Loading...
03-29-1989 MinutesRO~ OF SD'PE~SORS MI~o~S MARC.~ 29, 1989 Mr. G. H, Applegate, Chairman Mr. C. F. Ceftin, Jr., Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Sease J.. Mayea Mr. M. B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Ed Beck, Asst. Dir. of Utilities Mr. N. ~. Carv~ichael, Comm. of Revenue MS. Amy Davis, ~xec. Asst. to Co. Admin. Mrs. Doris DeHart~ Asst. Co. Admin., Legis. Svcs. and Intergovern. Affairs MS. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Mr. Bradford s. Ha~er, Deputy Ce. Admin., Management Services Mr. William H. ~owell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Co. Admin., Human Services Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitehell, Dir. of News/Tnfo. Services Sheriff J.W. Mntispaugh, Sheriff's Department Dr. William Nelson, Dir,,,Health Dept. Col. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police Mr. Richard Sale, Deputy Co. Admin.~ Development Mr. Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. David Welshons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human Resource Management 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. iD the Administration Building Conference Room (Room 502). WORK SESSION ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mr. Peele presented an overview of proposed amendment~ to the Zoning Ordinance relative to commercial, office and industrial zoning districts which amendments included changes to the 89-248 classification titles of certain ~is=ricts; development standarde con~ietent w~th typical Conditional Use Planned Development approvals being required with rezoning in all areas of emerging growth to provide higher quality architecture, landscaping, lighting, signage end access; more flexible development standards being provided with re~oning in the currently developed areas; buffer standards being ~stablished between new non-residential Zoning Districts and residential land uses; increased development flexibility by permitting retail usee in ~eme new office and industrial districts and residential =ownhouse/multifamily uses in zone new commercial di~trict~: incorporation of adopted standards for construc- tion/demolition/debris landfills into the ordinance; changes to the site plan review proces~ to allow review by the Planning Co~ission in addition to continuing with the current staff review process; fee increases to recover cost of site plan posting which is a new service; anticipated ~equests for changes r~latlve to billboards and th~ heights of buildings. Be fur:her noted there had been much diecus~ien relativ~ to these issues with citizens, the development core, unity, property owners, c~vie associations, membere of the industrial co~unity, etc. Board discussion, questions and co,eats ensued relative to the procedure for determininq pel~itted us=s and whether those uses will be determine~ administratively or by ~oard decision; the Board'e ability to exclude and/or add certain types of uses at the time of rezoning approval; the prohibition of commercial encroachment into existing resid~ntiai areas; buffer restrictions beinq either too severe or too lax; the comparison of Chester~ield's sign ordinance requirements with neighboring jurisdictions; %he use of portable signs and the potential of phasing out such uses ever a period of time go as not to ~Iiminat~ th~ industry; the use of "reader boards" as opposed ~o portable sign~ the emiBeion from the ordinance for a mechanism to address the disposition of solid waste; the use of temporary signs by schools, little leagn~ organizations; etc. The Beard co~ended staff for their diligent effort~ in th~ compilation oS the Or~£nance but felt certain aspeste needed udditional review and/or restructuring; and further requested that information be prev£de~ regarding a comparison of ~he sign ordinances of Chesterfield and Senrlco counties and a revision to "Article %, Division I. In General." of the Purpose and Interpretation Section of the Ordinaries regarding the inclusion of a mechanism for the safe disposition of solid waste. 