06-07-2002 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
June 7, 2002
Supervisors in Attendances
Mr. Kelly E. Miller, Chairman
Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mrs. Renny B. Humphrey
Mr. J. L. McHale, III
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
County Administrator
School Board Members
in Attendances
Dr. James Schroeder, Chairman
Mrs. Elizabeth B. Davis, Vice Chrm.
Mrs. Dianne E. Pettitt
Mr. Marshall W. Trammell, Jr.
Mr. Lloyd A. Lenhart
Dr. Billy K. Cannaday, Jr.
Superintendent
Planning Commission Members
In Attendances
Mr. Sherman W. Litton, Chairman
Mr. Phillip G. Cunningham
Mr. Ronald K. Stack
Mr. Daniel A. Gecker
Staff in Attendance~
Mr. Craig Bryant, Dir.,
Utilities
Mr. Allan Carmody,
Budget and Management
Ms. Marilyn Cole
Asst. County Admin.
Ms. Mary Ann Curtin,
Dir., Intergovtl.
Relations
Mr Bill Dupler, Dir.,
Building Inspection
Ms Lisa Elko,
Clerk
Mr Thomas E. Jacobson,
Dir., Planning
Mr Donald Kappel, Dir.,
Public Affairs
Mr John McCracken, Dir.,
Transportation
Mr Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mr James Stegmaier,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Management Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Deputy Co Admin.,
Community Development
Legislators in Attendances
Senator Stephen H. Martin
Delegate Samuel A. Nixon, Jr.
Delegate John S. Reid
Mr. Miller, Dr. Schroeder, and Mr. Litton called the Summit
to order at 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Miller welcomed everyone to the Summit on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors. He recognized Senator Martin to the
Summit and expressed his appreciation to the attendees.
Dr. Schroeder thanked the two Boards for the School Board's
participation in the Summit and the opportunity to build a
stronger relationship between the three bodies.
Mr. Litton welcomed everyone on behalf of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Ramsey introduced Ms. Mary Ruth Burton of Burton-Fuller
Management, Incorporated, Facilitator for the day.
Ms. Burton stated the purpose of today is to determine how to
utilize tools and policies to protect the quality of life in
Chesterfield County. She reviewed the ground rules and
provided a brief outline for the day.
02- ~32
06/07/02
Mr. Ramsey provided an overview of information provided by
staff at the briefings. He noted that Cecil Sears of
Rountrey and Associates dealt with growth issues within the
region. He noted that his presentation discussed the fact
that our region will continue to grow as well as the entire
State of Virginia. Northern Virginia will continue to grow at
a faster pace than Central Virginia and the Tidewater area.
Within the region, Henrico's growth has peaked and there is a
shift to Chesterfield and that will continue for a number of
years. For the first time since 1992 Chesterfield County
will have the number one subdivision in terms of growth and
development within the Richmond Region. The investment in
jobs in Chesterfield County is equivalent to the jobs within
Henrico County. Chesterfield's major attractions are the
school system, the housing prices, and the land availability.
The growth rate within the first decade will be faster than
it was in the 1990s, but not as fast as it was in the 70s or
80s. There will be a significant change in demographics in
Chesterfield County i.e., there will be a lower growth rate
in student school age population over the next 10 years and a
significant growth rate in individuals in Chesterfield over
the age of 50. Mr. Ramsey stated that this does not mean
there will be less students, but the growth rate will be
less. He discussed the growth in the residential dwelling
units, secondary road allocations, which included discussion
about the congestion that Chesterfield is experiencing. He
reviewed our Growth Management Philosophy, which includes
orderly development; the Land Use Plan which is in place;
quality development which is driven primarily by the
development standards that have been put in place; the growth
pay for growth policy, which is driven by the cash proffers
that were put into place. Mr. Ramsey talked about Steve
Micas' presentation regarding local government's ability to
affect growth, the direct governmental actions in other
states and indirect governmental actions in Virginia. He
noted from the citizen surveys that citizens expressed
concerns with the ability of Chesterfield County to manage
growth, but that 93% of residents rated the quality of life
within the county as high or excellent.
