Loading...
07-13-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES July 13, 1984 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R. Balderson, Director of Planning Mr. Jeffrey B. Muzzy, Asst. Co. Administrator Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, Dir., Bud. & Accounting Mr. James L. Stegmaier, Senior Budget Officer Mr. Charles R. Quaiff, Supt., Billing and Acct. Mr. James P. Zook, Chief, Comp. Planning Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at 10:25 a.m. (EDST). He stated that Mrs. Girone was at another meeting and would arrive shortly but the Board co~lld begin with the General Plan 2000 as the Economic Development Committee, of which she is a member, had seen this. He indicated if she had not arrived at the end of this presentation, the Board could recess until she arrived. Mr. Daniel stated that the Board was holding a work session on three items, the General Plan 2000, water and sewer fees and the Capital Improvements Program. 1. WORK SESSION - GENERAL PLAN 2000 Mr. Balderson stated the General Plan 2000 consisted of three elements, a land use plan, a transportation plan and a public facilities plan. Mr. Balderson stated the General Plan 2000 adopted ~n 1977 had been used as a guide for the location of future development. He stated that the Plan was becoming outdated and there was a need for an up-to-date Plan to be used as a guide for evaluating future decisions. He stated the public facilities plan had been completed and is being utilized and reviewed where we were with the land use and transportation elements of the Plan. He further reviewed optional schedules for Plan preparation by two consulting firms, Harland, Bartholomew and Associates (HBA) and Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates (KDA). HBA proposed the work be accomplished in a 135 day period for $170,085. KDA proposed the work be performed in 315 days for a total of $].03,425. Mr. Balderson stated that it was staff's recommendation that there be a joint effort, with the primary work being done by the staf£ and some consultant assistance with respec~ to transportation. He stated that the estimated cost for this consulting work was $26,000. Mr. Mayes questioned why there was an absence of land use studies in ~]e Matoaca District. Mr. Hedrick stated the existing studies ha~!l been done in the other areas as a result of requ~sts received ~>r rezoning. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator to pursue the staff/consultant option to update the General Plan 2000. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mrs. Girone. Mr. Daniel proposed recessing until Mrs. Girone arrived. It was indicated that Mrs. GiroDe had called and stated she would arrive at ]]:30 a.m. It was generally agreed the Board would not recess but continue with the work sessions. 84-398 2. WORK SESSION - WATER AND SEWER FEES Mr. Quaiff outlined the following amendments to the County ordinance for water and sewer fees proposed to become effective August 1, 1984: 1. Increase water service charges. Mr. Quaiff stated that the necessity for the increase in water service charges was primarily due to the expansion of the Appomattox River Water Authority, which if not made, would result in a revenue shortfall of $989,820. He stated the average increase for a resident would be $3.28 on bi-monthly bill and industrial users would see a 20-75% increase . He further stated that the large industrial users have been contacted and they are aware of the increase. Impose a 5% penalty for late payment of utility bill with a minimum charge of $1.50. Mr. Quaiff stated that 20% of the total customers billed made their payments late which reduced cash flows and increased the County's expenses because of additional man hours needed to process and mail delinquent bills and process additional phone inquiries. He further stated the customer paying their bill on time is subsidizing those making late payments and the amendments were proposed to encourage prompt payment of bills and have customers requiring additional services pay a fair share of the expense. Impose a $10.00 fee if bill is collected at the door before service is disconnected. Impose a $25.00 fee when service is disconnected for nonpayment. 5. Adopt connection fee schedule for sewer connections. Mr. Quaiff stated that the Utilities Department had met with the Home Builders Association and received their support for the revised additional increases for each of the next four fiscal years. He further stated increases were based on connection fees for homes in new subdivisions with other categories being increased by the same percent. Mr. Quaiff stated if the sewer connection fees remained at the present rate, a $43,800,000 bond issue would be necessary and would require a 30% increase in service charges to finance. Revise water connection fees for existing homes and new homes on non-developer lines. Mr. QuaJ~f[ stated staff recommended the water connection fee for exist~. ~.ngle ~lily residences and new homes connected to the line ~,~ ~ inste ~ by the developer be increased by $500. He stated ~ a~~ cost is now $500 and because of recent requirements b' ~e Highway Department, there has been an increase in the cost of installion of approximately $140.00 He also stated the increased fee would provide additional funds for future extensions. Mr. Quaiff pointed out that currently there is no incentive for a property owner to make an effort to make improvements to a well or dig a new well if the County will provide public water for a $500.00 connection fee. Mr. Hedrick stated that a public hearing would be held on July 25, 1984 on these proposed amendments and if approved, they would become effective August 1, 1984. He stated that today's session was meant as preparation for the Board for the upcoming public hearing. Mrs. Girone joined the meeting and indicated her dissatisfaction that the Board had begun without her, knowing she was attending another meeting on County business. 