Impact Analysis Statement dated January, 2011. A TIA was not prepared for this application. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. General ni , �, ;aA p1µ1 .,f Fti??nni??� inrl- yrji a metes and bounds description of the property. The acreage of the portion of Parcel 33 -A -144 should be defined and added within the title block of the proffer statement. 2. Please ensure that all the necessary application materials are submitted with application. 3. The submission fee for this application would total $19,200.00, based upon acreage of 92 acres, plus the appropriate amount for public hearing signs. I would suggest that several public hearing signs are obtained for this application given the size and location of the property. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning Comments April 15, 2011 Page 2 Land Use 1) The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the general area surrounding this property with an industrial land use designation. In general, the proposed Extractive Manufacturing (EM) land use designation for this property is consistent with this industrial land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. This consistency was confirmed during the approval process for - air ado cdi '•� i Uh vt1J :. f..ari. U e a.Li . n 2 10. 2) The Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes the Northeast Land Use Plan as an approved Area Plan in Appendix I. Therefore, the proposed Comprehensive Plan would continue to recognize the properties consistency with the Comprehensive Plan from a land use perspective. Impact Analysis Statement Please address the following errors in the Impact Analysis Statement prepared for this Application. 1) Under B. Comprehensive Policy Plan, it is stated that the subject acreage is not located within the boundaries of any small area study or land use plan included in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within the boundaries of The Northeast Land Use Plan. Please correct. 2) Under B. Comprehensive Policy Plan, it is stated that the subject acreage is not located within the SWSA. The property is located within the SWSA. Please correct. 3) Tinder C. Suitability of the site. Scope of Proposed U se, it is stated that the Applicant has proffered that activities such as asphalt or concrete mixing plants, cement and lime kilns, and oil and natural gas extraction will be prohibited. The Proffer Statement does not prohibit such uses, or other EM uses. Please correct in either the Impact Analysis Statement or Proffer Statement. 4) Under C. Suitability of the site, Environmental Features, it is stated that the subject parcels contain no known environmental features. Section G. Historical Sites and Structures, describes that a Phase H Archeological Study is being conducted of the area adjacent to the spring near the historically significant Martin Farmhouse. County mapping and site observations indicate pond, stream, and wetland features on the property. Please correct the Environmental Features section to reflect the environmental features on the property. 5) Copies of the Phase 1 and Phase II Archeological Surveys should be provided to the County for review. Canneuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning Comments April 15, 2011 Page 3 Transportation The following transportation comments have been provided by John Bishop, County Transportation Planner, and should be considered as the County Staff's position on this component of the rezoning. 1) My review of the application indicates that while the applicant contends that overall truck trips on the public road system will not increase, there is no proffer to support this. While it may be true that daily trips are not expected to increase, Ui fact remains that rezoninb of this parse. would increase the overall impact to our transportation system over time through the enabling of additional mining activity. 2) Numerous traffic impact analyses in this area have highlighted the need for improvements and alignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Road. In addition, the Northeast Land Use Plan calls for interchange modifications and transportation improvements to support the planned uses for this area. This includes the area that is proposed for rezoning. Established County policy is that new or additional development is responsible for implementation of the comprehensive plan which calls for it. Part of this responsibility is participating in the infrastructure needed to support development of that comprehensive plan. At this time it does not appear that this application adequately addresses that responsibility. 3) The transportation component of the Northeast Land Use Plan identifies the need for an ultimate six lane improvement for the Route 11 corridor in the vicinity of this project. According to VDOT, the minimum right -of -way necessary for this improvement would be 120', or 60' from the center of the existing right -of -way. The dedication of right -of -way to support the widening of Route 11 should be addressed. 4) A TIA was not provided for this project. This determination was based upon a development scenario that has not been proffered. As transportation relates directly to land use it must be recognized that the Proffer Statement does not place a limitation on development beyond that permitted by the district. Therefore, the number of vehicle trips, and consequently the impacts, could be considerably higher than that described with the development of additional EM land uses. Proffer Statement 1) The Proffer Statement states that the Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the approved mining permit. It should be recognized that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning Comments April 15, 2011 Page 4 Quarry operations both here and in Middletown, and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. 2) Please refer to the list of permitted uses and the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance. As noted previously, the Impact Analysis states that the Applicant has proffered .-1 at a ti %ill --s su:h as at.P ialt or concrete Unix ng piai.as, ce,riciit and lime kilns, and oil and natural gas extraction will be prohibited. The Proffer Statement does not prohibit such uses, or other EM uses. 3) The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) district of the County's Zoning Ordinance provides for additional performance standards which are aimed at protecting surrounding land uses from adverse impacts. Specifically, the following two standards address excavations 1. (Front Setback). Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred feet from any road, street, or highway right -of -way. 2. (Side & Rear Setbacks). Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred feet from any property zoned RA. No excavation shall be located closer than 200 feet from any dwelling or platted residential subdivision. Proffer 2.2 recognizes Exhibit 2 as the document detailing the landscaping, berming, and excavation activity. The two sections shown on Exhibit 2 place the pit wall excavations approximately 53 feet from the road right -of -way and residential lots. This is also the same distance proposed from the County Park. Please address why Exhibit 2 proposes standards which appear to conflict with the County's Zoning Ordinance. 4) Insufficient detail is provided in Proffer 2.2 or Exhibit 2 to accurately define the amount, size, min:, and spacing of the landscaping. Both Proffer 2.2 and Exhibit 2 relate to each other but do not adequately provide commitments in the landscaping and berming to guarantee the impacts to the adjacent residential properties within the existing platted subdivision, the Route I 1 corridor, and the County Park can be adequately mitigated. The proffered buffering and landscaping should propose buffering and landscaping that would exceed the minimum expectation of the Ordinance. Specificity as to the landscaping is expected. 5) Additionally, appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. The adjacent residential uses, the historic farmhouse, the Route I1 corridor, and Clearbrook Park are recognized in the Northeast Land Use Plan with a Developmentally Sensitive Area designation. Due consideration of these elements in the Application is also expected. Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning Comments April 15, 2011 Page 5 6) A commitment as to the timing of the construction of the berms would be helpful as would understanding the ultimate location and design of the overburden as required by the approved mining permit. Examples exist of extremely large and conspicuous piles of overburden. Knowing the ultimate location of this would be helpful to ensure unanticipated impacts do not occur. 7) Proffer 3.1 addressing Historic Resources does not appear to be a valid proffer as it makes no commitment to do anything relating to the Martin Farmhouse, which the Applicant's Phase 1 Archeological Survey identified as having historical significance. It appears to be a narrative restating discussion in the Impact 5taternent and the intention of the Applicant. Further clarification and commitment is needed with regards to this issue. The comments provided by the Historic Resources Advisory Board should be addressed. 8) This application's does not address the impacts on Community Facilities. Particular attention should be provided to Parks and Recreation, and Fire and Rescue. The Northeast Land Use Plan recognizes the planned development of capital facilities that would be necessary to support the growth in this area of the County. A new fire and rescue facility in the Clearbrook area is recognized and is a top priority of the CIP. 9) Staff would support the County Attorney's opinion that any proffer that provides a commitment to do something that is already required by Federal, State, and Local requirements, or the Applicant's Mining Permit should be removed from the proffer statement. For purposes of clarity and understanding it would be preferable to limit the commitments in the proffer statement to those that are above and beyond the scope of any existing requirements, whether required by Code or by Permit. In general, narrative should be placed within the Impact Statement with commitments located in the Proffer Statement In conclusion, please ensure that the above comments, and those offered by the reviewing agency are given due consideration. MTR/bad 4 CO �'jr 4 COUNTY of FREDERICK r� Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia @co.frederick.va.us April 10, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE — (540) 665 -0493 — AND REGULAR MAIL Ron Mislowski, P.E. P ­ tt JI- 1-1 rr�n tom. .ant r� i\ e. i. .... i ..u. iJ . u.