Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 26, 1997 Regular Meeting 184 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on February 26, 1997, at 7: 15 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Chairman James L. Longerbeam; Vice Chairman Richard C. Shickle; W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.; Robert M. Sager; and Margaret B. Douglas. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Board member, Robert M. Sager in absence of the scheduled minister. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the agenda was adopted as presented by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under the consent agenda: 1. Supplemental Appropriation for Center for Community Living: Community Development Block Grant Project - Tab D; 2. Road Resolution - Apple Ridge Subdivision - Tab J; 3. Parks and Recreation Commission Report - Tab K Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the consent agenda was approved as noted above by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Joan Kirsch, Back Creek District, explained that she was present at the meeting to :1 ii II 11185 I I express concern regarding the state of Robinson Elementary School. Parents have appeared before the school board with regard to this school as it is close to several industries, it is out dated, it has railroad tracks and a firehouse close by that frequently interrupt the classes. A report released from DEQ shows that a combination of sixteen toxins at this location. Students complain of headaches, sore throats, eye and nose irritation along with upset stomachs. According to a recent survey of the parents of the Robinson School children, seventy-five percent agreed that the school should be closed. No one other than those of the school administration feel this school should remain open. Ms. Kirsch urged the board of supervisors to close this school at the end of the school year and begin building another elementary school immediately. Dr. Barbara Perona, Back Creek District, basically stated same facts as Ms. Kirsch and requested Board to take action to close the school. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS W. WAYNE MILLER APPOINTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM GAINESBORO DISTRICT Upon motion made by Richard C. Shickle, seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., W. Wayne Miller was appointed to the planning commission from Gainesboro District. This term will begin on February 26, 1997 and expire on February 26, 2001. This is a four year appointment. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye RICHARD A. RUCKMAN REAPPOINTED TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS FROM STONEWALL DISTRICT Upon motion made by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, Richard A. Ruckman was reappointed to the Board of Building Appeals from Stonewall District. This term will begin on April 8, 1997 and expire on April 8, 2002. This is a five year appointment. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye 186 Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye KIMBERLY GORE REAPPOINTED TO GYPSY MOTH COMMITTEE FROM OPEOUON DISTRICT Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., Kimberly Gore was reappointed to the Gypsy Moth Committee. This term will begin on April 28, 1997 and expire on April 28, 2001. This is a four year appointment. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye RICHARD OURS REAPPOINTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM OPEOUON DISTRICT Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., Richard Ours was reappointed to the planning commission from Opequon District. This,term will begin April 7, 1997 and expire on April 7, 2001. This is a four year appointment. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye YOUTH APPRECIATION PROCLAMATION (#002-97) - APPROVED Mr. Dick Crane of the Optimist Club, was present to present this proclamation to the Board. WHEREAS, April 12, 1997, has been designated by the Optimist Club of Winchester as Youth Appreciation Day; and WHEREAS, the development of our youth of today will build the leadership of tomorrow; and WHEREAS, the vast majority of our youth provide services to the betterment of our community through participation and leadership in a variety of school, community, and religious activities; and WHEREAS, the Optimist Club of Winchester is bringing these achievements and deeds to the attention of others; and WHEREAS,Y outh Appreciation Day provides us with an excellent opportunity to recognize these dedicated youths and thank them for their endeavors; -fi-- ,I II II II I I 187 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors proclaims Saturday, April 12, 1997, as Optimist Youth Appreciation Day in Frederick County, Virginia, and calls this observance to the attention of all our citizens; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that by this action, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors publicly expresses its confidence in the ability of today's youth as they assume responsible roles in the future of humankind. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above proclamation was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye TONY COOGAN ADDRESSES BOARD RE: THE SHENANDOAH RAIL INITIATIVE - THIS REOUEST WILL BE REFERRED TO COUNTY FINANCE COMMITTEE ONCE COMMITMENT IS RECEIVED FROM OTHER LOCALITIES Mr. Tony Coogan appeared before the Board and explained the Shenandoah Rail Initiative and asked the Board to consider a donation toward this project in the amount of $10,000. Mr. Coogan further explained that in 1993 a group of citizens concerned with saving the Shenandoah Valley proposed a plan that would bring back to life a form of transportation long forgotten. The Shenandoah Rail initiative (SRI) was formed to bring steam railroading back to the valley. He stated that he would asked the Board to consider a donation of $10,000 and perhaps this could be done in a partnership with the City of Winchester. Mr. Shickle asked if Frederick County gave $10,000 would that mean this train would in fact come to Frederick County. Mr. Coogan replied that he would hesitate to make that commitment as that would hinge on CSx. Mr. Longerbeam asked if this should not go to the county planning department for their review and recommendation back to the Board. He further asked Mr. Coogan ifISTEA funds were not made available, what his plans were. Mr. Coogan replied that they plan to look further. Following further Board discussion Mr. Shickle made the motion, and Mr. Sager seconded, that this would be referred to the county Finance Committee when and if a commitment is made from The above motion w ley, as noted by Mr. Coogan, as having shown interest in this project. as approved by the following recorded vote: -Aye Jr. - Aye -Aye ye Aye Sr. - Aye - PARTMENT REOUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $300.000 FOR CENTER FOR IVING: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT OVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA ICA TIONS SERVICES AGREEMENT - APPROVED this agreement to the Board. ked Mr. Sager to include the City of Winchester during the interview irector of the Communications Center and that they also be included in sign of the building. hat this is a better agreement, in his judgement, and he can support it; supported the agreement presented prior to this one. by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Richard C. Shickle the Joint t was approved as presented by the following recorded vote: -Aye h, Jr. - Aye s - Aye ye Aye , Sr. - Aye MISSION BUSINESS G ITEMS: - AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. NING: ARTICLE IV. SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS: FF-STREET PARKING: PARKING LOTS. AND SECTION 165- RESIDENCES. ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITIES. AND OR NURSING HOMES: ARTICLE VI. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: SECTION 165-60. CONDITIONAL USES: ARTICLE D INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. SECTION 165-82B. B-2 RAL DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS: AND ARTICLE XXI. - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL ALLOW ADULT CA~ ND ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITIES IN THE RP. ERFORMANCE DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL 'USE THE B-2. BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT AS A BY-RIGHT LISHED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ADULT CARE 188 other localities within the val James L. Longerbeam W. Harrington Smith, Margaret B. Douglas Robert M. Sager - A Richard C. Shickle- Charles W. Orndoff, PLANNING DE APPROPRIATION COMMUNITY L PROJECT - APPR JOINT COMMUN Mr. Riley presented Mr. Longerbeam as process for the position ofD the planning stage for the de Mr. Shickle stated t however he could not have Upon motion made Communications Agreemen James L. Longerbeam W. Harrington Smit Margaret B. Dougla Robert M. Sager - A Richard C. Shickle - Charles W. Orndoff. PLANNING COM PUBLIC HEARIN PUBLIC HEARING CHAPTER 165. ZO SECTION 165-27.0 48.5. ADULT CARE CONVALESCENT PERFORMANCE X. BUSINESS AN BUSINESS GENE DEFINITIONS. THE RESIDENCES A RESIDENTIAL P PERMIT AND IN USE. AND ESTAB il 1189 RESIDENCES. ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITIES. AND CONVALESCENT OR NURSING HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE B-2. BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Evan Wyatt, deputy planning director, presented this code amendment to the Board. Mr. Ralph Simmons, resident of Shawnee District and spokes person for the group that opposed the Rose Memorial Center for Community Living that is planned for their neighborhood, appeared before the Board and asked if in light of this amendment would the Board need to amend their earlier action when they approved the Rose Memorial request. Mr. Tierney responded that the Rose Memorial request has nothing to do with this amendment request. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the following code amendment was approved as presented by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165. ZONING WHEREAS. an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-27, Off-street Parking, Parking Lots; and Section 165-48.5, Adult Care Residences, Assisted Living Care Facilities, and Convalescent or Nursing Homes; Article VI, Residential Performance District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses; Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82B, B-2 Business General District Use Regulations; and Article XXI, Definitions, of the Frederick County Code, was referred to the Planning Commission on January 15, 1997; and WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on February 5, 1997; and WHEREAS. the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on February 26, 1997; and WHEREAS. the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED. by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-27, Off-street Parking, Parking Lots; and Section 165-48.5, Adult Care Residences, Assisted Living Care Facilities, and Convalescent or Nursing Homes; Article VI, Residential Performance District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses; Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82B, B-2 Business General District Use Regulations; and Article XXI, Definitions, of the Frederick County Code, is amended as described on the following attachment: 190 This ordinance shall be effect on the date of adoption. ARTICLE IV Supplementary Use Regulations 165-27. OfT-street parking; parking lots. A. Required parking spaces. (1) Parking lots shall meet the requirements specified in Section 165-27 of this Chapter. The number of required parking spaces shall be based on a calculation of one (1) space per four (4) beds plus one (1) space per employee on the primary shift. 