Loading...
July_10_2013_Agenda_Packet41c� CO�� w i 0.G11'i 11J8 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013 7:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 5:00 P.M. — Board of Supervisors Work Session with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority 7:00 P.M. — Regular Meeting - 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: J, K and L) Citizen Comments (Agenda Items Only, That Are Not Subject to Public Hearing.) Board of Supervisors Comments Minutes (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- A 1. Regular Meeting, June 12, 2013. County Officials 1. Appointment of Opequon Magisterial District Seat. 2. Presentation of Resolution of Appreciation to Bill M. Ewing. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013 PAGE 2 3. Employee of the Month Award. (See Attached) 4. Committee Appointments. (See Attached) -- W -C 5. Kraft Resolution and Performance Agreement. (See Attached)---------- - - - - -- D 6. McKesson Resolution and Performance Agreement. (See Attached)-- - - - - -- E 7. Correspondence from Town of Middletown Re: Boundary Adjustment/ Zoning Inspections. (See Attached) ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- F 8. Commissioner of the Revenue Refund Request. (See Attached) -------- - - - - -- G 9. Referral of Unsolicited Proposal Under the Public- Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 to the Public Works Committee for Evaluation and Negotiation of a Comprehensive Agreement. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- H Committee Reports 1. Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizen Committee. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2. Parks and Recreation Commission. (See Attached) ------------------------ - - - - -- J 3. Human Resources Committee. (See Attached) ------------------------------ - - - - -- K 4. Public Safety Committee. (See Attached) - - -- L 5. Code and Ordinance Committee. (See Attached) --------------------------- - - - - -- M 6. Transportation Committee. (See Attached) Public Hearing -- N 1. Twelve Month Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Blue Fox Billiards Bar & Grill. Pursuant to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 86, Festivals; Section 86 -3, Permit Required; Application; Issuance or Denial; Fee; Paragraph D, Twelve Month Permits. All Events to be Held on the Grounds of Blue Fox Billiards Bar & Grill, 1160 Millwood Pike, Winchester, Virginia. Property Owned by 1160 Millwood Pike, LLC. (See Attached) ----------- - - - - -- 0 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013 PAGE 3 Planning Commission Business Public Hearing Ordinance Amendment — Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II, Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 202 Off - Street Parking, Loading and Access, 165 - 202.03 Motor Vehicle Access — Revise and Update Motor Vehicle Access Requirements, Specifically Entrance Spacing Requirements. (See Attached) ---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- P 2. Ordinance Amendment — Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165 - 401.06 Permitted Lot Sizes — Revise in Order to Allow Divisions to Existing Rural Preservation Tracts that Have Been Recorded. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Q Board Liaison Reports (If Any) Citizen Comments Board of Supervisors Comments Adjourn }^-�. FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MINUTES REGULAR MEETING June 12, 2013 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr,; Gene E. Fisher; Robert A. Hess; and Gary A, Lofton ABSENT Christopher E. Collins (Arrived at 7 :17 p.m,) CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Supervisor Fisher delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Supervisor DeHaven led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA — APPROVED AS AMENDED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised he had two additions to the agenda. He added the election of a vice - chairman as item number 5 under County Officials and a Resolution of Appreciation for Supervisor Bill M. Ewing as item number b under County Officials. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 1 Opequon District Vacant CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following item for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda: - Parks & Recreation Commission Report — Tab F; - Public Works Committee Report — Tab G; - Road Resolution — Southern Hills Stickley Drive Extension µ-- Tab N; and - Resolution of Appreciation for Bill M. Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant CITIZEN COMMENTS Jay Maws, Gainesboro District, read the following remarks: "Chairman Shickle, Members of the Board, Administrator Riley: I listened to & then read the Finance Committee meeting minutes discussion of Outside Agency Contribution. Discretionary & Non - Discretionary spending on these agencies was $1.9M & is proposed to increase $2. IM. I was glad to see this action was not "rubber- stamped" by the Board. Also, I recall correctly our County Budget was amended in late 2012 to increase our Property Tax rate by 4 cents per $100. This was to generate $3M to pay for a State mandated 5% salary increase for all government employees. The Board of Supervisors increased pay to also cover any additional taxes the employees would incur ( "Make Whole'). No cuts were considered. Also, I spoke before this board last November about the use of the $13.2M Budget 2 Surplus & your decision on how to spend it. No discussion on reducing our taxes. This Board works hard for the community & I truly appreciate the County posting the 270 page documents for public review prior to everyone of these meetings. Transparency is a good thing!! However, as I review these pages before each meeting I only see proposals for increased spending & expansion of government. Most all of us just sent a check to the County for Personal Property. I was reminded only yesterday during the Primary election at my local polling place by a young family about the County Property Tax increase and how in 19 days we will all begin bearing the burden of higher taxes from the General Assembly Transportation Tax. I believe these concerns resulted in some change. Please keep this in mind as you consider Outside Agency Contributions. A new County Administration Building. Public Safety Committee concerns for Fire & Rescue salary increases. Please keep in mind the burden on the taxpayer. Thank you for the opportunity to address the board. " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES — APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the minutes from the May 22, 2013 regular meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote; Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant COUNTY OFFICIALS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH — APPROVED CORY R. SMITH FOR MAY 2013 AND JONATHAN M. TURKEL FOR JUNE 2013 Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved Cory R. Smith as Employee of the Month for May 2013 and Jonathan M. Turkel as Employee of the Month for June 2013. 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 the award may be nominated by any County employee; and WHEREAS, Cory R. Smith who serves the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department was nominated for Employee of the Month; and WHEREAS, Cory R. Smith is being awarded for his loyalty and commitment to his position as Sherando Park Manager, Cory led the Parks and Recreation Department's development of a new park facility at Sherando Park. After months of researching standards on trail design, maintenance, and risk management, the project for a new trail began in August 2012. Cory led a group of twenty -six volunteers in twelve Thursday night work session to complete the construction of a half mile section of the new trail. Cory's commitment to the leadership of this project has provided the residents of Frederick County with another quality recreation facility that officially opened March 2013. Cory is to be commended for his initiative and dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 12 day of June, 2013 that Cory R. Smith is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for May 2013; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its gratitude to the Cory R. Smith for his outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes him continued success in future endeavors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Cory R. Smith is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with this award. Adopted June 12, 2013. 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 the award may be 0 nominated by any County employee; and WHEREAS, Jonathan M. Turkel who serves the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department was nominated for Employee of the Month; and WHEREAS, Jonathan M. Turkel is being awarded for his loyalty and commitment to his position as Parks and Stewardship Planner. Jonathan led the Parks and Recreation Department's development of a new park facility at Sherando Park. After months of researching standards on trail design, maintenance, and risk management, the project for a new trail began in August 2012. Jonathan led a group of twenty -six volunteers in twelve Thursday night work session to complete the construction of a half mile section of the new trail. Jonathan's commitment to the leadership of this project has provided the residents of Frederick County with another quality recreation facility that officially opened March 2013. Jonathan is to be commended for his initiative and dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 12 day of June, 2013 that Jonathan M. Turkel is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for June 2013; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its gratitude to the Jonathan M. Turkel for his outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes him continued success in future endeavors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Jonathan M. Turkel is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with this award. Adopted June 12, 2013. The above resolutions were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF DAVID O'NEILL AS GAINESBORO DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board appointed David O'Neill as the Gainesboro District representative to the Historic Resources Advisory Board. This is a four year appointment. Term expires May 27, 2017. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant APPOINTMENT OF J. RHODES MARSTON AS BACK CREEK REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board appointed J. Rhodes Marston as Back Creek representative to the Planning Commission. This is a four year appointment. Term expires May 27, 2017. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant APPOINTMENT OF THOMAS P. REED TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF DAVID M. ZIEGLER AS FREDERICK COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SHENANDOAH AREA AGENCY ON AGING - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board appointed Thomas P. Reed to fill the unexpired term of David Ziegler as Frederick County representative to the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging. Term expires September 30, 2014. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye 0 Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant APPOINTMENT OF FRANK HEISEY AS GAINESBORO DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board appointed Frank Heisey as Gainesboro District representative to the Social Services Board. This is a four year appointment. Term expires June 30, 2017. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUNDS - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue to authorize the Treasurer to refund Executive Protection Systems the amount of $15,330.92. This amount is for an adjustment to business equipment filings for 2012. The company filed a composite report. Later, upon filing a detailed listing, it was determined that certain assets were intangible and could not be taxed. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E, Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye 7 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue to authorize the Treasurer to refund Penske Truck Leasing Co. the amount of $13,417.80. This amount is for proration or exoneration of vehicle and registration fees in the normal course of business for 2012. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION RESOLUTION AND PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request for the Board to approve the resolution and performance agreement and appropriate $250,000 to match the Governor's Opportunity Fund to provide for the Navy Federal Credit Union expansion. The proposed expansion will cost $20 million and will create 400 jobs. Supervisor Hess noted the date of adoption needed to be changed from 2012 to 2013. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the resolution regarding Navy Federal Credit Union. WHEREAS, NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION has made known its intent to expand its operation by making new taxable real estate and personal property investments and retain and create jobs; and IM WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Policy as established by the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995; BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby approve and appropriate the payment of $250,000.00 as stated in the executed Performance Agreement to the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County, Virginia from the Frederick County's Fund Balance to assist in expanding the operation for NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION in Frederick County, Virginia. BE IT RESOLVED, that said funds are subject to an executed Performance Agreement outlining the required performance criteria. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does authorize the County Administrator to execute the Performance Agreement on its behalf. ADOPTED, this 12'' day of June 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant ELECTION OF VICE - CHAIRMAN — CHARLES S. DEHAVEN, JR. ELECTED Supervisor Lofton nominated Supervisor DeHaven for the office of Vice - Chairman. The nomination was seconded by Supervisor Fisher. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board closed the nominations. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Abstain Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 9 Opequon District Vacant The motion to approve Charles S. DeHaven Jr, as Vice - Chairman was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Absent Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Abstain Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION SUPERVISOR BILL M. EWING OPEOUON DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, Bill M. Ewing served the citizens of Frederick County, Virginia, for over nine (9) years as Opequon District representative to the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, Supervisor Ewing served as Vice - Chairman in 2006 and 2009 through May 2013; and WHEREAS, during his tenure he held seats on numerous committees, including that of chairman of the Finance Committee (2005 -2013) and a member of Public Safety Committee (2004), Regional Water Resources Advisory Committee (2004), Code & Ordinance Committee (2004 -2007 and 2012 - 2013), Transportation Committee (2005), Human Resources Committee (2008- 2013), Technology Committee (2012 - 2013), Northwestern Regional Jail Authority (2004- 2013), Stephens City Joint Land Use Committee (2008), Consolidation Steering Committee (2009), Downtown Development Board (2005- 2008), Handley Regional Library Board (2006- 2013), and Joint Finance Committee (2005 -2013) ; and WHEREAS, Supervisor Ewing 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 Ewing a colleague and friend. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors extends its sincerest thanks to Supervisor Bill M. Ewing 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 12 day of June, 2012. 10 COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on May 14, 2013. Members present were: Marty Cybulski, Charles Sandy, Jr., Ronald Madagan, Greg Bondos, Kevin Anderson, and Gary Longerbeam. Members absent were: Ron Hodgson, Patrick Anderson, and Christopher Collins. Items Requiring Board of Supervisors Action; 1. None Submitted for Board Information_ Only: 1. Recreation Reserve Fund Policy — Mr. Sandy moved to approve the Recreation Reserve Fund Policy as submitted, second by Mr. Madagan, motion carried unanimously (6 -0), The Recreation Reserve Fund Policy will be forwarded to the Finance Committee. 2. Mountain Bike Trail Expansion — The Buildings and Grounds Committee recommended the expansion of the Mountain Bike Trail at Sherando Park, second by Mr. Sandy, motion carried unanimously (6 -0). Please find attached a map of the Mountain Bike Trail. 3. Cosponsor Fee Waiver — The Finance Committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission met and discussed increasing the game rate fee waiver formula for organizations using baseball and softball fields by $7.00 to include lights. Mr. Sandy moved to postpone the decision until a future meeting, second by Mr. Longerbeam, motion carried unanimously (6 -0). 4. Mission and Vision Statements — The Public Relations Committee recommended to approve the Mission and Vision Statements, but there was no second. Mr. Kevin Anderson moved to send the information back to staff for their feedback and postpone approving the Mission and Vision Statement until a future meeting, second by Mr. Sandy, motion carried unanimously (6 -0). PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Public Works and Green Advisory Committees met on Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present. The following items were discussed: ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Design of New Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and Associated Social Hall Staff presented the results of the recently completed programming phase of the new 11 Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and associated Social Hall. The new programming evaluation indicated that the social hall would require approximately 9,800 square feet to accommodate the proposed uses. This amount compares favorably to the 9,600 square feet which was derived from a similar needs assessment performed approximately seven (7) years ago and included in the recent Request for Proposal (RFP) for design services. The programming evaluation for the fire and rescue station yielded an area of approximately 16,400 square feet which exceeded the area of 14,000 square feet included in our recent RFP. The disparity in sizes was the result of increasing the three (3) apparatus bays from 70 feet to 80 feet to accommodate larger equipment and the addition of a hose tower. The committee believed these additions were justified. The architect/engineer will be instructed to proceed with the concept design plans which will be presented to the committee at their next scheduled meeting. (Attachment 1) 2. Stormwater Program Subcommittee Update Staff indicated that the stormwater subcommittee had completed a first draft of a model ordinance that combines our existing erosion and sediment control ordinance and the new stormwater regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Staff plans to prepare a final draft of this new ordinance for presentation and review by the subcommittee by the end of June 2013. 3. Completion of Lake Holiday Spillway Upgrade The Lake Holiday spillway project has reached substantial completion. As a result, the lake level has returned to the original normal pool elevation of 820. The project was completed on schedule and below budget. 4. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report (Attachment 2) b) Recycling Report (Attachment 3) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (Attachment 4) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 5) 5. Green Advisory Committee The Green Advisory Committee met on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. in the Public Works Conference Room, 2nd Floor, 107 N Kent Street, Winchester, VA, Members present were: Gene Fisher, Gary Lofton, Robert Hess, James Wilson, Whitney Wagner, and Dave Gates, Absent was Bob Wells. 1. Energy Management Update 12 a. Planet Foot rint data collection & monitorin . Using the Planet Footprint service staff is monitoring electricity and natural gas consumption across all accounts. Heating and cooling degree day data is being monitored to determine if temperature is driving changes in consumption. Using Planet Footprint database of Frederick County accounts, staff is able to monitor current and historic consumption for trend evaluation. b. Consumption anomalies are assessed quarterly, based on comparison to previous year. Accounts with anomalies >20% are flagged and sent to responsibility heads for explanation. Staff continues to coordinate with facility staff to promote overall reduced consumption. (Supervisor Collins arrived 7:17 p.m.) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE - APPROVED A meeting of the Public Safety Committee was held on Monday June 3, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. Committee members present were: Committee Chairman Gary Lofton, Ron Wilkins and Chuck Torpy. Also in attendance were County Administrator John Riley, Public Safety Communications Director LeeAnna Pyles, Fire & Rescue Chief Denny Linaburg, Deputy Fire Chief Larry Oliver, Fire & Rescue Association President Tim Price, County Attorney Rod Williams, Deputy Fire Chief Bill Bowmaster, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator Chief Chester Lauck and Human Resources Director Paula Nofsinger. The following items were discussed: ** *Items Requiring Board Action * ** 1, Revenue RecoveEj Update see attached A — APPROVED FEE SCHEDULE The Committee reviewed the progress of the Revenue Recovery billing plan. Chief Linaburg and his staff have been working diligently with Valley Health who serves as the current billing agency for the City of Winchester. The County would like to ride on the City's current contract with Valley Health, however the proposed contract provided to the County differs from the City's contract. Mr. Riley has been in contact with Valley Health in an effort to obtain a similar contract as the City's and to finalize the percentage charge and upfront fees associated with the program start up, If an agreement cannot be worked out, then the County would have to start from the beginning would considerably delay implementation. Deputy Chief Oliver addressed the current fee schedule which was developed last year by the Public Safety Cornmittee. One of the outstanding issues is the automatic fee increase that Medicare /Medicaid/Tricare have in place and how this automatic fee increase could be incorporated into the current fee schedule. Deputy Chief Oliver also noted that ALS 1 and BLS 1 non emergency fees are not currently on the proposed schedule. The current fees should be $512.00 for ALS1 non emergency and $431.00 for BLS1 non emergency calls. The Public Safety Committee unanimously recommended the Board of Supervisors adapt the rates for the 13 Fee for Service fee schedule, Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the Fee for Service fee schedule to include the additions of ALS1 and BLS non - emergency fees. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Opequon District Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Vacant * * *Discussion Items* * * 2. Retention of staff (,see attached B,C) Chief Linaburg presented 2 handouts with reference to salary and benefits packages from various surrounding Counties in Virginia and the impact of staff loss within Frederick County. Chief Linaburg emphasized the difficulty in retaining current volunteer and career staff citing that other counties are offering a more lucrative salary and benefits package. Other jurisdictions are actively recruiting in our area and have the benefit of a training academy available to teach the skills necessary for basic firefighting knowledge and dual skills for fire and EMS certification, Currently, Frederick County does not have any such academy. The cost of this type of program could be reviewed as a new budget item, Consideration should be given to the cost, benefit to the community and staff losses. Chief Linaburg advised the Fire & Rescue Department utilizes "Kelly days" in their work schedules. This is a process in which the firefighters work a 200 hour pay period and then are furloughed out a day to avoid overtime. If there was no "Kelly day" in place, it would give the County more staffing. Mr. Riley would like to have a written narrative of the "Kelly day" and how it relates to overtime, the 200 hour pay period, or how it is an added benefit to the department in order to clear up any confusion, Mr. Riley would also like Chief Linaburg to devise a tentative solution for the Fire /EMS pay scale and detail what types of adjustments would have to be made in order to make Frederick County more competitive and attractive to potential employees, Finally, Mr. Riley and Chairman Lofton would like Chief Linaburg to put together any information on a proposed academy start up and its operational costs. These 3 items are to be distributed to the members within the next 2 weeks prior to being addressed in greater detail at the next Public Safety Committee meeting slated for July 2, 2013. Next Meeting; 14 The next Public Safety Committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday July 2, 2013. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE - APPROVED The Board of Supervisors Information Technology Committee met on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 8:15 A.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were: Gary Lofton, Chairman, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Quaiser Absar, and Todd Robertson. Committee members absent were: Brian Madagan. Others present included: Sheriff Robert Williamson, Walter Banks, IT Director, John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator, Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator, Alisa Scott, Administrative Assistant, and Matt Armstrong, The Winchester Star. The committee submits the following: ** *Items Requiring Board Action * ** 1. Approval of the SunGard OSSI Software Implementation Project for Sheriff's Office and Public Safety in the amount of $397,420. - APPROVED The software is part of Phase III of the Sheriff s laptop initiative. The original quote for this project was $526,340. This item was presented to the Finance Committee at its April 17, 2013 meeting. The committee recommended staff enter into negotiations with vendor for Phase III for Phase III of the mobile project. At the April 24, 2013 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board approved the committee's recommendation. Immediately following the permission to negotiate, staff entered into negotiations with the vendor and secured a final proposal price of $397,420, on May 16` The proposed quote includes the final software components that provide the Sheriffs Deputies and Emergency Communications Personnel with the ability to securely work remotely while in the field. The negotiated amount of $397,420 has a time expiration of 30 days (expires June 17, 2013). Because of the critical timeline we are submitting this request directly to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. if approval is granted, staff can proceed with this purchase before the expiration date saving the County $128,920. Upon a motion by Mr. DeHaven, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Committee unanimously recommends the Board of Supervisors approve a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $397,420 with funds to be taken from unreserved fund balance. (See Attachment.) Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $397,420, with funds to 15 be taken from unreserved fund balance, for the SunGard OSSI Software Implementation Project for the Sheriff's Office and Public Safety. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant ***Items NOT Requiring Board Action*** 1. Walter Banks gave updates in reference to the Phone Implementation Project that was ahead of schedule. Questions arose regarding the difference between the phones and the network as important components. Network implementation being prior to phone implementation. 2. Walter Banks provided a memo from Patrick Fly that provided the latest May update from Broadband Consultant Sandie Terry with CIT. Information was shared about the results of the data collected in partnership with CIT that completed Phase 1, Data Collection. Broadband Project is now moving into phase 2 which builds the business case for improvement. There was a discussion about vertical assets being publicly and privately owned. 3. Mr. Banks discussed the SunGard OSSI Software Implementation Project and Sheriff Williamson supported the need for deputies and Public Safety Communications to have better access to communications while out in the field. Discussion amongst the group supported the project. 4. The Technology Committee retired into closed session, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2- 3711(A) (1), for discussion of personnel matters. