02-14-1989 MinutesBOARD OF MIH~EHVI$OH~
Supervisors in Attendan~d:
Mr. G. H. Agpl~gate, Chairman
Mr. C. F. Coffin, Jr., Vice Chairmen
NF. Harry G. Daniel
Mr. Jesse J. ~ayes
Mr. M. B. Sullivan
Nr. Lane B. Ram~ey
County Administrator
School Board H~mber~ in Attendee:
Mrs. ~aria Keritsis, Chairman
Mr. Jeffrey S. Cribb~, Vi~o Chair~a~
Mr. Griffin R. Burton
Mrs. J~an P. Copelend
Mr. willia~ H. Goodwyn
Dr. E. E. Davis
School Superintendent
Staff in Att~n(L~noe~
M~. ~my Davis, Exec.
A~st. to Co. Admin.
~s. Joan S. Doleza!,
Clerk to the Board
~r. Thomas ~. Jacebson,
Dir. of Planning
~r. Robert Masden,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Human £er~ices
Mr. Steve Micas~ Co.
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of ~ews/~nfo.
Service~
~r. Rickard Sale,
Deputy Cc. ~dmin.,
Development
Mr. Jay Stegmaier,
Dir. ef Budget
1. CA/J~ TO ORDER
Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at
the Administration ~uilding Conference Beam (Room 502).
{EST) in
2. I~ESOS~TION P~GA~DINC
Mr. Micas ~plained that recently a lawsuit was filed agains=
the Board of ~upervisors te cempel the Circuit Court to appoint
a tie breaker. M~ stated at its January 1], I9~9 organiza-
tional mc~tlng, the Board considered the procedures ~overning
the eonduct of its meetings and work sessions during the 19~9
calendar year, the effect of tie votes and whether of not tc
have a ti~ breaker and chose, unan£monsiy~ not to have a
breaker. He stated adoption of the proposed resolution is for
the purpose cf reaffirming the Board's decision not to appoint
a tie breaker.
Mr. Currin stated he was under the impression the matter
not voted on and questioDed the unaminity of ~he vote. Mr.
Micas stated the Rules of Procedure were adopted by a unanimou~
5card vote, which included in Section 4, paragraph 4, the
mat=er of tie votes.
On motion cf Mr. B~llivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WR~A$, {t its organizational meeting on January 11~
1989, th~ Beard of S~ervisors adopted procedureE governiDg the
conduct of its meetings and work sessions during the 1989
calendar year; and
W~Elt~AS, in conn~ctlon with ~he a~option o~ ~uuh
procedures, ~he Board considered the effect of ~ie vote~ and
~hethcr or not to have a tie breaker ~n~ chose not to have a
tie breaker.
NOW, T~K~FQ~, BE IT RES0L~D, tha~ the Chesterfield
County Board of SuperviEor~ h~reby reaffirms ~ha: it~ January
11, 1989 decision was not to have a tie breaker.
89-109
3. JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD
Mrs. Keritsis expressed appreciation for the opportunity to
meet with the Board of Supervisors as communication is vital to
the cooperative spirit of the members of both Boards for the
betterment of the entire County.
Mr. Sullivan stated he wished the record to reflect that
contrary to information reported in the media this meeting was
not called because the Board of Supervisors was distraught and
he wished to assure the School Board members that when the
meeting was requested it was in the spirit of a cooperative
effort toward discussing mutual concerns. He stated he and Mr.
Currin, as School Board Liaison representatives, would like to
meet with the Committee as soon as possible and look forward to
working with them in a beneficial, cooperative relationship for
the County. Mr. Currin reiterated Mr, Sullivan's remarks and
stated he felt their efforts on the Liaison Committee were to
be those of co~unicators. Mr. Mayes also agreed with the
statements made by Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Currin.
Mrs. Reritsis stated scheduling conflicts have delayed the
scheduling of the School Liaison Committee and it is
anticipated that meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible.
Mr. Applegate expressed concerns as to the status of site
acquisitions as it relates to proposed new schools,
construction schedules to date and any anticipated boundary
changes.
