Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 09, 2005 Regular Meeting '190 A Regular Meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 7:15 P.M., in thc Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice-Chairman Gary W. Dove; Bill M. Ewing; Gene E. Fisher; Gina A. Forrester; Lynda J. Tyler; and Barbara E. Van Osten. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the regular meeting to order. INVOCATION Barbara Roby, The People's Country Church, delivcred the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chairman Dove led the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITION OF BOY SCOUT TROOP 31 Chairman Shickle introduced Scout Master Walter Smith and members of Boy Scout Troop #31 who, as part of their Citizenship badge requirement, were present for the meeting. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised that he had no additions to the agenda. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Dove, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approved the agenda as presented by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shiekle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following items for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda: Revisions to the Public-Private Education Infrastructure Act of 2002 - Tab D; Subdivision Request #21-05, Macedonia Acres - Tab M. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrestcr, the Board approved Minute Book Num"er 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 1 91 the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Gary Oates, Stonewall District, stated his opposition to any Stephenson Village Master Development Plan that does not provide for Route 37. He went on to say that Corridor C needs to be shown on the Master Development Plan. Mr. Oates informed the Board that the Red Bud Agricultural/Forestal District has filed its paperwork and other documents necessary to create an agriculture district. Bob Boden, Stonewall District, stated that traffic in this area is getting bad and needs to be addressed. He stated that he was opposed to any development plan approved without Route 37 in its current alignment or with sufficient time to study an alternative. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES-APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Dove, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the minutes from the October 12,2005 Regular Meeting were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF JAMES STILL WELL TO SERVE AS STONEWALL DISTRICT REPRESENT A TIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION - POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER 9. 2005 MEETING - POSTPONED UNTIL JANUARY 2006 Chairman Shickle advised that the Board had a motion and second from the previous meeting, which was postponed until tonight. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 192 Vice-Chairman Dove moved to postpone the appointment of a Stonewall District Planning Commission representative until the January meeting in order to give the new Supervisor an opportunity to make the appointment. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Ewing. Supervisor Tyler stated that in one way she was not happy with this action, but on the other hand she was a proponent of concurrent terms for Board members and Planning Commissioners. Vice-Chairman Dove asked what would happen to Mr. Light's seat ifno one was appointed until January. Administrator Riley advised that Mr. Light would continue to serve until he was reappointed or replaced. There being no further discussion the above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrestcr Aye Lynda 1. Tyler Nay Barbara E. Van Osten Aye MEMORANDUM RE: RULES OF PROCEDURES - COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT AMENDMENT - INFORMATION ONLY - NO ACTION TAKEN. Administrator Riley advised that, per Board discussion from the October 26,2005 meeting, staff drafted amendments to the Board's Rules of Procedurc to establish a procedure to govern committcc appointments. He stated that staff is seeking Board input regarding this proposed amendment. Supervisor Van Osten stated that she did not believe an application was needed for a candidate being reappointed to a committee. Vice-Chairman Dove stated that #2 should specify the County Administrator's Office as the location to deliver applications. Chairman Shickle stated that he would be meeting with staff to clarify Rules of Procedure section 7.1 and County Codc Scction 33.1. Supervisor Van Osten stated that she would like clarification as to which appointments arc district specific and which are county wide seats. Minule Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Mccling of 11/09/05 193 MEMORANDUM RE: REVISIONS TO THE PPEA GUIDELINES - APPROVED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA County of Frederick, Virginia Procedures Regarding Requests Made Pursuant to the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 Adopted by the Board of Supervisors jor the County of Frederick on November 9, 2005. Table of Contents I. Applicability of Guidelines 11. Overview III. General Provisions A. Proposal Submissions B. Affected Jurisdictions C. Proposal Review Fees D. Virginia Freedom ofInformation Act E. Use of Public Funds F. Applicability of Other Laws IV. Solicited Bids/Proposals V. Unsolicited Proposals A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice B. Initial Review at the Conceptual Stage VI. Proposal Preparation and Submission A. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Conceptual Stage B. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Detailed Stage VIi. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria A. Qualifications and Experience B. Project Characteristics C. Project Financing D. Project Benefits and Compatability E. Other Factors VIII. Comprehensive and Interim Agreements A. Interim Agreement Terms B. Comprehensive Agreement Terms IX. Governing Provisions X. Terms and Conditions on Proposal Submission 1. Applicability of Guidelines 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, VA ("County of Frederick", "the County", "Board of Supervisors", or "the Board") has adopted these guidelines to implement the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, Va. Code 99 56-575.1, et seq. ("PPEA"). These guidelines apply to all procurements under the PPEA where the County of Frederick is the "responsible public entity" within the meaning of Virginia Code 9 56-575.1. 2. The County Administrator and all officers and employees of the Board of Supervisors shall follow the PPEA and these guidelines in any PPEA procurement in which they are involved. 3. The County Administrator may delegate his or her duties under these guidelines to members of staff. II. Overview 1. The PPEA grants "responsible public entities" the authority to enter into public-private Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 194 ,. partnerships with private entities for the development or operation of certain "qualifying projects" if the public entity dctcrmines, under criteria established by the PPEA, that such a project serves the public purpose. PPEA proposals are also subject to review by any "affected local jurisdiction" in which the "qualifying project" will be located. 2. The Board of Supervisors will be the "responsible public cntity" under the PPEA for any project involving the County Government. 3. Proposals for qualifying projects may either be solicited or unsolicited. PPEA procurement typically will be conducted as a two-phase process, first involving submission and evaluation of conceptual-phase proposals resulting in selection of certain proposers to submit detail-phase, and then submission and evaluation of detailed-phase proposals. If the purpose and requirements of the PPEA are met and the Board of Supcrvisors so clccts, in its discrction, it will thcn havc thc County Administrator or his or her designees negotiate with two or more proposers (unless the Board of Supervisors determines, in writing, that only one proposer is fully qualified or that one proposer is more high ly quali fied than the others) and select a detailed-phase proposal or proposals and enter into a "comprehensive agreement" for the project. 4. Individually-negotiated comprehensive agreements between private entities and the Board of Supervisors, along with thc PPEA and this policy, ultimately will define the respective rights and obligations of the parties for PPEA projects involving the County of Frederick. 