Loading...
03-21-90 MinutesMARCH 21., 1990 Supervisors in At=entrance: Mr. M. B. Sullivan, Vice Chairman Mr. G. B. Applegate Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayas Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Comm. of Revenue Mrs. Doris DeHart~ A~t. Co. Admin., Leqi~. SVCS. and !nte~gov~rn. Mr. William Digq~ Real Estate Assessor Clerk to =he Board Fire Depert2~ent Deputy Co. Admin., Management Services Dr. Butt Lowe, Dir., Mental ~eaith/Rstard. M~. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy CO. Admin., ~rs. M. Arline ~cGuire~ Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of Ne~sfInfo. br. William Dir., Health Dept. Mr. F. O. Parks, Dir., Info. Syn. Tach. Chief of Mr. Richard Sale, D~puty Co. Admin., Developn~ent ~s. Jean Smith, DiY. of Social S~rvices Mr. Jay Ste~aier, Dir. of Parks & Dr. Robert D~r. of Librarims Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human R~ourc~ Management Mr. Currin ca/lsd =he meet£ng =e order at 11:15 a.m. {EST). provide the Board with information on cash proffers relative to commercial/industrial d~veloument aD~ to discuss the County Administrator's propoued b~dget. Hr. Ram~y ~tat~d ~taff'$ previous recommendation for cash proffers relative to commercial/industrial development was that said proffer~ Would be applicable tQ only and fire cervieen. Me noted, however, that after review of a myriad of large versus small co~m%ercial/industrial developments and recognizing the fact that these typem cf development currently being attrasted to 'the County are net revenue producerz for the Co~ty, end that since them~ developments ara making significant transportation improvements under the existinq proffer System, staff recc~end$ that the policy would be to continue the same proffer system in place to have thes~ developments actually construct these facilities and, in certain instances where in the bas% interest of the County~ require a cash proffer equivalent to those improvements be made to the County. There was lengthy discussion, questions and co~eet~ relative to the current proffer system being ut/l/zed for commer- cisl/indKstrial development relative to transportation and]or firs service demands; proffers required for off- and on=site improvements; determination of cash proffers through use of traffic shed analysis and the amount of proffers required depending upon the demand the business itself creat~ in certain area; concern that the County n~eds te be able to accept cash proffer~ for off-site development improvements based upo~ the traffic shed concept and for fire the formula for determining data lek proffers of ea~h or property in zoning; the ability of the Transportation Director to have flexibility in determining road improvement nueds relative to zoning; whether or not to accept actual road improvements [pavement} or each; equitability of fee~; the impact of a small business on tho traffic ~hed where there is an existing large-scale development in place; Mr. Daniel stated that if a s~ecific zoning request impacts the geography of an area that ke would agree with the citizens in requiring the applicant to meet the improvements needs genera=- ed by that development through the a~propriate proffer; that hz felt reasonably comfortably that large developers iD tha~ =hey not only fix the solution to whatever they create but also addres~ road improvements in the shed geography which =hey ing cash as proffers because the actual re~ improvements would occur faster if the ~eveloper were to construct them; and felt that if small business entitie~ w~re creating serious impacts then a mechanism should be implemented to resolve situation. Mr, Sullivan state~ the ~oaxd had indicated, the adoption of the each proffer ordinance, it Would requir~ Said pro£fer~ for off-site improvements for transportation and fire cervice~ that the fact that cash p~oifers are a plu~ for the County dote not negate the fact that the cost will ultimately be borne by the developer or the taxpayer; and that he felt s=rongly tha~ =he county should accept cash proffers for off-site imprOVements for both transportation and fire ~rvices, with the iDclusion of the traffic shed ennnept being considered. Mr. Applegate crated he felt the increase in taxes mor~ than covers the additionally required ~ervice demands relative te public safety but that the road situation varies and~ ~n his opinion, it is the construction of ne~ roads that generate~ traffic patterns - not the development along roads. ~e expressed concern regarding fine-taninq the fot~mula used for determining how much to charg~ d~v~topers for road improvements; sta%ad he felt the current policy addressing road improvements was adequate and ~hould be continued as it is. Mr. Mayes expressed concern relative tn the who determines the magnitude of a traffic shed7 how much impact thm traffic shed we~Id add ~o or detract from the amount o~ the proffer regn~sted and eha formula u~d to determine that date; and stated it appeared to him that ouch a formula was not yet 90-254 3/21/90 developed. Mr. Applegate referenced correspondence from tbs Virginia Department of Transportation relativ~ to the installation of signalization at Lucks Lane and Couthonse Road indicating said signalization would be paid for by the Stats; noted that 'such decisions are made at the time of zoning through ths imposition of eondltlons of zoninq~ and stated that he felt if the Board were to arbitrarily extract monies from the com~arclal/indaa~rial development community by imposing this when they ar~ clearly paying their own way, it would and, therefore~ the County would not need its EconoMic Develop~ me~ Department attempting to attract tho~e types o~ develop- ment to the County. After further discussion, it was on motion Of Mr. Appl~qate, seCOnded by Mr. ~ulllvan, resolve~ to adopt a policy that transportation proffers for non-residential rezoning will be computed on the same basis utilized by the Transportation Department prior to Julyr I989r with %he exception that such proffers may, at the option of the Board of Supervi~or~r include cash in lieu of actual improvements. There was