3. WORK SBSSION ON ~TIT~TTI~$ Nr~ Sale stated staff presented a su~marlza~ion of the proposed Utilities Capital Improvement Pregr~ (CIP) a% the Board's Naroh ~, 1989 work session a~d s~atsd was present to answer questions the Board may hav~. Mr. John Bragg, Director of Finance sad Administration, the proposed Category 1 and Category 2 program, s, the impact of th~ ramifications to th~ new customer as compared ~o the existing customers; etc. Discussion, questions an~ comments ensued relative to the differences b~tween Category 1 and Caf~go~y ~ regarding rate structures; =he project l~tlngs; the eperatin~ budget b~ing the predominant force of the user fee; the differentiation of capital projects between those projects needed for growth and those needed for exis~iDg developmen~ how much of the $137 million is to maintain the existing level of eervice versus how much is necessary to fun~ growth; the impact of Category 1 and volu~ss of water; customer/capacity/commodity charges; whether or not the increase would be sufficient for the projected funding needs; reduced wastewater connection fees as compared to increased water connection fees; the impact of mandatory connections on customers relative to the use of septic systems versus public sewer connections; the bulk of necessary improvements being related to water services; whether or not computations for Category 1 were established prior to the Board's decision on residential resonings regarding the use of public water in conjunction with the use of septic systems; if consideration was given to inflationary factors and implementa- tion costs when computations for Category 1 were established for providing public water ~ervices; the dispensing of detergents through household appliances being detrimental to the function of the septic systems and the ultimate potential for the groundwater contamination; whether or not mandatory sewer connections, if approved, would impact the Capital Improvement Program 50% philosophy statement relative to extending water to existing subdivisions; phasing out/elimina- tion of the refund policy £or off-site development, not refunds for oversizing; the impact of a reduction in the number of connections on user fees; the effective date of rates; etc. Mr. Mayes expressed concerns relative to the use of detergents in household appliances and its impact on the disposition of wastewater from that home if it cannot be distributed through the septic system/drainfield network. Mr. Sale stated the problem encountered by the Health Department with respect to failing septic systems, coming from the use of washing machines, is the overuse of the appliance by individuals that results in the saturation of groundwater. Mr. Applegate suggested that a staff member from the Health Department be present when the Board r~convened after lunch to address Mr. Mayes' concerns. ~r. Applsgate expressed concerns as to whether or not the State would permit the construction of another wastewater treatment plant based on the number of expenditures projected in the CIP; stated that the County's discharge allocation into the James River had been reduced; the potential of increased us~r fees due to the higher cost of treatment; and whether or not those costs had been factored into Category 1 and Category 2. The Board requested that staff provide data, prior to the public hearing on April 5, 1989, relative to a comparative breakdown of Category 1 versus Category 2 expenditures; why the user fee is being increased if Category 2 is based primarily on growth; how would fees be effected if the refund policy were maintained at $600,000; how would fees be effected if the increase on existing debt were increased from 50% to 65%; and how much of the increase is being incurred as a result of project~ requiring extension of water. Tho Board recessed at 12:10 p.m. for lunch. to travel to the Sunset Cafe Reconvening: Dr. William Nelson, Director of the Health Department, was present to address Mr. Msyes' concerns regarding the fact that there did not appear to be any provisions in the Utilities CIP to acco~odate the safe disposal of certain types of wastewater distributed through septic systems. Re stated that, with the new septic tank standards the Board is considering and to be in accordance with the recommendations the Board received in Charlottesville, he had understood no garbage disposal, 89-250 Dr. Nelson stated the topic of gray water) was ~iecussed; however, he had couldn't be filtered through %he septic water (washing machine not understood that it tank systems. There was discussion relative to the disposition of dishwasher water through the s~ptic system; garbage disposal uses definitely being an impediment to the proper operation of a septic tank because they leav~ bulk and cellulose and other materials difficult to ~igest in the bottom of the tank but that th~ use of washing machines and oth~r items that leave soap, chemioa!s and/or residues were considered all right for nsc through these systems; the ~ubjact of gray water discharge; attempts made to separate non-sewage wate~ from sewage water; excessive amounts of water usage per day resulting in septic ~ailurss; concerns expressed that if detergents are used with dishwasher water, wasting machine water, eta., it