Mr. Miller reviewed the key subject areas from Board members
which included transportation issues such as the need for
improvements now and the concern that we cannot wait on the
Virginia Department of Transportation or cash proffers; the
need to have infrastructure in place before new development
occurs; the impact of growth on schools in regards to
overcrowding and the tension around school attendance zone
changes; revising the County Plan in regards to the impact of
Route 288 and whether we should redirect land use plans to
manage growth in this corridor; re-evaluation of the Southern
and Western Area Plan, and the Upper Swift Creek Plan;
revision of the Comprehensive Plan to limit new growth and
meet traffic concerns; protection of Open Spaces/Green Spaces
which included discussion regarding our lack of ability to
conserve green space, and the need to ensure that land
designated as open space will not be developed; support for
development paying its own way and if we should use proffers
to determine where growth occurs; need for incentives to
encourage quality in-fill development; review of the sewer
extension policy; need to sustain and protect aging
neighborhoods; safe/decent housing for families in mobile
home parks should be a priority; and the importance of
getting Board/Legislative Delegation agreement and alignment
on development issues.
Mr. Miller stated the overriding questions raised by the
Board are do we have a reasonable vision of where We want to
go with growth, do we have a goal or strategy over and above
the Comprehensive Plan, do we know where we want to be in the
02- 433
06/07/02
future, and do we have an idea of what is a healthy growth
rate.
Mr. Litton welcomed Delegate Nixon to the summit. He stated
that Chesterfield is a "First Class Community." He then
presented the Planning Commission's growth management issues,
which included the shortage of money for roads and public
facilities; $106,000,000 in cash proffers not paid by new
homes since 1990; new rezoning cases paying cash proffers;
and 18,000 - 36,000 new dwelling units could be built in the
future without cash proffers. He reviewed the Comprehensive
Plan and implementation of ordinances, which included the
review of the Plan every five years; adhering to and
following the Plan; establishing incentives to develop in
areas where transportation and schools are adequate;
clustering development based on net density; emphasized
employment and commercial development before residential
development; reducing the time frame for approval of
commercial zoning; reducing the time frame for approval of
site plans; reviewing ordinances pertaining to commercial
development to reduce the impact to commercial, which would
encourage the development of commercial; reviewing the policy
on transfer of building lots to new zoning; change the
residential density calculation method; and providing a cost
benefit analysis of all future ordinances. He discussed
equitable sharing of new road costs by benefiting property
owners; construction of the widening of Route 360;
construction of widening of Route 10; construction of Route
76 to Route 360; creation of an alternate transportation
route to Route 10 between 1-95 and 1-295; construction of the
Route 295 Interchange and Meadowville Road; improvements to
those secondary roads, which have high traffic counts, and
high accident counts; and if and when the county considers
bonds then consider some bond monies to make improvements to
some of the secondary roads. The last issue he reviewed was
cash proffers for different areas. Their major concern is
how does the county address the infrastructure problems
created by the non-proffered lots and how does the county
address the future on these infrastructure needs created by
the 18,000 - 36,000 dwellings?
Dr. Schroeder provided an overview of the School Board's
issues. He emphasized that today is about building a
continuing relationship with the three bodies to benefit
Chesterfield County. He stated that as leaders, we must be
honest with citizens and how and what we can do to meet those
expectations and sustain the promise of Chesterfield being a
~First Choice" Community. He discussed the fact that
Chesterfield will continue on a path of growth, both in total
population and school-aged population; the most significant
student growth over the next ten years will be students aged
10-19; elementary enrollment will remain stable and may even
decline over the next ten years, more than half of our
households will not have any school-aged children in them. He
discussed the existing capacity in some of our schools, he
touched on redistricting and how it is a big picture that
must be analyzed. He stated that schools must be responsive
to our senior citizens, as well as our young students. He
stated the expectations of citizens is that the School Board
will maintain quality programs and services; prepare students
for higher education and employment; and support a climate
that encourages economic development. He discussed
~Destination 2012," which will be launched to better
understand the expectations of citizens. In Summer 2002, the
School Board will appoint a steering committee of community
leaders to review information and identify key themes for
consideration as a vision for Chesterfield County schools.
In Fall 2002, the School Board will host a symposium on the
future, followed by small focus groups led by individual
Board members to examine and prioritize the themes. By
Spring 2003, the School Board plans to adopt a vision for the
future of our schools that will then guide the next six-year
02- 434
06/07/02
improvement plan and our next multi-year budget. He then
presented challenges that the School Board will address in
the near future, which included the infrastructure needs of
aging facilities, special needs of students, changes in
technology, and new mandates; debt at levels of the past 20
years, approximately 10% of the operating budget; and future
borrowing limits ability to compete and adapt to change and
growth. He discussed differences in today's school system
such as, increased accountability for students and schools;
increased pressure to attract and retain high-qualified
employees; increased demand for special programs; increased
demand for choice options; increased demand for student
services; "No Child Left Behind," a federal program that will
make a big impact on the schools; and the diversity of our
students.