discussion relative to the ra~ifieation~ of adoptinq a policy r~lativ~ to each proffers for fire pro~e~ien~ COde requirements for building~ to be constzueted wish or without ~p~inkler system~; th~ establishment of a $150, or more, per 1,0O0 square foot fee against which there would be a credit for a fire suppression system~ etc. Mr. Applegate made a motion, seconded by sr. Sullivan, to adopt a policy that in an effort to encourage incrsased pnbtic safety, the County will forego a f£ra protection proffer from those developments intended to include a fire suppression system satisfactory to the Fir~ ~epartment within their build- inqs and so proffer at tim~ of zoning. Mr% Mayas inquired as %0 who would bear the burden of the cost for providing the fire protection ~ervioe if the develoumemt di~ not pay for it. ~r. Daniel stated he felt there was insufficient data to make a decision at this time en~ suggested the issue be brought back for further review at a future date. Ayes: Sr. Sullivan and ~r. App!ega~e, Nays: Mr. Currin. Abstention: Mr. Daniel, aa he felt the motion unnecessary, no~ needed and confusing; and ~r. Mayas. ~r. Micas ~tated the motion carried. It was generally agrss~ to recess at 12:30 p.m. (ESTI for lunch, which was served in the Administration Buildlnq Con~erence Room (Room 5~2). Reconvening: 2. BOD~WT GENERAL FUND Mr..Stegmaier pre~nted an overview of the County's proposed FY1990-1~91 Budget, outlining data relative te ether issues affecting the Budget (i.e., Key Care deficit, suxplus funds in V~RS, additional ~a=e and ~aderal Funds for Social Services, proposal for additlonal funding for Treasurer and Commissioner of Revenue, new requests for added funds for the Circuit Court Judges and Human Services Depar~mmnt~ Transportation and the school Administration's 1990 Budgst)~ Budget and Audit Com~itt~ items ~eeomm~nded for budget reductions~ and option~ for Budget reductions. shortfall of the Key Care deficit for both the County and increase in ~he VSR$ rate paid by the County which remnlted in a ~ain for %he County; State and Federal funding allocations to the County and designated uses of said ~unds; whether or not the YMCA Women's Shelter was include~ in t~e State and/or Federal funding allocations; the need for emtabtimhing e B~man mechanism fe~ utilizing County vehlclem to transport clients traneportati~n activities and funding in the amount of $85,000 would also bemefit th~ Co~issioner of aevenue's o%~ice in the by the positions established for the Com~issloner of Aevenue's could be cc!looted if more positione were e~tabli~hed; Lengthy discussion ensued relative to the items not funded (addback) list for PYPl regarding fire protection for existing buildings in the Courthouse Complex; State recycling mandates; shared use of copiers; further antc~ation of the Ammesso~'s Office; Fimld Auditor position for the Co~imsioner cf ~evenue to increase auditing capacity and generate additional revenues and a customer ~rvice t~ehnician ~o ~ssist with customers and handle increased workload; additi~naI positions for the of delinquent taxe~; upgrading of the microfilm ~ystem in the Circuit Court Office, justification for new positions and neceseary positions, touring the ~ew Courts Building facility the ~elice Department; uniform replacement~ portable radios to fiv~ mobiI~ radios tO provide scan ca~ability ~or ~sttalion Chiefs; ability of Fire Department to acce~ data files; EMS equlpm~nt for fi~14 supervisor; emergency gen~rator in tho event of disaster; etc. It wa~ ~ener~lly agreed to recess for ~ive (5) minut~. Purther discussion continued relative to the addback list for FYPl relative to deputies for the Ccurt~ 'Buildinq~ ~ligibility 90-256 3/21/98 staff and the Euman Services Transportation P~ogram for Social Services; funding for Mental Bealth/Mental aetarda~ion/Sub= stance Abuse Programs; funding far local ~istory Services for the Librari~ to be c0nsi~ered for FY92; grants available to supplement funding for the Parks and Recreation Department; importance of a need for and the combining of a small business development representative position with an sxisting Economic businesses in the County; funding for obtaining aerial photos from the Virginia Department of Transportation; electrical update of Nursing Home facility; ~ploy~ benefit~; additional funding needed by the School System for instructional supplies, maintenance; reduction of advertising and printing in Development to FYPO level; abolishment cf the James River Certified Development Corporation; 29% increa~ in dog boarding fees ~or An~al Control; sale of two used fir~ truck~; elimina- tion of three (S) court d~puty positions; elimination cf float r~ntaI in Parks and Recreation; red~cti0n of the Fair ~b~idy by 10% per year; improvsment of accounts receivable in Mental ~ealth/Mental Retardation~ implementation of a new requirement for a 1Q% copayment for individual employee health car~ coverage; elimination o~ nnee-a-~onth garbage collection County-wide; ckarging of ~I.00 for residential drop-off at landfill and transfer station; purchase of additional land at the Northern Area Landfill~ the need to address the safe disposal of solid waste County-wide; etc. After further discussion, it was gensrally agreed to defer ~ntil March 2S, 199O, a~ter the rezoning session, ~urther functional layout of said facility to determine staffing needs; and =hat a meeting with the County's Committee on t~c Future be scheduled to update the Board on it~ ongoing It was generally agreed to reee$~ ~©r ten {10J the rezoning session of th@ meeting on March ~8, 1990. 2.C. ~UE~ING HOME It was generally aqreed to discuss tho Wur~ing Kom~ B~dg~t after the re~oning session cf ~he meeting ~n Ma~h 28, 1~9~. 2.D. AIRPORT It was generally agreed to discuss the Airpor~ Budget after the rezoning session of the meeting on March 28, 1990. 3. CAPITAL IM~ ~ROGRAM It was generally agreed to discuss the Capital ImRrovement ~rogr~m Bu~ge~ ~ft~r the rezening session of th~ meeting on March 28~ 1990, adjourned at 5:15 p.m. {EST; until 9:0~ a.m. {EST) on ~arch 28, 1990. Unanimous C. F. Currin, Jr. Chairman 90-258 3/21/90