would defeat the mlcroorganlems function of purifying th~ water; concerns that a worst scenaIio situatioe were to occur whereby a eept~e tank failed that wastewater Would than b~ returned to the groundwater source; that if sufficient amounts of detergents were distributed through the septic field lines would th~ System woul~ not eliminate the microbes designed f~r purificatienf~iltering~ etc. ~ Dr. Nelson stated ha felt it was a question of balance end that the u~ual amount of soap in a dishwasher d0e~ not ordinarily interfere with the anaerobic digestion in the system but ff excessive amounts of water were pumped into the system, washwater Or otherwise, the system would not ~unction properly. Mr. Mayas questioned if only a small percentage O~ septic tank ~ser~ were in that category, would it not create a groundwater problem. ~r. Nelson stated, on an acre of l~nd, it would most likely r~sult in a backup in the house or pending of water on the surface. Ne stated if th~ m~erobes iD the tank digest solids an~ do not puri~y the water, it is still a fluid with bacteria when it leav~s the %ank~ aD~ the purification occurs in the septic field leachate bed where it is purified. kfter further discussion, Mr. Mayas asked if Dr. Nelson would go on the record and take the responsibility for sta~ing h~ ~elt i~ was not detrimental to distribute washing machine water utilizing detergents through s~ptic systems. Dr, Nelson stated he would go on record as stating that~ from a contamination of ~reundwat~r standpoint, he felt it was not detrlmen~a! to distribute washing machine water ~tilizing ~r. Appleqate stated he had not understood the consultants at the Charlottesville meeting to state that washing machine or dishwasher water would contaminate groundwater ~ut that they did state garbage disposal units should not bs use~ in conjunction with septic systems. Mr. Sullivan concurred and stated he felt ft unfair tc expect a commitment from Dr. Nelson relative to a statement that w~ not made at the retreat or to imply that it was. Mr. Mayas sta~ed he felt that if detergents were u~ed in conjunction with ~eptic systems where microbes are expected te purify the water passing through the system, the microbe~ will not perform their function properly i~ the process. 89-251 Dr. Nelson excused himself from the meeting. 5. WOR~ SESSION ON COUNT~ AND SCHOOL CIP Dr. Davis stated the School Capital Improvement needs have been incorporated, by project and dollar amounts, in the 1990-1994 Chesterfield County Capital Improvement Program; referenced a report entitled "Chesterfield County Schools Facility Planning and Operations" as prepared by Strategic Futures International Ltd. and Planning Advocates ~ne.; and stated he was present to answer any questfon~ the Board may have. Mr. Ramsay dist~ibuted additional budget and capital improvement data to the Board for informational purposes. Mr. Stegmaier presented an overview of the proposed General County and School Capital Improvement Program projects for FY1990-94, outlined funding sources, existing revenues, anticipated revenue bonds funding, lease purchase information, other various funding sources (i.e., cash, developer contributions, Airport Industrial Park Fund and Special Assessment Districts), projected debt capacity, recommended ratio of debt service/expenditure, available capacity, requested funding, the difference in available debt capacity versus requested debt capacity, retommended and non-recommended CIP projects, etc. Mr. Ramsay stated Dr. Davis had indicated to him that the basis on which the School Board adopted the recommended Capital Improvements Program was that they adopted these proj~ct~ subject to the availability of funding, understanding that if there are no funds, they are not asking that these projects be completed. Dr. Davis stated that in their document they specifically indicated that no new funds were being requested because of the financial cash flow and the County's limitations until 1992. He stated, however, if asked to pnt projects in priority over FY89-94 and if funds were available, that is where they would expend the funds but no additional funds were requested up through 1992 for any projects other than those that are already approved by the Board of $uperviacra and included in the 1988 referendrun. Discussion, questiohs and comments ensued relative' to the identification of a potential library site in the Hopkins Road area within the near future and that necessary action be taken to bring that matter before the Board for consideration if it is anticipated that such a facility will be needed by I993; how are parks/school projects integrated; what