Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 22, 2006 Regular Meeting 334 A Regular Meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 7:15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Gene E. Fisher; Philip A. Lemieux; and Barbara E. Van Osten. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the regular meeting to order. INVOCA TION In the absence of a minister, Supervisor Dove delivcred the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Ewing led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED AS AMENDED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised the he had one addition to the agenda - advertisement of the FY 2007 Budget Public Hearing as item number 8 under County Officials. Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Ewing, secondcd by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the agenda as amended. The abovc motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered thc followi ng items for consideration under the consent agenda: Resolution ofTntent to Abandon Section of Secondary Route 667 (Sir Johns Road) - Tab D' , Request for Installation of "Watch for Children" Signs in the Merriman's Chase Subdivision - Tab E; Correspondence from Greenway Engineering Re: Request for Route 37/Jubal Early Drive Break in Access - Tab F; Correspondence from Economic Development Commission Office Re: Rail Resolution- Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 335 84 Lumber - Tab G; Audit Committee Report - Tab H; Public Safety Communications Report - Tab I; Financc Committee Report - Tab J; Road Resolution - Raven Wing, Section IV - Tab P. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the Consent Agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS John Stevens, Back Creek District, appeared before the Board regarding the Round Hill SWSA expansion. He stated that it was his understanding that there were capacity limitations; howcver, there is approximately 58,000 gallons in the existing plant, which would be sufficient to accommodate this request. He asked the Board to extend the SWSA boundary from the VDOT headquarters to Rosedale Church to include his property, the Bishop propcrty and another small 1 acre parcel. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors comments. MINUTES-APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approvcd the minutes from the February 1,2006 Budget Worksession. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Ostcn Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 336 the minutes from the February 8, 2008 Budget Worksession with the Frederick County School Board. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Vice Chairman Ewing, the Board approved the minutes from the February 8, 2008 Regular Meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, JI. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARDS FOR FEBRUARY. 2006 - (RESOLUTION #'S 050-06 and 051-06) Chairman Shickle read the resolutions recognizing Kristen M. Eckelt and Larry K. Johnson as Employees of the Month for February 2006. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE FREDERICK COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH KRISTEN M. ECKEL T WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supcrvisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for this award may be nominated by any County cmployee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, WHEREAS, Kristen M. Eckelt, who serves as a Communications Officer in the Public Safety Department was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, Kristen is deserving of special recognition because of her recent involvement and handling of several stressful and very difficult 911 calls. Kristen handled these calls Minute Book Nnmber 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 337 professionally and calmly. She assisted not only the Citizens of Frederick County, but also her fellow Law Enforcement and Fire and Rescue colleagues; she was specifically commended by the Sheriffs Office. As one ofthe departments newest employees, Kristen has demonstrated dedication to her profession, the Public Safety Communieations Department and Frederick County; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 22nd day of February, 2006 that Kristen M. Eckelt is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for February, 2006; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Kristen M. Eckelt for her outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Kristen M. Eckelt is hereby entitled to all ofthe rights and privileges associated with this award. RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE FREDERICK COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH LARRY K. JOHNSON WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and, WHEREAS, on September 9,1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for this award may be nominated by any County employee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, WHEREAS, Larry K. Johnson who serves as a Maintenance Specialist/Supervisor at the NRADC was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, Larry is deserving of special recognition because of his superb performance overseeing the construction of the new 204-bed Community Corrections Center and assuming thc role of construction coordinator for the emergency construction of a temporary inmate housing unit. Larry handled these new responsibilities and continued to meet daily maintenance obligations, critical to the safety and security ofthe main Facility. Larry has demonstrated his dedication to his profession, the NRADC, and Frederick County; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 22nd day of February, 2006 that Larry K. Johnson is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for February, 2006; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Larry K. Johnson for his outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes his continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Larry K. Johnson is hereby entitled to all ofthe rights and privileges associated with this award. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD CRANE TO SERVE AS RED BUD DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 338 APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lemieux, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board appointed Richard Crane to serve as Red Bud District representative on the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. This is a four year tenn, said term to expire January 9,2010. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye RESOLUTION (#045-06) OF INTENT TO ABANDON SECTION OF SECONDARY ROUTE 667 (SIR JOHNS ROAD) - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, it appears to this Board that Secondary Route 667 (Sir John's Road) from 1.13 mile Northeast of Route 668 East to 1.51 miles Northeast of Route 668 East, a distance of 0.38 miles serves no public necessity and is no longer necessary as a part of the Secondary System of State Highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Clerk ofthe Board is directed to post and publish notice of the Board's intent to abandon the aforesaid section of Route 667, pursuant to 933.1-151, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amendcd. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 2006. This item was approved under the consent agenda. REOUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF "W ATCHFOR CHILDREN" SIGNS IN THE MERRIMAN'S CHASE SUBDIVISION (RESOLUTION #046-06) - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the 1997 Session of the Virginia Assembly amended the Code of Virginia adding Section 33.1-210.2 relating to the installation and maintenance of "signs alerting motorists that children may be at play nearby"; and WHEREAS, this act provides for the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of any county requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to install and maintain this type of sign; and WHEREAS, the source of funding for the installation of this sign shall come out of the secondary system construction allocation to the affected county. The costs of maintaining such sign shall bc paid out of the secondary system maintenance allocation to the affected county; and WHEREAS, Homer Drive (Route 1357), O'Keefe Drive (Route 1356), and Whistler Court (Route 1358), are located in a residential area and is within the secondary road system and is a viable candidate for "Watch for Children" signs. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 339 hereby request that the Department of Transportation install "Watch for Childrcn" signs specifically at Route 1357 (Homcr Drive) from Route 1358 (Whistler Court) south to Route 621 (Merriman's Lanc); Route 1357 (Homer Drive) from Route 1356 (O'Keefe Drive) south to Route 1358 (Whistler Court); Route 1356 (0' Keefe Drive) from Route 13 57 (Homer Drive) westto 0.06 miles wcst of cul- de-sac; Route 13 56 (0 'Keefe Drive) from Route 621 (Merriman's Lane) westto Route 13 57 (Homer Drive); and Route 1358 (Whistler Court) from Route 1357 (Homer Drive) east to 0.04 miles east of cul-de-sac. The signs should be placed in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-210.2 of the Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED, this 22nd day of February, 2006. This item was approved under consent agenda. CORRESPONDENCE FROM GREENWAY ENGINEERING RE: REOUEST FOR ROUTE 37/JUBAL EARLY DRIVE BREAK IN ACCESS - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Board received a written request from Greenway Engineering for a resolution, letter of support, or formal request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding a proposed break in access on Route 37 West at the future extension of Jubal Early Drive. Further, Greenway requested that the Board request this change in limited access control for public transportation purposes, which would allow VDOT's Chief Engineer to waive the public hearing fees associated with this process. This request was approved under consent agenda. CORRESPONDENCE FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OFFICE RE: RAIL RESOLUTION (#047-06) - 84 LUMBER - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, 84 LUMBER COMPANY HAS EXPRESSED ITS INTENT AND DESIRE TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO LOCATE ITS COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS OR INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS IN FREDERICK COUNTY; AND WHEREAS, 84 LUMBER COMPANY AND ITS OPERATION WILL REQUIRE RAIL ACCESS; AND WHEREAS, THE OFFICIALS OF 84 LUMBER COMPANY HAVE REPORTED TO THE COUNTY THEIR INTENT TO APPLY FOR INDUSTRIAL ACCESS RAILROAD TRACK FUNDS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA'S DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $231.608.00; AND WHEREAS, 84 LUMBER COMPANY HAS REQUESTED THAT THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PROVIDE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ITS APPLICATION FOR SAID FUNDS WHICH ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, HEREBY ENDORSES AND SUPPORTS THE APPLICATION OF 84 LUMBER COMPANY, FOR $231.608.00 IN INDUSTRIAL ACCESS RAILROAD TRACK Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 340 FUNDS. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY MAKES KNOWN ITS DESIRE AND INTENT TO ASSIST THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD IN PROVIDING THE MAXIMUM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO 84 LUMBER COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING ITS INDUSTRIAL FACILITY IN FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA. ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2006. This item was approved under the consent agenda. AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Audit Committee met on Wednesday, February 1,2006, at 8:00 A.