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE — APPROVED CRITICAL INPUTS The Development Impact Model — Oversight Committee (DIM -OC) met on Wednesday, May 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM. Members Present Members Absent J.P. Carr Stephen Pettler Robert Hess Roger Thomas Dr. John Lamanna UR Gary Lofton Brian Madagan H. Paige Manuel Kris Tierney Patrick Barker, Randy Jones, Eric Lawrence, and Al Orndorff were present. ** *Items Requiring Action * ** The DIM -OC reviewed the critical inputs for the Annual Update of the Development Impact Model (DIM). The inputs are essential in order to maintain an updated DIM. It is important to note that the DIM is a planning tool which projects anticipated operational and capital facility costs associated with land use planning, although the DIM is also commonly referenced as a model utilized to project the capital facility costs associated with development and rezoning proposals. Upon approval of the DIM -OC's recommendation, staff will use the updated model in the consideration of land use planning analysis and for future rezoning petitions. The critical input spreadsheet (Attachment #1) and resulting projected capital facilities' costs (Attachment #2) are attached for your information. Upon utilizing the critical input updated figures, the DIM projects the following impacts on the County's capital facilities: NEW FY14 FY13 Single Family Dwelling Unit — $19,600 $18,507 Town Home Dwelling Unit = $13,062 $12,354 Apartment Dwelling Unit — $11,339 $ 9,983 By majority vote, the DIM -OC recommends the use of the critical inputs, and for their incorporation into model, Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the critical inputs and their incorporation into the Development Impact Model. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant 17 ** *Informational Purposes Only * ** The DIM -OC continued to discuss and understand how school facility costs were derived, Randy Jones, Senior Vice President of OWPR, the School Board's architecture and engineering firm, offered an overview of the extensive analysis undertaken to provide the School Board with estimates for new school facilities. The cost estimates are consistent with the adopted CIP, and include both hard and soft costs associated with constructing and opening a new school facility, Discussion included concern that including soft costs in the DIM may be inappropriate. The soft costs include a facility's technology and furniture, and typically represent 20 percent of a project's total costs. Following the meeting, staff contacted Carson Bise of Tischler -Bice economic consultants and the DIM's creator, who confirmed that the DIM was designed and intended to reflect both hard and soft costs of establishing a new facility, The DIM -OC inquired into how much value do cash proffers, one outcome of using the DIM, actually bring to the county. One comment at the DIM -OC meeting suggested that cash proffers could equate to $20,000,000 annually. Following the DIM OC meeting, staff consulted with the Finance Department and learned that, since 1995, a total of $9,229,575 has been received in cash proffer payments. During the same time period, approximately $26, 000, 000 in cash proffers has been committed as part of a rezoning application, to be paid in the future as structures are constructed. The DIM -OC recognized that the county's planned implementation of a fee for service revenue recovery program for fire and rescue may warrant a revision to the DIM to reflect the future fee for service recovery revenue. Once the county establishes the recovery program, and realizes revenue recovery, the DIM could be revised. It was noted that the revenue recovery program does not address all aspects of emergency service and therefore any revision to the DIM would modify and not eliminate the fire and rescue module in the DIM. Revisions to the DIM pertaining to fire and rescue could be considered in future year DIM critical input updates. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING REZONING #02-13 OF FAIRFAX PIKENDOT LANE COMMERCIAL, SUBMITTED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING TO REZONE 3.61 ACRES FROM B1 EIGHBORHOOD- BUSINESS DISTRICT TO B2 GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT WITH PROFFERS. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FAIRFAX PIKE (ROUTE 277) ADJACENT TO VDOT LANE (ROUTE 1018), APPROXIMATELY Yz MILE EAST OF INTERSTATE 81 EXIT 307 AND ARE IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 86 -A -14 AND 86 -A -15 IN THE OPE UON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Deputy Director of Planning Michael Ruddy appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request to rezone 3.6 acres along Route 277 from B 1 (Neighborhood 18 Business) to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The parcel is located in the Opequon Magisterial District. Deputy Director Rudy noted the proposed land use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The impacts have generally been addressed and the applicant has proffered a generalized development plan. He noted the site would be accessed by a right- in/right -out on Route 277 and an entrance on VDOT lane. He also advised that inter - parcel connectivity has been provided. The applicant has dedicated an additional 20 feet of right -of- way along Route 277 and $35,000 has been proffered to assist with other transportation improvements. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposed rezoning. Supervisor Lofton asked about the maximum impacts in the B2 District. Deputy Director Ruddy responded those impacts were associated with heavy traffic and drive -thru uses. The B2 uses resulted in more transportation trips. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, advised the applicant dedicated a 20 foot strip of land along Route 227 to give VDOT some design flexibility for the Route 277 improvement project. He went on to say VDOT asked the applicant to limit the entrances on VDOT lane. He concluded by saying VDOT has executed the appropriate entrance exceptions to allow the entrance along Route 277. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved Rezoning 902 -13 of Fairfax PikeNDOT Lane Commercial. WHEREAS, Rezoning #02 -13 of Fairfax Pike1VDOT Lane Commercial submitted by Greenway Engineering to rezone 3.61 acres from B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District to B2 19 (General Business) District with proffers dated January 25 ,2013 and final version May 17, 2013 was considered. The properties are located on the north side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) adjacent to VDOT Lane (Route 1018), approximately '/z mile east of Interstate 81 Exit 307, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 86 -A -14 and 86 -A -15 in the Opequon Magisterial District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on May 15, 2013 and forwarded a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 12, 2013; 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 to rezone 3.61 acres from B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant OTHER PLANNING ITEMS DISCUSSION — TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE STRUCTURES — SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a proposed revision to the Zoning Ordinance to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas), RP (Residential Performance), R5 (Residential Recreational), and R4 (Residential Planned Community) Districts, She went on to 20 say the Code of Virginia requires localities to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts where single family detached dwelling units are permitted. The DRRC and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and supplementary regulations and forwarded them to the Board for discussion. She concluded by saying staff was seeking direction from the Board regarding whether this item was ready to be sent forward for public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing regarding Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, §165- 101.02 Definitions & Word Usage, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District, §165- 401.02 Permitted Uses, Part 402 — RP Residential Performance District, §165- 402.02 Permitted Uses, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Department has been directed to prepare changes to Chapter 165 Zoning, to allow temporary family health care structure as a permitted use. WHEREAS, the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) recommended this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 15, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 12, 2013; 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 an amendment to Chapter 165 to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted use. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors 21 that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted use. Passed this 12 "' day of June, 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant DISCUSSION — RURAL PRESERVATION LOT REQUIREMENTS — SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised staff received a request to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded, so long as the division results in acreage being added to the preservation tract and only if acreage being added comes from the overall rural preservation subdivision. She advised the Development Review and Regulations Committee and the Planning Commission discussed this item. The Planning Commission added language to the proposed amendment to all property to be added from outside of the rural preservation tract, but land could not be removed. She concluded by saying staff was seeking direction from the Board of Supervisors regarding whether this item was ready to be sent forward for public bearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public nearing regarding Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165 - 401.06 Permitted Lot Sizes. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Department has been directed to prepare changes to Chapter 165 Zoning, to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been 22 recorded. WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) recommended this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 12, 2013; 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 an amendment to Chapter 165 to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded. Passed this 12' day of June, 2013 by the following recorded vote; Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant ROAD RESOLUTION — SOUTHERN HILLS STICKLEY DRIVE EXTENSION -- APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM -4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of 23 Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. MEMORANDUM REQUESTING TO SCHEDULE A WORK SESSION — SCHEDULED FOR JULY 10 2013 The Board consensus was to hold a work session with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Chairman Shickle advised that he had met with the chairman of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority regarding the upcoming joint meeting. He encouraged the chairman to work with him to concentrate on how the two boards might improve communication. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Hess commented on the Service Learning presentations, which were held on May 30, 2013. He complemented the students, advisors, and county staff and noted he thought the presentations were excellent. He also advised that he attended the Lake Holiday spillway dedication. The project was completed early and under budget. He concluded by saying the citizens were very complimentary of the Public Works' staff. Supervisor Fisher asked the Board to recognize the Sherando High School State Champion baseball team. Supervisor Lofton advised that he ran into former Opequon Supervisor Bill Ewing and he 24 asked him to give everyone his best. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN DEHAVEN, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FISHER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (8:15 P.M.) 25 County of Frederick Illllliilllllllllllllllr1 111111 {IIIIIIIr111MllllAlllllllff 11111lHlllldlllllllllllllllrllllllll Nllll IIIIIIIIHI111t114i11r144111 1111r1114i111 ansi14rl1, 11111111 }Ilrrllllr......iAllrlll r 111114911111111, IIIIIINIIIAlllllllflllllllr1111NIIIIIIrA411rIr111111rIF41111l Ir11111A111111 Paula A. Nofsinger Director of Human Resources (540) 665 -5668 FAX: (540) 665 -5669 pnofsing@co.frederjck.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Lynsey Orndorff, HR Generalist, DATE: July, 2013 SUBJECT: Employee Recognition Please find an attached resolution recognizing Linda L. Huff with the Northwestern Regional Jail for Employee of the Month, July. She plans to attend the July 1 0 11 Board Meeting to accept her award. Thanks 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 -5000 Employee of the Month Resolution A wm led to' Linda L. Huff WHEREAS, the lhvderick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1992, the Boar. of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for the award may be nominated by any County employee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the meats of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, WHEREAS, Linda L. Huff who serves the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, Linda L. Huff is being awarded for her loyalty and commitment to her position as Food Services Supervisor. During the month of Februa L was able to fill in for the I +good Service Manager in her absence. Linda handled daily issues including request forms, diets, menu changes, orders, weekly billing, meal counts and any other requirements. Linda learned and handled these responsibilities with ease, all while showing professionalism and ability to work as a team. She was also able to handle issues between multiple facilities within the building without utilizing overtime due to her willingness to adjust her personal schedule when needed and work around her co- workers. Due to Linda's loyalty to the department and facility, the department was able to continue to operate efficiently. Linda is to be commended for her initiative and dedication. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of SlipervisOTS this 10 day of July, 2013, that Linda L. Huff is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for July 2013; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE D that the Board. of Supervisors extends gratitude to Linda L. Huff for her outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Linda L. Huff is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with her award. County of Frederick, VA Board of Supervisors - - -- Richard C. Shickle, Chairman �� —� O 9 Iza Qt� *Wl I t , I�zl OZ .4 CU ta rzi ` 4 � Qt Qt� w c- IBM � �P'lll! III 91 � �� �f' �II'�' � �I �Vflllllllllllllllllll !Jllllllltl Illllllllllllhlllllllllllpf lllll!Illi, O Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center Rt James F. Whitley - Superintendent SO N 1p 141 Fort Collier Road, Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 665 -6374 (540) 665 -1613 FAX 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Paula Nofsinger, Frederick County Human Resources Dif ctor FROM: James F. Whitley, Superintenden DATE: April 8, 2013 SUBJECT: Employee of the Month Nomination The Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center nominates Linda Huff as Frederick County Employee of the Month. During the month of January, Ms. Huff began learning more of the responsibilities of the Food Service Manager. In February, she filled in for the Food Service Manager in her absence, handling daily issues to include request forms, diets, menu changes, orders, weekly billing, meal counts and any other daily requirements. Ms. Huff handled the responsibility with ease and showed professionalism and teamwork during this time. Ms. Huff was capable of handling not only the issues at the Main Facility, but also the Community Corrections Building as well. During this time, no overtime was utilized due to her willingness to adjust her personal schedule when needed, as well as work with her co- workers to ensure their time off. Due to her loyalty to the department and the facility, the department operated efficiently. Ms. Huff's performance and contribution to Frederick County during the Food Services Manager's absence attests to her professionalism and makes her extremely worthy of this special recognition. /ICW "Serving the Criminal Justice System Since 1991" COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr County Administrator Fax 5401667 -0660 E -mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administra# DATE: July 3, 2013 RE: Committee Appointments Listed below are the vacancies /appointments due through September, 2013. 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. VACANCIESIOTHER Extension Leadership Council Edward J. Keenan — Shawnee District Representative 840 Carpers Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)667 -4816 Term Expires: 01/25/14 Four year term (Mr. Keenan has resigned.) (See Attached) Parks and Recreation Commission Ron Hodgson — Stonewall District Representative Sportsplex 221 Commonwealth Court Winchester, VA 22602 Office: (540)868 -2200 Term Expires: 06/23/14 Four year term (Mr. Hodgson has resigned). 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 Memorandum - Board of Supervisors July 3, 2013 Page 2 AUGUST & SEPTEMBER 2013 Conservation Easement Authori Todd B. Lodge -- County Representative 3390 Apple Pie Ridge Road Winchester, VA 226603 Home: (540)6625488 Term Expires:.08I24113 Three year term John R. Marker — County Representative 3035 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester, VA 22603 Home 540)662 - 401:3 Term Expires: ',09126113 Three year term (Staff has been advised that Mr. Lodge and 1VIr. Marker are willing to continue serving.) The Conservation Easement Authority was established in August, 2005. The Authority consists of seven citizen rnembers,..`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 andlor rural land appraisal, accounting, farming, or forestry. Members served three year terra and are eligible for reappointment.) Frederick- Winchester Service Authority Dr. Ned M Cleland Frederick County Representative 117 Crestlei§h :Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)869 -5970 Term Expires: 08/31/13 Three year term (The county has three representatives on the Service Authority as is in accordance with the Joint Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Winchester.) JRRltjp Attachment UATJ Pl committeeappointments \MemoslBoardComm itteeAppts(071013Mtg).docx .,JUN - 5 June 3,2013 Mark Sutphin Frederick Co Extension Agency 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Va 22601 Dear Mark, I, With my current work schedule and other obligations, I submit my resignation from the extension Leadership Council. I wish you the very best in your new role with the extension Agency. Sinc a y, Ed Keenan BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Resolution KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL WHEREAS, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL INC has made known its intent to expand its operation by making new taxable real estate and personal property investments and retain and create jobs; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Policy as established by the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995; BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby approve and appropriate the payment of $325,000.00 in installments as stated in the executed Performance Agreement to the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County, Virginia from the Frederick County's Fund Balance to assist in expanding the operation for KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL INC in Frederick County, Virginia. BE IT RESOLVED, that said funds are subject to an executed Performance Agreement outlining the required performance criteria. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does authorize the County Administrator to execute the Performance Agreement on its behalf. ADOPTED, this day of July 2013. Upon motion duly made by , seconded by and on the votes hereafter recorded: Richard C. Shickle Robert Hess Charles S. Dehaven, Jr. Gary Lofton Gene Fisher Christopher E. Collins Opequon District Vacant A COPY TESTE: John R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Resolution No,: 002 -13 LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT made and entered this th day of July 2013 by and among the COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (the "Locality ") a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth "), KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC (the "Company "), a Delaware corporation, and the INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "Authority "), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. RECITALS; WHEREAS, the Locality wishes to make a Local Economic Development Incentive Grant in the amount of $325,OOQ (the "LEDIG ") through the Authority to the Company for the purpose of inducing the Company to construct the Facility (as hereinafter defined), thereby making a significant Capital Investment (as hereinafter defined) and creating and retaining a significant number of new Jobs (as hereinafter defined); WHEREAS, the Locality, the Authority and the Company desire to set forth their understanding and agreement as to the payout of the LEDIG, the use of the proceeds of the LEDIG, the obligations of the Company regarding Capital Investment and Job creation, and the repayment by the Company of all or part of the LEDIG under certain circumstances; WHEREAS, the construction and operation of the Facility will entail a capital expenditure in machinery and equipment of approximately $25,000,000 and will create 25 Jobs at the Facility; WHEREAS, the stimulation of the additional tax revenue and economic activity to be generated by the Capital Investment and Jobs constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds and is the animating purpose for the LEDIG; and WHEREAS, the LEDIG will increase commerce and will benefit the citizens of the Locality: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits, promises and undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows. Section 1. Disbursement of LEDIG. As an inducement to the Company to achieve the Targets (as hereinafter defined) at the Facility and provided that the Company in not in default under the terms of this Performance Agreement, the LEDIG in the amount of $325,000 will be paid by the Locality to the Company through the Authority in two installments. The first installment of $150,000 will be paid by the Krafft Foods Global LCC I LEDIG Performance Agreement 9 FINAL Page l of 7 Locality to the Authority and thereafter by the Authority to the Company after July 1, 2013 but no later than December 31, 2014 post the confirmation of local taxes paid and confirmation of compliance with the terms of this Performance Agreement and will use the funds to address workforce needs for high -tech diversified skills. The second installment of $175,000 will be paid by the Locality to the Authority and by the Authority to the Company after July 1, 2015 but no later than June 30, 2016 post the confirmation of local taxes paid and confirmation of compliance with the terms of this Performance Agreement. The Company will use the LEDIG proceeds to upgrade public and private utilities at and around the Facility as well as workforce training. Section 2. Targets; Definitions. The Company will construct and operate the Facility in the Locality, make a Capital Investment of at least $25,000,000 and create and maintain, as hereinafter defined, at least 25 Jobs at the Facility, all as of the Performance Date, as hereinafter defined. The average annual wage of the Jobs of at least $38,500 is slightly less than the prevailing average annual wage in the Locality of $38,649. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following definitions: "Capital Investment" means a capital expenditure by the Company in taxable real property, taxable tangible personal property, or both, at the Facility excluding the purchase of land or existing taxable tangible personal property. The Capital Investment must be in addition to the capital improvements at the Company's existing location in Frederick County as of October 4, 2012. The total capital expenditure of $25,000,000 is referred to in this Agreement as the "Capital Investment." "Maintain" means that the current 460 jobs at the Facility as of October 4, 2012 and the New Jobs created pursuant to the LEDIG will continue without interruption from the date of creation through the Performance Date. "Facility" means that certain industrial facility operated by the Company situate in Frederick County, Virginia at 220 Park Center Drive. "New Jobs" means new permanent full -time employment of an indefinite duration at the Facility for which the standard fringe benefits are paid by the Company for the employee, and for which the Company pays an average annual wage of at least $38,500, including overtime. Each Job must require a minimum of either (i) 35 hours of an employee's time per week for the entire normal year of the Company's operations, which "normal year'' must consist of at least 48 weeks, or (ii) 1,680 hours per year. Seasonal or temporary positions, positions created when a job function is shifted from an existing location in the Commonwealth, and positions with construction contractors, vendors, suppliers and similar multiplier or spin -off jobs shall not qualify as New Jobs. Those jobs existing as of October 4. 2012 will not count as New Jobs. Kraft Foods Global LCC I LEDIG Performance Agreement I FINAL Page 2 of 7 "Performance Date" means June 1, 2015. If the Locality, in consultation with the Authority, deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made by the Company to achieve the Targets as hereinafter defined, the Locality in its sole and absolute discretion may agree to extend the Performance Date by up to 15 months. The Locality shall have no obligation whatsoever to extend the Performance Date. If the Performance Date is extended, the Locality shall send written notice of the extension to the Authority and the Company and the date to which the Performance Date has been extended shall be the "Performance Date" for the purposes of this Agreement. "Targets" means the Company's obligations to mare Capital Investments at the Facility of at least $25,000,000 and to create and maintain at least 25 New Jobs at the Facility, all as of the Performance Date. Section 3. Break -Even Point; Local Incentives. The Locality has estimated that it will reach its "break -even point" by the Performance Date. The break -even point compares new revenues realized as a result of the Capital Investment and Jobs at the Facility with the Locality's expenditures on incentives. With regard to the Facility, the Locality will provide incentives in the following amounts: Category of Incentive Total Amount Local Economic Development Incentive Grant $325,000 The proceeds of the LEDIG Grant shall be used for the purposes described in the Recitals and in Section I and 2 above. Section 4. Repayment Obligation. (a) (i) For purposes of repayment, the LEDIG is to be allocated as 50% ($162,500) for the Company's Capital Investment Target and 50% ($162,500) for its New Jobs Target. If the Company has met at least ninety percent (90%) of both of the Targets as of the Performance Date, then and thereafter the Company shall no longer be obligated to repay any portion of the LEDIG. (ii) If the Company has not met at least ninety percent (90 %) of both of the Targets, the Company shall repay to the Authority that part of the LEDIG that is proportional to the Target or Targets for which there is a shortfall as of the Performance Date. For example, if on the Performance Date, the Capital Investment is only $12,500,000 and only 12 New Jobs have been created, the Company shall repay to the Authority fifty percent (50 %) of the moneys allocated to the Capital Investment Target ($162,500) and fifty percent (50 %) of the moneys allocated to the New Jobs Target ($162,500). Whether the New Jobs Target has been met will be determined by comparing the anticipated increase in payroll (to -wit: 25 New Jobs at an average annual salary of at least $38,500) to the actual number of Jobs in effect as of the date of execution of this Performance Agreement and by comparing the actual average annual salary of Kraft foods Global LCC I LEDIG Performance Agreement I FINAL Page 3 of 7 New Jobs reported on at the Performance Date. The Company's repayment obligation hereunder shall survive the Performance Date to the extent that the Locality subsequently receives information to the effect that the Company did not meet the Targets. (b) Determination of Inability to Comply: If the Locality in its sole and absolute discretion shall determine at any time (a "Determination Date ") that the Company is unable or unwilling to meet and maintain its Targets by and through the Performance Date, and if the Locality or the Authority shall have promptly notified the Company of such determination, the Company must repay the entire amount of the LEDIG to the Authority. (c) Repayment Dates: Such repayment shall be due from the Company to the Authority within thirty days of the Performance Date or the Determination Date, whichever shall first occur. Any LEDIG moneys shall be repaid by the Company to the Authority within 30 days after request for payment is made by the Locality or the Authority and thereafter be paid by the Authority to the Locality. The Locality and the Authority shall use their best efforts to recover such funds, including legal action for any breach of this Agreement by the Company. In the event that the Company fails to comply with the repayment obligations set forth in this Section 4, the Locality and the Authority shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with such default by the Company, whether or not such proceedings are instituted to collect such repayment funds. The Authority shall not have any responsibility whatsoever for the repayment of any sums hereunder to the Locality unless and until said sums have been received by the Authority from the Company. In the event that the Company fails or refuses to repay any of the LEDIG moneys as called for in this Section 4, such sums shall be assessed interest at the rate of 8.00 % annum until repaid in full by the Company. Section 5. Company Reporting. The Company shall timely provide, at the Company's expense, written detailed verification satisfactory to the Locality and the Authority of the Company's progress on achieving the Targets. The Company shall provide for review by the Locality the Company's quarterly payroll tax filings and will denote on those filings which of the employees met the definition of New Jobs to confirm satisfaction with the Company's progress on achieving the Targets for New Jobs. The Company also will permit the Locality to review annual tax filings to confirm reasonable satisfaction with the Company's progress on achieving the Capital Investment Targets. The Locality's right to review annual tax filings shall also apply to any amendments to such tax filings for the duration of the time such amendments are permitted under applicable law and for one year after the final disposition of such amendments. Such progress reports will be provided annually, starting on December 1, 2013, and at such other times as the Locality or the Authority may reasonably require. The Company shall provide a letter confirming the Targets for Capital Investment and New Jobs. This letter will shall confirm Capital Investment incurred by or on behalf of the Company and the number of New Jobs created by the Company at the facility. The Company shall provide an affirmative signed statement by an authorized Company Officer or Director that information provided in progress Kraft Foods Global LCC I LEDIG Performance Agreement I FINAL Page 4 of 7 reports are true and correct and certify the status of its efforts to achieve the Targets for New .lobs and Capital Investment. Section 6. