|
Adjourned Meeting
June 26, 2001
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board
of Supervisors was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 26, 2001,
in the East Room, York Hall, by Chairman James S. Burgett.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of
Supervisors were present: Walter C. Zaremba, Sheila S. Noll, Donald E.
Wiggins, and James S. Burgett.
H. R. Ashe was absent.
Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator;
and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
DRAINAGE
Mr. Wiggins indicated it had been over a year since the Board of
Supervisors established the Drainage Committee, and he outlined the
course of action taken by the committee in developing recommendations to
solve the drainage problems that County residents have been experiencing
for many years. He spoke concerning the Highway Department's
responsibilities and its lack of funding to take care of the massive
problems. He stated the members who serve on the committee were the most
interested and knowledgeable individuals about the problems in all the
districts, and the staff has been extremely knowledgeable and supportive
of the committee's efforts.
Mr. Ashe arrived at 6:10 p.m.
Mr. Wiggins expressed his hope that after tonight's meeting the
Board will agree to continue the committee for at least five more years,
and he noted that most of the members have agreed to continue serving if
the Board desires it.
Mrs. Noll asked if Mr. Wiggins was suggesting that this committee
be added to the Board Bank.
Mr. Wiggins stated he did. He stated the current members
actually go out and look at their neighbors' problems when they are
called. Many of the problems are of a general maintenance nature, and
through the committee these types of problems can be solved immediately.
Mr. John Hudgins, Director of Environmental and Development
Services, stated part of the Phase 2 process of the state's storm water
mandate is outreach and public or citizen involvement. He also
recommended that the committee be kept intact and active.
Mr. Wiggins noted there was a need for a lot of discussion between
now and when the state's mandate takes place, and there is no way of
knowing how much help the County will need.
Mr. Brian Woodward, Chief of Utilities, made a presentation
regarding the work of the Drainage Committee. The objectives established
by the Board of Supervisors for the committee were to identify the
drainage problems, review the current program, and make recommendations
for solutions to the Board. The committee discussed the rating criteria
used to rank the drainage projects, funding mechanisms, the maintenance
program, the need for easements, and design standards. The following are
the draft stormwater projects identified by the committee:
· Moores Creek
Outfall
$ 1,000,000
· Homestead
BMP
150,000
· Tabb
Lakes
300,000
· Edgehill East
Outfall
400,000
· Edgehill (NE
Section)
100,000
· Cook Road/Falcon
Road
200,000
· Rich Acres/2827 Route
17
100,000
· Foxwood/Darby Firby
100,000
·
Brandywine
600,000
· Kiln Creek (Lake 8
Area)
Maint.
· Kiln Creek - Hollingsworth
Court
Maint.
· Coventry - Tui
Place
Maint.
· Ella Taylor - (Lee's
Village)
100,000
· Greensprings Waller
Mill
185,000
· Mt. Vernon
School
50,000
· Terrebonne
150,000
Mr. Woodward then reviewed the following recommendations made by
the committee:
· Revise Capital Plan Projects
· Additional Funding to support a 3-year program
· 12-Month Maintenance Program
· Compensation be paid for easements
· Review Design Standards
Mr. Woodward noted that current funding for the program consists
of $100,000/year from the General Fund and $290,000/year from the Meals
Tax, for a total of $390,000/year. Funding options identified by the
committee were to use the current method of revenue, plus borrowings,
the establishment of a fee/tax, and use of Revenue Sharing funds. He
stated the current funding method calls for projects identified to be
completed on a 12-year schedule, does not increase other fees or taxes,
and allows for future funding of projects. With a borrowing mechanism,
the County can expect to complete projects within a 5-year timeframe,
but it obligates revenue for 20 years and does not provide funding for
other projects not yet identified. Mr. Woodward then spoke concerning
the possibility of a stormwater fee/tax, indicating creation of such
would allow identified projects to be completed on a 5-year schedule and
would allow for future funding of projects. The use of revenue sharing
funds also would allow identified projects to be completed on a 5-year
schedule, would not increase other fees or taxes, and would allow for
future funding of projects. He then reviewed proposed funding of
projects for Fiscal Year 2003 as follows:
· Additional
Revenue
$350,000/year
· General
Fund
100,000/year
· Meals
Tax
300,000/year
TOTAL
$730,000/year
Mr. McReynolds stated the staff recommends increasing from
$385,000 to $500,000 for funds put aside for revenue sharing and that
there be no stormwater fee established at this time.
Mrs. Noll noted that even if the County has $500,000 for revenue
sharing, it did not mean that VDOT would give the total matching amount.
Mr. McReynolds stated it would depend on how many requests VDOT
received. If more requests come in than funding allows, funding will be
prorated. He stated the County's experience has been that it would have
no problem in getting funding into the upper $400,000 area.
Chairman Burgett stated staff's proposal might be a good way to go
initially and make adjustments as necessary.
Mr. Wiggins noted his agreement, stating it met all of the
committee's wishes and did not raise taxes or fees.