Dr. Davis referenced a January 20, 1989 memorandum in which
information was provided to the Board of Supervisors relative
to site acquisition, design contracts, an update on changes in
cost estimates of the projects, a construction planning project
report and energy conservation/air conditioning project
assignments and a time-line for new school construction
projects. He stated all of the design contracts have been
approved and ars On schedule; the approval for the consultants
for the asbestos abatement planning that is in conjunction with
the energy conservation/air conditioninq projects is scheduled
for consideration at the School Soard~s meeting this evening;
the design contracts for new schools and additions are ongoing
(or on schedule). Mr. ~ulghum stated he received rebids dates
earlier in the day on the high school site improvements and
those are being readvertised next week and said bids should be
received in March.
Dr. Davis stated the only decisions not finalized are related
to the Chalkley Road/Route 10 site, the site for the northern
high school (north of Route 60) which was not scheduled for
purchase during January or February and the middle school site
currently being evaluated.
Mr. Daniel questioned if all the schools advertised in the bond
referendum will open on the dates specified in the referendum.
Dr. Davis stated they are currently on schedule to open as
indicated. Mr. Fulghum indicated that there were modifications
regarding certain mchools on the bond referendum as a result of
the cash flow changes.
Mr. Applegate inquired about the Route 360 West elementary
school site and south Route 360 middle school targeted for
January, 1989. Mr. Fulghum stated the high school and
elementary sites have been acquired; however, the middle school
site is under consideration at this time.
Mr. Applegate stated he had received iniormatiOn that it was
the feeling that the School Board preferred for the public to
89-110
request boundary changes rather than have ko d~aI with such
~hang~ themselveS, Mrs. Keritsis stated the School Board has
indicated repeatedly that it does not want staff to reco~nend
~uy temporary boundary changes, that anything recommended would
be as permanent in nature as it could be in Chesterfield given
the changing nature and growth of the County. Mr. Applegate
stated there is serious conearn in his district relative to the
middle school situation.
Dr. Davis distributed a memorandum relative to student
assignment adjustments by attendan~ area ~or schools
over/under program capacity through 1990 which he stated
scheduled on the School Board's agenda at its evening session.
he stated they have been working with each neighborhood
school~; the program is designed to accommodate student
adjustment~ or bonndary changes for tho new schools scheduled
to open in 1990 befor~ the end of the current school year so
re~ident~ will know a year in advance which ~chool their
children will b~ attenOing for ~he two new elementary schools
and also to attend to any other over/under capacit~ schools by
the end cf the current school year.
~r. Applegate excueed himself from the meeting to attend a
hearing en County bus~ne~ ~n the Circuit Court.
Dr. Carl Chapin eddre~eed Mr. Applegate'~ concerns relative to
the commodity decidiag on boundary changes and stated that in
planning fe~ 1990 the continuity etudy groups have made their
recommendations to the Superintendent and the School Board,
that if they have to move they would prefer to move in 1989,
then ~zaff %~ould seriously entertain making those changee
eff%ctive in 1989 rather than waiting until 1990. ~e
with respect to Clover ~ill Blementar~ and swift Creek Middle
Schoot~ there is a committee studyi~ the issue of overcrowd-
ing, alternatives as to how to handle the overcrowding un~il the
new ~iddle school is opened in 1991 ~Dd that committee has
revlswed and recommended alternatives which were forwarded to
pacents for responses. Me stated the study co~itt~es have met
several times and antlci~ate making a recommendation bo the
Sup=rintend~nt and the School Board by February 22, 1989. He
stated there is consideration ongoing for the establishment of
school community study teams for the schools identified to
devise a set of v/able alternatives and to meet in u community
forum to receive public input regarding boundary changes an~ it
As anticipated recommenda~ione would be availabl~ to the Board
Mr. Sullivan inquired as to the status on the Cormmittee for
rethinking wh~re it wishes to ge with that Tank Force, the
alternative being if they want ~o complete and submit their
a report ShOuld be forthcoming in mid-April, 1989 but if the
the next school year.
to this idea. Dr. Chafin ~tated he felt that since "The Nation
frequently and such an idea probably resulted from that
~9-111
There was discussion relative to asurplus State refund to the
School Administration; the funding differences in the monies
available for the School System;
Mr. Daniel stated he was comfortable with the School System
receiving the surplus refund from the State in next year's
budget but was probably uncomfortable in reviewing the County
Administrator's balanced budget in that it appears that in
order to meet the commitments to the bond council and th~
establishment of a "Pay-As-You-Go" reserve fund, there will be
a $3.4 million shortfall and that the School System e×amine
that closely. Ee stated there is public concern for there
being breakdowns of funds by schools available and comparisons
of last year's funding versus this year's funding.