165-48.5 Adult care residences. assisted living care facilities. and convalescent or Buning homes. Adult care residences, assisted living care facilities, and convalescent or nursing homes located in the B2, Business General, District shall meet the following requirements: A. Thirty percent (30%) of the total acreage of the site utilized for adult care residences and assisted living care facilities shall remain in green space. Areas designated for buffers and screening and stormwater management facilities that are required to serve this use may be included in this percentage. B. Road efficiency buffers as specified in Section 165-37E of this Chat>ter shall be met. ARTICLE VI RP Residential Performance District 165-60. Conditional uses. A. Convalescent and nursing homes, and adult care residences and assisted living care facilities. ARTICLE X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts 165-82B. B2 Business General District use regulations. S!Q Allowed Uses Adult care residences and assisted living care facilities ARTICLE XXI Definitions 165-145. Definitions and word usage. Adult Care Residences and Assisted Living Care Facilities - any place, establishment, or institution, public or private, operated or maintained for the maintenance or care of four or more adults who are aged, infirm, or disabled and who are cared for in a primarily residential setting, except (1) a facility or portion of a facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, and (ii) the home or residence of an individual who cares for or maintains only persons related to him by blood or marriage, and (iii) a facility or portion of a facility serving infirm or disabled persons between the ages of 18 and 21. PUBLIC HEARING - AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING: ARTICLE VI. RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT: SECTION 165 E. SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ELIMINATES LANGUAGE PROHffiITING WINDOWS ON THE ZERO LOT LINE SIDE AS A ZONING REOUlREMENT - APPROVED " ii ,I 'I 1191 Mr. Evan Wyatt presented this amendment request to the Board. There was no public input. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the following ordinance amendment was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article VI, Section 165-27, Off-street Parking; Parking Lots, and Residential Performance District, Section 165-65E, Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line, of the Frederick County Code, was referred to the Planning Commission on January 15, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on February 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on February 26, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article VI, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-27, Off-street Parking; Parking Lots, and Residential Performance District, Section 165- 65E, Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line, of the Frederick County Code, is amended as described on the following attachment: This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. ARTICLE VI RP Residential Performance District 165-65E. Single-family detached zero lot line. A single-family detached zero lot line residence shall be a single-family residence on an individual lot. The building is set on one (1 ) of the side property lines, with a maintenance easement on the adjoining lot. · Note. The following sentence has been eliminated: Windows are prohibited on the lot line side. End of Public Hearing Items. ANDREW EVANS APPOINTED AS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND SUBDMSION ADMINISTRATOR EFFECTIVE MARCH 1. 1997 Mr. Riley introduced Andrew Evans to the Board. 192 Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle Andrew Evans was appointed as zoning administrator as well as subdivision administrator. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye WARRIOR DRIVE REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM RESOLUTION (#019-97) - APPROVED Mr. Evan Wyatt presented this request to the Board. Mr. Smith asked if this would be all the way to old Route 642. Mr. Wyatt replied yes. Mr. Shickle stated no monies until after June 1997. Mr. Wyatt replied that is correct. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the following resolution was approved: The above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR WARRIOR DRIVE WHEREAS, the County of Frederick desires to submit an application for the improvement and expansion ofWanior Drive through the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program; and WHEREAS, the improvement and expansion ofWanior Drive between Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Tasker Dive (Route 642) will establish a north-south major collector roadway which will alleviate traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service at the Interstate 81, Fairfax Pike and Aylor Road (Route 647) interchange area; and WHEREAS, the County of Frederick is willing to enter into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation, in which the County of Frederick would provide the funds necessary to expedite the design and construct Warrior Drive and the Virginia Department of Transportation would reimburse 50% of this cost through a continued annual allocation of funds through the Revenue Sharing Program. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors II I 193 supports the application to improve and expand Warrior Drive through the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program. ROAD RESOLUTION FOR PRIMROSE PLACE. APPLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION. ACCEPTED INTO SECONDARY SYSTEM - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on January 21, 1997. Members present were: Robert Roper, Robert Hartman, Charles Sandy, Timothy Hockman, Stephen Spitzer, Cheryl Swartz, and Margaret Douglas. The following was submitted for the boards information only: 1. Election of Officers The Commission unanimously elected Mr. Robert Roper as chairman and Mr. Charles Sandy as vice-chairman (4-0). 2. Meetim! Date and Time Mr. Spitzer moved the Commission meet the third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Sandy moved to reserve the Board of Supervisors Room at 107 N. Kent Street and the Executive Session Room, carried unanimously (5- 0). Mr. Doran will report on availability of both rooms at the February meeting. 3. Policv (Collection of Delinauent Fees) Mr. Hartman moved to adopt the policy on Collection of Delinquent Fees, seconded by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously (5-0). LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS COMMITTEE The Law Enforcement and Courts Committee met on Tuesday, February 11, 997, 8:30 a.m. in the conference area of the County Administrators Office, 107 North Kent Street, Third Floor, Winchester, Virginia. Present were Chairman of the Committee Robert M. Sager and committee members Margaret B. Douglas, James L. Hockman, Vickie Wilkins, and Donald S. Jackson. Also present were Sheriff Robert T. Williamson, Major Alvin Johnson of the Sheriffs Department, County Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi, and County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. Committee member Larry P. Coverstone was absent. The committee submits the following: Mr. Sager presented this report to the Board. 1. Discussion ofProoosed FY 1997-1998 Sherifrs Deoartment Bud2et - Acceoted as Presented Emphasis this year is upgrade of computer system and attempting to keep pace with increasing calls for service. The supplemental budget includes a request for an additional six positions (five deputies and one clerk/administrative assistant for the Northwest Regional Drug Task Force). The committee recommends approval of the budget. Mr. Sager moved for approval, Mrs. Douglas seconded. Mr. Shickle asked for clarification. Is the Board approving the Sheriff's Department budget. 194 Following discussion it was the Board's consensus that they were not in fact approving the Sheriffs budget only accepting what was being presented. The above motion to only accept the budget as presented was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 2. Commonwealth's Attornev Reauest for Additional Position - Approved and Letter Sent to Finance Committee The Commonwealths Attorney indicated that due to the staff increases in law enforcement and additional requirements and caseloads in the courts, additional attorney positions and support staffpositions are necessary. Coupled with the fact that there is no office space available to expand operations, the Commonwealth's Attorney felt it appropriate to advise the committee of this pending dilemma. Mr. Ambrogi explained that his secretaries are the ones mostly affected by this. Mr. Longerbeam asked Mr. Ambrogi to send letter directly to Finance Committee. Upon motion by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye FINANCE COMMITTEE The Finance Committee met in the County Administration conference area at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, February 19, 1997, at 8:00 a.m. Committee members Anita L. Shull and Nicholas 1. Nerangis were not present. The agenda items are as follows: 1. The Personnel Director Reauests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $4.000 - Approved This amount is needed to cover advertising expenses for vacant positions. Additionallocal funds are necessary. See attached memo, p. 1. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 2. The Sheriff Reauests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $2,181.12 - Approved This amount represents an insurance reimbursement for a vehicle accident that occurred on December 4, 1996. This amount is requested to be placed in line item 3102-3004-000-002 Repair and Maintenance - Vehicle. No additional local funds are needed. See attached copy, p. 2. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 3. The Public Works Director Requests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of$I,614 - Approved This amount is needed to purchase pagers for the building inspectors as a way to improve communications. Additional local funds are necessary. See attached memo, p. 3-10. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 4. The Department of Planninl! and Development Requests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation to Fund Phase II of the Frederick County GIS Prol!ram - Approved The Finance Committee may choose one of three options: Option 1 costs $28,307; Option 2 costs $26,807; and Option 3 costs $20,000. Additional local funds are necessary. See attached memo, p. 11-24. The committee recommended that the Data Processing Department include this expense in their FY 98 budget request. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye I' I 195 196 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 5. The Deoartment of Planninl! and Develooment Reauests a General Fund Suoolemental Aoorooriation in the Amount of $9.900 - ADD roved This amount is needed to upgrade the audio visual equipment to be used in the new board room. Additional local funds are necessary. See attached memo, p. 25-26. The committee recommended that the Planning Department include this expense in their FY 98 budget request. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 6. The School Finance Director Reauests a School Ooeratinl! Budl!et Adiustment in the Amount of $1.350.000 - Aooroved In Part This is needed to record the anticipated bond receipts and to pay expenses on the James Wood High School AtWetic Fields project. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 27. The committee recommends approval. It is undecided whether to do a bond issue for this project or to fund it out of fund balance. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved in part as follows: Contracted Services - $1,258,000.00 Equipment - 92,000.00 - TABLED The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 7. The Manal!er of the Shawneeland Sanitary District Reauests Various Budl!et Transfers Totalinl! $16.950 - Aooroved These transfers are needed to balance several line items that are operating in a deficit. No additional local funds are needed. See attached copies, p. 28-30. The committee recommended that this request be sent to the Public Works Committee for review. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: -~--~ !! If II 11197 James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shiclde - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 8. The Re2ional Jail Reouests a Re2ional Jail Bud2et Transfer in the Amount of $8.247.37 - Approved This transfer is needed to cover the purchase of equipment approved by the Compensation Board. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 31-32. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shiclde - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 9. The Re2ional Jail Reouests a Re2ional Jail Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount 0($17.908.75 - Approved This amount represents unexpended grant funds received in prior fiscal years that need to be remitted back to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This amount is currently in the Regional Jail Fund Balance. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memos, p. 33-36. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shiclde - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 10. The Director of Court Services Reouests a Court Services Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $15.488.70 - Approved This amount represents unexpended grant funds received in FY 96 that need to be remitted back to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This amount is currently in the Court Services Fund Balance. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 37-39. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye 198 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 11. The Finance Committee Recommended Transferrin2 Excess Insurance Reserves of $362.465.92 to the Unreserved Fund Balance - Approved This will reduce health insurance reserves for the schools to $500,000. See attached memo, p.40. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sf. - Aye The following items were discussed and submitted for the boards information only: 1. John Riley presented a preliminary budget and possible funding for the school system. See attached calculations, p. 41-44. Further discussions will take place. 2. The Finance Director reviewed the monthly financial reports for month ending December 31, 1996. See attached memo, p. 45-47. 3. Attached is. a list of questions given to the School Board from Finance Committee members with responses. These questions were not discussed today but will be discussed next meeting. See attached list, p. 48-56. Mr. Riley appeared before the Board at which time he reviewed the budget worksheet as prepared by the Finance Department. He stated that the county currently has general fund revenues of approximately 53.8 million dollars, fund balance funding is roughly 1 million dollars which includes the Economic Development Incentive Fund of$500,000, an operating contingency fund of $200,000 and the purchase offixed assets in the '98 budget. With the assumption that the Board could possibly fund the technology funding in the schools from fund balance at $1.6 million, and funding the purchase of additional school buses of approximately 1 million dollars. Mr. Shickle stated that he did not see Capitol Assets on the worksheet, and asked if that meant the technology and the buses. Mr. Riley replied yes. Mr. Riley stated that under General Fund Expenditures the county anticipates expenditures of approximately $22.9 million, transfers to the school debt service of $6.4 million which includes a Ii Ii 199 local increase of $826,000 in debt service for the coming FY '98 year that would be going to the school system. Transfer to the school operating budget of