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery, facsimile, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, properly addressed, postage prepaid, and registered or certified, with return receipt requested, or overnight delivery service. A notice given by personal delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon delivery and a notice given by registered or certified mail shall be deemed effective on the second day after such deposit. Notice given by overnight delivery service shall be deemed effective on the date of actual delivery. Either party may by notice to the other specify a different address for notice purposes. if to the Company, to: Kraft Foods 220 Park Center Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Attention: VP /General Manager if to the Locality, to: County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 Attention. County Administrator if to the Authority, to: Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: Chair Section 7. Miscellaneous. with a copy to: SALT — Credits and Incentives Practice 175 West Jackson, 20th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Attention: National Director with a copy to: County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: County Attorney with a copy to: Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: General Counsel (a) Entire Agreement; Amendments: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto as to the LEDIG and any other matters set forth herein and may not be amended or modified, except in writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. Kraft Foods Global LCC � LEDIG Performance Agreement I FINAL Page 5 of 7 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Company may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Locality and the Authority, which consent may be withheld by the Locality and /or the Authority. (b) Governing Law; Venue: This Agreement is made, and is intended to be performed, in the Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws and judicial decisions of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction shall lie exclusively in the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia and any litigation shall be brought only in such court. (c) Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument. (d) Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid, or illegal, then the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or impaired, and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law, (e) Time: Time is of the essence as to all matters set forth in this Performance Agreement, Kraft Foods Global LCC I LEDIG Performance Agreement I FINAL Page 6 of 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the date first written above. COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA By Name: Richard C. Shickle Title: Chair, Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia Date: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA By Name: Richard G. Dick Title: Chair, Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia Date: KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. By Name: Title: Date: Kraft Foods Global LCC I LEDIG Performance Agreement I FINAL Page 7 of 7 '? r I �X CO BOARD (R� SUPERVISORS esolution 9 MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC. WHEREAS, MCKESSON MEDICAL - SURGICAL INC.has made known its intent to locate a new distribution operation by making new taxable real estate and personal property investments and retain and create jobs; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Policy as established by the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995; BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve and appropriate the payment of $150,000.00 to the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County, Virginia from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to assist in locating a distribution operation for MCKESSON MEDICAL - SURGICAL INC. in Frederick County, Virginia. BE IT RESOLVED, that said funds are subject to an executed Performance Agreement outlining the required performance criteria. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does authorize the County Administrator to execute the Performance Agreement on its behalf. ADOPTED, this day of July 2013. Upon motion duly made by , seconded QI and on the votes hereafter recorded: Richard C. Shickle Robert Hess Charles S. Dehaven, Jr. Gary Lofton Gene Fisher Opequon District Vacant Christopher E. Collins A COP'S TESTS: John R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Resolution No.: 003 -13 GOVERNOR'S DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUND PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT made and entered this day of July, 2013 by and among the COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (the "Locality ") a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth "), MCKESSON MEDICAL - SURGICAL INC. (the "Company "), a Virginia corporation, and the INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (the "Authority "), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Locality has been awarded a grant of and expects to receive $150,000 from the Governor's Development Opportunity Fund (a "GOF Grant ") through the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority ( "VEDP ") for the purpose of inducing the Company to construct, equip and operate a distribution facility (the "Facility ") in the Locality, thereby making a significant Capital Investment, as hereinafter defined, and creating and retaining a significant number of New Jobs, as hereinafter defined; WHEREAS, the Locality is willing to provide the funds to the Authority with the expectation that the Authority will provide the funds to or for the use of the Company, provided that the Company promises to meet certain criteria relating to Capital Investment and New Jobs; WHEREAS, the Locality, the Authority and the Company desire to set forth their understanding and agreement as to the payout of the GOF Grant, the use of the proceeds of the GOF Grant, the obligations of the Company regarding Capital Investment and New Job creation, and the repayment by the Company of all or part of the GOF Grant under certain circumstances; WHEREAS, the construction, equipping and operation of the Facility will entail a capital expenditure of approximately $36,900,000, of which approximately $13,300,000 will be invested in machinery and equipment, and $23,600,000 will be invested in the construction of a new building; WHEREAS, the construction, equipping and operation of the Facility will further entail the creation and maintenance of 205 New Jobs at the Facility; and WHEREAS, the stimulation of the additional tax revenue and economic activity to be generated by the Capital Investment and New Jobs constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds and is the animating purpose for the GOF Grant: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits, promises and undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree as follows. McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 Pagc 1 of 9 Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following definitions: "Average Annual Wage" means the average salary for New Jobs as determined by dividing total payroll (all W -2 compensation) for New Jobs by the number of New Jobs. The calculation of Average Annual Wage shall be applicable to New Jobs, GOF Eligible New Jobs and Other Jobs. "Capital Investment" means a capital expenditure by or on behalf of the Company in taxable real property, taxable tangible personal property, or both, at the Facility, excluding the purchase of land or existing real property improvements. The Capital Investment must be in addition to the capital improvements at the Facility as of July 1, 2012. The total capital expenditure of $36,900,000 is referred to in this Agreement as the "Capital Investment." "GOF Eligible New Job" means the limited number of total New Jobs that meet the Average Annual Wage requirement of at least $38,874 for the GOF Grant. "Maintain" means that the New Jobs created pursuant to the GOF Grant will continue without interruption from the date of creation through the Performance Date. Positions for the New Jobs will be treated as Maintained during periods in which such positrons are not filled due to (i) temporary reductions in the Company's employment levels (so long as there is active recruitment for open positions), (ii) strikes and (iii) other temporary work stoppages. "New Job" means new permanent full -time employment in a position of an indefinite duration by the Company, its affiliates, or its subsidiaries at the Facility for which the standard fringe benefits are paid by the Company for the employee. Each New Job must require a minimum of either (i) 35 hours of an employee's time per week for the entire normal year of the Company's operations, which "normal year" must consist of at least 48 weeks, or (ii) 1,680 hours per year. Seasonal or temporary positions, positions created when a job function is shifted from an existing location in the Commonwealth, and positions with construction contractors, vendors, suppliers and similar multiplier or spin -off jobs shall not qualify as New Jobs. New Job includes GOF Eligible New Jobs and Other New Jobs. "Other New Job" means the limited number of total New Jobs that are not GOF Eligible New Jobs and have an Average Annual Wage of at least $29,580. "Performance Date" means October 31, 2015. If the Locality, in consultation with the Authority and VEDP, deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made by the Company to achieve the Targets, as hereinafter defined, the Locality in its sole and absolute discretion may agree to extend the Performance Date by up to fifteen (15) months. If the Performance Date is extended, the Locality shall send written notice of the extension to the Authority, the Company and VEDP and the date to which the Performance Date has been extended shall be the "Performance Date" for the purposes of this Agreement. Neither the McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 Page 2 of 9 Locality, the Authority, nor VEDP, nor any of them, shall have any obligation whatsoever to extend the Performance Date. "Targets" means, as of the Performance Date, the Company's obligations to make or cause to be made Capital Investments at the Facility of at least $36,900,000 and to create and Maintain at least 205 New Jobs at the Facility. At least 57 of the New Jobs shall be GOF Eligible New Jobs, and at least 148 of the New Jobs shall be Other New Jobs. "Virginia Code" means the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. Section 2. Targets. The Company will develop or cause to be developed and operate the Facility in the Locality and achieve the Targets. The Locality and the Authority hereby strongly encourage the Company to ensure that at least thirty percent (30 %) of the New Jobs are offered to "Residents" of the Commonwealth, as defined in Virginia Code Section 58.1 -302. In pertinent part, that definition includes natural persons domiciled. in Virginia or natural persons who, for an aggregate of more than 183 days of the year, maintained a place of abode within the Commonwealth, whether domiciled in the Commonwealth or not. The prevailing average wage in the Locality is $38,349. The Locality is not a high - unemployment locality, having an unemployment rate for 2011, which is the last year for which such data is available, of 5.9% as compared to the 2011 statewide unemployment rate of 6.2 %. The Locality is not a high- poverty locality, with a poverty rate for 2010, which is the last year for which such data is available, of 7.4% as compared to the 2010 statewide poverty rate of 11.1 %. Section 3. Disbursement of the GOF Grant By its signature below, the Locality requests of VEDP the release of the GOF Grant for the Company, VEDP has informed the Locality and the Company that the time period for the disbursement of the GOF Grant from the Commonwealth to the Locality is likely to be 30 -45 days. The Locality anticipates that the GOF Grant in the amount of $150,000 will be paid to the Locality, upon its request. Within 30 days of its receipt of the GOF Grant proceeds, the Locality will disburse the GOF Grant proceeds to the Authority. Within 30 days of its receipt of the GOF Grant proceeds, the Authority will disburse the GOF Grant proceeds to the Company as an inducement to the Company to achieve the Targets at the Facility. The Company will use the GOF Grant proceeds for the construction or build -out of publicly or privately owned buildings, as permitted by Section 2.2- 115(D) of the Virginia Code. This Performance Agreement shall terminate and shall be of no farce and effect in the event that the GOF Grant is not received by the Locality on or before September 30, 2013. McKesson Performance Agreement I .July 2013 Page 3 of 9 Section 4. Break -Even Point; State and Local Incentives VEDP has estimated that the Commonwealth will reach its "break -even point" by the Performance Date. The break -even point compares new revenues realized as a result of the Capital Investment and New Jobs at the Facility with the Commonwealth's expenditures on incentives, including but not limited to the GOF Grant. With regard to the Facility, the Commonwealth expects to provide incentives in the following amounts: Category of Incentive: Total Amount GOF Grant $150,000 Virginia Jobs Investment Program ( "VIP ") (Estimated) 143,500 The Locality expects to provide the following incentives, as matching grants or otherwise, for the Facility, the "GOF Grant Local Match Requirement ": Category of Incentive: Realign Brucetown Road, Route 11 and I -81 Exit 321 Total Amount $150,000 If, by the Performance Date, the funds disbursed or committed to be disbursed by the Locality for the improvements described above total less than the $150,000 GOF Grant Local Match Requirement, the Locality, subject to appropriation, will make an additional grant to or for the benefit of the Company, through the Authority, of the difference as of the Performance Date, so long as the Company has met its Targets. The proceeds of the GOF Grant shall be used for the purposes described in the Recitals and as set forth in Section 3. The VJIP grant proceeds shall be used by the Company to pay or reimburse itself for recruitment and training costs for its employees. The Company has agreed that the realignment of Brucetown Road, Route 11 and Interstate 81 Exit 321, approximately 0.3 miles from the site, will provide material and substantial benefit to the Company, Section 5. Repayment Orbliaation (a) If Statutory Minimum Requirements are Not Met: Notwithstanding the terms of this Performance Agreement, Section 2.2 -115 of the Virginia Code requires that the Company make a Capital Investment of at least $5,000,000 in the Facility and create and Maintain at least 50 GOF Eligible New Jobs at the Facility paying an annual average wage of at least $38,874, in order to be eligible for the GOF Grant. Failure by the Company to meet either of these statutory minimum eligibility requirements by the Performance Date shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and the entire amount of the GOF Grant must be repaid by the Company to the Authority. McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 page d of 9 (b) If Statutory Minimum Requirements are Met: The provisions of this subsection (b) are applicable only if the Company has met the statutory minimum eligibility requirements set forth in subsection (a). For purposes of repayment, the GOF Grant is to be allocated as $75,000 (50 %) for the Company's Capital Investment Target of $36,900,000 and $75,000 (50 %) for its New Jobs Target of 205 New Jobs. If the Company has met at least ninety percent (90 %) of both its Capital Investment Target (i.e. at least $33,210,000) and its New Jobs Target (i.e, at least 185 New Jobs of which 50 must be GOF Eligible New Jobs) as of the Performance Date, then and thereafter the Company is no longer obligated to repay any portion of the GOF Grant. If the Company has not met at least ninety percent (90 %) of both of the Targets at the Performance Date as described above, the Company shall repay to the Authority that part of the GOF Grant that is proportional to the Target or Targets for which there is a shortfall. For example, if at the Performance Date, the Capital Investment is only $9,225,000 (representing achievement of twenty -five percent (25 %) of the Capital Investment Target), and only (i) 60 GOF Eligible New Jobs (representing achievement of at least 50 GOF Eligible New Jobs) and (ii) 21 additional Other Now Jobs have been created and Maintained (representing achievement of 81 of the 205 New Jobs Target or 40 %), the Company shall repay to the Authority seventy- five percent (75 %) of the moneys allocated to the Capital Investment Target ($56,250) and sixty percent (60 %) of the moneys allocated to the New Jobs Target ($45,000). (c) Determination of Inability to Comply: If the Locality, the Authority and /or VEDP shall have a reasonable basis to determine at any time prior to the Performance Date (a "Determination Date ") that the Company is unable or unwilling to meet and Maintain its Targets by and through the Performance Date, and if the Locality, the Authority or VEDP shall have promptly notified the Company of such determination, the Company must repay the entire amount of the GOF Grant to the Authority. Such a determination will be based on such circumstances as a filing by or on behalf of the Company under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the liquidation of the Company, an abandonment of the Facility by the Company or other similar significant event that demonstrates the Company will be unable or is unwilling to satisfy the Targets for the GOF Grant, as determined by the Locality, the Authority or VEDP. (d) Repayment Dates: Such repayment shall be due from the Company to the Authority within ninety days of the Performance Date or the Determination Date, whichever shall first occur. (i) GOF Grant: Any GOF Grant moneys repaid by the Company to the Authority hereunder shall be repaid by the Authority to the Locality within 30 days after the repayment by the Company to the Authority, and shall be paid by the Locality promptly to VEDP for redeposit into the Governor's Development Opportunity Fund. (ii) Recovery of Funds and Repayment: The Locality and the Authority shall use their best efforts to recover such funds, including legal action for any breach of this Agreement by the Company. The Company shall be Iiable for all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the Locality and /or the Authority in connection with any legal action brought to collect such funds. Neither the Locality nor the Authority shall have McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 Page 5 of 9 any responsibility for the repayment of any sums hereunder unless said sums have been received by the Authority from the Company. Section 6. Company Reportin $t The Company shall timely provide, at the Company's expense, written detailed verification satisfactory to the Locality, the Authority and VEDP of the Company's progress on achieving the Targets, The Company shall provide for review by the Locality the Company's quarterly payroll tax filings for the Facility and will denote on those filings which of the employees met the definition of New .robs to confirm satisfaction with the Company's progress on achieving the Targets for New Jobs. Such progress reports will be provided annually, starting on May 1, 2014 and covering the period through the prior March 31 st, and at such other times as the Locality, the Authority or VEDP may reasonably require. Concurrently with each progress report the Company shall provide a letter confirming the Targets for Capital Investment and shall provide written authorization for the appropriate unit of the Locality to review its personal property tax form filed with the Locality. This letter will confirm Capital Investment incurred by or on behalf of the Company. The Company shall provide an affirmative signed statement by a knowledgeable employee that information provided in progress report is true and correct and certify the status of its efforts to achieve the Targets. Upon request of the Locality the Company will certify that it is current in its Virginia tax filings and in good standing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 Page 6 of 9 Section 7. Notices Any notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be deemed to be received upon receipt or refusal after mailing of the same in the United States Mail by certified mail, postage fully pre -paid or by overnight courier (refusal shall mean return of certified mail or overnight courier package not accepted by the addressee): if to the Company, to: McKesson Medical - Surgical Inc. 8741 Landmark Road Richmond, VA 23228 Attention: Pat McClenaghan Senior Vice President if to the Locality, to: County of Frederick 107 North Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: County Administrator with a copies to: McKesson Medical- Surgical Inc. c/o McKesson Corporation Corporate Tax Department 601 E. Corporate Drive Lewisville, TX 75057 Attention: Senior Tax Manager and Nicole NormanseIl Assistant General Counsel McKesson Medical- Surgical Inc. 8741 Landmark Road Richmond, VA 23228 with a copy to: County of Frederick 107 North Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: County Attorney if to the Authority, to: Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: Chair if to VEDP, to: Virginia Economic Development Partnership 901 East Byrd Street, 19 Floor Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218 -0798) Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attention: President and CEO with a copy to: Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: General Counsel with a copy to: Virginia Economic Development Partnership 901 East Byrd Street, 19 Floor Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218 -0798) Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attention: General Counsel McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 Page 7 of 9 Section 8. Miscellaneous (a) Entire Agreement; Amendments: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto as to the GOF Grant and may not be amended or modified, except in writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Company may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Locality, the Authority and VEDP, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed by the Locality, the Authority or VEDP. (b) Governing Law; Venue: This Agreement is made, and is intended to be performed, in the Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced by the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and venue for any litigation arising out of or involving the GOF Grant under the terms of this Agreement shall lie in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, and such litigation shall be brought only in such court. (c) Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument. (d) Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid or illegal, then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or impaired, and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law. (e) Time: Time is of the essence to all matters set forth in this Performance Agreement. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 Page 8 of 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the date first written above. COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA By Name: Title: Date: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA UZZ Name: Title: Date: MCKESSON MEDICAL- SURGICAL INC., a Virginia corporation Date: Pat McClenaghan Senior Vice President McKesson Performance Agreement I July 2013 Page 9 of 9 Town of Middletown 7875 Church Street Middletown., VA 22645 �\ A, q / l (540) 869 -2226 Fax (540) 869 -4306 Gateway to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Charles H. Harbaugh, IV, Mayor June 9, 2013 John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator RE: Friendly Boundary Adjustment 1 Zoning Inspections Dear Mr. John Riley I am writing this letter in regards to your letter about the Boundary Adjustment. To answer your stated questions, there will not be any personnel changes on the steering committee. Fred Wharton has agreed to rescind his resignation from the steering committee and will also remain as the Zoning Administrator on an "as needed basis" as opposed to his current part-time status. I do foresee, the building inspections going back to the County at some point soon though. The town is obviously small and has very little inspections at the time being. As for the town's position regarding the friendly boundary line adjustment, the position is still the same; we wish to explore the possibilities and opportunities of a boundary line adjustment. The Council discussed this matter at our June work session and the consensus remains the same as our previous decisions. I look forward to working with you on this matter and other future matters, I recently stopped by your office to formally introduce myself, but I just missed you. Thank you in advance and I look forward to formally meeting you in the future. Sincerely, Charles H. Harbaugh, IV, Mayor * Rebecca L. Layman, Municipal Clerk, Sharon K. Fadely, Treasurer, R. Philip Breeden, Chief of Police *Donald Riffey, Superintendent of Public Works* COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722-8383 Fax 5401667 -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: Jane 27, 2013 RE: Commissioner of Revenue Refund Requests Attached, for the Board's review, are requests to authorize the Treasurer to refund the following entities: I. Penske Truck Leasing Co. — Fiscal Year 2012 Portion ($6,798.40), 2. Penske Truck Leasing Co. — Fiscal Year 2013 Portion ($6,673.40); A oderick ans. County Attorney Attachments 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 2260I COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 5401722 -8383 Fax 5401667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us ISI- - 11 W111- 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: June 27, 2013 RE: Refund — Penske Truck Leasing Co. — Fiscal Year 2013 Portion 1 am in receipt of the Commissioner's request, dated June 27, 2013, to authorize the Treasurer to refund Penske Truck Leasing Co. the amount of $6,673.40 for that portion of a refund for proration or exoneration of vehicles and registration fees in the normal course of business for 2013. This adjustment was not posted until May 2013 after information was received by the leasing company for the first time. 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 indic e Commissioner's memorandum. Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 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: June 27, 2013 RE: Refund — Penske Truck Leasing Co. -.. Fiscal Year 2012 Portion I am in receipt of the Commissioner's request, dated June 27, 2013, to authorize the Treasurer to refund Penske Truck Leasing Co. the amount of $6,798.40 for that portion of a refund for proration or exoneration of vehicles and registration fees in the normal course of business for 2012. This adjustment was not posted until May 2013 after information was received by the leasing company for the first time. 