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were Bill M. Ewing Chairman; Richard C. Shickle; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Richie Wilkins, Ill; Ron Hottle; Gary Lofton; C. William Orndoff, Jr., Treasurer; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue; Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director; and County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. The Committee met with Randy Jones, Robinson, Farmer, Cox, Associates, the County's Auditor, to review his findings to include the Management Letter and Certified Annual Financial Report (CAFR), in general. The Committee discussed these findings and were satisfied with same. Mr. Jones will be present at the March 8, 2006 meeting should you have any questions. Please be reminded that the CAFR and management letter were mailed to you in early January. This item was approved under consent agenda. FY 2007 BUDGET ADVERTISEMENT - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that the Board of Supervisors and Finance Committee met on February 20, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. to discuss funding levels to be included in the advertisement ofthe Fiscal Year 2007 budget. The Board of Supervisors directed staff to advertise the FY 2007 budget using the following assumptions: 1. Funding based on Scenario D, to include: FY 07 Additional Funds Available - Proposed FY 07 Fund Balance Funding - FY 07 Additional Funds Available- $4,371,113 $5.367,443 $9,738,556 2. Funding in Scenario D adjustcd to reflect incrcased school debt amount to be transferred to school operating fund. School Debt - $415,111 School Operating Fund - $5,330,696 3. Funding in Scenario D adjusted to rcflcct School Capital appropriation in the amount of $665,701 with funding from school proffers. 4. Funding in Scenario D adjusted by additional cuts presented by County Administrator with cxception ofrcstoring funds for Fire Programs and Two-for-Lifc funds. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02122106 341 5. Funds for Transportation in the amount of $250,000 added to the budgct. Staffis seeking the Board's authorization to advertise same for the County's FY 2007 Budget Public Hearing. Further, staff is seeking Board approval to conduct the public hearing in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, as part of the March 22, 2006 regular board meeting. Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board approved the advertisement for the budget public hearing as stated. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHavcn, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lcmieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA. The Frederick County Public Safety Committee met Thursday, February 2, 2006. Committee members present were: Committee Chair Barbara Van Osten, Gary Dove, John Riley, Gene Fisher, Frederick County Fire & Rescue Director Gary DuBrueler, Sheriff Robert Williamson, Carolyn Glaize, Helen Lake, and LeeAnna Pyles. The following items were discussed: ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. The Frederick County Sheriffs Office budget review contained the following information. The total budgetrcquested for the Frederick County Sheriffs Office is $8,538,345.00. Total supplemental requests are $1,157,514.00. The following is a break down ofthe supplemental request: . $720,723.00 - Salary and fringe benefits for a total of 16 full-time employees and 6 months of salary and benefits for a Crime Analyst. The remaining 6 months for the Analyst will be covered by a grant. Total salary increase requested is $720,723.00. These positions will be assigned as 9 Patrol, 3 Traffic Enforcement, 2 Investigators, 1 Crime Prevention/Training Officer, 1 Office Assistant III, and I Crime Analyst. The call increase shows the need of new Officers. There are approximately 151 calls for service per day. Traffic citations increase from 2,800 to 6,600 in 2005 though the reportable cases have gone down. Gary Dove asked for more clarification on Communications Comp Board positions, these positions must be maintained by the Sheriffs Department in order for the positions to remain. If the Department drops their funding of these positions, the positions will be lost. . $8,445.00 - Professional Health Services. This includes psychological testing and physical and drug screening of the above requested positions. . $37,425.00 - Police supplies. Duty weapons, ammunition for duty and qualification, handcuffs, flashlights, nameplates, flares, emergency kits, fingerprint kits, stun gun, fire Miuute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 342 extinguisher, cassette recorder, camera, film. All equipment necessary to outfit new officers. . $20,982.00 - Uniform and wearing apparel. Cost per Deputy ~1,614.00 x 13 positions totaling $20,982.00. . $23,460.00 - Vehicle and Powered Equipment. Siren Control Boxes, Setina Screens, Lower Extensions, Strobe Lights, and Decal Sets. . $33,000.00 - Communications Equipment. Mobile Radios and Portable Radios. . $313,479.00 - Vehicles, Patrol, and Investigator Vehicles. The Sheriff was asked about his department's participation at the scene ofthe explosion on Monday. His Department has provided a minimum of 4 officers at a time assigned to cover 24-hour security to the neighborhood. Investigators were also at the scene to assist in the investigation of the explosion. There will also be additional traffic control in the area at this time. All departments involved were given praise for their performance. Sheriff Williamson commented on his appreciation ofthe County and the Board as they have always been very responsive to all his requests. Barbara Van Osten asked John what he wanted to get out of today' s meeting. He stated that this was to be received as information and the Committee will have to come back with a recommendation at a later time. 2. The Frederick County Fire & Rescue Department review contained the following information. The total budget requested for the Frederick County Fire & Rescue Departmcnt is $6,514,218.00. Following is a break down of the Department requests. . 23 New Personnel consisting of the following. 2 Full-time Fire Marshals. I Part-time Fire Education Specialist. 1 Full-time Office Assistant II. 1 Full-time Secretary I - Operations. 1 Full-timc Training - Special. 1 Full-time Resource Management Tech. 1 GIS Technician. 1 Health and Safety Officer. 6 Full-time Firefighters requested by Co. 13. 3 Full-time Firefighters requested by Co. 15. 2 Full-time Firefighters requested by Co. 11. 