Mrs. Noll stated she did not want to commit all of the County's
revenue sharing funding to this one issue. She noted there would be
other projects coming up in need of this funding.
Mr. McReynolds stated the staff's thinking was much the same, and
the recommendation is to dedicate only $200,000 annually for stormwater/drainage
purposes.
Discussion followed regarding VDOT vs. County drainage
responsibilities.
Mr. Ashe questioned the Board's ability to take easements.
Mr. Barnett stated the Board can condemn easements if necessary,
but the court will deter-mine the price the County will have to pay for
them.
Mr. Hudgins stated it has been a policy of the Board in the past
not to pay for drainage easements. The recommendation of the committee
was to treat drainage easements like other utility easements.
Mr. Ashe stated he felt the Board needed to do this as well as
look at maintenance or lack of it. The Board may need to look at the
design standards and requirements for subdivisions in the future.
Mr. Zaremba commended Mr. Wiggins and the committee for an
outstanding job. He indicated everyone would benefit from the proposed
program. He reminded the Board that this was not really a new program in
that the previous Board instituted the Stormwater Management Program,
but now a new dimension has been added. Years ago the areas where there
were major stormwater runoff problems were identified, and he asked Mr.
Woodward to expound on the criteria used to identify these areas.
Mr. Woodward stated there are projects that have been carried
forward from the original program with new projects added as well as one
project that has been modified. He noted the criteria used then and
still used now included the size of the drainage basin, the number of
properties in the drainage basin, safety, and the severity of flooding
to personal property.
Mr. Zaremba stated the Board recognizes that this is not the end
of program requirements because others will surface on an annual basis.
He asked if the identified projects were in a recommended order.
Mr. Woodward stated they were.
Mr. Zaremba asked if this priority list would replace the one in
the Stormwater Management Program.
Mr. McReynolds stated it was intended to if the Board approved
this new program.
Chairman Burgett asked about projects that would cost less than
$30,000.
Mr. Woodward stated those projects will be handled through the
drainage maintenance pro-gram.
Mr. Zaremba then asked for clarification on how the Revenue
Sharing Program works in relation to the stormwater projects.
Mr. McReynolds stated a majority of the projects involve ditches
along the roadside or from outfall channels from the road that VDOT will
take responsibility for and will qualify them for the revenue sharing
funds. Since they are part of the highway system, VDOT will match
funding 50/50.
Mr. Zaremba spoke of easements, stating if it was important enough
to the County, the taking of easements should be added to the equation
when necessary as they are done with other utility projects. He stated
if a problem impacts a major number of households, the Board should do
its best to negotiate a free easement, but take it if it is important
enough to solve a major problem; and if it is not a major problem, it
should not be on the priority listing.
Mrs. Noll stated she still supported moving along with the
projects that have the cooperation of the property owners in terms of
providing easements.
Chairman Burgett expressed his agreement, stating the program
should move along where there is the least resistance.
Mr. Ashe expressed his concern about providing a piecemeal
solution to the County's drainage problems. He talked of the program in
Hampton and Newport News and Newmarket Creek that was built as a
drainage ditch that has the capacity to take care of a 100-year storm.
He stated he would hope the County would do a master drainage plan that
will handle these and future problems rather than do a piecemeal repair
job.
Mr. Wiggins stated the County does not have the necessary land to
do something like Newmarket Creek. He noted the projects need to be
sized correctly; but because of fund limitations, they may not be done
to meet a 100-year storm.
Mr. Ashe noted that another major issue is mosquitoes, and he
stated the Board needed to do everything possible to drain properties to
prevent their breeding.
Mr. Hudgins indicated he felt the new program would be addressing
some of the concerns that Mr. Ashe has expressed. The program will not
end in five years.
Discussion followed concerning the 1985 master drainage basin
study.
Mr. Zaremba stated that none of the projects in the program are
looked at in isolation without looking at the impact on adjacent
properties.
Mr. Hudgins noted his agreement, stating staff will look at the
whole basin from where the problem exists out to the outfall.
Mr. Ashe asked if the Drainage Committee had access to the study
that was done in the mid 1980s.
Mr. Hudgins stated the earlier study was just a basin
identification project for the entire county.
Mrs. Connie Bennett, Stormwater Engineer, stated the study did
identify some problems and deficiencies with a price tag of $13 million.
Some of the problems identified did not impact residential areas, and
many were VDOT responsibilities.
Mr. Ashe indicated his whole point was that the problems for the
entire county were identified in the mid 1980s, and now in 2001 it is
being studied again. He expressed his concern that the Drainage
Committee didn't start with the study done in the mid 1980s.
Chairman Burgett stated he felt the staff and Board was being
proactive by starting something in motion to correct the problems now.
After further discussion, by consensus the Board agreed to move
forward with the drainage plan as proposed with the use of Revenue
Sharing funds. The Board also directed staff to change the policy on
acquiring drainage easements to condemn them if the project warrants it.