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 indicate in the Commissioner's memorandum. oderick B. Williams County Attorney 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick County, Virginia Alen E Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone 540- 665 -5681 Fax 540 - 6676487 email: ernurphy &o.fredefick.va.us June 27, 2013 TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors CC: C heryl Shiffler, Finance Director Roderick Williams, County Attorney FROM: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenu RE: Exoneration and Supplemental Appropriations ng Co Please approve a refund and supplemental appropriation of $13,471.80 to Penske Truck Leasing Co. for proration or exoneration of vehicles and registration fees in the normal course of business for calendar year 2013. This adjustment was not posted until May 2013 after information was received from the leasing company for the first time. Total refund to Penske Truck Leasing Company is $13,471.80 Documentation for this refund has been retained in the Commissioner of the Revenue office and contains secure data. (This is a correction of the request of May 20, 2013 and not in addition to that request.) June 21, 2013 Frederick County, Virginia Ellen E. Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone 540 -665 -5681 Fax 540 - 667 -6487 email, emurphy@coArederick.va.us y_ TO: Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue RE: Exoneration Penske Truck Leasing Co = Fiscal Year 2012 Portion Please approve a FY2012 refund of $6,798.40 for that portion of a refund to Penske Truck Leasing Co. for proration or exoneration of vehicles and registration fees in the normal course of business for 2012. This adjustment was not posted until May 2013 after information was received by the leasing company for the first time. Documentation for this refund has been retained in the Commissioner of the Revenue office and contains secure data. FY2012 portion of total exoneration of $13,471.80 = $6,798.40. June 21, 2013 TO: FROM: RE: Frederick County, Virginia Ellen E. Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 907 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22609 Phone 540-665- Fax 540- 667 -6487 email, emurphy@co.frederick.va.us Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director Frederick County Board of Supervisors Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue Exoneration Penske Track Leasing Co — Fiscal Year 2013 Portion Please approve a FY2012 refund of $6,673.40 for that portion of a refund to Penske Truck Leasing Co. for proration or exoneration of vehicles and registration fees in the normal course of business for 2013. This adjustment was not posted until May 2013 after information was received by the leasing company for the first time. Documentation for this refund has been retained in the Commissioner of the Revenue office and contains secure data. FY2013 portion of total exoneration of $13,471.80 = $6,673.40. Date: 5/14/13 Cash Register: COUNTY OF FREDERICK Time: 09:47:43 Total - Transactions: -7-- Customer Name: P TRUCK LEASING CO Customer Transactions: 15 Options: 2=Edit 4=Delete 5=View 2p- Dept Trans Ticket No. Tax Amount Penalty/Int Amount Paid P=2 1 0040621007 $ r �.Uo $1,334 - T8- - - PP2012 2 00406210074 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- - PP2012 3 00406210075 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- _ PP2012 4 00406210076 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334-68- - PP2012 5 00406210077 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- - PP2012 6 00406210078 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- _ PP2012 7 00406210079 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- _ PP2012 8 00406210080 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- _ PP2012 9 00406210081 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- - PP2012 10 00406210082 $1,334.68- $.00 $1,334.68- _ VL2012 11 00569540001 $25.00- $.00 $25.00- _ VL2012 12 00569550001 $25.00- $.00 $25.00 - Multiple Pages Total Paid : $13,471.80 F3=Exit F14=Show Map # F15=Show Balance 'FlS=Sort-Entered F21=CmdLine- Date: 5/14/13 Cash Register: COUNTY OF FREDERICK Time: 09.47:43 --46� St omer Name: PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO Totai Transactions: 917 Customer Transactions: 15 Options: 2=Edit 4=Delete 5=View O Dept Trans Ticket No. Tax Amount Penalty/Int Amount Paid - V`=1 2 13 00569560001 $25.00 - *.00 - VL2012 14 00569570001 $25.00- $25.00- - VL2012 15 00569580001 $25.00- $.00 $25.00- Multiple Pages Total Paid : $13,471.80 F3=Exit F14=Show Map # F15=Show Balance FlS=Sort-�-n�tered�F2�l=cmd�Line wtn CO r� r rr B OARD s �., RESOLUTION Referral of Unsolicited Proposal Under the Public- Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 to the Public Works Committee for Evaluation and Negotiation of a Comprehensive Agreement WHEREAS, the County has received an unsolicited proposal under the Public - Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 ( "PPEA "), Va. Code §56- 575.1, et sea. from Frederick County Center, LLC to provide financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors accepted for consideration by County, the PPEA proposal of Frederick County Center, LLC, to provide financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, and directed that the County solicit competing proposals for the financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, with such new building being located in the County and being approximately 150,000 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, the Board authorized the County Administrator to cause an appropriate Notice to be issued and published, as required by the PPEA and the County's PPEA procedures, and to cause an appropriate Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals to be issued; and WHEREAS, the June 25, 2013 deadline for receiving Competing Proposals passed and no Competing Proposals were received. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has determined that proceeding with evaluation and negotiation of a Comprehensive Agreement under the PPEA initiated by acceptance for consideration of the unsolicited proposal, submitted by Frederick County Center, LLC, to provide financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, using the procurement method of "competitive negotiation of other than professional services ", the evaluation criteria developed by County staff, and terms and conditions developed by County staff, is appropriate and justified and that use of "competitive negotiation" procedures under the PPEA for this procurement is likely to be advantageous to the County and the public based upon (1) the probable scope, complexity, or urgency of the project, and/or (2) risk sharing, added value, economic benefit from the project that would not otherwise be available. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County use the procurement method of "competitive negotiation of other than professional services ", the evaluation criteria developed by County staff, and terms and conditions developed by County staff, as reflected in the referenced Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals for unsolicited proposal of Frederick County Center, LLC; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Unsolicited PPEA Proposal of Frederick County Center, LLC, be referred to the Public Works Committee for further evaluation and negotiation of a Comprehensive Agreement. ADOPTED this VOTE: Richard C. Shickle Charles S. Dehaven, Jr. Gene Fisher Christopher E. Collins day of July, 2013. Robert Hess Gary Lofton Opequon District Vacant A COPY TESTE: John R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Resolution No.: 004 -13 Business Climate Assessment Citizens' Committee Final Report July 3, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Memorandum from John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator 1 Background 2 Dominant Theme 2 Recommendations 3 Committee Priorities 4 Taxes, Fees, and Assessments Committee 4 Local Procurment Subcommittee 4 Land Use and Development Subcommittee 5 Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee 5 Other Recommendations 7 Conclusions 7 Local Procurement Subcommittee Appendix A Taxes, Fees, and Assessments Subcommittee Appendix B Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee Appendix C Land Use and Development Subcommittee Appendix D Land Use and Development Subcommittee Additional Information Appendix D -2 Land Use and Development - Memorandum re Landscape & Buffers Appendix D -3 Land Use and Development - Memorandum from Ty Lawson Appendix D -4 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665 -5666 Fax 540/667.0370 E -mail: jriley @ co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizens Committee FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator SUBJECT: Business Friendly Recommendations DATE: July 3, 2013 On behalf of Frederick County, I want to thank all of the committee members and staff for their time and energy and for the serious and thoughtful approach they brought to this initiative. We believe this was the ultimate demonstration in government transparency, as Frederick County allowed members of the business community to review and critique our organization and processes. We hope you found it to be a rewarding and educational experience. We look forward to evaluating all of the recommendations and working together to ensure Frederick County remains open for business. Attached please find the executive summary and full list of recommendations developed by the various subcommittees during Frederick County's business friendly exercise. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 BACKGROUND In the current economic climate, it is vitally important that local governments create the catalyst for businesses in their communities to grow and prosper. With this statement in mind, the Board of Supervisors, in October 2012, formed the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizen Committee or Business Friendly Committee to evaluate the current processes and procedures being used by local government. This effort was not intended to be a criticism of what local government is currently doing, but a search for, and understanding of, the ways that Frederick County Government can be more responsive and better meet the needs of new and existing businesses in today's world. Approximately 50 representatives from the business community participated in this endeavor. The participants were divided into four subcommittees, which addressed the following topics. Land Use and Development Taxes, Assessments, Fees, and Services Business (Large and Small) Attraction and Retention Local Procurement of Services. The kick -off meeting for this initiative was held on December 11, 2012. At this meeting, participants were introduced to their respective staff contacts and given a brief overview of Frederick County Government. Following the kick -off meeting, the subcommittees met numerous times between January and May 2013 and developed a list of recommendations. Staff has received the list of 65 recommendations from the subcommittees, which are included in this report. DOMINANT THEME Public Outreach and Promotion of Frederick County Many of the recommendations did not focus on Frederick County operations, but rather promotion of Frederick County as a business destination. Examples include: hiring a PR firm to promote Frederick County, hire an advertising agency to promote Frederick County interests in various media, and studying the need to create a public information officer position. One of the common themes found in the Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee's recommendations was one of public outreach and promotion of Frederick County. One of the more cost effective approaches to promoting Frederick County was the recommendation to install signage along Interstate 81 and major routes entering Frederick County stating Frederick County is Open for Business. This initiative would show Frederick County is a positive business partner and could help provide the County with a marketing advantage. Should the Board wish to evaluate this recommendation, staff would recommend this item be referred to the Transportation Committee for further consideration. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS The following are three recommendations which overlapped two to three of the subcommittees. Those recommendations dealt with the completion of Route 37, establishment of an Economic Development Authority, and customer service training. Completion of Route 37 It was recommended that efforts be made to complete Route 37. Completion of Route 37 would encourage business expansion opportunities along Routes 50 East/West, 522 North/South, i I North/South, and Route 7. It was further suggested a committee be established to focus solely on the completion for Route 37 East. The County was recognized for is savvy in using matching funds to facilitate the completion of project. Economic Development Authority On October 24, 1967 Frederick County created the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia. The purpose of the IDA is to permit the Authority to acquire, own, lease, and dispose of properties, promote industry and develop trade by inducing manufacturing, industrial, and governmental enterprises to locate or to remain in the Commonwealth, and to further the use of its agricultural products and natural resources; health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. The Frederick County IDA issues tax- exempt revenue bonds to finance certain types of facilities and handles direct incentives to businesses. The powers and authorities of an industrial development authority and an economic development authority are the same. The change from and IDA to an EDA would provide the Board with an opportunity to re- establish the economic development vision for the county and provide the flexibility to pursue a variety of business attraction and retention options and strategies for implementing a diversified economic development strategy. Should the Board wish to pursue this recommendation, consideration should be given to the role of the EDA and its relationship to the Economic Development Commission. Customer Service Training It was recommended that county employees working the front line (e.g, phones, information desks, etc.) should attend a professionally outsourced customer service seminar focusing on diffusing hostility in a customer and resolving problems for the customer. The committee members recognized that dealing with the public can be a difficult task and not everyone might have the ability or tools necessary to diffuse a hostile customer or deal with an irrational complainant. Should the Board wish to pursue this recommendation, staff will work with the HR Department to secure outside customer service training for the "front line' county staff. 3 COMMITTEE PRIORITIES As stated previously, there was surprisingly little repetition of recommendations between the four subcommittees. The next portion of this report will look at two or three recommendations from each subcommittee. Taxes, Fees, and Assessments Committee 1. Web Service Advertisement Frederick County has made great strides in offering web based services for billing and payment of fees and taxes, which save the County time and money. The committee recommends an organized and focused public awareness, advertisement, incentive, and education program to promote the use of web based services within Frederick County. One suggestion included advertising services via inserts in current tax bills, which provide step by step instructions regarding the use of online services. 2. Cross Department System Capability and Utilization There is a need for better cross - department information sharing. The committee recommends the County look at ways to utilize existing technology in a way that allows any department to access information about a customer's open activities. This would allow customers to make payments in one location rather than visiting two or three different departments to make the same payments. The cross - department system capability could lead to the elimination of some duplicated work performed by various departments. 3. Permit and Development Fee Comparison Study The Committee recommends a cost analysis comparison of business permits, fees, and other development review fees in Frederick County to surrounding localities be completed every five years. The study results should be provided to the EDC for comments. The final study should be provided to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Local Procurement Subcommittee 1. Implementation of Lean Effort The Committee recommends implementation of a lean effort or process improvement analysis for doing business with the County and its related parties focusing on how local merchants conduct business with and sell to Frederick County. 2. Improve Communication. and Education of Local Vendors 4 The Committee recommends continuing process improvements for communicating with and educating current and potential local vendors. This could be accomplished by providing information packets to vendors at their time of issuance or renewal of their business license, web links with other County offices, and/or completion of website improvement efforts. 3. Streamlined and Uniform Processes for Doing Business with the County The Committee recommends development of uniform processes for doing business with the County and its related parties, to include Frederick County Public Schools. Currently procurement processes are different for many parts of the County. The streamlining and uniformity of these processes, where applicable, would facilitate the participation of local vendors in the procurement process. Land Use and Development Subcommittee 1. Elimination of the Master Development Plan Process The Committee recommends elimination of the Master Development Plan process because this process is incorporated in other existing ordinances and has resulted in a duplicative process. Should the Board wish to explore this recommendation further, a re- evaluation of the current Master Development Plan process would be appropriate. 2. Reduction in Proffer Requirements The Committee recommends a reduction in proffer requirements for future rezoning applications, as well as amendments to existing proffers to create viable projects that will deliver needed transportation improvements and other benefits. The economics of the current proffer model or development impact model do not allow for the construction. Upon the committee's examination of the mode it was determined that there are a numerous capital items contemplated and incorporated into the model, but those projects are not being built in the current year. It is not anticipated these government capital projects will be built at any time in the near future, if at all. Further, the Proffer Model does not fully account for business, personal property tax, and other revenue that is significant benefit to Frederick County in addition to property taxes. Should the Board wish to explore this recommendation further, a re- evaluation of the current Development Impact Model taking into account current economic conditions would be appropriate. 3. Simplify the Landscape Ordinance The Committee recommends a complete review and re- evaluation of the Frederick County Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance to provide a well defined purpose to allow for flexibility in project site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers. Additional recommendations concerning this ordinance can be found in the memorandum from Scot W. Marsh dated May 2, 2013, which is included in the Appendices of this report. Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee Business Retention 1. Development of an available workforce with needed skill sets. The Committee identified an available workforce with needed skill sets as a primary catalyst for retaining businesses. The Committee recommends working to the local junior high, high school, and college level school systems to help students identify potential skill sets needed in the community. One method of achieving this goal would be through the use of cluster groups to help local businesses work together with Lord Fairfax Community College and Shenandoah University to identify the classes and degrees needed for local jobs. In addition, there is a need to address the skill sets that are generally associated with technical skills. Representatives from the business community could also visit junior high and high schools to talk about careers. This could be the catalyst for student visits to local businesses or possible summer employment opportunities, Finally, the promotion of a "Returning Professional Scholarship" could be used to raise awareness to local students of local professional opportunities. Business Attraction 2. Development and Maintenance of a Catalog of Available Property for Potential Development The Committee identified the lack of "identified" land for development and expansion as a weakness in the area of business attraction. The Committee recommends the development and maintenance of a system to catalog property available for development. The format of this proposed system was unclear as was the department that would serve as the repository for this information. Should the'Board wish to pursue this recommendation, it would be appropriate for the department charged with maintaining this information to make this information available to other departments (e.g. Planning, EDC, etc.). Tourism & Agriculture 3. Creation of Direct Marketing Brochure for Buy Fresh/Buy Local The Committee identified the promotion of agribusiness as a priority. It was noted the area was moving away from apple processing to direct marketing and local agriculture is a drawing card. The Committee recommends the development of a comprehensive, direct marketing brochure that addresses all buy fresh/buy local products in Frederick County. 2 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to those recommendations stated above, other recommendations focused on expansion of educational opportunities such as a Frederick County campus for Shenandoah University or the expansion of Shenandoah University programs to include a law school. The entire list of recommendations is attached for your review. While we did not elaborate on all recommendations, the Board is encouraged to carefully review the entire list and advise staff if there are other recommendations they feel merit additional consideration and study. CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the various subcommittee reports and speaking with the chairmen of the subcommittees, we are pleased to report, overall, that Frederick County is a business friendly locality. Many of the participants were pleased to find the County in a good operating position, Our tax structure was seen as neither a benefit or a deterrent for business. The County received praise for soliciting this feedback. It was noted that most localities would be "too timid" to undertake such a process as this. Other committees hoped this was a beginning effort to make Frederick County business friendly and that the process would continue. On behalf of Frederick County, I want to thank all of the committee members and staff for their time and energy and for the serious and thoughtful approach you took to this initiative. This was the ultimate demonstration in transparency, allowing citizens to review and critique our business processes and we hope you found it to be a rewarding and educational experience. We look forward to evaluating all of the recommendations and working together to ensure Frederick County remains open for business. APPENDIX W A -M Report Out: Local Procurement Subcommittee April 9, 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMEN The Subcommittee would like to thank the Finance team for their efforts and support of the assignment. Sharon Kibler served as our primary contact and Cheryl Shiffler also supported the subcommittee's efforts. SUBCOMMITTEE OBJECTIVES: - To investigate opportunities for expansion of local tax revenues spent by the County, its school system and agencies that it serves as a fiscal agent into local licensed businesses (related parties) - To streamline any processes that could inhibit local merchants from doing business with the county - To identify "roadblocks" that slow or prevent relationships between local merchants and the County and related parties - Maximize the return of tax dollars that are being spent in the procurement processes - Provide transparency in the bidding, purchasing and awarding processes of the County and related parties KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Implement a lean effort (process improvement analysis) on doing business with the county and its related parties. How local merchants conduct business with and sell to Frederick County would be the central focus of the effort. B. Continue process improvements for communicating and educating current and potential local merchants (on boarding of vendors) i.e. Info packets at the business license issuance or renewal stage, web links with other county offices, completion of the website improvement efforts. C. Develop similar processes on doing business with the County and related parties, including FCPS. It is recognized that the processes can be different with different parts of the County government. When and where may the processes be streamlined and /or made similar? D. Continue to develop and analyze Best Practices as a course of action for any department that does business with local merchants. The subcommittee also developed a wish list for the Procurement Processes: 1. Continue to investigate a simple and convenient method for tracking local dollars spent in order to facilitate future analysis. 2. Develop webcasts of bid openings to be posted to the web. Extensive efforts have been made by the Finance team for changes to the website in order to make doing business with the County both easier and faster. While more can and will be done with the website, links and resources, we do believe that the Finance team is sensitive to continuing these efforts as an ongoing process. The Subcommittee recognizes that this is a beginning effort to make the Frederick County Government more "business friendly". We would encourage a continuation of this process to all entities of the government (including parties that the County serves as Fiscal Agent and FCPS) to aid local merchants and vendors to do business with them. Respectfully submitted, Barry Carper, Ralph Gregory, Samir Jhaveri, Matt Hirschberg, Rene Hollebrandse, Rocky Keplinger, Ron Miller, Doug Rinker, Judy McCann - Slaughter, Barbara Vance. ENDI .011 Taxes Fees and Assessments Committee 1. Web Service Advertisement Frederick County has made great strides in offering web based services for billing and payment of fees and taxes. These web based services are saving the County time and money. The committee recognizes this and recommends an organized and focused public awareness, advertisement, incentive and education program to promote the use of web based services within Frederick County. There are many people and businesses that are not using these services who are either not aware of them, or don't understand the ease of use associated with the services. Advertisement of the services, inserts with step by step instructions mailed out with current invoices, and other creative ways are needed to grow the use of on line services by the County population. 2. Customer Service Training Dealing with the public is a difficult task even when they are customers by choice. Dealing with the public when they are customers by requirement is much tougher. County employees working the front lines on the phones, information desks, and other key contact locations, need to have the tools to deal with potentially tough customers. Not everyone has the ability to diffuse a hostile customer, or deal with an irrational complaint. The committee recommends that each employee who is tasked with direct dealing with the public should attend a professionally outsourced customer service seminar that focuses on diffusing hostility in a customer, and centers around resolving problems for the customer. These seminars should include role play instruction that is directly related to the type of situations they encounter at work. Employee recognition and reward should be geared toward those employees who excel at customer service, and demonstrate the best of these skills on the job. 3. Public Information Position Study There is very good reason to increase the use of available technology, and start reducing spending on duplicated and outdated billing and payment services currently required in the county offices. The committee recommends that a study be conducted to determine if the creation of a Public Information Officer position could be justified by the savings associated with growing the use of technology through public awareness, if a full time position is not justified, a 3r party firm could possibly be contracted to perform this function at a lower cost. 4. Cross Department System Capability and Utilization There seems to be both an internal and external call for better cross - department information sharing. Call it a "silo effect ", or lack of transparency between departments. The committee recognizes that every department is busy and may not have time or systems in place to fix this issue, Therefore, our recommendation is to start looking at ways to utilize the existing technology in such a manner that allows any department to •access information about a customer's open activities across departmental lines, For example; a person who visits to report purchase of a new vehicle, may also have a fee to pay within the inspections or planning department. Wouldn't it be nice if the clerk who Is handling the transaction for the vehicle could answer questions about that fee, see all other open items at a glance, and process a payment if offered by the customer? Cross - department system capability could also lead to the elimination of some duplicated work by departments. 