approximately 25.3 million and that reflects an increase of approximately $900,000 in additional local dollars. Mr. Riley explained this is just a suggestion from staff at this point as to how this money might be advanced. This would leave fund balance reduced by approximately 3.6 million to a total of9.5 million at this point based on current suggestions. This is an overview of each departmental budget and what the increased cost in those budgets are for next year. The Finance Committee is recommending that two of the six new positions requested by the Sheriff's Department be funded . He further explained that the school system is expecting approximately 1.9 million dollars in revenue from the state, not sure if that includes information that was provided this date with regard to a 4% pay increase for teachers. This is midyear, so he is assuming that the school board will give a 4% raise, but it will only cost them 2%. This brings the question as to whether the funding is going to be there to pick it up in the out years, that is just one of the questions that the Board probably needs to ask. Mr. Longerbeam stated if that is correct it will put the teachers at a 6.88% pay increase. Mr. Riley explained that he felt the Board needed to look at the commitment, which is approximately 2 million dollars that is being requested for an approximate 4.88 % increase, how much of the state revenue can be applied to this, which in turn would reduce the local commitment he feels this is a better way to look at it. Mr. Orndoff asked Mr. Riley if the cuts are reflected in the information that has been presented to the Board at this meeting. Mr. Riley replied yes. He further explained that there are some additions, one being the two positions in the Sheriff's Department, as well as an Assistant County Administrator position within his budget. He further explained that the cuts have been prioritized as well as the supplemental appropriations that were requested, but not funded. Mr. Longerbeam stated that he felt this whole process was getting much better and it makes so much sense. Mr. Sager stated that he was looking for the $300,000 for the 7.5 cent decrease in Personal Property Tax. Mr. Riley explained that when you look at General Fund Revenue and there is an A after that 1200 this includes reassessment increase and also includes a 5 cent reduction in Personal Property tax rate. Mr. Sager replied 5 cents. Mr. Riley replied it is a start. Mr. Sager stated that we can always work up from that. Mr. Smith stated that we can always cut some place else to do it. Mr. Smith further stated that he agreed with the Chairman, and it was not the $35,000 inasmuch as it was the way it was handled that upset him also. Mr. Longerbeam: You have a question for Mr. Riley? Mr. Shickle: Yes, some clarifications. Now, if I wanted to know what the increase in school funding from local dollars, would I add the one point or 1609 million, the million twenty six and the eight hundred and twenty six thousand and nine hundred thousand together? Mr. Riley: Yes, sir. Mr. Shickle: And that would be under, and may I call this an interim suggestion? Mr. Riley: Yes, sir. Mr. Shickle: Okay, so if! add those four numbers together and get about four point four million, that this suggestion calls for an increase in local funding for schools? Mr. Riley: Yes, sir. Mr. Shickle: What's not clear to me from looking at this is, what is the increase in general government spending, that's not clear to me. Could we get that number? Mr. Riley: Yes, sir, I'll get it to you. Mr. Shickle: The final question I guess I have to ask is, the revenue here, if! remember, the finance committee, we plan to advertise an increase, even though we think the reassessment will hover around the one percent, to be on the safe side to put it bluntly, we're going to advertise an increase. Mr. Riley: Yes, sir. Mr. Shickle: I guess I'd like to throw it out before the rest of the Board that we do something to negate that possibility of even advertising for an increase, if it's a one percent reduction in the real estate taxes, so that we do not, in fact, advertise a real estate tax increase. I believe a one percent reduction in real estate rate would do that. I'd rather go that way than advertise an increase that may 1\ , I I 201 not even be there. Mr. Smith: I agree with you, Mr. Shickle. Approximately what would one percent amount to? Mr. Riley: It's about a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Smith: Quarter of a million, okay, thank you I agree with you. Mr. Shickle: I don't think it is our intent to raise the real estate taxes, but to be conservative ifwe're going to advertise it like we are and I guess I'd rather go in the other direction and find a way to say we're not raising the real estate tax. Mr. Riley: We'll work on that. Mr. Shickle: Is that possible? Mr. Riley: We'll do our best.. Mr. Shickle: But I'm not really trying to affect your projections here, your revenue stream significantly. Mr. Riley: Okay. Mr. Longerbeam: Well, actually, basically there is not going to be, the tax rate is not going to be impacted by, even if we include the estimated half a million dollars, it has no affect on the tax rate... Mr. Riley: That is correct. Mr. Longerbeam: ...it's just the difference in the assessment, the value of the assessment. Mr. Shickle: Prior to the Board, I read a lot of news captions, though, that indicated the way that people treated reassessments that didn't raise the tax rate, but generated more taxes, as tax increases. I just want to say, I'm not wanting to raise