Ms. Burton led the three bodies through a brainstorming
session discussing a decision-making process about critical
issues to be addressed and solutions/actions that would lead
toward resolution.
Ms. Burton reviewed the Boards and Commission's priorities of
critical issues, which were roads; school debt; impact of
growth on schools; commercial development; revision of plans;
development paying its way; school facilities and
infrastructure; creation of incentives to encourage quality
in-fill; protection of open space; sustain and protect aging
neighborhoods; alignment of Board and Legislators on
priorities, safe/decent housing, e.g., mobile homes; and
utilities.
The group brainstormed the first critical issue, roads. They
discussed symptoms such as citizen surveys; citizens
experiencing delays at commute times; level of service;
ranking of roads by the Virginia Department of
Transportation; and traffic tallies.
Causes discussed were money; residential development (not
only ours but neighboring jurisdictions); extending Route
288; and high schools generating more traffic.
Solutions discussed were getting additional monies through
tolls, increase gas or sales taxes, and a bond referendum;
building no new high schools on arterial roads; residential
development to pay to build roads; more comprehensive
planning; slow down residential development; re-evaluate the
cash proffer policy; acquire additional state funding;
determine differentiating high growth areas to pay higher
cash proffers; redistribute residential growth; provide
additional/better public transportation; support the need for
residential road connectivity; create sidewalks for
subdivisions; and limit the number of cars students can drive
to schools.
The next steps discussed for this issue were to identify
which land use plans are high growth areas and look at those
comprehensive plans and make adjustments as needed based on
priorities for infrastructure needs; identify funding
sources, local, state, private and creating funding
solutions; build a system for public input and communication;
examine ways to phase development; balance localized specific
needs with the overall, county-wide needs; pursue alternate
transportation system, considering demographics; and pursue a
local bond referendum and other localized solutions for
roads.
Discussion ensued regarding pursuing a bond referendum.
Mr. Warren questioned whether Chesterfield County is getting
its fair share of tax dollars from the state. He would like
staff to look at this to make sure we are getting our fair
share and if not work with our Legislators on this issue.
06/07/02
Mr. Miller requested staff come back with recommendations
regarding these next steps to the Boards/Commission.
The next critical issue discussed was the impact of growth on
schools, which included growth on enrollment; specialized
programs; and related costs including debt service. The
symptoms discussed were overcrowded schools; use of trailers;
student-teacher ratio; change in demographics; change in
programmatic needs; parental complaints; inadequate state
funding; public perception versus reality; community
understanding; and assaults.
Discussion ensued regarding the quality of education that
students in Chesterfield are receiving.
Causes discussed were standards for learning is higher;
unfunded federal and state mandates; higher demand for
knowledge worker jobs; educating children in group homes;
State funding is below what the local community expects;
public wants choices, which include special programs that are
pricey; safety issues; quality schools attract more
residents; English as a Second Language classes are costly;
educating every child creates different requirements; schools
inability to raise revenue; and students attending county
schools, but not residing in Chesterfield.
Solutions discussed were to pursue the possibility of
prosecuting non-residents; stimulate economic development and
educate citizens on its importance; time
utilization/staggered schedules; optimize facilities with
students added to low capacity schools; educate public to buy
in Chesterfield to help revenues; educate community regarding
the value of education to them; educate residents on cost of
education; reducing residential density; comprehensive plan
that all three bodies agree with that addresses space issues;
re-evaluate cash proffers and other funding options; get the
Legislative Delegation to buy-in to controlled growth
options; beef up comprehensive plan to help deter development
in areas where schools are over-capacity; and educate the
community on transportation costs, priority issues.
Next steps were addressed by the Boards/Commission. Staff of
county and schools were asked to conduct a comprehensive
review of the solutions and next steps.
Mr. Warren expressed appreciation to the School Board for
coming together with the Board and Planning Commission to
address these issues and working together for the good of the
citizens.
Ms. Davis stated that she felt that this had been a good
meeting and that today all the bodies worked together for
what is best for the citizens of Chesterfield.
Mr. Miller thanked everyone for their attendance and stated
that he awaits the analyses from staff regarding their
recommendations on these issues.
Mr. Ramsey expressed appreciation to the School Board staff
and county staff for their time and efforts in preparing for
the Summit.
02- 436
06/07/02
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board of
Supervisors adjourned at 5:05 p.m. to June 26, 2002 at 3:00
p.m. at the Public Meeting Room for a regularly scheduled
meeting.
Ayes: Miller, Warren, Humphrey, Barber and McHale.
Nays: None.
Lane B.
County
02- 437
06/07/02