>.. w [ �J� >Vti+it1L�.J 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Application, Parcel Numbers 44 -A -83, 44- A -83A, and 33 -A -144, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Property — Proffer Statement dated February 8, 2011 Dear Ron: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer statement dated February 8, 2011 (the "Proffer Statement ") for the proposed rezoning of 92f acres constituting property of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company (the "Applicant "), Parcel Identification Numbers 44 -A -83, 44 -A -83A, and 33 -A -144 (collectively, the "Property "), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: iy, :i t. bu Reiplui ;1 metes and bounl of the portion of parcel 33 -A -144 to be rezoned were provided. 2. The second paragraph of the first page of the Proffer Statement is unclear as to what would constitute "development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement ", both in terms of what constitutes "development" and what constitutes being "adjacent ". Also, the timing reference conflicts in part with other provisions of the Proffer Statement, including in particular Proffer 2.2. 3. Staff should be aware that the provision in the second to last sentence of the second paragraph on the first page of the Proffer Statement is likely not dictated by federal or state law. The County could still require that activity on the Property take place in 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 Ron Mislowski, P.E. April 10, 2011 Page 2 conformity with local requirements and federal /state requirements. To the extent that an activity cannot take place in compliance with both may mean that such an activity cannot take place on the Property and not that the activity must be able to take place on the Property. 4. Proffer 1.1 — The Proffer might better include citations as to exactly what constitutes the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations, so as to avoid any ambiguities. Also, staff should be aware that Proffers 1. 1, 4.1, 5.1, 8.1, 9. 1, and 10.1 for the most part indicate that the Applicant will comply with regulations as to which compliance is already required and, therefore, the Proffers may not necessarily commit the Applicant to additional obligations. G P 2.1. ... T second s,.mtence is iln -iaa^ as to the tY.'`ca ning of " n eriodic maintenance" and the parameters of the required access by vehicles for such purpose. 6. Proffer 2.2 — The Proffer does not commit to any specifics regarding the extent of the trees, including what the standards of the "U.S. Department of Forestry" are. 7. Proffer 3.1 — Staff should ensure that the County has received copies of the referenced surveys. Also, with respect to the area for the Phase II survey, the Proffer does not provide specification of "the area adjacent to the spring near the Martin farmhouse ". 8. Proffers 4.1 and 5.1 — Neither Proffer indicates suggests the establishment of any baseline for determining damage. 9. Proffer 7.1 — The Proffer does not state what constitutes "reasonable efforts ", either by example or by particular standards. 10. Proffer 8.1 — Staff should be aware that the prohibition against lighting on the berms is limited to "affixed lighting structures ". 11. Finally. because Ms. Martin still holds an interest, in the form of a life estate, in i R,t I ♦ A o7 ��7 ^x'1.7 z s;, -, thz Proffer l gto ent c it Apll'. pl eti.Qn 7t . j`.i.LiL�: Yr'c'1�U3, Scie ✓ia_u ..� . .a.. St _ _ . i well. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Sinc ours, Roderick B. Wi s County Attorney Ron Mislowski, P.E. April 10, 2011 Page 3 cc: Michael Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. K vL Z e L_ +� L. E kfk.a �Z. r� { - ... s - . .F . ;. '. R r.SEi !` i'�?4`c .P.;`t., r"r /Ct773!((a _ €'•Ff'e e >. c�e 7ciCE <� .�. r C ( �e.Rk_ :1. R N. t'.E cep -f. taktet'er Fa June 1, 2011 Mr. Mike Ruddy Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Ref.: Rezoning Application for Carmeuse, Clearbrook Location Dear Mr. Ruddy The Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with existing agreements between the Applicant and the Authority, has constructed and presently operates the Anderson Water Treatment Plant, two wells and other improvements on the Applicant's properties. The aforementioned improvements are necessary for the residents of Frederick County who depend on the Authority for water services. The Plant, wells and related improvements are not referred to in the Applicant's Rezoning Application Materials. Further, such Rezoning Application Materials do not refer to the Applicant's guarantee to the Authority of the rights to the water resources available on the Applicant's properties, including the Authority's use of the water - containing quarry pits located on the properties as water reservoirs at the time of cessation of the Applicant's mining activities on the properties, all in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and the Authority. In order for the Authority to support this rezoning request, the Applicant must assure the continuation of the Authority's access to and use of the plant, wells and related improvement on the Applicant's properties and the Authority's rights to the water resources, including the water- containing quarry pits, pursuant to the existing agreements between the Applicant and the Authority. Should any further discussions be needed, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours; Uwe E. Weindel, PE Engineer- Director cc.: Mr. Ron Mislowsky, PE, PHR &A j . . - t= < C ��'G 4 COUNTY of FREDERICK w a a' Department of Planning and Development &� 540/665 -5651 v` 17 8 FAX: 540/665 -6395 1738 April 1, 2011 Mr. Ron Mislowsky Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 2260i RE: Application Requesting a Rezoning of 92 Acres from RA to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) for Carmeuse Clearbrook Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 44 -A -83, 44- A -83A, 33 -A -144 Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Area) Dear Mr. Mislowsky: - The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting on March 16, 2011. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided and Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC. The proposal seeks to rezone three parcels of land that total 92 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. The properties are located between the intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road and with Walters Mill Lane (508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike). Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, shows that a portion of the subject site is included in the study area of the Third Battle of Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County Virginia identifies one historic structure located on the site (44 -A -83) and one historic structure located adjacent to the subject site. Both of these properties are potentially significant. The sites that are listed in the survey are: • Zinn House ( #34 -114) (Martin Farmhouse — located on the property) • Rose Farm ( #34 -717) 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Mr. Ron Mislowsky Re: Rezoning of 92 Acres from RA to EM Carmeuse Clearbrook April 1, 2011 Page 2 After reviewing this information and the applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resource Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended that the Carmeuse Clearbrook Rezoning Application addresses the following: • Proffer 3.1 should be revised to ensure that the Zinn House will be preserved and protected (removal of the "intention" language). • The Zinn House has barns and outbuildings associated with the farm house and these features are typically contributing features for the complex. The applicant should protfer to preserve and protect these buildings in addition to the Zinn House. The applicant should complete an application for the National Register of Historic Places for Zinn House property to determine if it is eligible for the Register. • The proffered berm should be relocated around the Zinn House to ensure that it does not block the historic property from Route 11 (see attachment). The berm should also be a rolling /contorted berm. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, f r C('? Candice Perkins, AICP Senior Planner CEP /bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, HRAB Chair f W:BCAFR�3 i0 B- FA�i,C�O K /� F(A PRCPP[R 21 y T t u•.RSCF PMVAWR II/ 1 AP�RCx. to GNi 6 � E CtIM1£ n 4 . _ I� � f/1S11xG GRgMO a; y <Rv rca -k� SECTION A ccaxraaE22E F ti utroscaoE o 1 1 w I /` RF9BENnA lot I� m - ; ox rt H]GRL a xs RWn a 16 / iz Y ' t Cq • t X11 A'^ �i'Ni I a uA[ y o.L Loi Gen>m ( ry1— SECTION B a�fiMS TO EE PLANiEO hIM MESS UPC`l S./ Pu ;.� STauCTCx. 