Loading...
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