|
Adjourned Meeting
December 11, 2001
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York
County Board of Supervisors was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday,
December 11, 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, Donald E. Wiggins, James S.
Burgett, and Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr.
Sheila S. Noll was absent.
Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator;
and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
UTILITIES STRATEGIC CAPITAL PLAN
Mr. McReynolds indicated that the Strategic Capital Plan is
reviewed and revised as necessary every two years. Mr. Hudgins and Mr.
Woodward from Environmental and Development Services were present to
provide an explanation of the changes in the program and the criteria
for the utilities projects.
Mrs. Noll arrived at 6:02 p.m.
Mr. John Hudgins, Director of Environmental and Development
Services, made a presentation with the use of visual aids providing the
Board with an update to the Strategic Capital Plan. He noted there had
been no change to the format or criteria for the plan. The County has
provided $30 million to projects in the extension program since 1994,
and there are $16 million in projects currently on line. He then
reviewed the sewer, water, and stormwater scoring criteria for the
utilities projects. He also reviewed the plan development factors and
the project ranking in each of the three areas.
Mr. Wiggins indicated he was glad to see Rocky Road, Burts Road,
and Cheadle Loop added to or moved up on the project list.
Mr. Zaremba asked for an explanation of the survey process that
takes place to get citizen input as to whether or not a residential area
wants to have water extended.
Mrs. Noll asked if staff followed up on the survey letter.
Mr. Brian Woodward, Chief of Utilities, explained the survey
process, noting that 65 percent of the individuals surveyed about a
project have to answer affirmatively in order for the project to go
forward. As the results get nearer the 65 percent requirement, staff
follows up with those who have not yet answered the survey and provides
more information if needed. He stated that at a minimum two letters go
out on every project.
Discussion followed on the ranking and time frame for construction
of the water projects.
Mr. Shepperd asked how the Environmental and Development Services
staff determined that they had captured all the sites needing water.
Mr. Woodward indicated the staff has very good maps. All the plans
were laid out, and staff added those areas that were on the maps that
were obviously lacking water service.
Mr. Hudgins continued his review, discussing and reviewing the
sewer projects.
Discussion followed on the time frame for construction of the
sewer projects.
Mr. McReynolds discussed the projects contained in the out years
of the program. Some of them have different soils that make septic tank
systems an acceptable method of sewage disposal, and the Board may want
to look at these areas as areas where there would be no need for sewer
extension because of the high costs or good soils. He stated that at
some time the Board might want to look at making sewer optional in
certain areas where today it is mandatory.
Chairman Burgett asked if this project information will be on the
Internet.
Mr. McReynolds stated it would be posted on the Internet with a
copy of the briefing and the schedules.
Mr. Zaremba indicated that in Queens Lake the water project was
rated at 5 and the sewer project rated at 8, but the implementation
schedule indicates the two projects will be done at the same time, and
he asked if that was correct.
Mr. Hudgins explained it was correct. He stated it was one of the
planning factors considered in the process. He then reviewed the
stormwater projects, stating there had been no changes since July of
this year.
Chairman Burgett stated staff did a good job; the plans were very
good yet flexible. He stated they needed to be because circumstances
change.
Mr. Hudgins then addressed the current utility rates for sewer and
water. He stated there is no fee for stormwater at this time, but this
may change as the County moves into the Federal stormwater regulations.
He then discussed the sewer service rate setting model and its elements
in terms of costs and revenues.
Mr. Wiggins stated he felt it was important to note that the sewer
fees carry themselves and don't have to come out of the General
Operating Fund.
Mr. Hudgins continued his explanation of the model elements. He
indicated that according to the model the rate for 2003 should be $33.52
as the bi-monthly fee. He stated staff was recommending that the
bi-monthly fee be raised to $34.00 starting in FY03, and he noted that
the fee had not been raised since 1993.
Discussion followed on the efficiencies and economies seen in the
utilities system over the past 10 years.
Mr. Shepperd asked why the recommendation was for $34.00 when the
model indicated $33.52.
Mr. McReynolds explained it was because another increase would
also be needed for FY04 as well. Rather than have the Board raise the
rate two years in a row, staff was recommending an average rate that
would carry through FY04.
Mr. Hudgins then stated that staff was also recommending an
increase in the connection fee from $2,875 to $3,300 effective FY03. He
explained the reasons include higher construction costs and the projects
are getting more difficult. He stated the last increase in connection
fees took place in 1998.
Discussion followed on the County's grant program for low income
families needing assistance with the fees, as well as other financial
arrangements that the County provides for individuals to pay over a
period of time.
Mr. Wiggins asked how the County compares with other localities.
Mr. Woodward directed the Board's attention to the comparison
chart appearing in the briefing book.
Mr. Hudgins noted York was not the highest nor the lowest in terms
of fees. He explained that localities like Hampton are built out, and
the cost of putting in sewer there is far below what it costs York
County.