Mr. Sullivan stated Chesterfield has a strong commitment to its
School System; however, there is a changing role in the service
demands being placed upon the County and he would like for the
School Board, when considering its mission statement, to be
more cognizant of and sensitive to the service demands and
needs of others in the entire community, not just schools.
Mr. Daniel expressed concern that there is a lack of
homogeneous test scores across the County; that test scores are
not surfacing in a random way anymore; some schools' scores are
consistently in the lower 25% level of achievement while some
schools are consistently in the upper 25% level of achievement;
and requested that when the School budget is submitted that
documented data be provided and methods of improvement be
addressed for schools that are consistently in the 25% level of
achievement with quantitative goals and programs. ~e stated
the County can longer accept the fact that some schools are
consistently below an acceptable level of achievement. He
also expressed concerns relative to County vehicle policy and
requested that the School Board/Liaison Committee members
determine and identify the criteria for the job-related use of
vehicles. Dh. Davis stated, as the result of a recent response
to Mr. Cribbs, copies of the School System's current Vehicle
Policy, which has been in existence since 1985, are available
for the Board's perusal and indicated the vehicles in question
were budgeted for purchase this year and had received
appropriate approval.
Mr. Mayes commended the School System and its programs but
expressed concerns as to the duplication of services relative
to motor pools, etc., as it pertains to th~ budget.
Mr. Currin stated that through his involvement with the School
Liaison Committee he would have questions and concerns that
need to be addressed but hoped there would be mutual
cooperation to resolve those problems confronting the County
for a better future for all.
Mr. Daniel requested that the rules be suspended so the Board
of Supervisors and School Board could go into Executive Session
to discuss personnel matters.
Mr. Frank Douglas of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, on behalf of
his editors, voiced objection to the Executive Session and
asked that the session be recorded as they were not certain it
was legal for both Boards to meet in Executive Session or
whether or not the Board cf Supenvisors could meet to discuss
school personnel matters. Mr. Barthemes stated there is no
prohibition against Boards meeting jointly in Executive Sea,ion
or against the Board of Supervisors being able to discuss
personnel matters that would affect the School Board.
Mrs. Keritsis restated the School Board's appreciation for
meeting with the Board, that such meetings are beneficial on an
ongoing, regular basis and that they look forward to meeting
with the Liaison Conumittee to provide answers to their
questions in a timely manner. Dr. Davis stated monthly status
89-112
reports could be provided to'tho Board if they so desired.
~r. Par=hemes stated, after clarification of the matter, it
would not be appropriate for tho School Board and BOard of
Supervisors to moot in joint session to discuss School Board
personnel matters at this time.
Mr. Daniel, in lieu ef the EXecutive Session, stated he wished
to be informed as to the intent of the School Board regarding
r~appointment of the School Superintendent. ~e stated he felt
tho School Board should be cognizant of the senior executive's
salary structure as compared to the any salazy structure
offered to the Superintendent to ensure that such salary
~trncture i~ comparable with that of the County Administrator.
He also stated that when going through the reappointment
process adequate time ~hould be allowed for the public
response. He stated, although the SupsrintendentTs position ie
contractual, the ~urr~nt and future Boards can be held legally
re~ponsible/bindable ~or the ~ontrac% that the School Board
approves and will ultimately be responsible for said payment of
such contracts.
Mrs. Kerit~is stated the ~chool Board had forwarded to Mr.
Ramsey a copy of the policy which requires that all school
divisions in tho Coma~onw~alth o~ Virginia appoint a
Superintendent by March 1 of this year, which appointment ia
~or a four year period in accordance with State law. She
stated the salary/cenaract issues are separate from the
appointment issue and those issues will be deliberated through
the budget process.
There being no fur=her issues to discuss, the joint meeting
with the School Board was concluded. It was yenerally agreed
to recess for five (5) minutes.