5. Thc vcrsion ofPPEA that is in effect (up to the time of execution of a comprehensive agreement under a procurement as to that procurement) is controlling in the event of any conflict. III. General Provisions A PPEA procurement may only be for a "qualifying project". The PPEA contains a broad definition of "qualifying project" that includes, for example: 1. An education facility, including, but not limited to, a school building (including any stadium or other facility primarily used for school events), any functionally-related and subordinatc facility and land to a school building, and any depreciable property provided for use in a school facility that is operated as part of the public school system or as an institution of higher education; 2. A building or facility that meets a public purpose and is developed or operated by or for any public entity; 3. Improvements, together with equipment, necessary to enhance public safety and security of buildings to be principally used by a public entity; 4. Utility and telecommunications and other communications infrastructure; 5. A recreational facility; or 6. Technology infrastructure, including, but not limited to, telecommunications, automated data processing, word processing and management information systems, and related information, equipment, goods and services. These examples are mercly provided here for convenience. The definition of "qualifying project" in effect in the PPEA as of the time ofthe procurement is concluded by a comprehensive agreement is controlling, and the version of the PPEA then in effect should be consulted to deternline what is a "qualifying project". Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 195 A. Proposal Submissions I. A proposal for a PPEA "qualifying project" may be either solicited by the Board of Supervisors or submitted by a private entity on an unsolicited basis. In either case, the proposal shall be clearly identified as a "PPEA Proposal". To be considered, onc original and 10 copies of any unsolicited proposal must be submitted along with the applicable fee to Frederick County Finance Department. Solicited proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the applicable solicitation. 2. Proposers will be requircd to follow a two-part proposal submission process consisting of a conceptual phase and a detailed phase, as described herein. For unsolicited proposals, the conceptual phase of the proposal shall contain the information spccified by Section VII (A) ofthese guidelines, and the detailed phase of the proposal shall contain the infornlation specified in Section VII (B) of these guidelines. For solicited proposals, the solicitation and subsequent instructions by the County Administrator will prescribe the information that proposals shall contain. 3. Proposals should be prepared simply and economically. Solicited proposals should contain all information requested by the solicitation or subsequent instructions by the County Administrator. Unsolicited proposals should contain information specified by these guidclincs and also should include a comprehensive scope of work and, if applicable, a financial plan for the project, containing enough detail to allow an analysis by the Board of Supervisors ofthe feasibility of the proposed project. Any facility, building, infrastructure, or improvement included in a proposal shall be idcntified specifically or conceptually. The County Administrator may request, in writing, clarification of any submission. 4. Representations, information and data supplied in, or in connection with, proposals playa critical role in the competitive evaluation process and in the ultimate selection ofa proposal by the Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, as part of any proposal, the proposer shall certify that all material rcpresentations, information and data provided in support of, or in connection with, its proposal are true and correct. Such certification shall be made by authorized individuals who are principals of the proposer and who have knowledge of the information provided in the proposal. In the event that material changes occur with respect to any representations, information or data provided for a proposal, the proposer shall immediately notify the Board of Supervisors of the same. 5. The PPEA allows private cntities to include innovative financing methods, including the imposition of user fees or service payments, in a proposal. However, the County reserves the right to utilize its own finance team as a less costly alternative. B. Affected Jurisdictions Under the PPEA, an "affected jurisdiction" is any county, city, or town in which all or a portion of a qualifying project is located. Any private entity submitting a conceptual or detailed proposal to the County must provide any affected jurisdiction with a copy of the private entity's proposal by certified mail, express delivery, or hand delivery. In the case of solicited proposals, such copy should be submitted to any affectedjurisdiction to ensure its receipt at thc time proposals are due to be submitted to the County. In the case of unsolicited proposals, such copy should be submitted to any affected jurisdiction to ensure its receipt within five (5) business days after receiving notice from the County that the County has decided to accept the proposal pursuant to Section VI (A) hereof. Any affected jurisdiction shall have 60 days from the receipt ofthe proposal to submit written comments to the Board of Supervisors to indicate whether the proposed qualifying project is compatible with the jurisdiction's (i) comprehensive plan; (ii) infrastructure development plans; and (iii) capital improvements budget or other governmental spending plan. The Board of Supervisors shall give consideration to comments received in writing within the 60-day period, and no negative inference shall be drawn from the absence of comment by an affected jurisdiction. The Miuute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11109105 196 Board of Supervisors may begin or continuc its cvaluation of any such proposal during the 60-day period for affected jurisdictions to submit comments. c. Proposal Review Fees 1. The County Administrator will require payment of a review fee by a private entity submitting an unsolicited proposal to the County and by any private entities submitting competing proposals in response to the unsolicited proposal. Review fees are to cover the direct costs of processing, reviewing, and evaluating proposals, including the cost to compare a proposal to any competing proposal. "Direct costs" include but are not limited to, County staff time, cost of any material and supplies expended, and the cost of any outside advisors or consultants, including but not I imited to attorneys, consultants, and financial advisors, used by the Board of Supervisors in their sole discretion, to assist in processing, reviewing, or evaluating the proposal. Such fees generally will be in the amount necessary to completely cover all ofthe County's costs. All fees and additional fees shall be submitted in the form of a cashier's check payable to the County of Frederick. 2. Such fees shall be imposed as follows: a. Initial fee. Payment of an initial fee must accompany the submission of the Unsolicited Proposal to the County in order for the County to proceed with its review. The initial fee shall be two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the reasonably anticipatcd total cost of the proposed qualifying project, but shall be no less than $2,500 nor more than $50,000, regardless of the anticipatcd total cost. b. Additional fees. Additional fees shall be paid by proposers throughout the processing, review, and evaluation of the proposals, if and as the County Administrator or his or her designee requires, based upon costs in excess of initial review fees assessed. The County Administrator or his or her designee may impose additional fees on proposers selected for detailed-phase consideration as a condition of consideration of their detailed-phase proposal. The County Administrator or his or her designee will notify the proposers concerned of the amount of such additional fees. Proposers must promptly pay such additional fees before the Board of Supervisors will continue to process, review, and evaluate the proposer's proposal. c. Reimbursement of excess fees paid. If the total fees paid by proposers for a phase of a PPEA procurement exceed the total costs incurred in processing, reviewing, and evaluating proposals for that phase, then the Board of Supervisors shall reimburse the proposers the diffcrence on a reasonable, pro rata basis. D. Virginia Freedom of Information Act 1. Generally, proposal document submitted by private entities are subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act C'VFOlA"). In accordance with VA Code S 2.2-3705.6 (11), such documents are releasable if requested, except to the extent that they relate to (a) confidcntial proprietary information submitted to the Board of Supervisors under a promise of confidentiality or (b) memoranda, working papers or other records related to proposals if making public such records would adversely affect the financial interest of the County or the private entity or the bargaining position of either party. Once a comprehensive agreement has been entered into and the process of bargaining of all phases or aspects ofthe comprehensive agreement is complete, the Board shall make the procurement records available upon request, in accordance with Virginia Code SS 2.2- 4342 and 56-575.16 (5). However, proprietary, commercial, or trade secrets provided by a private entity as evidence of its qualifications and properly designated under this Section D (4) as "Confidential - Not Releasable under VFOIA" are not considered procurement records. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11109105 197 2. If requesting that the Board of Supervisors not disclose infornlation, the proposer must (i) invoke an exclusion when the data or materials are submitted to the County or before such submission; (ii) identify the data and materials for which protection from disclosure is sought; and (iii) state why the exclusion from disclosure is necessary. In addition, the proposer must clearly mark each page of its proposal that it contends not to be discloseable under the VFOIA with the legend "Confidential - Not Releasable under FOIA". The Board of Supervisors may only protect confidential proprietary information and will not protect any portion of a proposal from disclosure if the entire proposal has been designated confidential by the proposer without reasonably differentiating between the proprietary and non-proprietary information contained therein. 3. Except as reasonably necessary for the Board of Supervisors, staff, and consultants to review proposals, the Board promises to maintain the confidentiality of confidential proprietary information that is provided to it by a private entity pursuant to a proposal for a procurement under these procedures if the private entity follows all the steps required by paragraph 4 of this policy to designate the information as confidential proprietary information excluded from disclosure under VFOIA, and if the information is, in fact, information that is properly exempt from rclcasc under VFOIA. The County Administrator shall take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of such information from any disclosure beyond whatever disclosure is reasonably necessary for the Board of Supervisors, staff, and consultants having a need to know the information to carry out the procurement. Despite the Board's sincere intent to honor this promise of confidentiality, nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, a consent to suit, or a contractual undertaking, and it is a condition of submitting proposals that no cause of action in contract or otherwise, shall arise against the Board of Supervisors or County of Frederick for failure to maintain confidentiality of information. 4. Any information in a proposal that becomes incorporated into a Comprehensive Agreement or Interim Agreement with the proposer submitting it, such as by becoming an exhibit, shall become a public record releasable under VFOIA upon execution ofthe agreement and its approvals by the Board of Supervisors. E. Use of Public Funds. Virginia constitutional and statutory requirements as they apply to appropriation and expenditure of public funds apply to any comprehensive agreement entered into under the PPEA. Accordingly, the processes and procedural requirements associated with the expenditure or obligation of public funds should be incorporated into planning for any PPEA project, and any PPEA procurement should comply with County of Frederick fiscal policies. Virginia constitutional and statutory restrictions that apply to the County regarding expenditure of public funds shall be deemed to be incorporated into any "comprehensive agreement" into which the Board of Supervisors enters pursuant to thc PPEA and to condition the County's obligations thereunder. F. Applicability of Other Laws. Nothing in the PPEA shall affect the duty of the Board of Supervisors or any of its officers, employees, or agents to comply with any other applicable law including the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "VPPA"). IV. Solicited Bids/Proposals 1. The County Administrator may invite bids or proposals from private entities to develop or operate qualifying projects. The County Administrator may use a two-part process consisting of an initial conceptual phase and a detailed phase. The County Administrator will set forth in the solicitation the format and supporting information that is rcquircd to be submitted, consistent with the provisions of the PPEA and this policy. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 198 2. Prior to inviting any bids or proposals, the Board of Supervisors shall determine whether to use procedures consistent with competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation, indicate the justification, consistent with the PPEA and the VPP A of this policy, for proceeding in that manner, and the evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate proposals. 3. The solicitation will specify, but not necessarily be limited to, information and documents that must accompany each proposal and the factors that will be used in evaluating the submitted proposals. The solicitation will be posted in such public areas as are normally used for posting of the County's notices, including the County website. The solicitation will also contain or incorporate by reference other applicable terms and conditions, including any unique capabilities or qualifications that will be required ofthe private entities submitting proposals. Pre-proposal conferences may be held as deemed appropriate by the County Administrator. V. Unsolicited Proposals The PPEA pernlits the County to receive and evaluate unsolicited proposals from private entities to develop or operate a qualifying project. The County may publieize its needs and may encourage or notify interested parties to submit proposals subject to the terms and conditions of the PPEA. When such proposals are received without issuance ofa solicitation, the proposal shall be treated as an unsolicited proposal. Proposals received as a result ofthe County receiving an unsolicited proposal and the publishing a Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal will also be treated as unsolicited proposals. To ensure the County receives the best value for any qualifying project, the Board of Supervisors will seek and encourage competing unsolicited proposals when it receives an unsolicited proposal. A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice I. Upon receipt of any unsolicited proposal and payment of any required fee by the proposer, or proposers, the Board of Supervisors will determine whether to accept the unsolicited proposal for publication of notice and conceptual-phase consideration. Ifthe Board of Supervisors determines not to accept the proposal and not to proceed to publication of notice and conceptual-phase consideration the County will return the proposal, together with all fees and accompanying documentation, to the proposer. 2. Ifthe Board of Supervisors chooses to accept an unsol icited proposal for conceptual- phase consideration, the Board shall: a. Determine whether to use procedures consistent with competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation of other than professional services, and if using competitive negotiation, indicate the justification for proceeding in that manner, and the evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate the unsolicited proposal and competing unsolicited proposals; b. Determine what ifany conditions the Board of Supervisors will authorize the County Administrator to place upon the proposer and any competing proposers beyond those contained in these guidelines for going forward with the unsolicited proposal and for receiving competing unsolicited proposals; c. The County Administrator shall post the Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal in a public area regularly used by the County for posting of public notices and on the County's web site for a period of not less than 45 days. The County Administrator shall also publish the same notice at least once in one or more newspapers or periodicals of general circulation in Frederick Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 .199 County, Virginia, to notify any persons that may be interested in submitting competing unsolicited proposals, with the first such publication to occur at least 45 days before competing proposals are due. In addition, the notice shall be advertised in Virginia Business Opportunities and posted on the ConmlOnwealth's electronic procurement web site at least 45 days before competing proposals are due. Competing proposals may be submitted to the Frederick County Department of Finance during the period specified in the noticc following the publication required above. 