the real estate rate and I'm wanting to do anything that can be done to make that very clear, so, enough said. Mr. Longerbeam: Okay. Mr. Orndoff? Mr. Orndoff: Mr. Chairman. In one sense, though, I've heard a good many people say, their rates or reassessment has gone up a hundred percent, or two hundred percent, some of it on certain parcels. So, actually, if you leave the rate the same, their taxes, as an individual, maybe over the County as a whole, maybe it didn't increase more than one percent, but certain parcels probably did .202 increase, so that would be a tax increase. Mr. Shickle: But it's neutral, somebody else's went down and somebody else's went up. Mr. Orndoff: Yes, but... Mr. Shickle: ...it's always going to happen... Mr. Orndoff: ...yes, it's going to happen. Mr. Smith: Did they go to the Board of Assessors... Mr. Orndoff: I can't answer that, Mr. Chairman, I mean, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith:...or make an appointment with the Board of Equalization? Mr. Orndoff: I told them to, but whether they did or didn't I don't know. Mr. Longerbeam: That process is about over now. It is over now. Mr. Riley: The Board of Equalization, I don't know if they have any more meetings scheduled. Mr. Longerbeam: I don't think that they do. But anyway, basically, what I want to make to the citizens is, is that there's no increase in the tax rate. The tax rate is going to be the same. There may be some adjustment up or down, based upon the reassessment. Mr. Riley: Right Mr. Sager: You're speaking of real estate. Mr. Longerbeam: Of real estate. Mr. Sager: Thank you, exactly. Mr. Shickle: And if you were to accept my recommendation, you would not advertise it, as we were about to, as.a tax increase, though. That's the point I want to make. That's the road we were going to attempt. Mr. Riley: Right, we're going attempt to adjust the revenue, so that it is within the one percent. Mr. Shickle: We, in fact, would not advertise as if it was. Mr. Riley: Right. Mr. Longerbeam: It would only be part of the anticipated income, right? Anticipated revenue? Mr. Longerbeam: Like that varies every year. I Ii Ii 203 I Mr. Orndoff: Mr. Chairman, another question for John. A five cent reduction on personal property. How much revenue did lose? The County. Mr. Riley: If you take a cent at forty thousand, you can, greater decrease in revenue that way, which would probably equate it to what, about seven cents? Right. But, we did five cents. Mr. Orndoff: Over the County at personal property, how many dollars does that amount to? Mr. Riley: Two hundred thousand. Mr. Orndoff: Just two hundred thousand. Mr. Riley: Right. Mr. Sager: Three hundred thousand, a little over three hundred thousand is seven point five, right? Mr. Riley: Right. Mr. Smith: Twenty five cents would be a million. Mr. Longerbeam: Well, and you could throw all ofthese numbers out and the reason that I am fairly comfortable with just five cent reduction is simply because, I think this year they just sort of put up a trial balloon on the personal property tax and obviously nobody, Republican or Democrat who's anticipating running for Governor this year, wanted to get too far along in that process, so I think, next year that there will be an honest look at this in the General Assembly and it might be that whatever we do just becomes a moot point. So, rm very comfortable with the five cent reduction and in the out years, if we can do some more, than we should. But I think the State is going to do something with it. Mr. Riley: My reason in being before you tonight, Mr. Chairman, is to try and make this process as user fiiendly for the Board as I can. The staff is willing to answer any questions that you may have. Up through and past the public hearing on the budget, but I just want to let you know that we are trying to make this as easy as possible for the Board members to understand, so they can communicate with their constituents. Mr. Shickle: What amount of direction did you need tonight that would be very progressive in the budget process? Mr. Riley: If there are areas that you might consider to have us take a look at on further reduction or areas that you might think we can enhance revenue on, to try and come up with more .204 revenue, but I think we need to be thinking hard about the position that we need to take with the School board, when we meet with them on the sixth, because the process needs to come to closure shortly after that, because we've got to advertise the budget for the public hearing on the twenty sixth of March. Mr. Shickle: All right. Reconcile for me what is here versus what has been asked for from the school. Mr. Riley: The schools have asked for local funding of approximately 4.5 million dollars, in local funding. Mr. Shickle: So, ifI read this right, this is only 200,000 less than that? Mr. Riley: Well, I think you need to understand that the million six for technology funding... Mr. Shickle: Oh, yes, yes. Mr. Riley: ...and the million are one time sources of funding, so if the school system were looking at that, that's about a two million dollar cut in what they're requesting for in four and a half million dollars. Mr. Shickle: I guess in their request a million six actually was five hundred and some? Mr. Riley: Right. Mr. Shickle: Okay, so five hundred and the one two, is it a million three off of what was requested of us? Mr. Riley: Approximately, yes, sir. Mr. Shickle: But, it is a four point, almost four point four increase in local dollars and you identified a one point nine increase in State monies and so, if