'Ifc SFe 5 x OCATt04 «H, �4Yx ALL lE �S x1LL 6' APpAO £D a v1xE LO[A� CF w if? US 4TIExi CE FWcS1AY. SCREENING BERM SECTIONS SCALE: 1 " =20' Possible location n o for berm W _ *'} W Y 6 i L 11- 14 FEA PAGRTA ].z p s Cn LM w 3 _Z U Remove berm from �' this area. o ° _ a PROPOSED SCREENM € a 9CAL-Er f =300' 4 °Frederick Count y Public Schools Q ... to ensure all students an excellent education K. Wayne Lee, Jr.. Coordinator of Planning and Development . leew @frederick.k12.va.us April 18, 2011 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowski Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning Dear Ron, Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Carmeuse Lime and Stone rezoning application submitted to us on March 1, 2011. We have strong concerns regarding this application. We understand that the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy is responsible for regulating quarry operations and quarry safety, and that Frederick County does not have a role in this regulation. We do not wish to make comments in this vein. - Instead, it is our duty to express our concerns over factors from the quarry operations that could impact the quality of the educational experience at Stonewall Elementary School, students' safety, and students' health; to ask that Carmeuse Lime & Stone take every cautionary step to prevent these impacts; and to ask that Carmeuse Lime & Stone be prepared to mitigate without delay impacts on us. Factors that concern us include the danger of quarry wall collapse, damage caused by vibrations and flying debris from blasting, potentially asbestos - containing dust, and the noise from blasting and equipment. The proximity of the quarry to Route 11 and Stonewall Elementary School magnifies the risk from these factors. We offer the following comments: 1. Regarding quarry wall collapse, we are aware that measures are taken to avoid such incidents. However, they can and do happen. Have core samples been taken to determine where collapses are more likely, and how these collapses can be avoided? If the quarry is located as shown on the screening berm section drawing, a significant collapse 50 feet from Route 11 just across from Stonewall Elementary School could have significant negative impacts on us, including loss of ingress and egress. 2. Regarding damage from blasting, we are aware that measures are taken to avoid as many such impacts as is humanly possible. Is money allocated to an escrow account to pay for damages from blasting when they do occur? What is the plan of action if Stonewall Elementary School is damaged or cannot be fully occupied as a result of blasting damage? 1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.kl2.va.us 540 - 662 -3889 Ext. 88249 P.O. Box 3508 540 - 662 -4237 fax Winchester, Virginia 22604 -2546 3. Regarding dust, we note in your proffer statement that you will control the dust with wet suppression or equivalent. We are aware that the prevailing winds send dust away from us most of the time. Unfortunately, winds shift and dust control measures are not always effective. To make matters worse, we have read information indicating that respiratory tract ailments can result from inhaling quarry dust and that limestone formations can contain asbestos. This information further indicates that children who already have respiratory ailments or otherwise weakened resistance are most especially susceptible to quarry dust. Does this quarry contain asbestos? What tests are available to confirm this? We also note in the proffer statement that you propose remediation of adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust. Does this remediation include respiratory illnesses? 4. Regarding noise, the closer the quarry comes to the school, the more impact the noise from operations will have. We acknowledge that this will impact students who are outside for PE and recess more than those inside. What steps will Carmeuse take to maintain noise at acceptable levels during the school day? Is there a generally agreed upon definition of acceptable noise levels? 5. The greater the distance operations will be from SWES, the less significant all impacts will be. We note in your impact analysis statement that you intend to use only 60% of the proposed rezoning area. This statement does not match the screening berm section drawing that shows 95% use of the property or greater, with quarry walls 50 feet from the Route 1 I right -of -way boundary. We would instead prefer a drawing that matches your impact analysis statement. 6. Does DMME regulate the distance that the quarry wall can be from a primary road? An emergency route? 7. Does DMME regulate the steepness and height of quarry walls and benching? Does DMME require slope stability analyses? 8. Does DMME regulate dust control? 9. Does DMME regulate noise levels? 10. Does DMME regulate the distance that the quarry wall can be from a school? 11. The Extractive Manufacturing District permits several uses besides quarries. Many of these uses, if positioned on the portion of the property near to and with access to Route 11, could have an impact on pupil transportation and our school day at Stonewall Elementary School. For instance, the intense odors from an asphalt batch plant would be quite disruptive. The noise and dust from a stone crushing operation could be overwhelming at times, especially during PE and recess. Caustic dust from a lime manufacturing facility could be dangerous. In your impact analysis statement, you say that several uses are proffered off. However, we cannot find such waivers in the proffer statement. 2 Frederick County Public Schools has an interest in all land development applications. Capital expenditures, annual operating costs, and day -to -day operations can all be impacted by development. Should you have questions about the comments above, please contact me at 540- 662 -3889 x88249 or leew(? frederick.k I 2.va.us Sincerely, K. Wayne Lee, Jr. Coordinator of Planning and Development Cc: Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Chuck Puglisi, Director of Transportation Darren Thomas, Principal, Stonewall Elementary School Mike Ruddy, Deputy Director, Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 3 V / Ic /cv i i iu.�o rni. � - -• LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 ExETER ftm; stmx 200 Parr OMCE BOX 2740 VaNCAEMR. VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 0$_00$0 FACB MIIS: (540) 72240S1 FACS)[MILE COVER SKEET Date: July 12, 2011 To: Mr, Michael T. Ruddy (540) 665 -6395 Mr. John Bishop (540) 665 -6395 Roderick B. Williams, Esquire (540) 667 -0370 From: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire Re: Rezoning Application for Carmeuse NA- Clearbrook Rezoning Number of pages including cover: 14 Message: Please see the attached. Thank you. The information contained in this facsimile message is information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be attorney /client privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. FVO I'"7 0FFICE Box 002, ft-A ROYAL. vmc04.22 040) OS." I S. FA= MFLX.( •V0) &K.YIZI, E -MAIL WLIXIaZI.YM0D MCr.COM LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 E:xrTF.R Duvi; Sum 200 P OST OFFICE Box 2740 WIN CHnTER, VA 22604 TaxpnoNE: (540) 6654050 1+ACSTMILE: (540) 7224051 TIIoMAs MOORE L.AwsoN •'I'LA N COM July 12, 2011 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director John Bishop Deputy Director Planning and Development Transportation County of Frederick County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rezoning Application for Cameuse NA- Clearbrook Rezoning Our File No. 462.013 VIA FACSIMILE Dear Gentlemen: As a follow -up to our recent meeting, enclosed please find a redlined and clean version of the Proffers, which addresses the items that were raised at the Planning Commission meeting and which we discussed in greater detail. Specifically we have made a provision for the dedication of an additional twenty feet across the property whenever a demand is made of same from either Frederick County or VDOT. Further, we have made a provision for an entrance on Route 11 provided the same is approved by Frederick County or VDOT_ With these revisions, we understand that the concerns of the Planning Commission have been adequately addressed. If you are aware of anything else, please let me know. By copy, I am sending this to Rod Williams so he has the benefit of these latest revisions and can make whatever comments he deems appropriate from the perspective of the County Attorney's office. As always, I appreciate your assistance and cooperation. Ve yours, Z --._ Thom or wson TMi.,:atd Enclosure cc: Carmeuse Lime & Stone Roderick B. Williams, Esquire MONT ROVnL A.DDRNUO: POT? 0 "1= 8=60L FROp{ VIBCWIA 736 TXu I ONR: (.540)&WW1S. FAC41MILIC:(.<40)63�NZI• 9-MAIL JS1LXVfALnwmnuaos,L=COM 07/12 /2011 15:47 FAX � - PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 92 Acres + / -; Tax Map Parcels 44 -A -83 and 44 -A -83A and a portion of Tax Map Parcel 33 -A -144 (the "Properties ") RECORD OWNER: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b /a Carmeuse Lime & Stone APPLICANT: O N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b /a Carmeuse Lime & Stone ( "Applicant ") PROJECT NAME: Winchester /Clearbrook ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: February 8, 2011 REVISION DATE(S): June 2, 2011, June 21, 2011, July 12, 2011 The undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the portions of the above - referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as " Exhibit I ," shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above- referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board ") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. 07/12/2011 15:47 FAX ] . Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining ( "DMM ") of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy ( "VDMME "), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following use on the Properties: Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. 2. Site Development 2.1 The Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on Brucetown Road (Route 672) unless another entrance is agreed upon by Frederick County or VDOT at some time in the future. Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 22 A combination of landscaping, earthen berms, and fencing shall be installed around the Properties in the areas depicted on the attached and incorporated plat identified as " Exhibit 2 ." The landscaping shall have a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Applicant proffers to plant trees in the places identified on the attached and incorporated plat within one year from the date of unappealable zoning approval. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant has completed a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Properties. The result of the archaeological survey is that the Properties do not have historical significance with the exception of the Martin farmhouse. The Applicant will put the Martin farmhouse into adaptive reuse in the future. In the interim, pursuant to an Instrument which is recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Mrs. Martin continues to reside in and possesses a "life estate" interest in the farmhouse. Further, a Phase II Archaeological Survey of the area adjacent to a spring near the Martin farmhouse is being conducted. 