5. Benchmarking Cost Analysis Utilization The committee recommends the use of cost and revenue analysis as a form of benchmarking when it can be used to help set fees where the intent is to not lose ground with the percent of revenue recovery from the associated business function. This can be done where the costs of services are easily tracked in one department for a specific fee or revenue source, but not In all situations. 6. Permit and Development Fee Comparison Study The committee also recommends that every 5 years, (starting as soon as possible) the planning department should conduct a cost analysis comparison of business permits, fees, and other development review fees in Frederick County, as compared to surrounding localities competing for new business attraction. The results of this analysis should be provided to the planning commission for recommendation, with review comments from the EDC or (EDA), and forwarded to the County Board for action. 7, overall this subcommittee was very pleased to find Frederick County in such great operating condition with employees 100 engaged and willing to share information and discuss ways to improve, We appreciate the effort of everyone involved, and enjoyed the opportunity to serve on the committee, APPENDIX C Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee Report BACKGROUND The Business Attraction and Retention Committee held several discussions on how to improve the processes and procedures to enhance the County's business attraction and retention efforts. Four (4) full committee meetings occurred monthly between January and April. Each meeting had strong participation from the committee. A roster of the committee is provided below. Roster • Robert Claytor, H. N. Funkhouser & Co, • Richard Dick, Frederick County IDA • Bill Sirbaugh, Lord Fairfax Small Business Development Center • John Marker, Marker - Miller Orchards & Farm Market • Juergen Nies, Melnor • John Crawford, Rappahannock Electric Co -Op • Jon Sisler, Shenandoah Valley Electric Co -Op • Mike Guevremont, President, Top of Virginia Chamber • Ron Kaplan, Trex • Gary DeOms • Don Utz, Valley Mills • Chris Rucker, Valley Health The full committee meetings covered a wide range of topics related to business retention and expansion. Initial meetings provided background information to assist in developing an action plan. The committee was provided with a wide range of publications and presentations. A partial list of subjects is provided below: • Overview of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), which included its structure, staff, activities, programs and marketing efforts • EDC publications • Frederick County's Cost of Competitiveness Study • Details of the EDC's proactive new business marketing efforts • Virginia Economic Development Partnership's Guidebook for local Elected Officials • Frederick County's Business Development Advancement Study • EDC Strategy FY 14 • Area Development's Annual Corporate Survey & Annual Consultants Survey Report May 2013 1 Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee Page 2 of 6 INDIVIDUAL ACTION STEPS Committee members were asked to develop primary action steps under a hypothetical exercise. Below is listing of the entire submissions. The committee was then divided into three workgroups to construct summary action steps based on the individual action steps and previously supplied background information. The workgroup's action steps are provided in the next section. 1. Hire a public relations firm to promote the image of Frederick County_ Reference to Frederick County could stop, per se, and instead make reference to Winchester and /or the Shenandoah Valley. The PR firm should be tasked with elevating the image of our community and win such coveted recognition as "Ten best Places to Live." 2. Hire an advertising agency to promote our interests in various media. 3. Double the EDC's budget to accommodate professional fees. Do not increase headcount. 4. Enact a 5% buy local preference that allows the County government to buy local first with a 51 margin of preference for local firms. Simply meaning if a Frederick County small business is competing against firms outside the area they could be 5 °l higher and still win the bid. The benefit is the taxes stay here, the labor is from here, the money spent locally comes back into the County. Install several signs along Interstate 81 at key locations that state that Frederick County and Winchester is "Open for Business" for positive business partners. A web site, contact phone number, and perhaps several marketing advantages of the County could be placed on the signs. 6. Send a marketing piece to existing key businesses in the area and ask them for ideas on attracting and growing existing business ventures and what makes this area attractive and what makes it a concern. 7. Assemble several people both from county government and the business sector and look into cutting government costs to the taxpayer. This would show that Frederick County and Winchester understands business and their only solution is not to raise taxes but they can also cut expenses like any business is required to do in down turns. S. Continue to provide cash incentives to businesses as moving or extending a company is always hard on the cash flow of the business, thus handing over actual cash can really help out to offset moving expenses. Report May 2013 1 Business Attraction and Retention subcommittee Page 4 of 6 19. Encourage Shenandoah University to establish a 2' campus in Frederick County. 20. Consult with Shenandoah University to expand their curriculum for additional education needs not currently available in this area, like a law school. 21. Promote Stephens City and Middletown as they are under utilized 22. Ensure the Winchester Regional Airport is part of marketing message to the global world. 23. Expand Federal Government leasing facilities in Frederick County. 24. Build a convention center in Frederick County as has been discussed for several years. 25. Create a central style market for the farmsland /small grower to market their products. 26. Build a 100 acre recreational park in the western section of Frederick County to include a fishing/kayaking lake and family oriented sports and could serve as an additional water resource for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 27. Establish an Economic Development Authority as perhaps time has come for next contemporaneous approach to attract and retain viable companies and it can serve as the instrument in the expansion of Frederick County's business and industry tax base and identity. 28. Establish three or four panels (or clusters) of vested individuals (composition to be determined). Each panel (or cluster) would have a different industry focus with the purpose to relate their activity to abetter economic situation for the County. Discussion points: + What industry do they see as a benefit to their operation; + What business activities complement them; • What businesses (in their opinion) create a burden on County resources; • notifying the county of potential leads that they are made aware of; • More heavy industry emphasis with this one - What makes them look good to the corporate headquarters; + How can the County help; • Want to insure retail and agriculture do not get overlooked in this structure. 29. Establish a developer's and /or landowner's forum to discuss how Lo convert land use and market property + Aside to this would be to work closely with Planning and Zoning to insure the County's image and integrity; Report May 2013 1 Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee Page 5 of 6 Look for models where the industry sectors (agriculture and manufacturing co- exist.) GROUP ACTION STEPS Subcommittee forms Business Attraction, Business Retention, Tourism & Agriculture Business Retention 1. Labor -- working to have an available workforce with the needed skill sets. • Work with the local junior high, high school, and college level school systems to help students identify potential skill sets needed in the community. • Using the Cluster Groups to help the local businesses work together with LFCC and Shenandoah University indentifyingthe classes and degrees needed for local jobs. There is also a need to address the skill sets that are generally associated with technical schools. • Visiting the Junior High and High Schools to talk about careers. This could also lead to student visits to local businesses or possible summer employment opportunities. • Promoting a "Returning Professional Scholarship" to raise awareness to local students of local professional opportunities. 2. Transportation 161, 166, and 170 are all seen as a benefit to the local economy. We need to keep our eye on congestion. Plans to add a lane on 181 seem to have disappeared. 3. Available Space • County planning is an open process and people are invited to participate, however, the general public seems to be unaware of the County's efforts to promote a pro - business environment. Promote the County's master plan highlighting the areas for commercial /industrial development. 4. Utilities Frederick County Sanitation Authority provides the County with extended development flexibility beyond the municipal capabilities. Planning and promoting for long term water availabilities shows the County's commitment to the needed infrastructure for business, 5. Taxes —The group didn't really see where Frederick County tax structure provided a benefit or deterrent for business when trying to compare. Report May 2013 I Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee Page 6 of 6 Business Attraction 1. Developing a system to catalog available property for potential development and maintain the listing. 2. Develop a template or flow chart for guiding a prospect on how to interact with the County for exploring opportunities 3. Develop a "brand" for the County and pursuing a multi- faceted marketing plan to make the County visible to prospects. Tourism & Agriculture 1. Brochure —comprehensive, direct marketing brochure that addresses all buy fresh /buy focal products in the County. 2. Encourage local buying of local agriculture products for large commodity users by offering an incentive 3. Use signs or billboards to remind people that they are in the "Apple Capital of Virginia" on 1 -81 and Rt 7W. 4. Encourage Sanitation Authority to use water tower on 1 -81 to promote apples — similar to Mt. Jackson or peaches in SC. 5. Video for motels and hotels that showcase the tourism sites and agri- tourism of the area 6. Look for more funding for the CVB. They are the vehicle to promote tourism and agriculture but they are severely underfunded. FREDERICK COUNTY BUSINESS CLIMATE ASSESSMENT CITIZEN COMMITTEE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Executive Summary of Recommendations Juste 19, 2019 Hon. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman By E -mail Frederick County Board of Supervisors John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Frederick County, Virginia Gentlemen: I am proud to call Frederick County my home for most of my 59 years. It is a great place to live and work in no small part due to your leadership. Your initiation of the Business Climate Assessment Committee is more evidence of your effort to provide superior service to all citizens of Frederick County. The Land Use and Development Subcommittee that I have chaired is very appreciative of your solicitation of our thoughts. Most localities would be too timid to entertain a process like this. Our subcommittee met seven times in full with excellent attendance. Smaller sub - subcommittees met an additional four times. Numerous e- mails, phone calls and research on the part of committee members demonstrated their commitment to taking advantage of the opportunity you have afforded us. Staff support was excellent. This letter will serve as an Executive Summary of our recommendations. We strongly encourage you to read the supplemental data provided in four attachments (referenced below). We recommend ... • Elimination of the Master Development Plan process as it no longer provides benefits that cannot be achieved in a more cost effective, timely manner another way • Consideration of reducing proffer requirements in future rezoning applications as well as amendments to existing proffers to create viable projects that will deliver needed transportation improvements and other benefits • Adding an ordinance to specifically handle proffer amendments in a more surgical, direct way without reopening the entire zoning, case The first three recommendations above are discussed in more detail in Ty Lawson's memo dated April 16, 2013, • Simplify and trim the landscape ordinance and related sections of the code and allow staff to exempt modest projects from triggering the ordinance provisions. Even the tiniest change to an existing site plan will now trigger the full impact of the landscape ordinance as it is currently written due to a modification made in early 2013. have never seen anyone experience a medical emergency while viewing a site with no landscaping in 58 years. I have personally experienced and know of many others who have experienced allergies due to plant materials used in landscaping, people falling off of ladders during their attempts to clear organic matter from landscaping out of their gutters, automobiles damaged including a personal car totaled by a falling tree, perilous driveways where poorly located and maintained landscaping blocks the view of oncoming traffic, ruined ceilings where organic matter from landscaping prevented water from promptly leaving a roof surface and it leaked to the inside, etc., etc. Business people in Frederick County have suffered ridiculous delays due to landscape matters getting an unjustified amount of attention. One business could riot clear brush near a facility populated 24/7 by hundreds of employees who feared the homeless living in the brushy area for many months. Another business had their move to a new facility delayed for an extended period due to landscaping requirements. The required plantings look out of place for the neighborhood and were a waste of money. Professional people involved in the preparation of site plans have reported the need to just "cram in the required trees" to meet the requirements. Many projects look grossly overdone —there is just so much plant material used. f=inally, it has been reported that as the required landscaping matures it must be thinned out because it has been overplanted at the outset. All of this should be no surprise since the ordinance is largely based on recommendations of the American Nursery and landscape Association, an industry association whose members sell and install plant material. Congratulations to the association for a job well done for its members. Frederick County is still by land area a largely rural county and beautiful. There is no justification for the complexity and excess in the current policy. Most businesses will landscape their properties anyway to make themselves attractive to two very important groups of people — prospective customers and employees. It is insulting to think that the County legislates beauty by dictating these requirements forcing the use of excessive materials. The problem will be magnified and be even more difficult to manage with the onset of the Chesapeake Bay requirements July 1, 2014. Please see Scot Marsh's memo dated May 2, 2013 for additional information on this recommendation. • Customer service training for employees meeting the public with a feedback system to allow for continuous improvement • Staff reviews once per year supported by a citizen committee. Staff may need to be cut. Please see the Staff Considerations section of the Addltionol lMformation. • Enhance the existing "fast track" process for site plan approval. Goal is to be the talked about place where you can save time /money building your business project. • Be cautious about government competing with the private sector, Commercial and Industrial rezonings should be much easier to accomplish for all applicants and extraordinary support for specific applicants should be avoided. This is in conflict with certain recommendations of the BDAS committee, We fully support deferral of roll back taxes on industrial land until it is developed to encourage property owners to go ahead and rezone. • We support the Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee's recommendation to establish an Economic Development Authority. • Consider having the Economic Development Authority provide an ombudsman to assist businesses in navigating the various permit and approval channels on a prompt, cost effective basis. Please see the Land Use Matters section of the Additional Information. • Encourage the use of more private roads particularly in commercial /industrial projects • Consider establishing a committee to focus solely on the completion of Route 37 East, The window of opportunity now vs. future inflated right -of -way acquisition and construction costs as well as higher interest rates is compelling. The county has already become more savvy in the use of matching funds, etc. to get things done. Please see the Roads section of the Additional information. Encourage local authorities including the Winchester Regional Airport, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority to be business friendly as well. Specific issues are discussed in the Additional Information. Our subcommittee would be willing to meet with you at your convenience to answer any questions you might have about our recommendations. We all have a continuing interest in supporting, your efforts to keep Frederick County a business friendly, vibrant place. Feel free to call upon any of us for support as needed. Thanks again for being bold enough to open the door for our input. Sincerely, John P. Good, Jr. Chairrn Land Use and Development Subcommittee FREDERICK COUNTY BUSINESS CLIMATE ASSESSMENT CITIZEN COMMITTEE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Additional information June 11, 2013 STAFF CONSIDERATIONS County government and businesses share many challenges and one of the greatest of those challenges is the employment and retention of first rate employees. Great, exceptional employees are a thin sliver of the workforce overall. Good, average and acceptable employees make up a large part of the overall workforce and it takes good leadership and supervision to maximize their value to any organization. Unfortunately, poor employees and poor employee prospects are so numerous in the population that we all occasionally err and employ or retain in our employ some of them in spite of our best efforts to screen them out or counsel them to improve. Employee and general public attitudes toward business are clouded by much of academia and the media presenting a very biased, negative view of business. Bad things, no matter how small, are trumpeted at high volume and repeated over and over while good things are presented as token recompense for terrible sins and soon forgotten. The shoe sometimes fits, however, the truth is right in front of us every day in things we take for granted in the United States of America: • Nigh quality goods and services available in abundance at competitive prices • Private sector jobs that provide a high standard of living for millions • Business tax revenues that support government and its programs at all levels Private sector as well as public sector employees with negative attitudes toward business have difficulty serving business customers and their bias is often apparent. Business customers find it difficult to have a friendly, comfortable relationship with such employees and the negative feedback further degrades the relationships. Business often is silent on this issue —it needs the permits, approvals, inspections, etc. provided by government and fears that speaking up about the problem will only result in retribution. The looming retirement of much of the "baby boom" generation is further complicating the picture by requiring the replacement of experienced people in many senior positions. The competition from other sources of employment cannot be ignored— everyone is looking for the same good people, Our subcommittee recognizes the similarities between our respective business workforces and the County's workforce. We are challenged every day to practice what we preach and enhance our level of service to our respective customers by employing and retaining the best work force we can muster. It is a job that is never finished and our future success is directly and hugely impacted by how well we manage our human resources. The following represent some of the practices of successful businesses and government entities that serve their customers /taxpayers well and provide a quality workplace for their employees. • Make sure the work required of employees is needed and makes a positive difference. It is wrong, to expect our customers /taxpayers to pay for unneeded work. It is demeaning to good employees to do meaningless work of dubious value. Eliminate positions that do not add value equal or greater than the cost of the respective position, • Raise the bar. Counsel employees performing below the standard that they must improve or seek employment elsewhere. Terminate those who do not get the message. Otherwise, our customers /taxpayers are carrying the burden. Furthermore, the good employees on the team will feel that good performance does make a difference. Everybody wants to be on the A Team and nobody wants to be on a team of poor performers. • Employ people with a healthy attitude toward business and positive customer /taxpayer relations generally which includes people outside of business. • Seek customer feedback frequently via many channels. Comment cards in the lobby, e-mail requests for evaluation, personal contact of customers /taxpayers who are frequent users and even the appointment of this Business Climate Assessment Committee are examples. • Seek employee feedback on how the employment environment can be improved for them to provide superior service to the customers /taxpayers they serve. • React appropriately to all feedback received by counseling employees, making changes and rewarding employees and teams that really made good things happen, • Give each employee honest feedback no less than once per year and preferably more often in evaluations. Good employees really want this feedback. • Provide appropriate training in customer service and other areas to enhance the team's level of service. Finally, several members of our subcommittee are willing to help identify staff members that need some feedback and are willing to help deliver it in a positive, constructive way in an appropriate setting. True friends tell friends the truth and the result is often a benefit to both. LAND USE MATTERS Note: The elimination of the Master Development Plan process, comments regarding proffers and the means to more simply amend proffers have been discussed in another section. THE CORE PROBLEM The vast majority of citizens in Frederick County have no idea of how the multiple facets of the land use process function because they have never had to go through it. They are even less likely to know how much getting through the process can cost an applicant in time and money (time is money!). The number of citizens with first -hand experience in the process is very limited and most of them would be considered business people. As a group, they have incurred huge costs that add little value to their projects and many long, frustrating delays. This is accepted practice in most localities because many in academia and the media have conditioned our society that business people can be up to nothing good, so, let them suffer a proper punishment. Heaven forbid that they would be allowed to move a shovel full of dirt without months of scrutiny beforehand. We simply cannot trust them! sadly, these bullets that are routinely fired at business release a lot of shrapnel to injure everyone else. Everyone feels the pain but does not know where the shrapnel is coming from. Let's look at a couple of simple examples to see if we can identify the source and the unaccounted for damage. A new business wants to locate here or an existing business wants to expand and both projects would add 50 jobs and a $0,000,000 investment. The business starts the land use process that it is not familiar with —it makes widgets for goodness sake. In spite of hiring a bevy of expensive professionals and trying to plan the process to be as efficient as possible the process drags on for many months while we debate the number of trees to be planted and the number of cars added to the line at the light during rush hour. Who are some of the unseen victims' o The 50 people in Frederick County that could have been getting a paycheck to support their families. Hopefully the applicant will not give up and move the opportunities somewhere else. o Every taxpayer in Frederick County that will need to pay a little more to offset the business taxes that will not be collected during the delay or as a result of the project being cancelled or moved elsewhere. A new business wants to occupy an existing building that has been vacant for a long time and is starting to show signs of neglect because there was no income at the property to pay for maintenance. The tax assessment has gone down because of the condition and vacancy. The building is a good fit for the business and a very cost effective solution to its space needs. The property will be brought back to life and ten jobs will be created. The business applies for a building permit to begin improvements to the building and hits a stone wall when the permit application passes through the Planning Department—there has been a dreaded "CHANGE IN USE." It makes little difference that the prior use and the proposed use are both well accepted in the zoning designation for the property. The "CHANGE IN USE" sets off along, laborious, costly and flat out unnecessary process. This project, too, is delayed for months. Who are some of the unseen victims? o The ten people in Frederick County that could have been getting a paycheck to support their families. Hopefully this applicant will have enough resources to get through the process and cover the additional expenses and still have enough left over to get his /her business started and sustain it until it generates enough income of its own. Some businesses do open their doors after the process only to fail later when they run out of money due to the money wasted in the approval process. The ten jobs are then lost. o Every taxpayer in Frederick County that will need to pay a little more to offset the additional business taxes that will not be collected during the delay or as result of the project being cancelled or moved elsewhere. The vacant building further deteriorates. o Consumers of services that are typically offered by small businesses. If Mom and Pop do not have enough money to get through the process of establishing their restaurant you will not be able to savor the taste of Mom's cooking at prices below what the national chains will charge. The source of the damage in both examples is a process that is needlessly complex, time consuming and expensive. The victims are not really "unseen" —they are our friends and members of our families that are not going to get those paychecks and have those opportunities. Lo you want to explain to them that the applicant was turned down or delayed because they were ten trees short on their site plan? Go you think they will understand the delay a little better if we explain that a representative of a "stakeholder" group with 20 members with less than half residing in Frederick County spoke at the public hearing about the possibility that a trace amount of some chemical might be used in the business and consuming 100 gallons a day per person of the chemical could make you sick? The concerns here go far beyond County employees, Planning Commissioners sometimes do not connect these dots. True —too seldom do people speak at public hearings talking about the benefits of an application. Often staff reports fail to mention even the basics of job creation and tax generation but instead dwell on every little possibility that something could go wrong. Applications must climb a steep wall of worry. Finally, there is further unseen, permanent and unquantifiable damage as a result of the unnecessary rigors and costs of the land use process. Successful business people instinctively weigh benefits and costs of the actions they plan to take. If the process is anticipated to be long, costly and the outcome uncertain many projects will never even be seen on an application. The related jobs and tax base will neverappear. A RECENT ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM The County has recognized that many landowners who hold land identified as industrial or commercial on the comprehensive plan but currently zoned rural areas are reluctant to move ahead with