those two numbers together, under this interim suggestion, that's a six point two million dollars of additional money? Mr. Riley: Correct, correct. Mr. Shickle: Okay and they want, the request that's before us from them is one point three or about, in excess of that? Mr. Riley: Right. Mr. Shickle: Okay. Mr. Longerbeam: This is a, looking at it for as long as I'm sure most of us have here, we're getting fairly close to the equitable position, I believe, with the school system in this budget and I'm sure that they'll make some arguments counter to that, but I think that we're pretty close to that and I think that there'll probably be some other discussions about how some of this money is allocated, once we sit down with the School Board. Mr. Riley: Correct. Mr. Shickle: One final question. Your footnote B? Have we been given that detail? Mr. Riley: You have. Mr. Shickle: Okay, I just need to search through my many papers. Mr. Riley: Right. It would look similar type to this and it is a one sheet summary and I believe I handed it to everyone at the Wednesday, first Wednesday Board meeting as a snapshot of the County side of the budget. Mr. Shickle: Ifwe're getting close to the end of comments, I'd like to thank you for the work you've done on this. Appreciate it. Mr. Riley: Well, my thanks goes to our Finance staff that puts the numbers together for us and turns it around quickly, it's been a big help. Mr. Sager: It gives us a lot more clarity than what we had before. Mr. Riley: Well, that's what we're here for and I know the staff has been criticized in the past for not making sure all six Board members are on the same page and that's what we want to try and do this year. To make sure everybody... Mr. Longerbeam: Let me also thank you for that and just comment on how difficult that really is, because I mean, I find myself all the time not communicating with the other Board members on a lot of things that I know in retrospect I should have talked to them about, but haven't. So, it is difficult, but this one I think, I mean, you've been right on target with this, through the entire process and I'd also like to thank Chery~ because I think the information that we're getting is a lot more useable than it used to be. Mr. Riley: Well, they're turning it around very quickly. Thank you. Mr. Longerbeam: Thank You. Okay, anything else that's come before us? Any Board of Supervisor member have any comments they would like to make? Mr. Smith: I move we adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shickle: Just one second. 206 Mr. Longerbeam: Mr. Shickle? Mr. Shickle: Things are warming up when it comes to Frederick-Winchester Service Authority and water and sewer and if the other Board members have feeling about that particular topic, if they would avail me of their knowledge, I would appreciate it. Mr. Longerbeam: I think: that's if you're not up to speed on that and some of the discussions that have taken place recently, I think: that you probably, we probably neea to do that, and as Mr. Shickle says, get your feelings to him, because it's a vital, it's a vital county matter. Mr. Shickle: And the one comment I would make to you is, as I made the comment at the meeting that I really didn't think: we'd be able to get the job done that we need to get done, until there was equal representation, but I was willing to support some, something close to equality, if we're truly going to have a regional authority and a regional presence. I have serious doubts that we can get to where we need to do without equal representation, but I make to you the same statements I made today. Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Longerbeam: Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: Adding to that. Being liaison to the Sanitation Authority, Dr. Cleland and Wendy Jones keep me pretty well up to speed on what's going on with the Service Authority. Mr. Longerbeam: That's fine, Anything else? Mr. Sager: Let's go home. Mr. Longerbeam: Motion to adjourn. I'm sorry? Mr. Orndoff: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I'm getting the information on that. Mr. Longerbeam: On the? Mr. Orndoff: The Sanitation Authority, what's going on there, at all. Mr. Longerbeam: Okay. You want the Sanitation Authority or Service Authority? Mr. Orndoff: Service Authority. What's going on in the... Mr. Shickle: Well, basically, there's an expansion of the plant that has been studied for a long time and it got to the point where it was necessary to turn the architects lose on that design. Some of the, most of the members felt like the capacity that that expansion generated needed to be decided who it belonged to and if it belonged to one party and another party wanted it, how it could be 207 exchanged. Unfortunately, in our meeting the other night, those issues we were unable to resolve them totally and we went ahead with the hiring of the architect to design the expansion, anyway. Mr. Orndoff: Yes, I heard that on the news, that part. Mr. Shickle: So, those questions are still out there and they inevitably get around to representation, which reasonableness would say that representation should be somewhat similar to distribution of capacity to funding sources. That's an oversimplified version. Mr. Longerbeam: Okay, thank you, Mr. Shickle. Anything else? Move to adjourn? UPON MOTION MADE BY ROBERT M. SAGER SECONDED BY W. HARRINGTON SMITH, JR., mERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE mIS BOARD, mIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. /7~~ ~ JO~~~vRiley, Jr. Clerk. Board of Supervisors Ie.