4. ~0L~TION R~GA~DINGMID~OT~IAN TRANSMISSION
Mr. Jacobsen stated at its December 14, 1988 m~eting, the ~oard
adopted a renolutien in support of an undergroun~ ~eaiqn
alternative for a proposed Virgini~ ~ower high voltage
transmission lin~ through the Midlothian District to be
presented to the State Corporation Commission on February 2,
1989. He eta=ed the%, after development of the Hidlothian
~lan, it ia staff's recommendation t/~st the Board request the
State Corporation Commission and virginia Power seriously
consider installing the high voltage line through an exlsti~g
commercial are= of the District rather than a residential ~rea~
and request that the~¢ agencies work with the Planning
D~partmon~ so ~ha= their kith voltage line, i~ located above
ground, shall be compatible with the County's planne~ roads,
parks and land uses in the affected area.
~r. Sullivan stated it is desirable that the transmission line
he installed underground and expressed concern that Virginia
Power has already purchased ~rnDorty to build a ~ubstation on
property located in the middle of a re~ideDtlal area without
considering the health, safety and welfare of Chesterfield
County citizens, the Nidlothian Plan, the Planning co~ission~s
recommendation, or the needs/desires of the residents in tho
affected area. He stat@d the proposed resolution support~
location of the transmission line to another site and requests
that such line be located in consultation with ~he County's
Planning Department ko minimize its adverse effects on existing
and projected residential subdivisions, on the proposed
Midlothian Village SquaTe and cn the planned connector road
between Coalfiel4 Road and Midlothian Turnpike.
~9-113
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1988, Virginia Electric & Power
Company ("Applicant") applied to the 'State Corporation
Commission ("co~i~sion") to amend its certificate of public
convenience and necessity to authorize construction and
operation of a 5.9 mile, single-circuit 230 ky transmission
line from its existing Midlothian Substation to a proposed new
substation ("Trabue") to be located on the south side of Old
Buckingham Road approximately 750 feet west of the intersection
of Old Buckingham Road and Alverser Drive (*'the Old Buckingham
Site"); and
WHEREAS, approximately 3.0 miles of the proposed
transmission line from Coalfield Road to the Old Buckingham
Site is adjacent to existing residential ~ubdivi~ion 'or will
run through planned residential developments, on December 14,
1988 the Board unanimously adopted' a resolution supporting an
underground design alternative for this portion of the
transmission llna; and
WI~EREAS, Protestant Robert C. Cornell, t/a Eonarco
A~ociates, has proposed that the Trabue substation be located
on the north side of the planned loop road ("Whitten Parkway")
north of Midlothian Turnpika and east of Falling Crack ("the
Salomon~ky Site"), in~tsad of the 01d Buckingham Site; and
WHEREAS, the Salomonsky Site ia currently zoned for a more
intense land use (office) than the 01d Buckingham Site which
according to the County's Comprehensive Plan, should be used
for medium density residential housing; and
WHEI~EAS~ the Salomonsky Site is approximately 2,800 feet
closer to the existing Midlothian Substation than the Old
Buckingham Site, thereby reducing the length of the proposed
transmission line; and
WHE~AS, the Applicant's proposed transmission line will
cross a planned connector road between Coalfield Road and
Midlothian Turnpike'as well as an area projected for future use
as a village Square in the prOpOsed Midlothlan Village Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of
Supervisors of the County Of Chesterfield, Virginia, that the
Board, on behalf of the citizens bf the County, requests the
Applicant and the Commission to consider the newly proposed
Salomonsky Site for the Trabue substation fairly, thoroughly
and in a positive manner and to consult with the County's
Plannin9 Department to minimize the substation's adverse
effects on nearby landowners.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
reaffirms its support for an underground design alternative for
the proposed transmission line from Coalfield Road to the
Trabue substation; however, should the Commission authorize the
Applicant to construct the entire line as an overhead facility,
the Board of Supervisors ~equ~sts that ~uch line be located in
con~ultation with the County's Planning Department to minimize
its adverse effects on existing and projected residential
subdivision, on the proposed Midlothian Village Square and on
the planned connector road between Coalfield Road and
Midlothian Turnpike.
Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
It was generally agreed to recess to wait for Mr. Applegate to
return from Circuit Court.
89-114
On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board
adjourned ~t 5:30 p.m. (~ST) until 9:00 a.m. on ~ebruary 22,
19~9,
Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, ~r. Maye~ and Mr. Sullivan.
Absen%: Mr. Apple~a~e.
Lane B. Ramse2 ~
County Administ~ato~/
89-115
Chairman