84-399 Mr. Dodd asked how these rate increases compared with other localities. Mr. Quaiff stated they had been compared to Henrico County and the City of Richmond and were lower. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss legal matters regarding Dunnin¢ vs. the Board of Supervisors and personnel matters as permitted by §2.1-344(a) (6) and §2.1-344(a) (1) respectively, of the Code ol Virginia, 1950 as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: The Board recessed for lunch except for Mrs. Girone who reviewed the work sessions on the Plan 2000 and Utilities with the staff. Reconvening: 3. WORK SESSION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Mr. Hedrick stated the next work session scheduled was on the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). He stated that the Board had adopted the first phase of the Ci£P when they adopted the 84/85 budget. Mr. Stegmaier stated that the CIP was based on the following assumptions: 1. The County tax base will continue to grow at 10-12% per year. The County can continue to commit the same percentage of the budget to capital projects in the future as in the past. Any amount above growth and current percent of budget would result in a tax rate increase. Mr. Stegmaier spoke briefly on the school debt. He stated that the schools do not have a CIP at this %ime, but stated they are working on one and hope to have it completed in the near future. He also reviewed estimated funds available for the CIP. Mr. Zook stated the CIP was based on the Public Facilities Plan. He stated the input from that Plan had come from suggestions from the Board and County dei~artments and was then analyzed by the Planning Department staff. Mr. Zook stated that the premises fo~ the selection of locations for these facilities were based primarily on the number of people they would serve. He stated that in the next 20 years, the County should experience a 3% rat~ of growth with an increase in the population of approximately 100,000 and showed projections of where these additional people would locate. He stated the deciding ~actors as to where they would locate are the quality of the schools and the distance fro~ work to home. Mr. Zook stated the CIP was categorized as follows: 2. 3. 4. Projects that require bond funding Projects that will be funded through the General Fund Projects that need additional study Projects that have been deferred Mr. Zook made a presention to the Board showing where the parks, libraries and fire stations that are proposed to be built with general obligation bonds would be located in the County. Mr. Zbok gave a presentation on Phase ! ~ which includes year one t~rough three. Mr. Mayes expressed concern about the lack of facilities in the Matoaca District. Mr. Zook stated the need for facilities was based on population density. Mr. Mayes stated that the population was approximately the same in each district, that being 27,000. Mr. Hedrick stated that the rural areas don' have the demand for services that the urban areas do. He furthe stated that a goOd portion of land in tlhe Matoaca District was being ~xed by !~nd 'use. 84.-400 Mr. Ramsey briefed the Board on funding sources and alternative methods for funding the CIP and the road projects in Chester and Ettrick. He also discussed the financial impact and tax rate impact of those alternatives. Mr. Mayes stated that he did not want the Matoaca road improvements contingent on the passage of a bond referendum. The Board recessed for five minutes. Reconvening: There was some discussion about the proposed human services building, data processing building and courts building and the use of the vacated space these new facilities will create. There was also discussion on the lease/purchase method of financing the new facility. After some discussion, it was generally agreed that the Johnson Creek Drainage District located in the Bermuda District, would be considered a county-wide project as it would increase the County's tax base. Mrs. Girone expressed concern that if the County proceeded with the improvements in Johnson Creek, the developers who later purchased the property would still pay their pro-rata share, as developers in the 60/147 Drainage District had. It was pointed out that in the case of the Johnson Creek Drainage District, all improvements would have to be built before any development could take place. Mr. Daniel directed Mr. Hedrick to poll the Board on their road needs. Mr. Dodd stated he would like to see the County fund the CIP through Economic Development measures rather than a tax increase. Mr. Hedrick suggested the Board discuss the public utility capital projects at the work session scheduled for the Sewer Master Plan. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as permitted by ~2.1-344(a) {1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 4. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Mayes, the Board adjourned until July 24, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. at Defense General Supply Center. Vote: Unanimous RiC~f~d L. Hedrick County Administrator C~%~YrmGa, n Daniel 84-401