4. Dust Control 4.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ( "VDEQ ") general air permit_ The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 2 07/12/2011 15:47 FAX G 5. Blasting Control 5.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 6. Traffic 6.1 The Applicant proposes as part of this rezoning to not install entrances for vehicular traffic on Route 11 unless agreed by Frederick County or VDOT at some time in the future. The Applicant proffers to continue to use its existing entrance on Brucetown Road (Route 672). The result of the use contemplated by the rezoning is that there will be a reduction in existing trips from the Properties that currently enter and exit on Route 11. In the future, given that there will be no vehicular trips to and from Route 11 from the Properties, the number of vehicular trips will decrease from not only the existing status but also what would be contemplated should the Properties be developed or zoned to any other use including, but not limited to, industrial which is what is currently depicted on the County's Comprehensive Plan for the Properties. 6.2 Within the fifty foot (50') setback from Route 11, the Applicant agrees to dedicate up to twenty feet (20') to Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation within thirty (30) days of demand of said dedication from either Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation for the purposes of expansion of Route 11 (Valley Pike) to install additional lanes of travel and other improvements associated with the Route 11 (Valley Pike) expansion. Upon said dedication the remaining land in the setback shall be unaffected and shall continue to serve as a buffer and screening between the operations of the quarry and the right -of -way. In the event the dedication and subsequent development of said land shall adversely affect the aforementioned buffer and screening then the Applicant shall at its discretion alter, amend or relocate the aforementioned buffer and screening_ 7. Operational Noise Abatement 7.1 The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 8. Lighting 8.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above - ground on the berms other than as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including, but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ( "MSHA "), VDMME, and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining 3 07/12/2011 15:47 FAX operations. Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Applicant onto adjacent properties not owned by the Applicant. 9. Air Permit 9.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 10. Environment 10.1 In addition to compliance with the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized, environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality that satisfies the requirements of all applicable discharge permits. 4 Respectfully submitted, O -N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY d /b /a CARMEUSE LIME & STONE By: Ja e s t orn Its: 0pe'1_44 1 o-"& m"e f COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this C; o y Cy of u/ , 2011, by Lea t rv� '4"' 0 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Registration number: oQ'•'• f�'OTAI�1''•.�i �� CO PUBLIC G # 35718 Q;d EkIRES ?��•. 4 i30/20� . �FALTH O� 5 FRANCES G. MARTIN as holder of life estate interest in parcel 44 -A -83 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l day of 2011, by FRANCES G. MARTIN as holder of life estate interest in parcel 44 -A -83. 10 01V T1 111 1/, y 'OS Q , TARP NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires REG # 32 �Goh11'a 1 ,�SION — Registration number: c: • T IRES :` z = WEALTH 6 41G C0G� w � w RESOLUTION a�R 17]11 Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: August 3, 2011 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 14, 2011 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #01- I I OF CARMEUSE NA — CLEARBROOK REZONING WHEREAS, Rezoning #01 -11 of Carmeuse NA — Clearbrook Rezoning, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates and Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, to rezone 92 +/- acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with proffers dated February 8, 2011, and last revised on July 12, 2011, was considered. The properties, with addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike are located between the intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44 -A -83, 44 -A -83A and 33 -A -144 (portion of). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 15, 2011 and a public meeting on August 3, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on September 14, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to rezone 92 +/- acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner are attached. PDRes# 19 -11 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 14th day of September, 2011 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Ross Spicer Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes# 19 -11 CARMEUSE - CLEARBROOK REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT January 2011 Revised 19 May 2011 A. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of parcels 44- A -83A, 44 -A -83 and a portion of parcel 33 -A -144 which total approximately 92 acres. The subject parcels are situated on the east side of U.S. Route 11, 1,050 ft. south of Hopewell Drive. The property extends from the Clearbrook Park property on the north, south to near the Walters Mill Road intersection with U.S. Route 11. The northern site is a 44 acre portion of the current Carmeuse property which is zoned EM. Parcels 44 -A -83 and 44 -A -83A of 48 acres lie to the south. The subject acreage is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 92 acres from RA to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. Carmeuse NA Corporation's ( "Carmeuse ") existing Clearbrook plant and quarries are located adjacent to the subject properties. The property containing these existing facilities is zoned EM. The subject acreage contains mapped deposits of chemical grade limestone, the extraction of which is critical to the continued viability of the established quarry operation. Indeed, the mineral -rich nature of the properties and their value for future extraction activities was identified years ago when the northern half of the property was acquired and this acreage has remained in the ownership of mining interests ever since. The southern parcel was recently purchased to preserve the rights to the limestone below. The requested rezoning will enable the appropriate use of the subject acreage consistent with its unique geological attributes, which will thereby assure the continued vitality of the Carmeuse Clearbrook operation. The contents of this report will outline the role of the subject acreage in future Carmeuse operations and further identify anticipated impacts as well as those strategies necessary for effective mitigation. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate identified impacts. As such, we believe this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is not located within the boundaries of any small area study or land use plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties are also located Impact Analysis Statement Carmeuse - Clearbrook outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the area is identified as appropriate for office and industrial uses. The Proposed Office and Industrial Areas policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relatively silent concerning natural resource extraction. C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE State Regulation of Mineral Mining Operations The Code of Virginia requires the issuance of mineral mining permits for all mining operations within the Commonwealth. Mineral mining permits are issued by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy pursuant to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining. To obtain a permit or add acreage to a mine operating under an existing permit, a plan of operation /mine permit map must be submitted for DMM approval and updated annually. The DMM possesses the authority to regulate an array of technical and operational issues through the permitting process and regular mine inspections. Issues controlled by the DMM include, but are not limited to, the following: grading and stabilization of quarry pits and berms, drainage, erosion and sediment control, screening of mine operations, blasting operations, and final reclamation and stabilization of the site. The Clearbrook quarry currently operates under mining permit number 07114AB. Should this rezoning be approved, the expansion of the mining operation to include the subject acreage would necessitate amendment of the existing permit. To secure DMM approval, the amended permit must be accompanied by a revised plan of operation /mine permit map demonstrating effective impact mitigation and conformance with state mining regulations. Scope of Proposed Use The majority of the limestone ore quarried at the existing Clearbrook site is processed and distributed directly from the Clearbrook site. The scope of the EM use at the Clearbrook site will continue to involve overburden removal, controlled blasting and ore extraction, crushing of ore for transport and the loading of materials for transfer. The proposed rezoning allows for an extension of the existing quarrying activities from the existing operation to the subject property. An extensive network of earthen berms will be installed to screen the Route 11 corridor including those residents adjacent to the subject property from the active mining activities. The berms will be planted with landscaping suitable for all season screening. Trees will be planted within one year from the date of unappealable zoning approval in the places identified on the plat attached to the proposed Proffer Statement as Exhibit 2. Site and Land Use History The subject properties contain significant limestone deposits that are recognized for their exceptional purity and consistency. For many years limestone ore has been 2 Impact Analysis Statement Carmeuse - Clearbrook extracted and processed via the existing Clearbrook quarry facilities, which are located adjacent to the subject acreage. These facilities serve a diverse array of industrial, environmental, and municipal markets with four primary product groups - high calcium quicklime, hydrated lime, chemical grade limestone, and construction aggregates. The applications for these products are numerous, but most notably involve agriculture, pollution reduction technologies, national defense infrastructure, road building, and food processing. The existing Clearbrook quarry facilities have been in active operation since the 1950's under various ownership interests, and were acquired by Carmeuse NA from Chemstone Corporation in 2008. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the acreage proposed for rezoning is adjacent to the current operation and has been controlled by mining interests for the past forty years, which has assured the availability of extensive limestone ore reserves for eventual extraction. Thus, although the zoning of the subject acreage has remained RA, the acreage has historically been reserved for extractive manufacturing as its intended use. The uneventful history of quarry operations in the Clearbrook area has demonstrated the ability of such facilities to amicably co -exist with nearby residents and land uses. The quarry companies have endeavored to meet with local residents and businesses over the years to ensure concerns are known. Such meetings have allowed compatibility issues to be identified and addressed proactively, thus ensuring the operation of extractive manufacturing uses with minimal impact to the surrounding community. These meetings will continue to serve a vital role in assuring that dialogue between Carmeuse and the community is on -going and constructive. Environmental Features The subject parcels of 92 acres contains no known environmental features. Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve approximately 55 acres, or only 60% of the area to be rezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation and storage will be located and managed to minimize impacts to surrounding properties. Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and all applicable state and federal regulations. Soils /Geology The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County. Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Oaklet - Carbo - Chilhowie soil association. The following table identifies the multiple soil types present on each property: 3 Impact Analysis Statement Carmeuse - Clearbrook (Map Sheets 19, 24 and 25 of Soil Survey) Map Symbol Soil Name Slopes (range) Percent of Site 7C Carbo Oaklet Rock Outcrop 2 to 15% 38.6% 32B Oaklet Silt Loam 2 to 7% 37.4% 6C Carbo Oaklet Silt Loam 2 to 15% 21.6% 34 Pagebrook Silt Loam 0 to 15% 2.4% The majority of the soil types comprising the subject acreage are not considered prime farmland. Soils 32B ( Oaklet Silt Loam) are listed as prime farmland in the soil survey, however, these soils lie along the U.S. Route 11 right -of -way and are not in the quarrying area. These areas will be used for berm construction and landscaping to screen the operations site. Being along Route 11, these areas would, in all likelihood, not be suitable for farming. The residentially developed areas along Route 11, the fairgrounds and Stonewall Elementary School all lie on Oaklet soils. The purity and consistency of the limestone deposits found in soil groups 6C and 7C, that underlie the subject properties, constitute the ideal geologic conditions for extractive manufacturing use. The characteristics of the identified soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Access/Transportation Public road access will be provided to the rezoned parcel. All traffic will continue to use the existing entrances on Brucetown Road, VA Route 672. It is not expected that the rezoning will result in an increased trip generation as production is a factor of demand and not available reserves. As no increase in trips would result, there is no requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. Initial discussions with VDOT indicate that the entrance configuration is adequate for anticipated traffic volumes. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Clearbrook facility is served by a private system for on -site sewage disposal. No additional sewage facilities will be required by this rezoning. Industrial use water supply for the Clearbrook facility is obtained by quarry pit de- watering, which occurs through the mining process. This source will provide sufficient supply and pressure for the expanded mining use, to include dust control in and around the quarries. All de- watering activities will be performed pursuant to DMM requirements, and in accordance with the approved mining permit for the Clearbrook operation. Domestic water use is provided by on site private well under Frederick County Health Department permit. E. DRAINAGE The plan of operation /mine permit map is required to include a drainage plan subject to DMM review and approval. The drainage plan must address several items, to include the following: (a) the directional flow of water on and away from the site, (b) location and 4 Impact Analysis Statement Carmeuse - Clearbrook specifications of constructed drainage ways, (c) the use of natural waterways for drainage, and (d) delineation of the streams or tributaries receiving the discharge. Should the requested rezoning be approved, the mining permit must be amended to include the subject acreage, which will involve preparation of a revised drainage plan that ensures effective incorporation of the expansion area into the facility's overall drainage system. F. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste generated by employee activities will be collected in dumpster facilities and removed from the site by commercial refuse carrier. Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County landfill for ultimate disposal by said carrier. Waste resulting from mining activities will be placed in spoil stockpiles and within berms used for facility screening. The storage and adaptive use of spoils will be addressed through the approval process for the amended mining permit, and will therefore be required to meet all DMM requirements. G. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The result of the Phase 1 Archaeological Survey is that the subject properties to be rezoned to not have historical significance with the exception of the Martin farmhouse. In the development contemplated by the rezoning, Carmeuse has no intention of removing or affecting the martin farmhouse, and, in the long term, will put the farmhouse into adaptive reuse. In the interim, pursuant to an Instrument which is recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Mrs. Martin continues to reside in and possesses a "life estate" interest in the farmhouse. Further, a Phase II Archaeological Survey of the area adjacent to a spring near the Martin farmhouse is being conducted. 5 Oil X311 f r 7j • , . 31d1S33JII ♦` A2lt�t t� �hf151Xy / 441 4c 1 �� �� • ` a � ' H°JtH Ld Ol •XCdddV aO V1838 ° Or x tal-jlv tit •• { i f.... t r CARMEUSE - CLEARBROOK REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT January 2011 A. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of parcels 44- A -83A, 44 -A -83 and a portion of parcel 33 -A -144 which total approximately 92 acres. The subject parcels are situated on the east side of U.S. Route 11, 1,050 ft. south of Hopewell Drive. The property extends from the Clearbrook Park property on the north, south to near the Walters Mill Road intersection with U.S. Route 11. The northern site is a 44 acre portion of the current Carmeuse property which is zoned EM. Parcels 44 -A -83 and 44 -A-83A of 48 acres lie to the south. The subject acreage is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 92 acres from RA to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. Carmeuse NA Corporation's ( "Carmeuse ") existing Clearbrook plant and quarries are located adjacent to the subject properties. The property containing these existing facilities is zoned EM. The subject acreage contains mapped deposits of chemical grade limestone, the extraction of which is critical to the continued viability of the established quarry operation. Indeed, the mineral -rich nature of the properties and their value for future extraction activities was identified years ago when the northern half of the property was acquired and this acreage has remained in the ownership of mining interests ever since. The southern parcel was recently purchased to preserve the rights to the limestone below. The requested rezoning will enable the appropriate use of the subject acreage consistent with its unique geological attributes, which will thereby assure the continued vitality of the Carmeuse Clearbrook operation. The contents of this report will outline the role of the subject acreage in future Carmeuse operations and further identify anticipated impacts as well as those strategies necessary for effective mitigation. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate identified impacts. As such, we believe this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Impact Analysis Statement Carmeuse - Clearbrook B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is not located within the boundaries of any small area study or land use plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties are also located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the area is identified as appropriate for office and industrial uses. The Proposed Office and Industrial Areas policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relatively silent concerning natural resource extraction. C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE State Regulation of Mineral Mining Operations The Code of Virginia requires the issuance of mineral mining permits for all mining operations within the Commonwealth. Mineral mining permits are issued by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy pursuant to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining. To obtain a permit or add acreage to a mine operating under an existing permit, a plan of operation /mine permit map must be submitted for DMM approval and updated annually. The DMM possesses the authority to regulate an array of technical and operational issues through the permitting process and regular mine inspections. Issues controlled by the DMM include, but are not limited to, the following: grading and stabilization of quarry pits and berms, drainage, erosion and sediment control, screening of mine operations, blasting operations, and final reclamation and stabilization of the site. The Clearbrook quarry currently operates under mining permit number 07114AB. Should this rezoning be approved, the expansion of the mining operation to include the subject acreage would necessitate amendment of the existing permit. To secure DMM approval, the amended permit must be accompanied by a revised plan of operation /mine permit map demonstrating effective impact mitigation and conformance with state mining regulations. Scope of Proposed Use The majority of the limestone ore quarried at the existing Clearbrook site is processed and distributed directly from the Clearbrook site. The scope of the manufacturing use in Frederick County will continue to involve overburden removal, controlled blasting and ore extraction, crushing of ore for transport and the loading of materials for transfer. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered that activities such as asphalt or concrete mixing plants, cement and lime kilns, and oil and natural etas extraction will be prohibited As such, the proposed rezoning will only allow for an extension of the existing quarrying activities from the 2 Impact Analysis Statement Carmeuse - Clearbrook existing operation to the subject property. No processing or loading of processed _. material will occur on the subject property. An extensive network of earthen berms will be installed to screen the Route 11 corridor including those residents adjacent to the subject property from the active mining activities. The berms will be planted with landscaping suitable for all season screening. Trees will be planted within one year from the date of unappealable zoning approval in the places identified on the plat attached to the proposed Proffer Statement as Exhibit 2. Site and Land Use History The subject properties contain significant limestone deposits that are recognized for their exceptional purity and consistency. For many years limestone ore has been extracted and processed via the existing Clearbrook quarry facilities, which are located adjacent to the subject acreage. These facilities serve a diverse array of industrial, environmental, and municipal markets with four primary product groups - high calcium quicklime, hydrated lime, chemical grade limestone, and construction aggregates. The applications for these products are numerous, but most notably involve agriculture, pollution reduction technologies, national defense infrastructure, road building, and food processing. The existing Clearbrook quarry facilities have been in active operation since the 1950's under various ownership interests, and were acquired by Carmeuse NA _ from Chemstone Corporation in 2008. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the acreage proposed for rezoning is adjacent to the current operation and has been controlled by mining interests for the past forty years, which has assured the availability of extensive limestone ore reserves for eventual extraction. Thus, although the zoning of the subject acreage has remained RA, the acreage has historically been reserved for extractive manufacturing as its intended use. The uneventful history of quarry operations in the Clearbrook area has demonstrated the ability of such facilities to amicably co -exist with nearby residents and land uses. The quarry companies have endeavored to meet with local residents and businesses over the years to ensure concerns are known. Such meetings have allowed compatibility issues to be identified and addressed proactively, thus ensuring the operation of extractive manufacturing uses with minimal impact to the surrounding community. These meetings will continue to serve a vital role in assuring that dialogue between Carmeuse and the community is on -going and constructive. Environmental Features The subject parcels of 92 acres contains no known environmental features. 3 Impact Analysis State it Carmeuse - Clearbrook Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve approximately 55 acres, or only 60% of the area to be rezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation and storage will be located and managed to minimize impacts to surrounding properties. Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and all applicable state and federal regulations. Soils /Geology The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County. Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Oaklet- Carbo- Chilhowie soil association. The following table identifies the multiple soil types present on each property: (Map Sheets 19, 24 and 25 of Soil Survey) Map Symbol Soil Name Slopes (range) Percent of Site 7C Carbo Oaklet Rock Outcrop 2 to 15 % 38.6% 32B Oaklet Silt Loam 2 to 7 % 37.4% 6C Carbo Oaklet Silt Loam 2 to 15 % 21.6940 34 Pa ebrook Silt Loam 0 to 15 % 2.4% The majority of the soil types comprising the subject acreage are not considered prime farmland. Soils 32B ( Oaklet Silt Loam) are listed as prime farmland in the soil survey, however, these soils lie along the U.S. Route 11 right -of -way and are not in the quarrying area. These areas will be used for berm construction and landscaping to screen the operations site. Being along Route 11, these areas would, in all likelihood, not be suitable for farming. The residentially developed areas along Route 11, the fairgrounds and Stonewall Elementary School all lie on Oaklet soils. The purity and consistency of the limestone deposits found in soil groups 6C and 7C, that underlie the subject properties, constitute the ideal geologic conditions for extractive manufacturing use. The characteristics of the identified soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Access/Transportation Public road access will be provided to the rezoned parcel. All traffic will continue to use the existing entrances on Brucetown Road, VA Route 672. It is not expected that the rezoning will result in an increased trip generation as production is a factor of demand and not available reserves. As no increase in trips would result, there is no requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. Initial discussions with VDOT indicate that the entrance configuration is adequate for anticipated traffic volumes. 4 Impact Analysis Statement Carmeuse - Clearbrook D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Clearbrook facility is served by a private system for on -site sewage disposal. No additional sewage facilities will be required by this rezoning. Industrial use water supply for the Clearbrook facility is obtained by quarry pit de- watering, which occurs through the mining process. This source will provide sufficient supply and pressure for the expanded mining use, to include dust control in and around the quarries. All de- watering activities will be performed pursuant to DMM requirements, and in accordance with the approved mining permit for the Clearbrook operation. Domestic water use is provided by on site private well under Frederick County Health Department permit. E. DRAINAGE The plan of operation /mine permit map is required to include a drainage plan subject to DMM review and approval. The drainage plan must address several items, to include the following: (a) the directional flow of water on and away from the site, (b) location and specifications of constructed drainage ways, (c) the use of natural waterways for drainage, and (d) delineation of the streams or tributaries receiving the discharge. Should the requested rezoning be approved, the mining permit must be amended to include the subject acreage, which will involve preparation of a revised drainage plan that ensures effective incorporation of the expansion area into the facility's overall drainage system. F. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste generated by employee activities will be collected in dumpster facilities and removed from the site by commercial refuse carrier. Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County landfill for ultimate disposal by said carrier. Waste resulting from mining activities will be placed in spoil stockpiles and within berms used for facility screening. The storage and adaptive use of spoils will be addressed through the approval process for the amended mining permit, and will therefore be required to meet all DMM requirements. G. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The result of the Phase 1 Archaeological Survey is that the subject properties to be rezoned to not have historical significance with the exception of the Martin farmhouse. In the development contemplated by the rezoning, Carmeuse has no intention of removing or affecting the martin farmhouse, and, in the long term, will put the farmhouse into adaptive reuse. In the interim, pursuant to an Instrument which is recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Mrs. Martin continues to reside in and possesses a "life estate" interest in the farmhouse. Further, a Phase II Archaeological Survey of the area adjacent to a spring near the Martin farmhouse is being conducted. 5 �A CYli.e \--ede•ic< \Ina 7- 74- 11.dwg, 7.,i-,g Vno, 7,74,7011 7:1 �y, Sn "i�ge•, 1:7.15751 M M F ZL r y et . I: r K r� y f , L - :'D 5,/ " I • i(/ ,, 1, r4. '� •' ,y t 1� ,� f ND. D6CRIPRON wTE FlVS'e fdvMO MIND wTE REVISION DESIGN SURVEY Rm Patton Harris Rust $ aos Asso cia[e s, pc DRAWN wM 1z —] -1a 0 —N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. CHECKED RANI s CLEARBROOK EXHIBIT #1 ]W II] East Plccod 01 1' =700' Winch 5 -t- 4O —667-2139 601 FILE N0. GT. N0. SNEEf 1 OF 4 COUH DI' FREDERICK. VIRGINIA F 540 -665 -0493 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA __. To be completed by Planning Staff.' Fee Amount Paid $ k Zoning Amendment Number Date Received PC Hearing 3 l ' Y BOS Hearing Date -' a �� .