Mrs. Noll then moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R01-124
that reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PROCUREMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR THE VICTORY BOULEVARD EAST DRAINAGE PROJECT
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Board of Supervisors that all
procurements of goods and services by the County involving an
expenditure of $30,000 or more be submitted to the Board for its review
and approval; and
WHEREAS, the County Administrator has determined that the
following procurement is necessary and desirable, that it involves the
expenditure of more than $30,000 and all applicable laws, ordinances,
and regulations have been complied with;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this 26th day of June, 2001, that the County Administrator
be, and hereby is, authorized to conclude procurement arrangements for
the following:
AMOUNT
Victory Boulevard East Drainage
Project
$134,200
(Woolpert L.L.P.)
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins, Ashe, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Mr. Wiggins then asked the Board's preference concerning the
continuance of the Drainage Committee.
Chairman Burgett suggested that staff come up with a plan to bring
to the Board for discussion, and he asked Mr. McReynolds to make sure
this happened.
UPDATES: PARKING AND GRAFFITI ORDINANCES
Parking Ordinance
Mr. Barnett stated he understood the Board would like to keep
commercial vehicles from parking in certain areas of the County
overnight, but he felt the real concern of the citizens was commercial
vehicles parking overnight when services were not being performed. He
asked the Board for clarification as to which vehicles it would target
by this ordinance. He stated there was no comprehensive definition of
the term "commercial vehicle" in the state code. He then spoke
of the current parking ordinance that restricts parking on certain
streets in Yorktown proper and the signs associated with it.
Chairman Burgett noted what generated this ordinance was the
parking of semi-trailers and school buses in neighborhoods. He stated
the homeowners associations do not want those vehicles parked in the
residential areas. He stated he felt if a subdivision wanted to restrict
parking in its area, then the law should allow it if the subdivision
comes forward and makes a request.
Mr. Zaremba expressed his disagreement, stating he felt it was a
county-wide concern. He suggested that the term "residential
area" was too broad. He asked why the county would make the
homeowners associations formally request something that was so obvious.
If the Board is going forward with a parking ordinance, it should be
universal.
Mr. Ashe agreed there were some rural areas where they would want
or need to park school buses.
Mr. Wiggins asked what the impact would be on the school system if
this ordinance impacts school buses.
Mr. Richard Hixson, Deputy Superintendent of Operations, York
County School Division, stated the School Board has taken no official
position but views with alarm any measures impacting the securing of bus
drivers by not allowing them to take their buses home.
Mr. Barnett stated he was envisioning an ordinance that would
limit parking from a public street but would not restrict parking in a
private driveway.
Discussion followed regarding being able to prohibit parking on
streets under VDOT jurisdiction.
Mr. Barnett indicated he would draft an ordinance that reflects
what the Board had discussed and provide the Board with copies of
similar ordinances from other jurisdictions for review.
Graffiti Ordinance
Mr. Barnett indicated the Board had been provided with a draft
graffiti ordinance with his memorandum of May 7. He stated he had
included some provisions that had come out of the criminal code. He
asked the Board if it wished to charge the property owner with cleaning
up the graffiti or if there were any other changes the Board wished to
see.
Chairman Burgett stated he wanted the County to pay to take the
graffiti off if the owner won't do it.
Mrs. Noll stated she agreed with Mr. Burgett, but asked if the
Board wants the County to absorb the cost or cite the landowner and give
him a certain amount of time to remove it. She stated if the property
owner does not comply, then the County can step in, remove the graffiti,
and send the property owner the bill.
Chairman Burgett noted his agreement with Mrs. Noll.
Mr. Zaremba stated the first payer should be the culprit, and he
asked if that stipulation was in the draft ordinance.
Mr. Barnett stated it did not have to be, but he had included it.
It all depends on whether or not the person doing the deed has been
caught.
Chairman Burgett asked if a reward aspect could be added to the
ordinance.
Mr. Barnett stated that typically reward clauses would not go in
the ordinance, but it can be done. He suggested leaving the Board the
flexibility to offer a reward on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Zaremba stated that graffiti was often accomplished on
unoccupied buildings or abandoned properties. He asked how the current
ordinance on abandoned properties owned by a local or absentee landlord
works to make sure the property doesn't become an eyesore.
Mr. McReynolds stated it is handled basically the same as for
occupied dwellings. Until it becomes an unsafe structure, there isn't
anything that can be done.
Mr. Barnett indicated an option would be to adopt certain
maintenance sections of the Statewide Building Code.
Mr. Zaremba stated it seemed inconsistent to require a property
owner who has let his property go to ruin to clean up graffiti but not
the rest of the building.
Mr. Barnett indicated he would investigate the maintenance aspects
of the Statewide Building Code.
Mr. McReynolds asked if the Board wanted to further discuss the
parking and graffiti ordinances at the July 24 work session.
By consensus the Board directed that the draft parking and
graffiti ordinances be placed on the July 24 work session agenda for
further discussion.
Meeting Adjourned. At 7:58 p.m. Chairman Burgett declared the
meeting adjourned sine die.
_____________________________
_______________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk
James S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