3. The Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals shall contain the following information and shall be provided to prospective competing offers and mcmbcrs of thc public on request: a. The instructions, terms and conditions applicable to the procurement; b. A summary of the project proposed in the unsolicited proposal; c. The evaluation criteria to be used for procurement; d. Instructions for obtaining any portions of the unsolicited proposal that are releasable; and c. Such othcr instructions and information as thc County Administrator deems reasonable and desirable. 4. Copies of Unsolicited proposals are available to the public, upon rcqucst, pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act ("VFOIA"), except as exempted from release under the PPEA and VFOIA. B. Initial Review at the Conceptual Stage I. Only proposals complying with the requirements of the PPEA that contain sufficient information for a meaningful evaluation and that are provided in an appropriate format will be considered by the Board of Supervisors for fmiher review at the conceptual stage. Content and format requirements for proposals at the conceptual stage are found at Section VII (A). 2. After reviewing the original proposal and any competing unsolicited proposals submitted during the notice period, the Board of Supervisors may determine: a. Not to proceed further with any proposal, b. To proceed to the detailed phase of review with original proposal, c. To proceed to the detailed phase with a competing proposal, or d. To proceed to the detailed phase with multiple proposals. However, the County may not proceed to the detailed phase with only one proposal unless it has determined in writing that only one proposer is qualified or that the only proposer to be considered is clearly more highly qualified than any other proposer. VI. Proposal Preparation and Submission A. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Conceptual Stage The County Administrator may gcnerally require that proposals at the conceptual stage contain information in the following areas: (1) qualifications and experience; (2) project Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 200 characteristics; (3) project financing; (4) project benefit and compatibility; and (5) any additional information as the County Administrator may reasonably request. Conceptual-phase proposals should include an executive summary of the proposal at the beginning of the proposal. An unsolicited proposal shall include an executive summary not designated as "Confidential-Not Releasable under VFOIA" that describes the proposcd qualifying project sufficiently so that potential competitors can reasonably formulate meaningful competing proposals from a review of the summary and publicly-available information. Unless otherwise indicated in the solicitation or Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals, as applicable, conceptual-phase proposals should contain the information indicatcd bclow in the format below: 1. Qualifications and Experience a. Identify the legal structure of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal. Identify the organizational structure for the project, the management approach and how each partner and major subcontractor in the structurc fits into thc overall team. b. Describe the experience of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal and the key principals involved in the proposed project including experience with projects of comparablc size and complexity. Describe the length oftime in business, business experience, public scctor cxperience, and other engagements of the firm or consortium of firms. Include the identity of any firms that will provide design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties and description of such guarantees and warranties. c. Provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons within the firm or consortium of firms who may be contacted for further infomlation. d. Provide a current or most recently audited financial statement of the firm or finns and each partncr with an equity interest of twenty percent or greater. e. Identify any persons known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict oflnterest Act, Chapter 31 (~2.2-3l 00 ct. seq.) of Title 2.2. 2. Project Characteristics a. Provide a description of the project, including the conceptual design. Describe the proposed project in sufficient detail so that type and intent of the project, the location, and the communities that may be affected are clearly identified. b. Identify and fully describe any work to be performed by the public entity. c. Include a list of all federal, state, and local permits and approvals required for the project and a schedule for obtaining such pemlits and approvals. d. Identify any anticipated adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts ofthe project. Specify the strategies or actions to mitigate known impacts of the project. e. Identify the projected positive social, economic, and environmental impacts of the projeet. f. Identify the proposed schedule for the work on the project, including the Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 201 estimated timc for completion. g. Propose allocation risk and liability for work completed beyond the agrccment's completion date and assurances for timely completion of the project. h. State assumptions related to ownership, legal liability, law enforcement and operation of the project and the existence of any rcstrictions on the public entity's use of the project. 1. Provide information relative to phased or partial openings of the proposed project prior to completion of the entire work. J. List any other assumptions relied on for the project to be successful. k. List any contingencies that must occur for the project to be successful. 3. Project Financing a. Provide preliminary estimate and estimating methodology of the cost ofthe work by phase, segment, or both. b. Submit a plan for the development, financing and operation of the projcct showing thc anticipated schedule on which funds will be required. Describe the anticipated costs of and proposed sources and uses for such funds including any anticipated debt service costs. The operational plan should includc appropriate staffing levels and associated costs. Include supporting due diligence studies, analyses, or reports. c. Include a list and discussion of assumptions underlying all major elements of the plan. Assumptions should include all significant fees associated with financing given the recommended financing approach. In addition complete disclosure of interest rate assumptions should be included. Any ongoing operational fccs, if applicable, should also be disclosed as well as any assumptions with regard to increasc such fees. d. Identify the proposed risk factors and methods for dealing with these factors. e. Identify any local, state, or federal resources that the proposer contemplates requesting for the project. Describe the total commitment, if any, cxpccted from governmental sources and the timing of any anticipated commitment. Such disclosure should include any direct or indirect guarantees or pledges of the public entity's credit or revenue. f. Identify the amounts and the terms and conditions for any revenue sources. g. Identify any aspect of the project that could disqualify the project from obtaining tax-exempt financing. 4. Project Benefit and Compatibility a. Identify who will benefit from the project, how they will benefit and how the project will benefit the overall community or region. b. Identify any anticipated public support or opposition, as well as any anticipated government support or opposition, for the project. c. Explain the strategy and plans that will be carried out to involve and inform Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 202 the general public, business community, and governmental agencies in areas affected by the project. d. Describe the anticipated significant benefits to the community or region, including anticipated benefits to the economic condition of the public entity and whether the project is critical to attracting or maintaining competitive industries and businesses to the public entity or the surrounding region. e. Describe compatibility with the local comprehensive plan, local infrastructure development plans, the capital improvements budget or other governmental spending plan. f. Provide a statement setting forth participation efforts that are intended to be undertaken in connection with this project with regard to the following types of businesses: (i) minority-owned businesses; (ii) woman-owned businesses; and (iii) small businesses. B. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Detailed Stage If the Board of Supervisors decides to proceed to the detailed phase of review with one or more proposals, the following information should be provided by the proposer unless waived by the County: 1. A topographical map (1 :2,000 or other appropriate scale) depicting the location 0 the proposed project. 