�' ��f �' 4. '� ' z- r ss� °"a ;. �sr.���� ��� � + I��";r. , ,..� M. r r � ✓`�,.�,a $ The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Name: d/b /a Carmeuse Lime & Stone Telephone: (412) 638 - 1581 Address: 11 Stanwix Street 21 st Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Name: Frances G. Martin as holder of life estate interest in parcel 44 -A -83 Address: 3004 Martinsburg Pike, Stephenson, V A 22656 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Same as applicants Telephone: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. Telephone: (540) 665 -0050 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 12 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b /a Carmeuse Lime & Stone Frances G. Martin as holder of life estate interest in parcel 44 -A -83 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential (RA) B) Proposed Use of the Property: Mining (EM) 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING See attached 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): 508 Quarry Lane (that portion not currently zoned EM), 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike. The subject parcels are located between the intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road (SR 672) and with Walters Mill Lane (SR 836). 13 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 0 Townhome: 0 Multi- Family: 0 Non - Residential Lots: 1 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: o Service Station: 0 Retail: 0 Manufacturing: 0 Restaurant: 0 Warehouse: 0 Other: 55.2 acres - qua rry operations 10. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): �' Date: / Z I - Zo f O -N erals (Chemstone Company) d/b /a Carrneuse Lime & Stone Date: Frances G. Martin as holder of fife estate interest in parcel 44 -A -83 Owner(s): — - Date: <V -Z I - e 6 t/ O- inerals (Chemstone ompany) d/b/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone Ic . Date: 4 4 2 7- -2-0 Frances G. Martin as holder of life estate interest in parcel 44 -A -83 14 Adjoining Property Owners Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right -of -way, a private right -of -way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2" floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Property #: 33- A -162A Winchester, VA 22601 Name: County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Property #: 33 -A -1628 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Kesari Third Generation LLC 11499 White Oak Ct Property #: 33- A -164B Hemdon, VA 20170 Wampler Jack K Sr & Jack K Jr P/A Name: Wampler's Mobile Homes 2648 Martinsburg Pike - Property #: 33- A -164D Stephenson, VA 22656 Name: Richardson Kimberly Dick & John Franklin 107 Cotswold Court Property #: 33 A 164E Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Frederick Land Company LC 893 Clubhouse Road Property #: 33 -A -166 York, PA 17403 Name: Frederick Land Company LC 893 Clubhouse Road Property #: 34 -A -20 York, PA 17403 Name: White Harry S. Jr. 385 Back Mountain Road Property #: 34 -A -24D Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Frederick County Fair Go Chester Lauck 167 Fairground Road Property #: 44 -A -77A Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Stonewall District Ruritan c/o Joseph Hulver 1023 Redbud Road Property #: 44 -A -81 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Frederick County School Board P.O. Box 3058 Property #: 44 -A -82 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Umbenour Max J & Margaret M 115 Walters Mill Lane Property #: 44 -A -84 Stephenson, VA 22656 Name: Bachmann Jane Brumback 137 William Richmond Property #: 44 -A -95 Williamsburg, VA 23185 Name: Frederick Land Company LLC 893 Clubhouse Road Property #: 44 -A -96 York, PA 17403 15 Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Roberts Gregory G. 130 Tatanka Lane Property #: 44 -A -96A Stephenson, VA 22656 Name: Cutshaw Alan W & Susan J P.O. Box 133 Property #: 44 -A -96C Stephenson, VA, 22656 Name: Frederick Land Company LLC 893 Clubhouse Road Property #: 44 -A -96D York, PA 17403 Name: Frederick Land Company LLC 893 Clubhouse Road Property #: 44 -A -97 York, PA 17403 Name: Anderson Mark D & Cheryl L 1419 Ramseur Ln Property #: 44 -A -100 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Gray Mark T, Gray Tina M 611 Wafters Mill Lane Property #: 44 -A -103 Ste henson, VA 22656 Name: Williams Gregory H P.O. Box 443 Property #: 44 -A -106 Stephenson, VA 22656 Name: London Roy Alfred III 3172 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -1 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Rudy Glenn B 621 Tennyson Avenue Property #: 44A -1 -2 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Hedrick David R. & Sandra L. 3154 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -3 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Cornwell Clarke & Tina 3144 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -4 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Myers Lolita L. 3134 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -5 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Bly Kenneth L. & Joy A 3126 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -6 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: SK Associates Inc. 11499 White Oak Court Property #: 44A -1 -7 Herndon, VA 20170 Name: Clemons Richard Lee & Mary D 3106 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -8 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Butts Joseph L. & Sylvia P. 3096 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -9 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Payne Marion D. Jr. 3086 Martinsburg Pike Property #: 44A -1 -10 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Frederick Land Company LLC 893 Clubhouse Road Property #: 45 -A -1 York, PA 17403 Name: Carter Robert W 827 Gun Club Rd Property #: 45 -A -8 I Stephenson, VA 22656 Name: Anderson Mark D 1419 Ramseur Ln Property #: 45 -A -8C Winchester, VA 22601 16 41G� 1 COCr X 0- 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK ca Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 a�� 1738 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: Update of the Interstate and Primary Road Plans DATE: September 7, 2011 This is a public hearing item to consider the update of the 2011 — 2012 Interstate and Primary Road Improvement Plans. These plans remain largely unchanged with the exception of an _. update to language for Route 277, to acknowledge the funding recently received on that roadway. The Transportation Committee reviewed this item at their meeting on June 13 and recommended approval. The Planning Commission also recommended approval at their meeting of August 3, 2011. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Board of Supervisors on the plan. Attachments JAB /bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 2011 -2012 PRIMARY ROAD Il"ROVEM ENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA . y ��tGIl�jr Draft Frederick County Transportation Committee: 0611312011 Frederick County Planning Commission: 0810312011 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 1) Route 37 Bypass A. Route 37 - Phase 1 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right -of -way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass from Interstate 1 -81 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). (As illustrated on map as priority IA) B. Route 37 - Phase 2 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right -of -way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between existing Route 37 around Stonewall Industrial Park and Route 7. (As illustrated on map as priority 1 B) C. Route 37 - Phase 3 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right -of -way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Route 7 and Route 522. (As illustrated on map as priority 1 C) 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I -81 /Route 277 /Route 647 Intersection (East of Stephens City) To: Route 340 /Route 522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Phase 1: From the 1-81/277 Interchange to Route 636 (As indicated under note for priority 1 B) Phase 2: From Route 636 to Route 340 /Route 522 (As indicated on map as priority 2) Improve to a four lane divided roadway with County staff to work with site developers to acquire dedicated right -of -way and achieve grading, drainage, and construction improvements in conjunction with development projects which occur along the corridor until such time that funding is available for construction. Establish a construction schedule for the phased improvement of Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Program funding for the completion of right -of -way acquisition and construction of each phase as described above. 3) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester To: 0.4 miles south of intersection of Route 37 South, Exit 310 (As illustrated on map as priority 3A) B) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Merchant Street (As illustrated on map as priority 3B) C) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Intersection of Merchant Street To: West Virginia line (As illustrated on map as priority 3C) 4) South Frederick County Parkway From: Relocated Exit 307 To: Intersection with Route 277 approximately 1 Mile west of the intersection of Route 277 and Route 522 This is a planned new roadway with limited access points serving a mixture of predominantly commercial and industrial development. There is need to study this project in conjunction with the Exit 307 relocation and planning for Route 277 improvements noted in item 3. Phasing of this project is not yet clearly defined, however general phasing would be from West to East with the clear first phase being from relocated Exit 307 to Warrior Dr. (As illustrated on map as priority 4) 5) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish a new park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate locations for park and ride facilities at other strategic locations within the County's Urban Development Area. For Park and Ride locations in Frederick County the primary goal should be that they are situated in such a manner that they reduce traffic in Frederick County in addition to adjacent localities. (As illustrated on map as priority 5) • T� � ��r 8, � E �3C �� i►81 3B ` ,, ,� t �iD'. ■''rye -' _,������ 2011 -2012 A Primary Road �l �� �. ♦ tC �� Improvement �- Plan Commuter - Park & Ride Lots jA Priority 5 South Frederick County Parkway Priority 4 Rt37 Bypass Phases / / / /C�'�� ` �� C .