mechanism could be used to overcome the loss of the Coalfield Road Soccer Complex; funding for a Skateboard facility; improvements to the Woolridge Road causeway and identification of a funding source for such improvements~ financing for Johnson Creek, Phase I; consideration for a study to determine the feasibility of a multipurpose building to be used for various community activities and function; the funding resources available for placement in the undesignated reserve for future capital projects; addhacks tO the llst; what could be done tO improve the overall l~vels of achievement/test scores County-wide; the ramifications of implementing a Computer Assisted Instructional Program and feasibility of incorporating such a program into the County school program; the funding of new school initiatives versus sustaining base-quality education; the impact of implementing and/or not implementing the ~amily Life ~ducation curriculum; the sensitivity of the curriculum and its appropriateness for varying student age levels; etc. 99-252 A~ter some discussion, Mr. Daniel requested staff prepare an &Sends item for next meeting regarding a Charter referendum on impact fees and proffers. After further discussion, it was generally agreed to tentatively schedule a work ~e$ion between the School Board and Board of Supervisors on April t0, 1989 to discuss the School Board's requested budget prior tO the Board of Supervisors~ scheduled meeting on April 12, 1989, with the time for said meeting to be determined. It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minu~es. Mr. Balms: presented a summary of requested budget needs the Sheriff's Department, Conunonwealth's Attorney Office, Commissioner of Revenue and the Treasurer. There wa~ discussion relative to the needs for newfadditionat staff positions, court security, the implementation of associated costs for a program tc supervise inmate clean up of debris along the highwaym~ information relative ~c the revenue field auditors generate for the Commissioner of office, the n~d for automation of th~ business license receivablem section, etc. The Beard requested that staff provide information from the Sta~e Department of Transportation relative to how ~uch oos=s ~hat department annually to clean ~p debri~ along highways and information ~egard~ng the revenue generated by field auditors in the Co~issioner cf Revenue's Office. Mr. Willis presented an overview of ~ploye~ comp~nsatlon requirement~ outlining objectives, policy, results of last fiscal year's action~ r~eo~endations for 1990, comparison salary increases with neighboring jurisdictions, =he highest starting ~alarie~, bh~ highest average salaries, and the pruje~te~ local market range of sa!ari~ of the County as compared to those of Henrico County, %he City of Richmon~ the Co~onw~alth of Vimginia. There was discussion r~la~ive to the evaluation proce~ the impact of health b~n~fit costs, FY90 Comp~nsa%ioD reco~enda- tion~ for 7.~% salary increases, pay range ad~us~ents ~ompa~ed with midpoints of the market average, the percentage of health care increase budgeted for zi~ mon~hs, maintaining tho health care calendar year plan, and benefit enhanoemen~s, with a mechanism for the County to absorb ~o~e of %he insurance ~e stated he felt the County could not continue to have these so~t~ %r~okl~ do~ tO st~ff. ~r. Sullivan re~ested =hat ~taff provide ~ata relaaive to She percentage of staff who did not for the Caunty %o bear the burden cf ~xpense for both increases and health oars covera~ benefice. Mr. Sullivan presented an overview of the Budget and Audit Co~ittee Report reco~endation$ for reductions, addback~, revenue options, donations, and additional re=o~endations that a reduction of SI,SSi,SOO from the County A~inis~ratoI's reco~end~d ~und ~alance be added to th~ Re~erve Fend for future CIP projects for a total of $4,001,400 fo~ the current year and that fees for building permits for schools be paid from school project funds. There was discussion relative to the General County construction program expenses as compared to the School System construction program expenses, the legality of waiving the fees for building permits for schools, ~f the Fund Balance were reduced by $1.9 million wher~ would funding for future CIB projects be derived, the reduction of the 'Fund Balance affecting the County's bond rating, etc. Hr. Applegate commended the diligent efforts of the Budget and Audit Committee and stated the Board had much to consider prior to its April 12, 1989 meeting. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adjourned at 5:50 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on April 5, 1989. Vote; Unanimous 89-254