2. A list of public utility facilities, ifany, that will be crossed by the qualifying project and a statement of the plans of the proposer to acconmlodate such crossings; 3. A statement and strategy setting out the plans for securing all necessary property; 4. A detailed listing of all firms that will providc specific design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties, and a brief description of such guarantees and warranties; 5. A total life-cycle cost specifying methodology and assumptions of the project or projects and the proposed project start date. Include anticipated commitment of all parties; equity, debt, and other financing mechanisms; and a schedule of project revenues and project costs. The life-cycle cost analysis should include, but not be limited to, a detailed analysis ofthe projected return, rate of return, or both, expected useful life of facility and estimated annual operating expenses. 6. A detailed discussion of assumptions about user fees or rates, and usage of the projects. 7. Identification of any known government support or opposition, or general public support or opposition for the project. Government or public support should be demonstrated through resolution of official bodics, minutes of meetings, letters, or other official communications. 8. Demonstration of consistency with appropriate local comprehensi ve or infrastructure development plans or indication ofthe steps required for acccptance into such plans. 9. Explanation of how the proposed project would impact local development plans 0 cach affccted local jurisdiction. 10. Identification of the executive management and the officers and dircctors ofthe firm or firms submitting the proposal. In addition, identification of any known conflicts Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 203 of interest or other disabilities that may impact the public entity's consideration of the proposal, including the identification of any persons known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from partieipation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant to the Virginia State and Local Government Conflict ofInterest Act, Chapter 31 (92.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2. 11. Additional material and infornlation as the County may request. VIT. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria The following items shall be considered in the evaluation and selection ofPPEA proposals. A. Qualifications and Experience Factors to be considered in either phase of the County's review to determine whether the proposer possesses the requisite qualifications and experience include: 1. Experience with similar projects; 2. Demonstration of ability to perform work; 3. Leadership structure; 4. Project manager's experience; 5. ~anagementapproach; 6. Financial condition; and 7. Project ownership. B. Project Characteristics Factors to be considered in determining the project characteristics include: I. Project definition; 2. Proposed project schedule; 3. Operation of the project; 4. Technology, technical feasibility; 5. Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards; 6. Environmental impacts; 7. Condemnation impacts; 8. State and local permits; and 9. ~aintenance of the project. C. Project Financing Factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed project financing allows adequate aceess to the necessary capital to finance the project include: Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 204 1. Cost and cost benefit to the County; 2. Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden ofthc County; 3. Financial plan, including the degree to which the proposer has conducted due diligence investigation and analysis ofthe proposed financial plan and the results of any such inquiries or studies; 4. Estimated cost; 5. Life-cycle cost analysis; 6. The identity, credit history, past performance of any third party that will provide financing for the project and the nature and timing of their commitment, as applicable; and 7. Such other items at the County deems appropriate. The County reserves the right to select its own finance team, source and financing vehicle in the event that any project is financed through the issuance of obligations that are deemed to be tax-supported debt ofthe public entity, or if financing such a project may impact the public entity's dcbt rating or financial position, the public entity may select its own finance team, source, and financing vehicle. The decision to use the financing plan contained in any proposal (whether solicited or unsolicited) is at the Board of Supervisors discretion. D. Project Benefits and Compatibility Factors to be considered in determining the proposed project's compatibility with the appropriate local or regional comprehensive or development plans include: 1. Community benefits; 2. Community support or opposition, or both; 3. Public involvement strategy; 4. Compatibility with existing and planned facilities; and 5. Compatibility with local, regional, and state economic development efforts. E. Other Factors Other factors that may be considered by the County in thc cvaluation and selection ofPPEA proposals include: 1. The proposed cost of the qualifying project; 2. The general reputation, industry experience, and financial capacity ofthc proposer; 3. The proposed design ofthc qualifying project; 4. The eligibility of the project for accelerated documentation, review, and selection; 5. Local citizens and government comments; 6. Benefits to the public; 7. The proposer's compliance with a minority business entcrprisc participation plan or good Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11109105 205 faith effort to comply with the goals of such plan; 8. The proposer's plans to employ local contractors and residents; and 9. Other criteria that the County deems appropriate. VIII. Comprehensive and Interim Agreements Prior to developing or operating the qualifying project, the selected proposer shall enter into a comprehensive agreement with the County. Prior to entering into a comprehensive agreement an interim agreement may be entered into that permits a proposer to perform compensable activities relatcd to the projeet. The County may designate a working group to be responsible for negotiating any interim or comprehensive agreement. Any interim or comprehensive agreement shall define the rights and obligations of the County and the selected proposer with regard to the project. A. Interim Agreement Terms The scope of an interim agreement may inelude but is not limited to: 1. Projeet planning and development; 2. Design and engineering; 3. Environmental analysis and mitigation; 4. Survey; 5. Ascertaining the availability of financing for the proposed facility through financial and revenue analysis; 6. Establish a process and timing of the negotiation of the comprehensive agreement; and 7. Any other provisions related to any aspect of the development or operation of a qualifying proj ect that the parties may deem appropriate prior to the execution of a comprehensive agreement. B. Comprehensive Agreement Terms The scope of the comprehensive agreement shall inelude but not be limited to: 1. The delivery of maintenance, performance and payment of bonds or letters of credit in connection with any acquisition, design, construction, improvement, renovation, expansion, equipping, maintenance, or operation of the qualifying project; 2. The review of plans and specifications for the qualifying project by the responsible public entity; 3. The rights of the responsible public entity to inspect the qualifying project to ensure compliance with the comprehensive agreement; 4. The maintenance of a policy or policies of liability insurance or self-insurance reasonably sufficient to insure coverage of the project and the tort liability to the public and employees and to enable the continued operation of the qualifying project; 5. The monitoring of the practices of the proposer by the County to ensure proper maintenance; Minule Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 206 6. The terms under which the proposer will reimburse the County to ensure proper maintenance; 7. The policy and procedures that will govern the rights and responsibilities of the County and the proposer in the event that the comprehensive agreement is terminated or there is a material default by the proposer ineluding the conditions governing assumption ofthe duties and responsibilities of the proposer by the County and the transfer or purchase of property or other interests of the proposer by the County; 8. The terms under which the proposer will file appropriate financial statements on a periodic basis; 9. The mechanism by which user fees, lease payments, or service payments, if any, may be established from time to time upon agreement of the parties. Any payments or fees shall be set at a level that is the same for persons using the facility under like conditions and that will not materially discourage use of the qualifying project; a. A copy of any service contract shall be filed with the County. b. A schedule of current user fees or lease payments shall be made available by the proposer to any member of the public upon request. c. Classifications according to reasonable categories for assessment of user fees may be made. 10. The terms and conditions under which the County may contribute financial resources, if any, for the qualifying project; II. The terms and conditions under which existing site conditions will be assessed and addressed, including identification of the responsible party for conducting the assessment and taking necessary remedial action; 12. The terms and conditions under which the public entity will be required to pay money to the private entity and the amount of any such payments for the project. 