3 Full-time firefighters for relief. A detailed job description was presented to the Committee. . Projected Capital Needs Communications Equipment, $86,100.00 Motor Vehicles and Equipment, $133,789.00 ADP Equipment, $101,000.00 Miscellaneous Equipment, $15,000.00 Mr. DuBrueler discussed the increased expenses the Department has incurred with the training that is required in order to receive Federal Grants. This includes training on County employees as well as volunteers. There is continual increase in the workload ofthe current Fire Marshals. Two additional Fire Marshals are needed to help disperse the workloads. As with the Sheriffs Department, there is a continual incrcase in calls upon this department. More personnel are needed to meet the demands. Minnte Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 343 3. The equipment required for the microwave project has been received. An RFP to construct a second tower at the County's North Mountain Tower site is ready to be published so that construction bids can be obtained. A second tower is required at this Tower Site because the existing tower is not sufficient to withstand the wind loads, etc. generated by the microwave dishes to be mounted there. Construction of this tower will commence as soon as a contract is approved and the vendor is able to begin work. Final engineering drafts for construction of the Tasker Water Tower microwave dishes mounts are in progress. The Sanitation Authority's vendor, responsible for maintenance and any modifications to this tower, has provided comment during the engineering process and can begin work as soon as the final plans are ready and a contract for the work has been completed. 4. The Public Safety Communications budget was presented for information purposes only. Current request is below 2006 budget request. Meeting Date: Gary DuBrueler proposed that we return to monthly meetings at this time. Committee will be meeting on the first Thursday of every month at 8:30 a.m. in the Executive Board Room. This item was approved under the consent agenda. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Finance Committee met in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, February 15 at 2:00 p.m. Committee Member Richie Wilkins was absent. Items I and 2 were approved under consent agenda. 1. The Director of Economic Development requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$45.130.48. This amount represents an increase in the rental rate and needed computer upgrades and marketing for the NetTech Center of Winchester. This amount will be offset by increased federal monies. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 1-2. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda 2. The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$l. 711. This amount represents donations to the department and is requested to be appropriated to Police Supplies. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 3-4. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. The following information was requested at the January Finance Committee meeting: a. Proffers paid to Fire and Rescue companies over the last two fiscal years. That amount equals $116,057.14. See attached, p. 5-6. b. Virginia Two-For-Life Funds paid to the Fire and Rescue Association for the past two fiscal years. That amount is $65,707. c. State Fire Program Funds paid to the Fire and Rescue Association for the past two fiscal years. That amount is $197,470. 2. The Finance Director provided a Reconciliation of Fund Balance from the County's 6/30/05 CAFR to date. This reconciliation is being provided to clarify information distributed at the last budget work session concerning fund balance. See attached, p. 7-8. This item was approved under the consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 344 PUBLIC HEARING- PROPOSED SCHOOL BOND FINANCING BY THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK. VIRGINIA (THE "COUNTY") WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15.2-2606 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. ON THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS (THE "BONDS') OF THE COUNTY IN THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $6.530.000 TO FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES (RESOLUTION #048- 06) - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this was a resolution for a total of$6,530,000. This amount is based on the estimated cash needed until November 2006 (the date of the next bond sale): - $830,000 is for the final borrowing of the 11 th elementary school. - $1,000,000 is for the reimbursement of expenditures to date and through May for the replacement Gainesboro school project. $4,7000.000 is for site development and construction of the replacement Gainesboro elementary school. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by V ice Chairman Ewing, the Board approved the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $6,530,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Frederick, Virginia to be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and Providing for the Form and Details Thereof. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow in an amount not to exceed $6,530,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on February 22, 2006 on the issuance of the bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested, by resolution, the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and has consented to the issuance of the Bonds. WHEREAS, the objective ofthe Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds, the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale ofVPSA's bonds. WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which circumstance the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds received by the County will be less than the amount set forth in paragraph] Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 345 below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: I. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby detem1ines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds of the County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $6,530,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the tem1S established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale ofthe Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price determined by the VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the Chairman ofthe Board, or either ofthem, and such officer or officers ofthe County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the fom1 on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved ("Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered fom1 in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2006" (or such other designation as the County Administrator may approve) shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning January 15,2007, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 ofthis Resolution. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request ofVPSA. 4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be no more than ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six percent (6%) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the aggregate principal amount ofthe Bonds and the amounts of principal of the Bonds coming due on each Principal Payment Date ("Principal Installments") established by VPSA, including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may be requested by VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity ofthe Bonds shall not be later than 21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Pavment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: (a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at or before II :00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the business Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regnlar Meeting of 02/22/06 346 day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption; (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and (c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15,2016, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15,2016 are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15,2016 and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15,2016 are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option ofthe County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15,2016 upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15,2016 to July 14,2017, inclusive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 15,2017 to July 14,2018, inclusive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ July 15,2018 and thereafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101% 100.5 100; Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is authorized to approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates set forth above, as may be requested by VPSA. 8. Execution ofthe Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk ofthe Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature ofthe Paying Agent. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate: Non-Arbitrage Certificate. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either ofthem and such officer or officers ofthe County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate, ifrequired by bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment ofthe proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions ofthe Intemal Revenue Codc of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on thc Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the Minute Book Nnmber 31 Board of Supervisors Regnlar Meeting of 02/22/06 347 issuance and sale ofthe Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Usc of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non-Arbitrage Program: Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests ofthe County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them and such officer or officers ofthe County as either ofthem may designatc, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds ofthe Bonds by and among the County, the othcr participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investmcnt manager, and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreemcnt. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with thc provisions ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and (ii) to make all filings required by Section 3 ofthe Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy ofthis Resolution to be filed with thc Circuit Court of the County. 14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman ofthe Board, and such other officers, employees and agents of the County as either ofthem may dcsignate are hereby authorized to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on February 22,2006, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hercby further certify that such meeting was a rcgularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members ofthc Board of Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) thc vote of each member, including any abstentions. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22106 348 PUBLIC HEARING - RED BUD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT- TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT CONTAINING 879.98 ACRES WITHIN 43 PARCELS. MANAGED BY 24 PROPERTY OWNERS. THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS LOCATED ALONG REDBUD ROAD (ROUTE 661). PINE ROAD (ROUTE 661) AND BURNT FACTORY ROAD (ROUTE 659). STRADDLING REDBUD RUN EAST OF INTERSTATE 81 AND NORTH OF BERRYVILLE PIKE (ROUTE 7). AN APPLICATION FOR THE CREATION OF THIS DISTRICT WAS SUBMITTED TO FREDERICK COUNTY ON OCTOBER 31. 2005 AND REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 15.2-4300 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. IN FREDERICK COUNTY. AN AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED FOR FIVE (5) YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THIS NEW DISTRICT. IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE DISTRICT EXPIRE MAY 1. 2010. TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER FREDERICK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT. LAND MAYBE REMOVED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT AT THE LANDOWNERS - DISCRETION WITH BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONSENT. WITHIN THE FIVE (5) YEAR PERIOD. THERE IS NO PENALTY FOR DOING SUCH AFTER FOLLOWING PROCEDURES SET OUT IN THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO ADD THEIR LAND PARCELS TO A DISTRICT SHOULD CONTACT THE FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. - POSTPONED FOR UP TO 60 DAYS Planner I Bernard Suchicital appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this proposed district is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District along Redbud Road (Route 661), Pine Road (Route 661), and Burnt Factory Road (Route 659), straddling Redbud Run east of Interstate 81 and north of Berry vi lIe Pike (Virginia Route 7). The properties are situated outside of both the Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area. The proposed district contains 879.98 acres comprised of 43 parcels, managed by 24 property owners. He went on to say that half of the property in the proposed district is developmentally sensitive. Both the Agricultural District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission recommended approval of this new district. He concluded by saying that the district will expire and renew on May 1,2010. Chairman Shickle asked if any of the petitioners wished to speak. Bernie Schwartzman, Redbud Road, encouraged the Board to approve the establishment of this Agricultural & Forestal District. Nancy Holbert, Stonewall District, requested the Board approve this request. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Trudi Dixon, Stonewall District, voiced her support for the proposed agricultural and forestal district. She stated that she was not a property owner, but was a resident of the proposed district. Gary Oates, Stonewall District, stated that he was not a petitioner, but he was a resident of Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 349 the district. His father was a petitioner. He stated that he would like to see the Board approve this request and anything short of approval would be disappointing. Dr. Wayne Seipel, Stonewall District, stated that he was owner of approximately 100 acres within the district. He stated the objcctive was to keep the land pristine and free from development. Penny Seipel, Stonewall District, advised that she and her husband had lived here for approximately 30 years and she expressed her love for thcir land. She hoped the Board would allow thcm to do what they saw tit. Michael Sidon, Shawnee District, spoke on behalfofhis father-in-law, who owned property in the proposed district. He stated that he would appreciate Board approval of this request. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Chairman Shickle advised the petitioners that he was supportive ofthe request; however, he beared the burden of where a road was to be located. He wanted to know how this road does or does not relate to this agricultural and forestal district. He asked the Board to delay action. Chairnlan Shickle reiterated his support for the district, but wanted to look at everything in order to not make a mistake; therefore, this delay should not be seen as a lack of support. Supervisor Dove agreed that he would like to see the agricultural district established, but thc Board needed to know about the road. Supervisor Van Osten commended Mr. Oates for initiation of this process. She also stated that she was unaware of the Chairman's thoughts. Supervisor DeHaven stated that if it was the desire of the Board then the Transportation Committee would move on this issue. He believed this proposal to be a win-win for the propeliy owners and the community. He concluded by saying that if there was a delay he hoped it would be for a short time. Supcrvisor Van Osten stated that she would support this district. Vice-Chairman Ewing stated that he supported the agricultural district, but had not thought about Routc 37 until tonight. Supervisor Lemieux stated that hc totally supported the agricultural and forestal district request. He went on to say that the Transportation Committee could tackle this quickly. Supervisor Fisher agreed with Supervisor Lemieux. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 350 Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board delayec this item for up to 60 days to allow it to be reviewed by the Transportation Committee. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNn CODE. CHAPTER 165 ZONING' ARTICLE X - BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAl ZONING DISTRICTS. SECTION 165-82 - DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS: A - B NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT ENABLING HEALTH CLUBS STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION CODE 7991 (SIC-7991t APPROVED Zoning Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board regarding this item. Ht advised that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee reviewed and discussec proposed changes to Section 165-82 (A) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The Zonin~ Ordinance does not currently allow health clubs to be located in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business Zoning District. The subcommittee felt health clubs should be an allowed use in the B-1 Zonin~ District and limited to 5,000 square feet to keep with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Tht Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommended the square footage be inereased from 5,000 to 10,000. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of tht proposed ordinance amendment at its February 1,2006 meeting. Chairman Shiekle eonvened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seeonded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the following amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinanee: 165-82 A (Permitted Uses in the B-1 District) SIC-7991- Health Clubs no larger than 10,000 sq. ft. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Miuute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 351 Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS. DISCUSSION OF ROUND HILL SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA) EXPANSION REOUEST - APPROVED SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA EXPANSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Susan Eddy appeared beforc the Board regarding this item. She stated this was a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to expand the Sewer and Water Service Area. The study of this proposal was initiated by the Board of Supervisors with a request to the Planning Commission to study the SWSA up to and adjacent to Poorhouse Road. The expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Arca boundary is a policy commitment, not an expansion of service. She went on to say that the entire area ofthe study is located in the Round Hill Land Use Plan. This land use plan calls for design standards, which, to date, have not been written. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority does not presently serve this area. Senior Planner Eddy advised that thc sewage for this area would ultimately be treated at the Parkins Mill Plant. The Parkins Mill Plant will be expanded in 2009 and the Opequon Plant will be expanded in 20 I O. She went on to say that there are currently capacity issues and Frederick County Sanitation Authority Director Wellington Jones recommends this expansion not occur. Senior Planner Eddy stated that upon further investigation, there appeared to be capacity to accommodate a minor SWSA expansion. This proposed expansion was studied by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee. The Committee recommended the SWSA boundary only be extended west to the VDOT site and include those parcels currently bi-sected by the SWSA boundary. The expansion would encompass an area of 33.5 acres. The Planning Commission agreed with the Committee's recommendation. She concluded by saying that staff is seeking Board direction regarding this request. Supervisor Van Osten asked about issues addressed in the e-mail received by the Board. Senior Planner Eddy read the e-mail from Wellington Jones: "This will confirm our conversation today. There is about 58,000 gallons of capacity remaining in the sewer pump station serving Route 50 West. This available capacity is sufficient to serve about 58 acres of land. This 58 acres does not include the WWW, LLC property (Wal-Mart), and the WMC property Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 352 (Marriott). It does include land fronting the south side ofRoutc 50 that is currently in the SWSA...." Supervisor V an Osten stated that she would like to see the Board send forward those properties identified in the agenda for immediate public hearing. She went on to say that she would like to see the line extcnded, but she was confused about how to reconcile the two outstanding issues: design standards and a development plan for the area and the capacity issues presented this evenmg. Supervisor Fisher stated that he would not be prepared to act on this item this evening, because the issues in the e-mail received by the Board are not clearly defined. He went on to say that the Parkins Mil1 plant would not be expanded until 2009 and it was unclear what the capacity is applicable to. Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney advised that discussions regarding capacity should not affect the proposed S WSA expansion because if capacity does not exist then the property cannot be developed.. He concluded by saying that the issue was relevant, but was not essential to putting a piece of property in the SWSA. Chairman Shickle stated that he stil1 sees no plan that corrects the problem the Board was trying to correct. Instead, he sees something too big or too little to solve the problem. Supervisor Dove stated that he had the same concern. He went on to say that he would like to give sewer to current citizens before bringing new houses on line. Supervisor DeHaven stated that the CPPS felt the recommendation addressed the concern regarding the bisected properties. The Committee discussed different schemes for getting the boundary near the two churches. Supervisor Van Osten thought the initial contact regarding this proposed expansion was by a property owner whose property was bisected by the current SWSA line. She felt the Board should at least move forward with that portion of the expansion, but would like to study the remainder of the land as soon as possible. Administrator Riley stated if the Board wants to extend the SWSA boundary to Poorhouse Road then the public hearing should include al1 properties. Planning Director Eric Lawrence stated if thc Board was inclined to take the SWSA boundary out to Poorhouse Road then staff could modify the language for the design corridor. He Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 353 went on to say that extension ofthe boundary was not a problem from the planning perspective, but the reality was who would pay for the sewer extension. He advised that the Board could also grant the right to extend water/sewer outside of the SWSA to the churches. Supervisor Dove moved to hold a public hearing on the expansion ofthe SWSA to include the south side of Route 50 including the Emmanuel Baptist Church property, but not those properties on the North side of Route 50, to also include the northernmost property line of Emmanuel Baptist Church to Poorhouse Road then south on Poorhouse Road to old Route 50 East to the existing SWSA line. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Van Osten. Supervisor Van Osten asked what the Board risked if the corridor design standards were not in place. Senior Planner Eddy responded that each rezoning would come in on its own merits and staff would use the corridor appearance as best they could. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he did not have a major concern but the Board should initiate corridor design standards and extend them to the new SWSA boundary. He went on to say that the only rezonings accommodated should be commercial until the Board wants to take a second look at the design standards. Supervisor Fisher stated that he was opposed to this expansion because the design standards should be looked at and he also had problems with running a sewer line down a major corridor but omitting properties on the north side of the route. Supervisor Lemieux thought the design standards were in place, but he felt there were capacity issues; therefore, he was not in favor of moving forward. He concluded by saying that he believed the area should be studied more. Supervisor DeHaven moved to amend the original motion to include the requirement to extend existing corridor design standards to coincide with the new SWSA line. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Van Osten. Supervisor DeHaven stated the design standards are those incorporated in the land use plan and attempted to be implemented. These include setback and buffering standards. He went on to say that if more study and clarification is needed he would like to see that happen. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 354 Supervisor Fisher asked how an applicant would be held to the design standards, until they are implemented. Director Lawrence stated that it would be up to the applicant to proffer them, if appropriate. Senior Planner Eddy read the language as stated in the Comprehensive Plan: "The plan recommends that standards also be developed that will minimize the visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor. This would involve standards for shared entrances, require a green space along Route 50 which might include a bike trail or walking trail, address screening of structures and parking areas, and their location in relation to Route 50 itself, control the size, number and location of signs, require underground utilities, and finally, set minimum standards for landscaping." Supervisor DeHaven stated that he would like to see staff further define those standards. There being no further discussion, the Board approved Supervisor DeHaven's motion to amend the original motion to include the requirement to extend existing corridor design standards to coincide with the new SWSA line, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Nay Philip A. Lemieux Nay Barbara E. Van Osten Aye The Board approved the amended motion to advertise the proposed expansion ofthe Sewer and Water Service Area for public hearing by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shiekle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Nay Philip A. Lemieux Nay Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Supervisor Van Osten moved to send the Route 50 West Corridor Design Standards to the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee for study and implementation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor DeHaven. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shieklc Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 355 Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye DISCUSSION RE: SUMMARY OF 1-81 TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT Transportation Planner John Bishop appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised that Staffhas reviewed the 1-81 Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which looked at the existing conditions, projected conditions through 2035, and the impacted environment in an effort to determine the most suitable improvements to the 1-81 corridor. Some ofthe improvements studied included: No build Transportation System Management (Safety improvements, enforcement, etc.) Rail Concepts Several different lane concepts, including the addition of one, two, or three lanes, uniform six lanes and uniform eight lanes Combination concepts (Roadway & Rail) Separated Lane Concepts Tolling The recommendations through the Frederick County area include adding two lanes in each direction from the southern border of the county to exit 310, one lane in each direction from exit 31 O-exit 313, and two lanes in each direction from cxit 313 to the WV state line. Points for Board consideration: 1. With regard to tolling, approximately 50% oftraffic would divert from 1-81 onto Route 11 in order to avoid the toll. Even with this toll diversion traffic on Route 11 there would be less traffic than under the "No-build" scenario; however, Route II would need improvements under either scenario. 2. There appears to be no consideration of the eastern section of the Route 37 loop as a potential outlet for local impacts. This roadway has the potential for reducing volumes on 1-81 through the area, particularly due to its planned connections with several major East/West Routes between Frederick County and the Northern Virginia area. 3. The recommendation of one lane in each direction from Exit 310 - Exit 313 is actually less than the planned improvements adopted as part of the 2030 Long Rand Plan, which calls for two collector distributor lanes (CD lanes) in each direction in this area. This is of conccrn for the following reasons: a. The Tier 1 EIS modeling uses 100th highest hour traffic, which should show higher traffic volumes than the peak hour traffic analysis used by the 2030 Long Range Plan effort. This would lead one to conclude that the Tier 1 ElS should call for more Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 356 improvements, not less. b. The same consultant completed the Tier I EIS and the 2030 Long Range Plan, which makes the different recommendations more interesting. He concluded by saying that no public meetings have been scheduled; however, he had draftcd a resolution for the Board's consideration. Chairman Shickle stated that he wished the Board was better prepared to be a stronger voice on such an issue. He asked that the Board take the draft resolution under advisement and compile additional information for inclusion in a final version. Transportation Planner Bishop advised that it would be better for the Board send only one resolution. Chairman Shickle advised that some version ofthe resolution should be carried by Frederick County to the public hearing. He instructed the Board to take the draft resolution under advisement with a final version to be submitted prior to the end of the public comment period. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he was fine with the Chairman's rccommendation. Supervisor Fisher stated that another issue to considcr was the use of Route 37 West as I-81 in order to tie up some areas in the northern part of the county. ROAD RESOLUTION (#049-06) - RAVEN WING, SECTION IV - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5A, 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 th i s request for addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Additions Fon11 SR-5(A) 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 Rcsident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. This item was approved undcr the consent agenda. Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06 357 BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board of Supervisors comments. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Vice Chairman Ewing complimented the Board for all of its work in coming up with an adequate budget this year without a tax increase. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR DEHAVEN, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:00 P.M.) Q ~O Q r 9- 0 Q ^--..) Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors JJ!l(1zt Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: l~t1. n L f... U ~'ay E. t~ Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 31 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/22/06