rezoning the land to get it ready for Its highest and best use. (The reluctance to move ahead should surprise no one who is reading this paper.) The Business Development Advancement Study Committee (BDAS) was established to study this issue and develop a solution. The BDAS Committee has discussed proposals to target certain properties that should be rezoned and provide various forms of help to the respective property owner to accomplish a rezoning. The proposed assistance could entail waived requirements, reduced and /or delayed fees, the County carrying the costs until the property is sold, etc. The property would be under a contract where the property owner would agree to sell the property for the industrial or commercial use at a certain price and that commitment would last a certain number of years, Unfortunately, this approach results in a limited number of property owners receiving very favorable treatment while taking little risk and the remainder suffer the presence of a lower cost competitive property that will very likely be marketed with more vigor by public economic development channels because of the government's investment. This is government competing with the private sector. Bottom line, this approach does little to solve the core problem while creating other problems a plenty. Only a fool would want to do an industrial or commercial rezoning without the County's "special" help. The BDAS did advocate the deferral of roll back taxes and Increased taxes on undeveloped industrial land that is rezoned until the land is improved. Legislation enacted in 2013 by the General Assembly allows localities to adopt this approach and we fully support it . !S THERE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE? Yes --the land use /development process needs to be streamlined for all applications to allow for prompt approvals, more certainty of outcome and much lower costs. A faster "fast track " needs to become the norm. The "slow track" should be abolished because no one deserves to be treated that way. Getting to "shovel ready " should be lightning fast if the applicant has the basics in order and those basics should be just that— really basic things that the applicant probably needs to do anyway for their own purposes. Government should provide guard rails to keep business activity within reasonable limits but exercise care that the guard rails do not become road blocks to activity that benefits society. SPECIAL BONUS IF YOU ACT NOW! Frederick County is blessed with many, many prime assets including its location in a right -to -work state, its efforts to be business friendly and a good transportation network just to name a few. it is a gem of a great business location and has the opportunity to attract and retain a lot of business. There is competition and we need to find ways to be even more attractive to win new business and expansions, One solution is to copy the competition and throw money and freebies at the prospects- -we just have to throw more than the competition does. Unfortunately, this approach sends the wrong signal —what we have is not worthy enough to get your business so we must bribe you to do the right thing. A less costly and more effective solution is to solve one of the greatest problems business routinely has —a limited time to get what they want to start generating revenue. Time is money. if we make our "fast track" supersonic fast it will cost the County virtually nothing (probably saves it money and starts the tax revenue stream and jobs sooner). Add value, not cost to win the battle. If the County follows this approach seriously the economic development marketing budget can be reduced. Giving business what it really needs—reduced time to the ribbon cutting on a reliable basis — will generate lots of activity, if we do it right we will need to spend our time managing the prospects over the available sites. Finally, our subcommittee fully supports the Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee's recommendation to establish an Economic development Authority. ROADS We should encourage and accept the use of more private roads in commercial and industrial projects. This will save future public maintenance money and allow for roads to be built more quickly at lower cost due to the excessive standards currently employed by VDOT. The County should consider establishing a committee to focus solely on the completion of Route 37 East. The window of opportunity now vs. future inflated right -of -way acquisition and construction costs as well as higher interest rates is compelling, The County has already demonstrated savvy in the use of matching funds, etc, to get things done. Let's take a long shot and make it a sure shot. OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES Recently the Winchester Regional Airport has on occasion been less than friendly to business prospects, The Airport has long been supported by the County for its business attraction value and it would be a shame not to realize ongoing returns from that investment, Airport personnel at all levels need to be consistently friendly and supportive. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority manages some of the most basic and valuable assets in our urban areas - -water distribution and sewer collection and treatment. Recently, answers to basic system questions have been difficult to obtain on a timely basis. We have reason to believe that our total water capacity could be much greater if the authority would make a reasonable effort to develop the sources including ones that already exist. Finally, capacity limitations in sewer collection lines are presented as very expensive to change when realistic and cost effective solutions are available. Business attraction and expansion will be adversely affected if these concerns are not promptly and completely addressed. The Frederick Winchester Service Authority is currently discussing a substantial investment in additional treatment capability that could benefit food related business customers with certain discharge characteristics. We simply caution that the expected users be carefully polled to determine if they will in fact use the new capacity and get commitments from them before going further. MEMORANDUM TO: Land Use and Development Subcommittee FROM: Scot W. Marsh DATE: May 2, 2013 RE: Recommendations to Board of Supervisors Buffers and Landscaping The following is a summary of the discussions regarding recommendations for amendments to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with regard to the buffers and landscaping requirements. This summary with recommendations is in draft form for review by our committee for the addition to our committee's final recommendations to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Buffers and Landscaping Requirements: It is the recommendation of the Land Use and Development Subcommittee to have the existing Frederick County Suffers and Landscaping Ordinance completely reviewed and re- written to provide, first and foremost, a well defined purpose to allow for flexibility in the project site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers. This specific ordinance should reflect the community's priorities and should prominently state the benefits that are to be realized with the implementation of these requirements. The ordinance should be written in a manner that can be understood by not only a professional designer, but also a developer or contractor so that he or she will comprehend what must be done to meet the standards. The ordinance should be tailored so that the landscaping features are most suitable for the particular terrain, proposed design features, adjacent lands, drainage and other site - specific elements. Recommendations for the New Landscape Ordinance: o There should be no landscaping requirements on single - family residential lots. a Existing Facility expansion projects the landscaping requirements should be limited. © Create a Landscape Advisory Committee o Reduce or scale back the amount of specific landscaping required on a project o Minimize construction costs that relate to matters of taste a Reduce government control, regulation, and intervention for small business. a Provide for flexibility during the design and construction phases by allowing for business owners to manage their properties to meet the needs of the specific facility. The new landscape ordinance would be created by a that would be made up of approximately ten (90) members. The landscape advisory committee would be diverse and representative of the following suggested disciplines: From the Private Sector: A certified landscape architect, a civil engineer site planner, a representative of the Focal builders' association, a landscaping contractor, a local plant nursery grower, and a project developer. From Focal Government: A Planning Department representative and a member of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, The landscape advisory committee would be authorized to retain the services of a consultant with expertise in landscape and development planning to assist and facilitate the creation of the new landscape ordinance. This same committee would continue service for design and review of landscape plans. The Land Use and Development Subcommittee has come to this recommendation through extensive discussions regarding our existing ordinance and through inquiry with planners, engineers, landscape contractors, developers, and site contractors that are familiar with the current Frederick County Ordinance. It is through these discussions that we have found that our current ordinance is difficult to understand, restrictive for the implementation of new creative ideas, and lacks flexibility for actual site construction and landscape implementation. The following are some comments from professionals that have experience with the current Frederick County Landscaping Ordinance. SUMMARY REVIEW A. Clearly distinguish between commercial, industrial and residential landscape requirements. B. Clearly identify the submittal, review and appeal process for landscape plans and buffer requirements. C. Clearly identify buffer requirements within the context of each zoning district (like setbacks). D. Consider buffers as distance between uses to help urban infill. E. Look carefully at the landscape requirements with plants and trees at mature levels. F. Keep tree save and tree preservation requirements out of the landscape section. G. Look carefully at the intent of the landscape requirements to help guide the Zoning Administrator. Critical is the view from the street or road for a commercial, mined use or industrial use. H. Consider the unintended consequences of the landscape, tree save and buffer requirements. • Are trees being .removed prior to the development process? • Are plants and trees being removed after the final CO? • Are infill sites being left undeveloped due to buffers? There are a number of items that jump out after reviewing the Landscape Requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 1. Chapter H — Supplementary Use Regulation: Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses — 203 Buffers and Landscaping — Section 165- 203.01 do not contain all of the landscaping requirements. Additional landscaping requirements are located in the parking requirements. Suggestion: Place all landscaping requirements in one section for ease of reverence. 2. It is unclear to the reader if the Landscape Regulations pertain to just residential or residential, commercial and industrial uses. The Landscape Regulations and Buffer requirements are a mix of standards for commercial, industrial and residential adding confusion to the provisions as to where the regulations apply. Although for residential these standards impact both commercial and industrial uses and should be clearly referenced. Suggestion• Clearly identify the landscape requirements for each major land use category by use (industrial, commercial or residential) 3. The Chapter heading suggests that there are parking regulations included in the Landscaping Regulations. Suggest on: Place all parking regulations and parking lot standards for landscaping in one location. 4. The Landscaping Regulations include landscape, buffer requirements and tree saving (tree preservation) standards. There is no provision for appeal or review of a plan by a con nittee that has expertise in one or another particular field. Suggestion — Tree 'reservation: Tree saving (preservation) are generally under a tree commission or parks commission in more urban areas. Consider a qualified group or committee to oversee the tree preservation portion of the code. Consider removal of the tree preservation standards to its own section. Clearly identify if this section only applies to residential. It is not clear if this applies to non - residential uses at a first glance. Does the tree save standard encourage removal of trees prior to the development process to avoid preservation? The tree preservation section is labeled as landscaping, This is confusing. The standards do not allow for a trained forester to conduct the tree drip line analysis. Clearly outline the process for review, modification of the standards and appeals. suggestion -- Buffers and Screens: Distance buffers and screens were originally designed to be measured between actual uses and not within internal property lines. Waivers could be obtained if adjoining property owners agreed, As Frederick County changes to a more urban nature in -till becomes more and more important. Consider modifying this section to allow reconsider distance between uses and waivers by adjoiners to promote infill. Distance buffers have become a form of setbacks impacting the way many properties can be used and developed. Consider adding a reference to the required buffers that they be placed in the setback standards. Distance buffers include landscaping. The landscaping requirements for the number of plants and spacing need to consider the distance between plants when mature. The current standard appears to crowd plantings — modify the spacing requirements to recognize the mature levels of the required plants and trees, Suggestions --Road Efficiency Suffers: Road efficiency buffers need to be clearly identified if they are intended for commercial, industrial or residential uses. 5, larking Lot Landscape Requirements: Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MHi ,Mobile Horne Community District, the R1 Neighborhood Business District, the 132 Business General District, the 133 Industrial Transition District, the OM Office Manufacturing Park District, the MI Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District, the MS Medical Support District, and the HE (Higher Education) District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual Impact ofglare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights -of -way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. In the RA (Rural Areas) District, parking lot landscaping shall not he required for parking lots with 10 or fewer spaces. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: (a) Perimeter landscaping, The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be landscaped with shade trees and other landscaping. One tree shall be provided for every 2,000 square feet of impervious area for the first 100,000 square feet of the entire site. One tree shall be provided for every 5,000 square feet in excess of the first 100,000 square feet of the entire site. Self- service storage facilities shallprovide one tree per 10, 000 square feel of impervious area of the entire site, in addition to the trees required in § 165 - 204.,18, Storage,racilities, self-service. The perimeter landscaping trees shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the parking lot. A three-foot-high evergreen hedge, fence, berm, or shall shall be provided to prevent headlights front shining on public rights- of-way and adjoiningproperties. All perimeter landscaping shall comply with the requirements of § 165 - 203.011'3, Plant selection, planting procedure, and maintenance. (b) Interior landscaping. A minirnunt of S% of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for rite purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be uses to delineate tra and pedestrian circulation patterns. No less than one shade tree shall be provided in the interior of the parking lot for each 10 parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirementfor interior landscapingforparcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. The Zoning Administrator may approve altemative locations for interior landscaping for parking lots used for truck parking, as well as other parking lots, when it would improve the overall quality of the landscape plan. All interior landscaping shall comply with the requirements of § 165- 203.01B, Plant selection, planting procedure, and maintenance. Pedestrian access. Sidewalks shall be provided as necessary within parking lots to protect pedestrians and promote the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians and vehicles. In large parking lots, pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be provided, marked by durable painted stripes and appropriate signs. The parking lot landscape requirements generally are for commercial and industrial uses but can apply to residential uses. $4i nestion• Clearly identify the landscape requirements for commercial and industrial uses. Clearly identify the process and procedure for review and modification of landscape plans. If a plan is modified from the standard due to site conditions, the Zoning Administration has the final approval. If the designer and Zoning Administrator do not agree; what is the procedure for resolution? Look at the mature stage of plants and trees during the planning phase to eliminate crowding. MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Business Climate Subcommittee From. Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire Date: April 16, 2013 Re: Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors The following is what I believe is a summary of what we have discussed regarding recommendations for amendments and /or revisions to the existing Frederick County procedures and /or ordinances regarding the Master Development Plan ( "MDP ") process and Proffers. Master Development Plan: After analysis of the existing MDP ordinances and process, as well as receiving a briefing from Staff on the existing ordinances and as the history and reason behind the MDP ordinances, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors direct Staff to amend the Frederick County ordinances pertaining to MDPs to eliminate the process frorn the ordinances for the reasons that the MDP process is incorporated in other existing ordinances and has resulted in a duplicative process. For example, it has been determined that the site plan process in Frederick County, to a much greater detail, incorporates all of the requirements of the MDP process and to require a property owner to submit to both is duplicative and certainly expensive. Likewise, it has been determined that in larger projects a Generalized Development Plan ( "GDP ") process has been developed to address and show the location of large transportation networks and other utilities that may be necessary to serve the site, as well as to tie into adjacent properties. To require a MDP process after the approval of a GDP is unnecessary for the reasons stated above, Finally, it was learned that the reason for the MDP process was historically to give notice to adjoining property owners of a pending or planned development. It was decided that in our modern age that purpose is no longer necessary. Certainly with all the notice requirements of rezonings it is apparent that information is available to all interested parties and an additional process (MDP process) is unnecessary to provide notice. Further, it was discussed that historically the MDP process was used to facilitate the connection of major road networks and utilities for two projects that may be developed adjacent to each other, but for which there has been no coordination.. It was pointed out that with current Staff and capabilities within Frederick County's Planning and other Departments such a coordination of roads and other utilities is being accomplished and required, where necessary, as part of the development process, To require a land owner to submit to a MDP process is wholly unnecessary. Members of the Business CIimate Subconunittee April 16, 2013 Page 2 Proffers: With regard to Proffers, this Committee examined the existing Proffer model and the effects of it on existing development. It was determined that with the current Proffer tnodel there are numerous projects that have either been approved or are being contemplated to be developed, which will not be built because the economics of the Proffer model do not allow for the construction of a viable project. There was further examination of the existing Proffer model and a determination that there are numerous capital items that are contemplated and incorporated into the Proffer model as current year expenditures, but said capital projects are not only not being built in the current year, but due to market forces and /or a lack of need, it is not anticipated that these government capital projects will be built at any time in the near future, if at all. Therefore, requiring a developer to pay his/her share of capital projects that may not be developed does not mare any sense, Also, there was a determination that the revenue calculations being anticipated from the new development as calculated in the Proffer model was not accurate and did not fully take into account business, personal property tax, and other revenue that is of significant benefit to Frederick County and should be considered in addition to just considering property taxes. There was also a determination from the Committee that if one were to accept the arguments justifying why Proffers are necessary, which is to say that without the Proffer revenue the County would not be able to deliver essential services, such as fire, rescue, and schools, that said assumption is fundamentally flawed. The basis for this is that for the last few years Frederick County has not only been able to deliver essential services with a high standard of quality, but has been able to do so without raising taxes and without any significant Proffer revenue. It is for all of these reasons that the Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors reevaluate its Proffer impact model and, if it is the desire of Frederick County to encourage development and growth, that the Proffer impact model be revised in such a fashion that the expected payment or contribution from a developer attempting to develop new properties in Frederick County ought to be reduced and reduced significantly. If the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does not make such a reduction it is reasonably anticipated that new development will not be encouraged, but will continue to be discouraged. Create a New Proffer Amendment Ordinance: Finally it was noted by the Committee that there are several projects that have been approved as rezonings, which are subject to existing Proffers and for economic reasons will not be developed at any time in the near future. The Committee also learned that the Proffer amendment process currently requires a filing of a rezoning application and has with it all the costs and requirements of proceeding with a rezoning. It is, therefore, recommended that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors advise Staff to develop an ordinance, which will be called a Proffer amendment ordinance and which will be an abbreviated process that may contain Members of the Business Climate Subcommittee April 16, 2413 Page 3 some of the elements of the rezoning process, but not require the applicant to go through and file a rezoning application, but rather an application that allows solely for the amendment of certain Proffers being requested to be amended by the Applicant. The Committee would thank that by creating a new Proffer amendment ordinance, focusing the issue solely on the requested amended Proffer and not opening up the entire property to the scrutiny of a rezoning the owners of said properties would be willing to apply for and hopefully obtain revised Proffers that would allow for a more economically viable project. LINTY of FREDERICK I Parks and Recrcation Departinent 540- 665 -5678 FAX: 540 - 665 -9687 www.fcprd.nct frwEdcu_L t k.va.us I V UK*] U. To: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator From: Jason L. Robertson, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept. Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission Action Date: June 12, 2013 The Parks and Recreation Commission met on June 11, 2013. Members present were: Marty Cybulski, Ronald Madagan, Greg Brondos, Kevin Anderson, Patrick Anderson and Gary Longerbeam. Members absent were: Charles Sandy, Jr. and Christopher Collins. Items Requiring Board of Supervisors Action: 1. None Submitted for Board Information Only: 1. Recreation Reserve Fund Policy — Mr. Madagan moved to adopt the Recreation Reserve Fund Policy as submitted at this meeting, second by Mr. Longerbeam, motion carried unanimously (6 -0). The Recreation Reserve Fund Policy will be forwarded to the Finance Committee. Please find attached a copy of the Recreation Reserve Fund policy. cc: Martin Cybulski, Chairman Christopher Collins, Board Liaison 107 North Kent Strect Winchester, VA 22601 Recreation Reserve Fund Goal: Increase Frederick County youth participation in recreation for those who are unable to afford recreation programs and provide recreation facilities identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Purpose: The Recreation Reserve Fund within the Frederick County Reserve Fund will be used for Frederick County residents who need financial assistance for their children to participate in recreation programs and to assist Frederick County in raising funds to fund capital projects identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. This fund is not intended to provide funds which can be substituted for traditional tax base funding. Policy: There are three types of funds within the Recreation Reserve Fund, the Recreation Assistance Fund, specific capital project funds, and a general park improvement fund. A. Recreation Assistance Fund: Funds dedicated for Recreation Assistance will be placed in the Recreation Reserve Fund within Frederick County's Reserve Fund as they are received. Each donation will be noted in a revenue code (TBD). Donations are non - refundable. These funds will be utilized for individuals seeking recreation assistance based on their income level according to the Economic Assistance Policy ( #500.08). Each time an individual requests assistance, Parks and Recreation staff will apply the standards from Policy #500.08. If the individual is eligible to receive assistance and funds are available, assistance will be provided and accounted in the department's registration system. Staff will request the Commission to recommend receiving the discounted registration fees from the Recreation Reserve Fund's Recreation Assistance Fund at the April Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. This request will be forwarded to the Finance Committee April meeting for recommendation to the Board of Supervisor's May meeting for reimbursement. B. Capital project Funds A capital project fund may be created for any capital project approved by the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission and Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Twenty percent of the total project cost must be pledged prior to the establishment and acceptance of donations for a specific capital project fund in a revenue code (TBD). The Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission will recommend utilizing the money from the Recreation Reserve Fund within the Frederick County Reserve Fund to the Frederick County Finance Committee to recommend to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors must approve the disbursement of the Recreation Reserve Fund money within the Frederick County Reserve Fund. C. General Park improvement Fund The general park improvement fund is for donations made to improve existing parks or facilities. Donations may be of any amount, deposited into revenue code (TBA), and are non refundable. The Parks and Recreation Commission will recommend the use of General Park Improvement Funds to the Finance Committee and the Board of Supervisors specifying the particular improvement. Auditing /Accountability: All funds within the Recreation Reserve Fund will be accounted for annually by the Parks and Recreation Department based on the balance provide by the Frederick County Finance Department and the Parks and Recreation Department. This balance and activity will be reported to the Parks and Recreation Commission annually. County of Frederick IYii1 [fNNNN {IiMHI111111.NkNN4kNN111 111 /NNN •••••••• : ••�'••• : •• , NyvuFV' iii. NN\ NNRNNWNNNNWM�hyuiNltWNNWN .