13. Other requirements ofthe PPEA or other applicable law; and 14. Such other terms and conditions as the public entity may deem appropriate. Any changes in the terms ofthe interim or comprehensive agreement as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time shall be added to the interim or comprehensive agreement by written amendment. The comprehensive agreement may provide for the development or operation of phases or segments of a qualifying project. Any material violation of Section III (A) (4) ofthese guidelines by a proposer shall give the Board of Supervisors the right to terminate the comprehensive agreement with that proposer, withhold payment or other consideration due, and seek any other remedy available at law or in equity. IX. Governing Provisions In the event of any conflict between these provisions and the PPEA, the terms ofthe PPEA shall control. X. Terms and Conditions on Proposal Submission Minute Book Number 31 Board of Snpcrvisors Regular Meeting of 11109/05 207 The following terms and conditions apply to submission of any proposals to the County pursuant to the PPEA, whether unsolicited, competing unsolicited, or solicited, and by submitting any proposal to the County, the private entity submitting the proposal agrees to them. I. Neither these guidclines, nor any request or solicitation, nor the Board of Supervisors' receipt or consideration of any proposal shall create any contract, express or implied, any contractual obligation by Frederick County to any proposer, or any other obligation by thc Frederick County to a proposer. The Board of Supervisors makes no promise, express or implied, regarding whether it will enter into a comprehensive agreement with any proposer or regarding the manner in which it will consider proposals. The Board of Supervisors will only be bound by the terms of any comprehensive agreement(s) or interim agreements into which it enters should it choose to enter into any such agreements. 2. The Board of Supervisors will not be responsible for any expenses incurred by a proposer in preparing and submitting a proposal or in engaging in oral presentations, discussions, or negotiations. 3. Proposers may be required to make an oral presentation or oral presentations of their proposal in Frederick County at their own expense. The County Administrator may request the presence of proposers' representatives from their development, financial, architectural, engineering, and constructional teams at these presentations. The County Administrator or his/her designce will schedule the time and location for these presentations. By submitting its proposal, the proposer agrees to make these representatives reasonably available in Frederick County. 4. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right of the County Administrator to waive any informalities with respect to any proposal submitted. 5. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals received, in whole or in part, and to negotiate separately in any manner necessary to serve the best interests of the County. Any procurement under these guidelines may result in multiple awards to multiple offerors. 6. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to reject any and all proposals without explanation. 7. The provisions of Section X of these guidelines shall apply automatically to all PPEA procurements by the Board of Supervisors. 8. The Board of Supervisors will not discriminate against an offeror because of race, religion, color, sex, origin, age, disability, or any other basis prohibited by state law relating to discrimination in employment. REQUEST FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE NETTECH CENTER OF WINCHESTER - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this was a request from the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development Commission for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of$52,83 7 .52 to cover an increase in the annual rent rate and additional expenses to upgrade the network server and other hardware and marketing for the NetTech Center of Winchester. No additional local monies are needed. Minul.e Book Nomber 3] Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11109/05 208 Upon a motion by Supervisor Ewing, seconded by Vice-Chairman Dove, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye REOUEST FROM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING RE: FUNDING FOR THE NEW COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER - APPROVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING Administrator Riley advised that this was request for public hearing for a budget revision in the amount of$3,083,240 to fund the completion of the new Fredcrick County Animal Shelter. It is anticipated that this project would bc taken to thc bond market along with the Public Safety Building and thesc funds would be reimbursed from bond proceeds. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tylcr, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board scheduled the following item for public hearing at the Dcccmbcr 14, 2005 mccting. The above motion was approvcd by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Ayc Lynda 1. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye REOUEST TO SCHEDULE A WORKSESSTON WITH THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA STUDY GROUP - SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 17. 2005 FROM 11:00 A.M. -1:00 P.M. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Dove, secondcd by Supcrvisor Ewing, thc Board postponcd this worksession with the Urban Development Area Study Group until January 17,2006 from 11 :00 a.m. - 1 :00 p.t11. The abovc motion was approvcd by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gcnc E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 209 REOUEST FROM TREASURER TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COUNTY CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 1998. - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 14. 2005 Treasurer C. William Orndoff, Jr. appeared before the Board regarding this proposed ordinance amendment. He recommended the following ehanges: - The method of computing and reflecting tax relief would be the specific relief method. - The method of allocating relief rates among taxpayers at difTerent rates, set out for specific "value bands" and across the board to the first $20,000 of vehicle value. - Treatment of low-value vehicles will use special steps to exempt low-value vehicles, similar to current law. Upon a motion by Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved this item for public hearing at the December 14,2005 meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND FINANCING FOR SHENANDOAH PROPERTIES. JV. LLC - CANCELED This item was canceled at the applicant's request. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO THE 2005-2006 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET - PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.2-2507 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BUDGET TO REFLECT: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.000.000.00. THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTS COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. ENGINEERING. AND SITE TESTING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF GAINESBORO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. (RESOLUTION #028-05) - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this was a request for a school construction fund supplemental appropriation for the replacement Gainesboro Elementary School in the amount of $1,000,000 to eover costs associated with the commencement of the architectural design, engineering, and site testing. Vice-Chairman Dove asked representatives from School Administration ifthe County could Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 210 pay the bills, which would allow the money to remain in an interest earning account. The County would then reimbursc itsclfwith procceds from the VPSA bond issue. Frederick County Public School's Finance Director Lisa Frye stated that would not be the School's preference, as they needed to track the spending, etc. She went on to offer that the Board could appropriate the funds and, as with the debt service, the money would not be placed in the account until the expenditure is made; therefore, the County could retain interest earnings on the General Fund and not allocate that to the School Construction Fund or any other fund but could simply transfer the cash as the Schools pay the bill. Vice-Chairman Dove state "that sounds great, if that works for you." Finance Director Frye responded "absolutely, yes." Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairnlan Dove, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the Board approved the following resolution for the FY 2005-2006 Budget Amendment: WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, mceting in regular session and public hearing held on November 9, 2005, took the following action: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors that the FY 2005- 2006 Budget be Amended to Reflect: School Construction Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $1.000.000. This Amount Represents Costs Associated with the Commencement of the Architectural Design, Engineering, and Site Testing for the Replacement of Gainesboro Elementary School. ADOPTED, this 9th day of November, 2005. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye RESOLUTION (#029-05)OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK. VIRGINIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE FINANCINGS FOR CERTAIN COSTS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES-APPROVED Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11109/05 211 Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Dove, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the Board approved the following reimbursement resolution: The County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County") has detenllined that it may be necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs of certain capital improvements for public school purposes (the "Project"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County to pay the costs of the Project from the proceeds of one or more financings. The maximum amount of financing expected to be issued for the Project is $1,000,000. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda 1. Tyler Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS OTHER PLANNING ITEMS: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #07-05 OF STEPHENSON VILLAGE (VOTE POSTPONED FROM OCTOBER 12. 2005 MEETING). - APPROVED PHASE I PART A Planner I Bernard Suchicital appeared before the Board regarding this application. This was a review of Phase I of the Stephenson Village Master Development Plan for 400 single-family homes, 110 townhouses, and 360 multi-family dwellings, with no commercial development in this phase. The Board postponed action on this application for up to 60 days to study a possible relocation of Route 37 on the southern boundary of the property. The applicant has revised Phase I ofthis plan by dividing it into parts A & B. This evening the Board will be reviewing part A. Per the applicant's letter, Part A should lie outside of the proposed Route 37 Alternate C Corridor. According to staffs presentation, Corridor C runs through a portion of Part A. Planner I Suchicital went on to say that sta[[recommends that the Part A boundary line be moved further north in so that Part A lies outside of Route 37 Corridor C Alignment. He concluded by saying that the applicant Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 212 has not provided staff with revised figures regarding the number of houses that would be eliminated in parts A and B. Ty Lawson, Lawson & Silek, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. He advised that this request has been paired back from what was originally requested. He noted that the map displayed by staff has a hand drawing of Route 37; however, the applicant was filing a master development plant that does not recognize Alternate Route 37. He went on to say that the applicant was certainly willing to discuss the road alignment. He concluded by saying that it was the applicant's intent to present the master plan in pieces and they were requesting approval of Part A. Chairman Shickle cited a letter from Brooktield Stephenson Village, LLC, which stated the applicant's intent was to keep Part A out of the Route 37 option C Corridor. He asked ifthere could be some confusion on the location of that alignment. Mr. Lawson responded that there was no confusion on the master development plan as it was following a proffered rezoning. He went on to say that the applicant was presenting Part A so the Board could have more time to discuss Part B. Supervisor Tyler moved to approve Master Development Plan #07-05 rccognizing Part A, as presented. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Forrester. Vice-Chairman Dove moved to amend the original motion to approve Part A of Stephenson Village Phase I Preliminary Master Development Plan, with the change that the boundary between Part A and Part B be relocated to north of the Route 37 Alternative C alignment, and that the Director of Planning and Development, pursuant to g165-138 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall have the authority to approve a Final Master Development Plan for Part A which is in conformity with thc foregoing approval. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Van Osten. The proposed amendment was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrcster Nay Lynda J. Tyler Nay Barbara E. Van Osten Aye The amended motion was approved by thc following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11109/05 213 Richard C. Shickle Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Nay Lynda 1. Tyler Nay Barbara E. Van Osten Aye (Supervisor Tyler left the meeting due to illness.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 144. SUBDIVISION OF LAND: ARTICLE V. DESIGN STANDARDS: SECTION 24C. LOT REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM GREENWAY ENGINEERING REGARDING WAIVERS OF THE PUBLIC STREET REQUIREMENT FOR AGE-RESTRICTED COMMUNITIES. (THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING. PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON AUGUST 24. 2005. BOARD ACTION WAS POSTPONED.) - SENT SCENARIO #2 FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board on behalf of this item. He advised that on August 24, 2005 the Board held a public hearing to consider ordinance amendments which could enable private streets within proffered age-restricted developments. The intent ofthis amendment was to enable gated communities for those residential projects with proffered age-restrictions. Presently VDOT or public owned streets may not be gated. The Board deferred action on this amendment and requested clarification oftwo items: public safety access and engineering aspects of the private road network. Zoning Administrator Cheran went on to say that staff has worked with the applicant to address the Board's comments. With regard to public safety access, staff was informed that proposed gated communities would not be an issue, but might delay response times. With regard to the engineering aspects, the roads must be designed and constructed to meet VDOT standards in order for them to be accepted into the state road system. These standards would require that the street be designed to meet VDOT's horizontal and vertical cross section requirements. These roads would also need to be inspected by a third party to certify that the design criteria were implemented through construction. Staff otfered two proposed scenarios for Board review and consideration. Scenario #1 was partially approved by the Planning Commission and presented to the Board in August 2005. Scenario #2 was a change submitted by the applicant. Zoning Administrator Cheran concluded by saying that Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, was present representing the applicant. Chairman Shickle asked, should the Board choose either scenario # 1 or #2, staff's advice was to readvertise for public hearing due to the significance of the proposed changes. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11109/05 214 Zoning Administrator Cheran responded correct. Supervisor Van Osten reviewed Fire and Rescue's comments and asked if a gated community and the different methods of access could delay response times. Zoning Administrator Cheran responded yes. Supervisor Fisher stated that he wanted language added to clarity that the road inspection would be to VDOT standards. He went on to say that he would feel more comfortable if the amendment contained language stating that the inspection process would be to VDOT standards. Director Lawrence stated that staff could work with VDOT to get a clarification. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, spoke regarding scenario #2 and asked ifthe VDOT standard was necessary or was it overkill? He stated that the waivers available in scenario #1 would be applicable for streets that would be public. Director Lawrence advised the Board that private streets not constructed to VDOT standards would have to be brought up to those standards prior to dedication to the state, which would make it more expensive and difficult for Homeowners Associations to get streets dedicated to VDOT. V ice-Chairman Dove stated that this amendment was a good suggestion and he liked option #1 that was approved by the Planning Commission. Vice-Chairman Dove moved to approve the original amendment that was the subject of the August 24, 2005 public hearing. The motion died for the lack of a second. Supervisor Van Osten moved to send Scenario #1 forward for public hearing with the language as amended by staff. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Forrester. The motion failed by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gina A. Forrester Lynda 1. Tyler Barbara E. Van Osten Nay Aye Nay Nay Aye Absent for the vote Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved sending Scenario #2 forward for public hearing. (2) (c) The Board of Supervisors may provide a waiver to the public street requirement specified in Section I 44-24C to allow for a complete system of private streets within Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 215 proffered age-restricted communities. This waiver may be requested by the applicant during the consideration of a Rezoning Application or during the considcration ofthe Master Development Plan. Thc applicant is required to provide a conceptual design which demonstrates the proposed private street system layout and provides bull, tlI" cross scction (horizulllal allJ ve!t;Gal) the vertical section dimensional base and pavement detail that meets or exceeds VDOT standards as a condition of requesting approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors. A certified engineer shall issue an inspection report as a condition of bond release to ensure that the vertical section dimensional base and pavement meets the requirements of the approved design. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gina A. Forrester Lynda J. Tyler Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Aye Aye Aye Nay Absent Nay SUBDIVISION REQUEST #21-05 OF MACEDONIA ACRES- APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA This was a request to subdivide 4.20 acres into eight single-family detached traditional housing lots, containing four existing homes and four proposed new homes. The property is located at the intersection of Macedonia Church Road (Route 756) and Owens Lane/Maryland Drive, between Mosby Station and Wakeland Manor in the Shawnee Magisterial District. This item was approved under the consent agenda. LAND USE PLAN DISCUSSION - COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT (CPP A) - SOLENBERGER/BRlDGEFORTH PROPERTIES AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE WESTERN JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN. - SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING AS MODIFIED Senior Planner Susan Eddy appeared before the Board on behalf ofthis item. She stated that this was request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by 267 acres and revise the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan to include the entire parcel. The proposed plan calls for a residential component of 4 dwelling units per acre and 2 mixed use (residential and commercial) areas. The plan designates environmentally sensitive areas including a sink hole, which has been filled. As a result, the Comprehensive Plan must be modified to reflect this change. With regard to transportation, the Board forwarded a letter to the Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding a possible Jubal Early Drive interchange with Route 37. The Commonwealth Transportation Board responded that the interchange is possible. Senior Planner Eddy stated that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee recommended approval of Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regolar Meeting of 11/09/05 216 both parts. The Planning Commission had eoneerns relative to this proposal. She concluded by saying that staff is seeking Board comment regarding these two proposals. Chairman Shickle asked if this plan was the plan originally brought forth by the owner or has there been some back and forth between the owner and the County. Senior Planner Eddy responded that there has been significant back and forth. She went on to say that the language regarding the mixed use designation has been tweaked to make it clearer. Supervisor Van Osten stated that neither parcel indicates the possibility of a school site. Senior Planner Eddy responded that the applicant asked that it be removed. Chairman Shickle asked if the UDA and SWSA expansion and the land use plan require public hearings. Senior Planner Eddy responded both parts require a hearing because they are proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Shickle asked if a rezoning were to come in for this property, would it trump the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan. Senior Planner Eddy responded if an application came in today then review would be based upon the plan that is currently in place; however, if the Board were to send these modifications forward for public hearing that could give some indication that the Board favors what is being sent forward for public hearing. Chairman Shickle stated that the developer needs to know the likely outcome for this property in order that they might be able to talk to the County. Supervisor Fisher stated that there were a lot of issues here to be addressed, such as the mix of commercial and residential uses. He stated that this plan should maybe have more discussion. Chairman Shickle stated that the proposed land use plan was troubling to some of the Board members and he was not sure that it was the best plan. Supervisor Forrester stated that she would like to see some indication of a school site. Director Lawrence stated that the CPPS members had discussed leaving the red area as commercial rather than mixed use and the yellow area as residential. He went on to say that staff could work to fine tune the plan language. Senior Planner Eddy stated that if the Board feels strongly about changing the mixed use Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 21"7 designation, staff could do that. Administrator Riley recommended to the Board that they instruct staff to make the textual changes concerning the Board's desire to see more commercial in the mixed use and less residential and hold a public hearing on this application. Supervisor Fisher stated that just because this item was being sent forward for public hearing did not mean it would get approved. Senior Planner Eddy advised that the CPPS endorsed the version of the land use plan that mentioned a school site. Supervisor Forrester stated that she would like to see the fiscal impact model numbers for this proposal based upon the proposed percentage of commercial uses. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board moved to send this item forward for public hearing subject to the following modifications: change mixed use designation to commercial use. incorporate comments relative to · adoption ofthe MPO 2030 Transportation Plan; · interchange at Route 37 and Jubal Early Drive; · the importance of the Baker, Jacob House (750 House); and · the large sinkhole being tilled. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gina A. Forrester Lynda 1. Tyler Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Absent for the vote Aye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Vice-Chairman Dove advised that the Economic Development Commission will present a report on targeting businesses at the next City/County joint meeting. Supervisor Fisher reported on the Parkins Mill expansion and stated that the project is at 30% design and the cost is up to $32 million. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05 218 There were no Board of Supervisors comments. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FORRESTER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:03 P.M.) .... ~ ~O (11 Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors (hLJ. [, '-1ti J~y-E.rliJ;s Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/09/05