• �� - Priority 1 A Priority 1 B - • �� �� r r� h ~ � Priority 1C g� 2 Rt277 East of StephensCify Priority 2 Rtl l North & South 2r � Priority 3A Priority 3B ' Priority 3C 0 0.5 1 2 Miles u: co - w RESOLUTION ° 17 38 2011 -2011 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Sections 33.1 -23 and 33.1 -23.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides the opportunity for each county to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Six -Year Road Plan, and; WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on June 13, 2011; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on August 3, 2011; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed Plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and, WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing and recommended approval of the 2011 — 2012 Primary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the primary road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2011 -2012 Primary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Primary Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2011 -2012 Primary Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on September 14, 2011. PDRes #21 -1 1 This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Ross Spicer Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes 4 21 -11 2011 -2012 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: 0611312011 Frederick County Planning Commission: 0810312011 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: I -81 Improvements Provide additional travel lanes on the main line, collector- distributor lanes adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the WinFred MPO Long Range Plan. In addition, as the State continues to work toward an ultimate plan for the I -81 widening, the County of Frederick continues to support the study of Eastern Route 37 as a potential corridor on new location as an alternative for that effort. Moreover, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements. A) Progress to Phase 1 of the FHWA approved interchange modification to Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority A) B) Relocate Exit 307 further south to alleviate existing and future congestion on Route 277. There is an urgent need to begin increased study of this project. (as illustrated on map as priority B) C) Widen 1 -81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North. This should include the relocation of the 277 Interchange. From: Route 277, Exit 307 To: Route 37 North, Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority C) D) Widen Remainder of I -81 in Frederick County From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line (as illustrated on map as priority D) E) Spot Improvements on I -81 in Frederick County. Provide spot improvements at various interchanges to increase capacity and /or enhance safety for the motoring public. 81 FRIA c�'' �•�� 2011 -2012 Interstate Road •'a , Improvement Plan � Priority A ' Make Safety & Operational Improvements at Exit 310 Priority B • Urgent Need for Increased Study 81 l Relocate Exit 307 at RT 277 Priority C / Widen 181 from Rt277 N to Rt37 N • Priority D Widen Remainder of 181 66 0 6,500 13,000 26.000 Feet � I ITF f I� CO RESOLUTION 2011 -2012 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Sections 33.1 -23 and 33.1 -23.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides the opportunity for each county to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Six -Year Road Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on June 13, 2011; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on August 3, 2011; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed Plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and, WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing and recommended approval of the 2011 — 2012 Interstate Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the interstate road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2011 -2012 Interstate Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Interstate Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2011 -2012 Interstate Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on September 14, 2011. PDRes # 18 -11 This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Ross Spicer Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes #18 -11 41G� . CO w� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 17 38 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665 -6395 38 To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior PlannerK Subject: Public Hearing — Lot Sizes and Setback Requirements for Public Utilities Date: September 8, 2011 Staff has been requested to review the minimum lot size and setback requirements for lots that contain public utilities. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance requires that the minimum lot size for these uses follow the minimum lot size specified for the individual zoning district and meet all setback and access requirements. Staff has prepared an amendment that would allow the Zoning Administrator to authorize the creation of lots smaller than the current zoning district requirements for lots utilized for the sole purpose of public utilities; the amendment also allows for the elimination of the on -site sewage disposal requirement and reduces the access easement width requirement. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRQ at their meeting on July 28, 2011. The DRRC endorsed the amendment with minor changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed the draft amendment at their August 3, 2011 meeting and forwarded the amendment as drafted to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors discussed this amendment at their August 10, 2011 meeting and had one minor change; with that one change, the Board sent the amendment forward for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item on September 7, 2011; there were no public comments and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. The attached document shows the existing ordinances with the proposed changes (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This proposed amendment is being presented to the Board of Supervisors as a public hearing item. A decision by the Board of Supervisors on this proposed Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2. Resolution. CEP /bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 ATTACHMENT 1 DRRC Reviewed 7/28/2011 PC Reviewed 8/3/2011 BOS Reviewed 8/10/2011 PC Public Hearing 9/7/2011 Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165 - 204.26. Public Utilities. A. Public Utilities. Lot requirements for lots used by political subdivisions, municipal corporations, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority, or the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for public utility purposes shall be as follows: (1) In all zoning districts, the Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to determine the minimum lot size necessary for such public utilities and the appropriate setbacks for such lots used for public utility purposes. (2) Such lots shall be exempt from the individual on -site sewage disposal system requirements. (3) Such lots may be accessed by private access easements, any such easement shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401— RA Rural Areas District § 165- 401.05 Minimum lot size. The minimum lot size for permitted uses shall be two acres, unless otherwise specified by §165- 204.26. Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land ARTICLE V Design Standards § 144 -24. Lot requirements. C. Lot access. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter 165 or 144 all lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right -of -way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation. w RESOLUTION w 173R Action. PLANNING COMMISSION: September 7, 2011 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 14, 2011 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES PART 204 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES 165- 204.26 PUBLIC UTILITIES ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT 165- 401.05 MINIMUM LOT SIZE CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION OF LAND ARTICLE V DESIGN STANDARDS 144 -24 LAND REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land to revise the minimum lot size and setback requirements for lots that contain public utilities, was considered. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on September 7, 2011; and WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on September 14, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; and PD Res. #20 -11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of - Supervisors that CHAPTER 165, ZONING, ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, PART 204 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, 165- 204.26 PUBLIC UTILITIES; ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, 165- 401.05 MINIMUM LOT SIZE; AND CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE V DESIGN STANDARDS, 144 -24 LAND REQUIREMENTS, are revised to amend the minimum lot size and setback requirements for lots that contain public utilities. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 14th day of September, 2011 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Ross Spicer Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins i A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator i PD Res. #20 -11 i I i I I i I