-- b.,' =• •.... WNNNWMNNNWNNNNIINNLNAI ki�LNNWNNa4ANRN�NNN [NNp11YNtlNNIGf Paula A. Nofsinger Director of Human Resources (540) 665 -5668 Fax: (540) 665 -5669 pnofsing @co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Paula Nofsinger, Director of Human Resources DATE: June 14, 2013 SUBJECT: Human Resources Committee Report. illlfNIIAMNMNif NNIiNNIItGiLIHYiiN.l f WYe111HMM1Yitdl MNxNNWNI YiNILIIkNHY1�411{ 111MNIOf4W( UdI3Nl liphHNMYNII LkINiIIiMl 11/ NMNN/ INHl N14iNNMNGi[ NNl IANN14MMHYYlWNIIYileH ll}ffININkWfYll�liNi1 MMM1lMMfINNY1NNMlik The HR Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Friday, June 7, 2013, at 8:00a.m. Committee members present were: Supervisor Robert Hess, Supervisor Chris Collins, Citizen Member Dorrie Greene, and Citizen Member Beth Lewin. Committee member absent was Citizen Member Barbara Vance. Also present were: County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney, County Attorney Rod Williams, and DSS Administrative Manager Delsie Butts. * ** Items Requiring Action * ** 1. There are no items that require action from the Board of Supervisors. ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. An overview of the County Benefits. The HR Director provided a general overview of the benefits offered to full time employees. 2. A discussion to determine schedule for Committee to review responsibilities of its Charter. The Committee agreed upon the schedule of topics and requested the HR Director to link the schedule to specific months of the year. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Due to the Fourth of July holiday, the meeting in July has been cancelled. The next HR Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 2, 2013. Respectfully Submitted, Human Resources Committee t Robert Hess, Chairman By:, Chris Collins Paula A. Nofsinge Dorrie Greene Director of Human esources Beth Lewin 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS 1080 Coverstone Drive, Winchester, VA 22602 MEMORANDUM LeeAnna Pyles Director, Public Safety TO; Board of Supervisors Communications FROM: LeeAnna Pyles, Director Public Safety Communications SUBJECT: Public Safety Committee Meeting. Report for July 2, 2013 DATE: July 5, 2013 A meeting of the Public Safety Committee was held on Tuesday July 2, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. at the Frederick County Public Safety Building, 1080 Coverstone Drive, Winchester, VA. Committee members present were: Committee Chairman Gary Lofton, Ron Wilkins, Chuck Torpy and Gene Fisher. Members absent were: Chris Collins and Michael Lindsay. Also in attendance were County Administrator John Riley, Public Safety Communications Director LeeAnna Pyles, Fire & Rescue Chief Denny Linaburg, Deputy Fire Chief Larry Oliver, County Attorney Rod Williams, Deputy Fire Chief Bill Bowmaster, Human Resources Director Paula Nofsinger and Sheriff Williamson. The following items were discussed: ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Retention of Staff update (see attached A,B) Chief Linaburg addressed three main topics regarding retention of staff. Topics included cessation of Kelly days (Adjusted Work Schedule, aka AWS), salary and benefits for Fire & Rescue employees, and the implementation of a fire academy. Elimination of the Kelly Day, aka AWS, would allow staff to work over the 200 hour threshold and earn overtime compensation. Additonaliy, it would add 4 -5 staff members back in the field to be utilized elsewhere in the department to cover shifts, training, etc., without having to hire new employees. Under this scenario, the hours worked would be 2161240 hrs per pay period which would equate approximately $400,000 in additional overtime. This would be a short term solution while the county staff looks at the long term solution of salary adjustments to Fire & Rescue, Sheriff, and Jail. Mr. Fisher emphasized the need to take a comprehensive look at the three departments and weigh the pros and cons of salary and shift scheduling. He also mentioned that HR needs to look at the department's request to see if there are better solutions and note any discrepancies that may have been overlooked. Director (540) 665 -6356 0 Fax (540) 723 -8848 With the additional staff available, the Fire & Rescue Department would be able to offer academy classes for new recruits and training for current field staff. The Department needs to meet certain training standards set by the State such as ALS, BLS, Fire, and EMS classes. It was noted the academy would allow a "layman" to come into the system, receive necessary training, and be functional at a firehouse within 22 weeks. The Committee unanimously referred the above solutions to the Human Resource Committee for review, then onto the Finance Committee in August for action. ** *Discussion Items * ** Mr. Wilkins addressed the issue of Revenue Recovery, particularly his concerns about the billing process. He presented billing statements that City residents have received for services incurred for transport by Winchester Fire & Rescue companies. Deputy Chief Oliver stressed that NO bill would be going to a County resident for services within the County. If, however the citizen is transported by the City from a County address, it would be billed on the City's system. The only statement a County resident may possibly get would be an insurance request. The County would not being sending any such invoices to citizens in the County. Next Meeting: " 11 Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Public Safety Committee Gary Lofton Tim Price Gene Fisher John Riley Brenda Vance Ronald Wilkins Sheriff Robert Williamson Ann B. Lloyd Glen Williamson Denny Linaburg Rod Williams Chuck Torpy Chris Collins Michael Lindsay LeWna Pyles, Dir r Public Safety Communications LP /sds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fire and Rescue Department is committed to providing the best possible service to the citizens and community. With this in mind our staff is our most valuable resource. The Executive Staff is dedicated to providing a transparent, balanced cutting edge workforce. The following is a summary of the recommendations prepared for the Public Safety Committee. Staff has identified the issues and provided potential solutions. Information was gathered and compared to various other departments throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. The document provides an in -depth look into the cessation of the Kelly Day scheduling for 24 -hour shift personnel. The aforementioned cessation of the Kelly Day schedule is recommended to serve several purposes that we feel will justify the annual increase in overtime for the Fire and Rescue Department. Among the advantages are: Moderate financial gain that will help stem the flow of Fire and Rescue staff leaving employment with Frederick County for higher paying departments in Northern Virginia. Hopefully, this will buy us some time until salaries can be adjusted across the board. (However, this proposal will only help 24 -hour shift employees. The Captains, day shift personnel, and office staff will not see any financial benefit from this proposal.) Daily staffing will increase by approximately five (5) personnel per day if they no longer observe Kelly Days. Considering the fact that we are short staffed on a daily basis, this will be beneficial to the entire fire and rescue system. With increasing the daily staffing by five (5) personnel, this will provide the Department with a savings of salaries, benefits, uniform costs, and ancillary supplies for the need of hiring additional personnel in the immediate future. With the daily staffing increase listed above, the proposal to implement a Recruit School /Training Academy for career personnel will be easier to facilitate by taking two (2) field personnel and reassigning them to the Training Division. This process will eliminate the need to hire any additional personnel in the immediate future for this proposal. These two additional Assistant Training Officers will also be able to facilitate annual training programs adopted by the Department when a Recruit School is not in session. These two additional Assistant Training Officers will also allow the Training Division to implement the Advanced Emergency Medical Technician program once the Department receives Accreditation. • Maintaining the Shift Training Days will allow the Department to continue to provide all of the mandated training for existing personnel that is required by local, state, and federal authorities based upon specific policies and procedures from the certifying organizations. The cessation of Kelly Day's will also result in the reduction in the usage of part -time employees for coverage in fire and rescue stations. This will allow the Department to utilize part -time personnel to maintain and support many of the existing projects where the funding as well as some of the part -time money can be moved to the overtime line item to cover some of these expenses. MEMORANDUM TO: John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator FROM: Dennis D. Linaburg, Chief Frederick County Fire and Rescue SUBJECT: Public Safety Committee DATE: June 24, 2013 The most valuable resource in any fire and rescue department is the personnel— people make the organization what it is. If a strong fire department is desired, then strong people are needed. We must understand how to manage people to obtain the highest of performance. The retention of staff is directly related to job satisfaction. In other words, firefighters who feel good about the work they do, the environment in which they work, the nature of the work preformed, and the relationship they have with other firefighters, they tend to stay in their positions. In addition, the relationship that firefighters have with leadership and the community is very important to job satisfaction as well. Do firefighters feel valued? These days many departments are running "lean" meaning that staffing levels are low. Communities are looking to the fire department to provide more and more services with fewer resources, and this creates more pressures on the staff. As requested, I offer the following options for consideration: 1. In the past, all departments within public safety have been treated somewhat equally based upon salary, benefits, etc. However, if you compare the three department's hourly rates they differ because Fire and Rescue works a fifty hour work week not a forty hour work week. For example: (See Attachment A) Fire and Rescue Sheriff Jail Annual Salary $34,777 $34,777 $34,777 Hours Per Year 2,600 2,080 2,080 Hourly Rate $13.36 $16.70 $16.70 In theory, firefighters work more hours for the same annual salary. If you compare the hourly rate for a firefighter, they make 25% less than a Sheriff's Deputy or Correctional Officer. The proposal would be to raise the hourly rate to align with the other departments. This would increase their annual salary. This would be more competitive regionally and nationally based upon salary averages. The new annual starting salary would be $43,462. 2. The Department currently works a twenty four hour on twenty four off schedule. This is based on an FLSA compliant "Kelly Day "schedule. (See Attachment B — What is a Kelly Day ?) This schedule limits the staff to a 200 hour work cycle to avoid overtime compensation. Station coverage is accomplished by additional built in staff, part-time personnel, and lastly overtime. The proposal would be to do away with the Kelly Day or adjusted work schedule and fund the automatic overtime as most other departments do. The benefits would be extra staffing without hiring staff, a savings in personnel protective equipment, fringes, and benefits. The net cost to the Department will be $567,146 above the current amounts in the overtime and part-time line items. (See Attachment C) 3. The Department requires minimum training to apply for employment: Firefighter I, EMT -B, Hazardous Materials Operations, and EVOC. This was an option in lieu of providing a Recruit School. However, during the last several employment testing processes, we have seen a dramatic reduction in qualified candidates. As requested, I offer the following proposal. (See Attachment D) 4. Develop a formal staff recruitment and retention program that will marry well with our current volunteer effort. DDL:jlc Attachments: (4) Cc: File N O O CC,M,O r r 00 W) N C) � �,� r 00 t ti r,00 r 0 00 LO N N O O 1 1 r 00 O O CO O 1- C CO O 1- ti r r 0 00 O O M O 1` L LO N O w L LO N O to O M O O 1 1- L LO N O O r r 00 LO r r 00 W) LO N O O O O r r Of M M O f` Cq c � ci adho It T.- 0 00 L LO M M O 1- C N N O O M O m m,,,, I- LL 2 U) U I- LL U) M I- LL U) Q �Q v A S: a O N � O ct CA C�j ct CA ct CA O c ct ct '� O O CA N O N O � CJ N ct CA .-. ct �. 0 CA �-- ct CA O N ct QN O ^ ct ct CA 7T I I N O a ct C 0 ct ct ct N + 00 zs ^� zs O U N N CA N Q. CA ct Z3 O N ct U �O O ct > p _O ct r' a) -p wN O N ct �� —� CA O � O En ct CA N ¢ ct O ct II ) O N O O N O '� O CA ct ct ct CA ct N O 00 ct Zs c , �Q �N 00 ct a) N cd O O U6 �_ c t U CJ Attachment C Maintain 13 Training Days Additional Hours (FY14) Shift Schedule Proposal 104 104 # Overtime Eligible Employees 19 18 Costs Eliminate Kelly Days 30.23 30.23 30.23 Total A Shift B Shift C Shift Additional Hours (FY14) 328 304 304 # Overtime Eligible Employees 19 18 18 Avg. Overtime Rate 30.23 30.23 30.23 Total 188,393.36 165,418.56 165,418.56 519,230.48 Maintain 13 Training Days Additional Hours (FY14) 104 104 104 # Overtime Eligible Employees 19 18 18 Avg. Overtime Rate 30.23 30.23 30.23 Total 59734.48 56590.56 56590.56 172,915.60 692146.08 Current Expenditures Part Time Costs (2011) 76 Current Overtime Costs (2012) 55,383.34 Total 131,985.34 560,160.74 Benefits Staffing Increases 5 5 5 New FF Salary /Benefits 45,167.54 45,167.54 45,167.54 Total 225,837.70 225,837.70 225,837.70 677,513.10 117,352.36 Breakdown of Benefits Health Insurance 466/mo 15 83 VRS Employer Contribution 11.39% 15 58,799.55 Savings Costs Avoid Addtl' Floaters 3 135,502.62 PPE 2,890.80 15 43,362.00 Uniforms 500 15 7,500.00 Pre Employment Testing /Background 2,030.00 15 30,450.00 PTO 20.15 15 210 63,472.50 280, 287.12 Total Savings 397,639.48 Attachment "D" Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Recruit School Information and Projected Needs Background The Fire and Rescue Department has offered two (2) Recruit Schools during its history which was based upon hiring a large number of employees at one time. The first Recruit School was held in 2004 for eighteen (18) new employees and the second one was held in 2005 for twelve (12) new employees. Both of these Recruit Schools were not full Recruit Schools since all of the new employees were already certified as Emergency Medical Technicians in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Recruit Schools did review emergency medical service topics and then the employees completed the fire suppression and hazardous materials components during the remainder of the course. These Recruit Schools were twelve (12) weeks and fourteen (14) weeks in length respectively. Current Situation Since the completion of Recruit School 92 in 2005, the Department has hired several new employees but only in numbers of one (1) and two (2) at a time to replace existing employees that have resigned to go to other Fire and Rescue Departments, termination from employment, and most recently a retirement. Conducting a Recruit School for this low number of employees is not feasible functionally or financially for the Department. During the past two (2) years with the most recent hiring's, the Department has assigned these new employees to a Station Lieutenant who has overseen the orientation and evaluation of their training levels and abilities. Additional training opportunities were provided to the employees for areas that they were deficient in as well as ensuring that they understood the components that are specific to Frederick County. The last two (2) employment testing processes that the Department has conducted has created some concerns based upon the number of candidates that registered for the process, the number of candidates that actually started the process, the number of candidates that actually completed the process, and their required prerequisite certifications and abilities. The last couple of employees hired had the required prerequisite certifications but had no experience in multiple areas. Due to time constraints as well as staffing issues, they were assigned to their respective fire and rescue stations while not having all of the abilities they need to function in all aspects of the job requirements. Due to only having two (2) personnel assigned per shift at each of the staffed fire and rescue stations, the Department wants to ensure that we have capable and functional personnel to perform all of the necessary tasks during emergency responses. Proposal With the current number of vacancies in the Department, potential loss of fourteen (14) plus personnel to other fire and rescue departments, anticipated retirements in the near future, and additional projected staffing needs, the Department needs to take a proactive approach to ensure that all new employees are adequately trained and certified to function within the Fire and Rescue System. The Department needs to establish a consistent Recruit School for new employees that will provide them with the education and certifications required by the Department as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia. The following table represents the minimum education and training requirements for each employee as well as the projected timeframe to achieve these educational components. The minimum number of new recruits is eight (8) based upon established policies and procedures by the certifying agencies. Certification Sponsoring Agency Minimum Functional Weeks/Days Required Hours Needed To Hours Accomplish Emergency Medical Technician V.O.E.M.S. 162 200 5 Weeks, (Includes Mass Casualty Incident Management Levels 3 Days I and 11, A.L.S. Assist, and Helicopter Operations) Emergency Vehicle Operator's Course V.D.F.P. 16 20 2 Days National Incident Management System U.S.D.H.S./V.D.F.P. 4 4 0.5 Day National Response Framework U.S.D.H.S./V.D.F.P. 4 4 0.5 Day Firefighter Level I V.D.F.P. 220 260 6 Weeks, 2 Days Firefighter Level II V.D.F.P. 60 100 2 Weeks Hazardous Materials Operations V.D.F.P./V.D.E.M. 40 60 1 Week, 1 Day Mayday! Firefighter Down! Awareness V.D.F.P. 6 8 1 Day Mayday! Firefighter Down! Operations V.D.F.P. 24 24 3 Days Vehicle Rescue Awareness /Operations V.D.F.P. 16 24 3 Days (Includes Introduction To Technical Rescue Module I Course) Basic Incident Command System (Includes U.S.D.H.S./V.D.F.P. 16 16 2 Days I.C.S.400 and I.C.S.-200) Driver /Operator — Pumper V.D.F.P. 72 90 1 Week, 3 Days Driver /Operator — Aerial V.D.F.P. 48 60 1 Week, 1 Day Certification Testing For Above All 30 30 1 Week, 1 Day Total 718 900 22 Weeks U.S.D.H.S. — United States Department of Homeland Security V.D.E.M. — Virginia Department of Emergency Management V.D.F.P. — Virginia Department of Fire Programs V.O.E.M.S. — Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services The Recruit School schedule was developed utilizing our existing Basic Fire Academy, Emergency Medical Services Academy, and annual training programs converting them into a Monday through Friday format. All of these training program courses and associated schedules have proven beneficial to the fire and rescue system therefore affording us good data to develop a Course Schedule. This process will allow consistent educational offerings of these certification courses for both career and volunteer personnel allowing them to function as one on emergency incident scenes. Proiected Needs The Training Division consists of a Deputy Chief, two (2) Lieutenants, and a part -time Secretary (receptionist) that is currently responsible for administering and facilitating the Career Shift Training and Annual Training Plan as adopted by the Department and the Frederick County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association. In addition to these staff positions, the Training Division also utilizes instructors from the full -time roster, part - time roster, volunteer personnel, and Winchester Fire and Rescue Department personnel (career and volunteer). The number of volunteer instructors from both Frederick County and Winchester has decreased dramatically during the past three (3) years. The demand for fire and rescue related courses has increased dramatically over the past five (5) years with the majority of our course offerings at maximum student capacity as allowed by the various certifying agencies. The list below projects the needs of the Training Division and Department to implement and sustain a consistent Recruit School, maintain the established Annual Training Plan adopted by the Department, and implement the Advanced Emergency Medical Technician certification process for career and volunteer E.M.S. providers. • Add two (2) full -time Assistant Training Officers to the Division (Specialists and /or Technicians from the Operations Division would be transferred to the Division and those positions backfilled with new employees.) • Upgrade part-time Secretary to full -time Secretary (Documentation and paperwork requirements for educational purposes has increased for the Annual Training Programs but will double with Recruit Schools.) • Increase the amount of funding in Overtime and Part-Time line items (Assistant Instructors will be required for all practical components with specific instructor -to- student ratios identified by the various certifying agencies. These positions will exceed the number of Training Division Staff that are available to conduct the evolutions.) • Replace and upgrade existing equipment and materials (More specifically targeted towards the E.M.S. equipment due to the current age and life expectancy of the equipment. With the addition of Advanced Emergency Medical Technician Course, the need for high - fidelity simulation manikins are in -place based upon the requirements for facilitation of the program. A large portion of funding the equipment may be possible through various grant opportunities during the next year.) • Replace and upgrade existing apparatus (The pumper that the Training Division acquired from Fairfax City is twenty seven (27) years old, two (2) years past its life expectancy. The ambulance that was acquired from Clear Brook is ten (10) years old but is still serviceable for another couple of years.) Volunteer fire and rescue apparatus will be needed in addition to the above for training purposes. • Need for training facilities for both classroom and practical evolutions (While this is not an immediate need, the strategic planning for a Regional Public Safety Training Center needs to be initiated in the near future. The Winchester Fire Training Center is surrounded on three sides with residential neighborhoods with a very limited water supply, and a burn building that is not certified by the Virginia Department of Fire Programs to support Firefighter Level I and 11 Courses.) COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator TO: Board of Supervisors 5401665 -5666 Fax 5401667 -0370 FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator E -mail: j ri ley O eo.frederi ek. va.us DATE: July 1, 2013 RE: Code and Ordinance Committee Report The Code & Ordinance Committee met on Monday, July 1, 2013 at 3:00 P.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North bent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were Christopher E. Collins, Chairman; Robert A. Hess; Derek Aston; and Stephen Butler. Committee member James Drown was absent. Also present were County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr.; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; County Attorney Rod Williams; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue; Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning & Development; and Ross Spicer, Frederick County Commonwealth's Attorney. The committee submits the following: ** *Items Requiring Board Action * ** 1. Proposed Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 155, Taxation, Article II, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate (Rollback Tax). The Code and Ordinance Committee reviewed a request to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 155 Taxation. Article II would be amended to defer the payment of rollback taxes until the property's use changes rather than at the time the zoning classification changes. The Board and staff worked with Delegate Minchew during the 2013 legislative session for enabling legislation to permit this deferment. Upon a motion by Mr. Hess, seconded by Mr. Aston, the Code and Ordinance Committee forwarded this item to the Board for public hearing with a recommendation of approval. The motion was unanimously approved. 2. Proposed Minor Amendment to Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 11, Stopping, Standing and Parking; Section 158 -4 (D), General Restrictions. The Code and Ordinance Committee reviewed a request from the Commonwealth's Attorney to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 1.58 Vehicles and Traffic; Section 158 -4 (D). The proposed minor amendment would be as follows: D. Parking vehicle without current state license and inspection sticker. It shall be unlawful for any person to park-any vehicle on any street or highway without the vehicle displaying a current state license aM or a current inspection sticker. The penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. 107 forth Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Upon a motion by Mr. Aston, seconded by Mr. Butler, the Code and Ordinance Committee forwarded this item to the Board for public hearing with a recommendation of approval. The motion was unanimously approved. Respectfully Submitted, Code and Ordinance Committee Christopher E. Collins, Chairman Robert A. Hess Bill M. Ewing James Drown Derek Aston Stephen Butler By: J R ley, Jr. ounty Administrator JRR/j et Attachments ORDINANCE ' 2013 The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia hereby ordains that Sections 155 -9, 155 -10, 155 -13, and 155 -14 of Article it (Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate) of Chapter 155 (Taxation) of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia be, and the same hereby are, amended by enacting amended Sections 155 -9, 155 -10, 155 -13, and 155 -14 of Article II (Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate) of Chapter 155 (Taxation) of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia, as follows and to take effect immediately (deletions are shown in bold strikethrough and additions are shown in bold underline CHAPTER 155 TAXATION Article II Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate § 155 -9 Findings. The County finds that the preservation of real estate devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest and open space uses within its boundaries is in the public interest and, having heretofore adopted a land use plan, hereby ordains that such real estate shall be taxed in accordance with the provisions of Title 58. 1, Article 4, § 58.1 -3229 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and of this article. § 155 -10 Eligibility for special assessments; applications; revalidations. A. The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth by §§ 58.1 -3230., and 58.1 -3233 and 58.1 -3237 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, may, at least 60 days preceding the tax years for which such taxation is sought, apply to the Commissioner of Revenue for the classification, assessment and taxation of such property for the next succeeding tax year on the basis of its use under the procedures set forth by § 58.1 -3236 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provided that, in any year in which a general reassessment is being made, the property owner may submit such application until 30 days have elapsed after his notice of increase in assessment is mailed in accordance with § 5 ,92.01 58.1- 3330 of the Code of Virginia or 60 days preceding the tax year, whichever is later, provided that such application must be submitted for any year at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the assessment for such year. Such application shall be on forms provided by the State Department of Taxation and supplied by the Commissioner of Revenue and shall include such additional schedules, photographs and drawings as may be required by the Commissioner of Revenue, B. A separate application shall be filed for each parcel on the land book for which qualification is sought. C. All applications under this article shall be accompanied by an application fee payable to the County Treasurer of $100 or $0.50 per acre (or major part thereof) per parcel sought to be classified, assessed and taxed under this article, whichever is greater. No such application fee is required upon the filing of an annual revalidation nor upon the filing of an application upon a change in acreage. D. The owner of any real estate which has been approved for special assessment as allowed by § 58.1 -3231 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, shall revalidate annually any application previously approved. Such revalidation shall be made with the Commissioner of Revenue, on forms prescribed by the same. Revalidations must be made before November 1 of the preceding tax year for which such assessment is sought. E. Late filing of land use applications. A late filing fee of $25 will be assessed for fate fling for each parcel application. The applicant will have 30 days from the date of passage of this subsection and 30 days from the due date, November 1, of each year hereafter. § 155 -13 Rollback tax imposed. There is hereby imposed a rollback tax, in such amount as may be determined under § 58.1 -3237 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, upon any property as to which the use changes to a nonqualifying use. Rollback tax shall not become due hereunder solely because of a change in zoning to any zoning district other than the RP, R4, or R5 Zoning Districts, made at the request of the owner or his agent, that would permit a more intensive use. Such real estate may remain eligible for use value assessment and taxation, in accordance with the provision_ s of this article, as long as the use by which it qualified does not change to a nonqualifying use. No rollback tax shall become due with respect to the real estate until such time as the use by which it qualified changes to a nonqualifying use. § 155 -14 Changes in status. A. The owner of any real estate liable for rollback taxes shall report to the Commissioner of Revenue, on forms to be prescribed, any change in use/zoning of such property to a nonqualifying use ^F Ghange in- zoning and shall pay the rollback tax then due to the Treasurer. The Commissioner shall forthwith determine and assess the rollback tax, which shall be paid to the Treasurer within 30 days of assessment. On failure to report within 60 days following such change in use, such owner shall be liable for an additional penalty equal to 10% of the amount of the rollback tax, which penalty shall be collected as a part of the tax. In addition to such ,penalty, there is hereby imposed interest of 10% per annum of the amount of the rollback tax or a fraction thereof during which the failure continues. B. Any person making a material misstatement of fact in any application filed pursuant hereto shall be liable for all taxes in such amounts and at such times as if such property had been assessed on the basis of fair market value as applied to other real estate in the taxing jurisdiction, together with interest and penalties thereon; and he shall be further assessed with an additional penalty of 100% of such unpaid taxes. Enacted this day of , 2013. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins Opequon Magisterial District Vacant A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator nwealth ®f �i� a COUNTY OF FREDERICK ROSS P. SPICER Commonwealth's Attorney NICHOLAS L. MANTHOS Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney ANDREW M. ROBBINS Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney FAHNDA HASHISH Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney MARIE E. ACOSTA Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney ERIC W. HEFLIN Investigator MELISSA D. RICE Victim/Witness Director - 665 - 6369 OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 107 NORTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540) 665 -6383 FAX (540) 667 -3454 \I A81920p June 18, 2013 Jay Tibbs Assistant County Administrator 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Jay: 2oA Adrr�iist-AG to I have been approached by Captain John Heflin, Frederick County Sheriff's Office, With a request that at the next meeting of the Code and Ordinance Committee ( "Committee "), the Committee authorize a change to the language of the County's parking tickets. In particular, one of the violation descriptions set forth in the parking ticket provides, "Parking Vehicle Without Current State License And Inspection Sticker." (Emphasis added.) The requested change involves amending the word "And" to "Or." I have enclosed a sample parking ticket and have highlighted the Word change I am requesting thereon. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. As always, thank you for your assistance. Respectfully, o P. Spicer Commonwealth's Attorney RPS /rs Enclosure cc: Capt. J. Heflin, FCSO Frederick County Parking Violation Ticket # Pll -0 Make Model Color License Pfate No L Lic State :: - Lic E9cp ; Mo ° Lle Exp Yr Vi ©Iatiorl.Date r rr Violation Tme , 4 Lpcation� _ y ka S- r 0 1 �. i ,� Section Fme k Violation pescription G \ i �� • � ❑ 158=4 (A): $40 00 Double Parking, �+ ❑ $40 00 Perper�dreular ar Diagonal : Par king 158-4 (B) ❑ 158-4 (C) $4d Qo Parking 1/ehicle ,gains# Traffic ye¢ucle Without'Currenfi #ate Ltcens rid , ❑ 158=4 (D)" $4o 00 Paekmj 5 _ fnspectin St +ciCer x s ❑ 158=4 (E) top 00 ' Parking5o As T Stop dr Obstruck TrafFiC; r - r3 D 158,4 (F) '$40.00 Parking,.Vehtcle 1Ni #hin 20 Feet Of, A Corner Or Intersection ❑ _158 -4 (G) $40.00 Pat 64 As To Block Driveway ❑ 158. =4 $40;00 Parking Vehicle e3ra 5tdeWalk OrVyalking Trail ❑ 158 4 (i }; #40.00 Parkin Vehrcle Within 75 Feat Of ,a Fire'ilydrant" g &.Veh�cl+ 10,4 F re Land ❑ 158-4 (J) ?arktn F , �- Permil{ to A Space ❑ 158 -4 (K) $100 00 :. Park ingVehtcle.With_W,.Proper, Reserved For Persons With Disabilities" ❑ 158 -4 (L) , $40.00 Parking. Veh[cfe'Contrary To The,Dtretttdns Of An t7ffiaal . Highway Sign Officer Name _ L►nit Number' ` Sheriff's Office: > E e ❑ Fire.loarshal This vehicle was parked in violation of heredertck County codified ordinance indtca #ed above:: You must within 30 days 1. Pay Violation On dine go fredtax c and; Click Pay Taxes Follovy prompts ; to the Parking link at the top' of the payment page 2: Pay the fine by mailing this no #ice of viaiatit�n, a check or money order payable -ta Treasurer Frederick County to PO Bog ;225, Wir%chester, VA 2Zb44 3._ Pay the fine in person Athe Frederick County Treasurer's Office located a #'107 North Kent 5treet.Winchester VA _ 4: Place this notice of violation, a check or money order payable to Treasurer,of FrederickCounty.in an envelope and place it in the Treasurers Night Deposit Box located of 107: Naith Kent Street,:Winchester VA '= 5. If you wish to contest this Vialatio i; you must contact the - agency tha# issued the ,: y Shenff's Office (540 662 °or the federrck`County viol atiii_n: Frederick Count 8168) Fire Marshal's office (540 -685 6350) Co esia6ltsh ,date to_appear.l�efore the Frederick County'Generaf district Court f ©r a Hearing on. the uigla #ianT A late fee of $10.00 will be attached_ after 3o`days... Fail Life to,`take of the above actions within 30 days may result in the issuance of a'summans erwarrant. Please alfow two (2) business days before attempting to pay the ticket on -line or in person at the.Treasurer's Office. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of June 24, 2013 DATE: June 28, 2013 The Transportation Committee met on June 24, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) James Racey (voting) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) Members Absent Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) Christopher Collins (voting) Gene Fisher (voting) Bryon Grigsby (voting) ** *Items Requiring Action * ** 1. VDOT Bridge Construction As VDOT moves forward on reconstruction of the Route 623 Bridge, they are seeking County feedback on maintenance of traffic issues. Specifically, they wish to know if the County's preference is to keep the bridge open during construction or detour traffic. VDOT is proposing to fully close the bridge, which will lead to significant detours. However, this will also cause the project to be completed approximately a year sooner (1 construction cycle instead of 2) and at a savings of about $1 Million. Below are some of the details of existing traffic and detours provided by VDOT. Cost benefit due to non - phased construction: Approx 0.5 Million Cost reduction due to less width associated with need to maintain traffic: Approx 0.5 Million 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Traffic ADT: Approx. 50150 distribution, 367 vehicles a day Detour: 5.26 miles To Marlboro: 1.7 miles eastbound, 3.5 miles westbound To Winchester: 9.5 miles eastbound no difference, 13 miles westbound By consensus the committee has recommended that the Board support utilizing the suggested detours and have VDOT complete the project in one year at the lower project cost. ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** None 2 Jun 24 13 06:oGp APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA p.2 APPLICANT INFORMATION ' Name of Applicant: Telephone Nurnb er(s): ey(7 (e.65 — Iu 0 home kfflce ❑ cell ❑ home ❑ office D cefi Address: (t t - FESTIVAL EVENT ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Festival Event Name of Festival: �� �' Az— Cost of Admission to Festival: 1 - .'�" Business License Obtained: XYes Q No Start End Maximum No. Estimated No. Date(s) Time Time of Tickets Offered of Attendees For Sale Per Day Per Day Location Address; Owner Name(s): of Property Address: + ' ibZ ` ("NOTE; Applicant may be required to provide a statement or other documentation indicating consent by the owneris) for use of the property and related parking for the festival) Promoter Name(s): "lAk— "; Address: - { *NOTE: For festivals other than not - far - profit, promoter may need to check with the Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue to determine compliance with County business license requirements; in addition, promoters who have repeat or ongoing business In Virginia may be required to register with the VA state Corporation Commission for legal authority to conduct business in Virginia.) Financial Name(s): �1Z" Backer _ Address: oy'r kyNc Ile St ' Performer Name of Person(s) orGroup(s): { *NOTE- Applicant may need to update information as performers are booked for festival event.) Jura` 24 13 06:06p p.3 FESTIVAL EVENT LOGISTICS INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION 1. Attach a copy of the printed ticket or badge of admission to the festival, containing the date(s) and tirne(s) of such festival (may be marked as "sample "). — I copy attached CR copy to be provided as soon as available 2. Provide a plan for adequate sanitation facilities as well as garbage, trash, and sewage disposal for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of allstate and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the Department of Health (Lord Fairfax Health District). 1 VA 3. Provide a plan for providing food, water, and lodging for the persons at the festival. This plan must meetthe requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved bythe VA Department of Health (Lord Fairfax Health District). r ` r 4. Provide a plan for adequate medical facilities for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and rescue company, p r 5. Provide a plan for adequate fire protection. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and rescue company. 6. Provide a plan for adequate parking facilities and traffic control in and around the festival area. (A diagram may be submitted.) ...,._�. �" f. 4''{ : «f: t; ) �--t' "''e .d' �.0 r � 3 . i(' 1"".. . i�. K'�' M1 f• � r y 7. State whether any outdoor lights or lighting wiO be utilized; YES ❑ NO If yes, provide a plan or submit a diagram showing the location of such lights andthe proximity relative to the property boundaries and neighboring properties. In addition, show the location of shielding devices or other equipment to be used to prevent unreasonable glow beyond the property on which the festival is located. 8. State whether alcoholic beverages will be served. )(YES ❑ NO if yes, provide details on how it will be controlled. y 'L� ' r `[ J , ta i . It V'[y., . �r Ll We JNOTE: Evidence of any applicable VA ABC permit must also be provided and posted at the festival as required. Applicant may need to confirm with the VA ABC that a license is not required from that agency in order for festivat atte ndees to bring their own alcoholic beverages to any event that is open to the general public upon payment of the applicable admission fee.) Jun 24 13 06:07p p. FESTIVAL PROVISIONS Applicant makes the following statements: A. Music shali not be rendered nor entertainment provided for more than eight (8) hours in any twenty- four (24) hour period, such twenty -four (24) hour period to be measured from the beginning of the first performance at the festival, e. Music shall not be played, either by mechanical device or live performance, in such a manner that the sound emanating therefrom exceeds 73 decibels at the property on which the festival is located. C. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age shall be admitted to any festival unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, the parent or guardian to remain with such person at all times, (NOTE: It may be necessaryto post signs to this effect.) D. The Board, its lawful agents, and /or duly constituted law enforcement officers shall have permission to go upon the property where the festival is being held at any time for the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of the County ordinance. CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned Applicant, hereby certify that all information, statements, and documents provided in connection with this Application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, Applicant agrees that the festival event and its attendees shall comply with the provisions of the Frederick County ordinance pertaining to festivals as well as festival festival provisions contained herein. Siglni a of Applicant Date: _ THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE ANY PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE UPON NON - COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665 -6395 To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Subject: Public Hearing — Entrance Spacing Requirements Date: June 21, 2013 Staff has prepared a revision to Part 202 of the Zoning Ordinance — Off - Street Parking, Loading and Access to update the motor vehicle access requirements, specifically the entrance spacing requirements. Currently, the entrance spacing requirements are in conflict with VDOT's minimum entrance spacing requirements and the standards do not specifically address residential driveways on arterial or collector roadways. This item was discussed by the DRRC at their February 2013 meeting. The DRRC endorsed the proposed amendment with minor revisions and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on March 20, 2013. Concern was expressed over the spacing not being based on speed, specifically residential entrances on minor and major collector roads and that it appeared the proposed spacing standards should be increased, not decreased. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item on May 8, 2013; the Board discussed the changes necessary to bring the ordinance into compliance with VDOT standards and the use of tangent vs, centerline when measuring distance. Ultimately the Board of Supervisors forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19, 2013; there were no citizen comments and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. The attached document shows the existing ordinance wi h 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 Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance. 2. Resolution. CEP /dlw 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 ATTACHMENT 1 Chapter 165 - Zoning Part 202 - Off - Street Parking, Loading and Access § 165 - 202.03. Motor vehicle access. A. New driveways. (1) Private driveways or entrances shall be allowed to provide access to individual residences or uses. Private driveways or entrances shall also be allowed to provide access to parking lots and loading areas shared by a number of residences or uses. (2) In order to provide safe and convenient access and to provide efficient travel on arterial highways, a minimum spacing shall be provided between new driveways onto and entrances onto collector roads, ; Ad ept arterial highways, and primary ^gal highways, in the following zoning districts: [Amended 12 -10 -2008] B1 Neighborhood Business B2 Business General B3 Industrial Transition OM Office - Manufacturing Park M1 Light Industrial M2 Industrial General (3) In addition, the minimum spacing requirements shall apply to_ (a) any business, industrial or institutional use in any zoning district, er-and -te-Lbj any residential development in which more than one dwelling shares a parking lot. (4) Minimum spacing shall also be provided in all zoning districts between (a) new residential driveways onto and commercial entrances onto collector roads, arterial highways, and primary highways and the intersections of other roads with #4e - such collector roads e arterial highways and primary highways Minimum spacing between driveways/ entrances and between driveways / entrances and intersections shall be as follows: Minimum Residential Driveway, Full Commercial Entrance and Intersection Spacing on Primary Highways, a444-Arterial Highways and Collector Roads j2acto ' peed Limit ( ;p4 ;4Road Classification Minimum Required Spacing (feet) R q A ;tom 415 Minor Collector 100 ATTACHMENT 1 Major Collector- residential driveway /entrance 150 Maio r Collector - commercial entrances 79 -250 Primary or Arterial with posted speed limit 45 mph or less 4-5& 250 Primary or Arterial with posted speed limit more than 45 mph 2-88 495 (5) In all cases, the spacing distances shall be measured from the tangent line to the curb return of the driveways or intersecting streets. (6) Th e FA spar=s g fBi'— caeeess AA A; -.p "^vc^ra5 SIBzm-- se:7A- TPe *hP *w; P2+1 ° '� Deleted (Note: (6) con be deleted because its contents hove been moved to the chart in (4).] ILLUSTRATION n�rance OF: Spacing and Shan GCess Provi slo AftV, HIGHWAY - ted Limit - 15 Intl � 150 Feet Existing lot can Driveway `�—�N b laced by Fro g ��~ tiatsf�nt CALE ,. 60' I 1 Exist t ir4 f4@4 Existing access. When a parcel abuts a minor or collector street that intersects with the arterial or primary highway and when the parcel cannot be provided with an entrance 2 ATTACHMENT 1 onto the arterial or primary highway that meets the spacing requirement, access to the parcel shall be only from the existing entrance on the minor or collector street and new entrances shall not be allowed directly onto the arterial or primary highway. (7) {14Shared access. When a lot is created on a collector road or arterial or primary highway, shared means of access to the road or highway shall be created by access easement, shared driveway, shared entrance or other means to ensure that the spacing requirements have been met. [1j When a lot is divided or developed that can be provided with a driveway entrance meeting the spacing requirements but that is adjacent to other parcels or lots that will not be able to have entrances meeting the spacing requirements, means of highway access to the adjoining property may be required by the Zoning Administrator on the lot to be divided or developed. [21 When a lot is divided or developed that cannot be provided with access meeting the spacing requirements and when means of shared access that meets spacing requirements has been provided on adjoining lots that can be used to provide access to the lot in question, entrances shall not be allowed directly onto the arterial or primary highway from the lot to be divided or developed. [31 When a number of lots are divided or developed that have been included together on an approved master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat, shared driveways / entrances shall be provided as required to meet the spacing requirements. [41 When shared access is provided to meet the requirements of this section, the Zoning Administrator may require that it be provided in the form of an access easement. The Zoning Administrator may require a deed of dedication describing provisions for joint use and maintenance of that easement. Provisions for shared entrance signs may also be required. 151 Shared access easements shall be provided in a manner so that shared driveways are clearly separated from parking areas, loading areas and pedestrian walkways. [61 Shared access easements that follow lot lines are preferred. (8) New lots. No new lot shall be created on @^ @FteFial h any state maintained road unless spacing requirements can be met for driveways / entrances on the lot or unless access is provided through shared or existing access. (9) Number of driveways or entrances No more than one driveway or entrance shall be allowed per parcel I drives @Fe —allevPed a+;hiea de Ret unless each driveway /entrance from the parcel separately meets the spacing requirements, 3 ATTACHMENT 1 relative to each other and relative to any intersections within the minimum required spacing distance in all directions. The Zoning Administrator may permit entrances /driveways that do not meet the minimum spacing requirements if they are utilized solely for emergency access and are not open the public; such entrances must be gated or chained. (10) Entrances on collector and minor streets. Whenever a parcel abutting an arterial highway also abuts a collector or minor road, in order to obtain an entrance on the arterial road, an entrance must be provided on the collector or minor road. This shall only be required if a safe entrance can be provided on the collector or minor road, meeting all requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation. (11) All driveways and entrances onto state - maintained highways must also meet all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation and all other requirements tithe Frederick County Code. (12) New driveways and entrances shall align with existing or planned driveways, crossovers, turn lanes or other access features. This shall only be required if the resulting alignment provides safe access and if all requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation are met. (13) The location of new driveways and entrances shall conform with road improvement plans or corridor plans that have been adopted by Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation. (14) Private roads providing lot access to multifamily and single - family small lot housing, as permitted in §144 -24 of the Subdivision Ordinance, shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The pavement design for the private roads shall include eight inches of aggregate base material, Type I, Size No. 21 -13, and shall be paved with a 165 No. psy asphalt concrete, Type SM -2A, surface treatment. In addition, curb and gutters, standard curb CG -6, CG -7 or roll -top curb and sidewalks shall be provided along private roads; however, the Zoning Administrator may approve a waiver of sidewalks on private streets, provided that another recreational amenity is substituted for the sidewalk. Additionally, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for curb and gutters and allow alternate pavement design to accommodate low impact design provided that the private road design is determined to be acceptable by the Director of Public Works. B. Alternative methods. (1) The Zoning Administrator may allow other means of motor vehicle access which do not meet the above requirements. Such means may involve the use of entrances which physically limit or restrict left turns (such as a right -in /right -out only entrance), methods which ensure one -way travel or other methods. (2) In such cases, the Zoning Administrator may require a traffic access plan which describes existing traffic, conditions and design on the streets abutting the site and the methods proposed to ensure that the intent of this section has been met. I ATTACHMENT 1 (3) Requested alternative methods of motor vehicle access which do not meet the minimum requirements of § 165 - 202.03 must be approved by VDOT prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator. C. Internal circulation. A complete system of internal traffic circulation shall be provided to serve all uses in any shopping center, industrial park or any development included in a single master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat approved by Frederick County. In such developments, internal access shall be provided in a fashion so that all uses can be mutually accessed without entering onto arterial or primary highways. In such cases, a pattern of internal circulation shall be designed to ensure that conflicts are avoided between moving vehicles, parking areas, pedestrian areas, loading areas and the various uses provided. D. Pedestrian access. Safe pedestrian walkways shall be provided to all uses on land included in a master plan or site plan approved by Frederick County. Sidewalks shall be provided in conformance with adopted corridor or walkway plans or approved master development plans. The Board of Supervisors may require additional sidewalks or walkways on master plans or the Zoning Administrator may require additional sidewalks or walkways on site plans to promote a general system of pedestrian access in residential neighborhoods or business corridors. E. Fire lanes. Fire lanes shall be required as set forth in Chapter 90, Fire Prevention.EN [Added 12- 9 -1992] R RESOLUTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 19, 2013 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 10, 2013 ❑ 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 202 OFF - STREET PARKING, LOADING AND ACCESS 165- 202.03 MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165 Zoning, to update the motor vehicle access requirements, specifically the entrance spacing requirements was considered. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 19, 2013; and WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on July 10, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning, is amended to update the motor vehicle access requirements, specifically the entrance spacing requirements. PDRes# 15 -13 This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 10th day of July, 2013 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Opequon Magisterial District Vacant. A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes# 15 -13 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 - MEMORANDUM 6395 FAX: 540/ 665 -6395 To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner �q Subject: Public Hearing — Rural Preservation Lot Requirements Date: June 21, 2013 Staff has received a request to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded, so long as the division results in acreage being added to the preservation tract. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance states that "no future division" of these tracts is permitted; therefore, any property boundary modifications would be considered a "division" and would not be permitted once the preservation lot has been recorded. This item was discussed via email by the DRRC in March, 2013. The DRRC was supportive of the proposed amendment being forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. One comment received recommended that the amendment be expanded to allow boundary line adjustments /consolidations of adjacent properties. The Planning Commission discussed this item on May 1, 2013. Members of the Commission could not foresee any disadvantage to allowing land to be added from outside of the rural preservation tract. It was believed any opportunity to increase the size of the rural preservation tract would be a positive action. The Commissioners and Staff discussed draft language stating land could be added into the rural preservation tract, but land could not be removed from the rural preservation tract. The proposed ordinance amendment has been revised to reflect the Planning Commission recommendation. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their June 12, 2013 meeting and sent the item forward for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19, 2013; there were no citizen comments and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes (with additions shown in bold underlined italics). 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 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 /dlw 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 ATTACHMENT ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401— RA Rural Areas District § 165- 401.06 Permitted lot sizes. C. Rural preservation lots. (1) Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following: (a) Sixty percent or more of the parent tract shall remain intact as a contiguous parcel (Rural Preservation Tract). (b) This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. (c) No future division of this designated Rural Preservation Tract shall be permitted unless all the following are met: i. The division results in an overall acreage increase to the Rural Preservation Tract; and ii. Acreage added to the preservation tract may come from areas internal or external to the rural preservation subdivision; and iii. Acreage from the preservation tract may not be adjusted into parcels outside of the rural preservation subdivision; and iv. The Rural Preservation Tract continues to meet all requirements of Chapter 165 and 144. RESOLUTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 19, 2013 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 10, 2013 IJ APPROVED IJ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT 165- 401.06 PERMITTED LOT SIZES WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to revise the requirements to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded, was considered. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 19, 2013; and WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on July 10, 2013; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural And Residential Districts, Part 401 RA (Rural Areas) District, 165- 401.06 Permitted Lot Sizes, are amended to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded if (1) The division results in an overall acreage increase to the Rural Preservation Tract; (2) Acreage added to the preservation tract may come from areas internal or external to the rural preservation subdivision; (3) Acreage from the preservation tract may not be adjusted into parcels outside of the rural preservation subdivision; and (4) The Rural Preservation Tract continues to meet all requirements of Chapter 165 and 144. PDRes. #16 -13 This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 10th day of July, 2013 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Opequon Magisterial District Vacant. A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #16 -13