Mr. Zaremba suggested that the developer connection fees needed to
be raised to that of other local jurisdictions.
Chairman Burgett stated the bottom line is that there is inflation
each year, and York's costs are increasing because of the difficulty of
the projects and the rising costs of construction.
Mr. Zaremba spoke of the 4-12 percent increase in York's real
estate assessment that results in an increase in taxes paid by the
citizens even though the tax rate remains at $.86/$100. He asked for an
explanation of the 4 percent contingency.
Mr. Hudgins indicated a contingency reserve is always programmed
when pricing equipment and other costs of construction projects. The
contingency was reviewed in this recent study, but staff was looking at
raising it instead of lowering it.
Discussion followed on the contingency reserve for the utilities
systems.
Mrs. Noll suggested that in the future staff look at reevaluations
of the system and potential increases for the odd years to the real
estate assessment increases.
Mr. Shepperd asked how Mrs. Noll's suggestion would play out in
the County's budget planning.
Mr. McReynolds stated if that was the Board's policy, it would be
brought into the budget planning process; and he stated he felt staff
could adequately plan for it. Part of the reason that the Board has
opted not to add these service fees into the real property tax rate is
because some of the services are either elective or not provided
throughout the County. These utility funds are self-supporting by the
individuals who receive the services. Mr. McReynolds stated that as the
County approaches 100 percent availability, then the Board might wish to
take a look at putting the fees in the real estate tax rate in order for
the citizens to use the fees as a deduction on their tax returns.
Chairman Burgett noted his agreement with Mrs. Noll to delay the
increase until next year to put it on the odd year from the real estate
assessment.
Mr. Hudgins stated it could be done, but next year the needed fee
would be larger.
Mrs. Noll asked if the Board would be jeopardizing the planning
for any of the current projects if it opted to wait until next year for
the fee increase.
Mr. Hudgins stated the current model is dependent on the staff's
proposal, and he couldn't answer the question at this time because the
numbers would have to be run back through the model without the
increase. Even with the rate increase, he stated the County would still
be tipping into the cash reserve.
Chairman Burgett suggested just increasing the bi-monthly fee this
year and wait until next year to raise the connection fees.
Mr. Wiggins stated he did not want to do anything that would
jeopardize the progress of the projects on the list.
Mr. Woodward stated that without a rate increase, one of the major
projects will have to be delayed at least one year to make up for lost
revenue.
Mr. McReynolds stated another alternative would be to look at a
3-year rate increase that would be a little above the $34.00. This would
put the Board on the cycle it wants. He suggested that the Board allow
staff to review some options and get back to the Board with another
recommendation.
Mr. Shepperd stated he would not be interested in any proposal
that would bounce any of the major projects.
Mr. McReynolds stated the bi-monthly fee is tied to the routine
operation of the existing system rather than the expansion of the
system. The connection fees deal more with the expansion of the system.
By consensus the Board directed staff to review other options and
return to the Board with other alternatives.
STORMWATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Hudgins discussed the Stormwater Advisory Committee charter he
had drafted to develop recommendations for goals, objectives, and
implementation strategies to meet the NPDES and VPDES MS4 Phase II rules
for implementation of the first two control measures of public
education/outreach and public involvement/participation. The charter
would also include the review of the stormwater management program,
development of education programs, attendance at public hearings by the
committee members, and the recruitment of volunteers in organizing
monitoring efforts. He explained that the proposed composition of the
committee would be one citizen from each district, one citizen at large
experienced with stormwater and environmental planning and design, and
one citizen at large experienced in public outreach and education. Mr.
Hudgins stated the plan was for the committee to meet quarterly. The
meeting times would be flexible and would depend on where the County was
at meeting the Federal program.
Mrs. Noll stated subcommittees could be set up to meet certain
outreach needs.
Mr. Hudgins agreed there was a lot of potential with the
establishment of the committee.
Chairman Burgett stated the former Drainage Committee set a list
of priorities and objectives that the Board needs to work on. He asked
if this group would monitor progress of the projects.
Mr. Hudgins indicated it would, and the members would also provide
input into other projects. One of the valuable assets of the former
Drainage Committee was that there were individuals on the committee who
became a tool to report in and provide information on the actual
problems when there was a major storm event. They became a part of the
solution in developing the current program. This same theory would be
included in the new committee.
Mr. Wiggins stated he would like to see more citizens on the
committee, but he realizes how a large committee is hard to work with.
He stated he feels the proposed committee will be dynamic, and he
expressed his appreciation to Mr. Hudgins for writing the charter.
Mr. Shepperd noted his agreement with Mr. Wiggins, and stated Mr.
Wiggins did a tremendous job of leading the original committee.
Chairman Burgett stated another alternative proposal would be for
each member of the committee to have their own district subcommittee.
These individuals could come to meetings, but not vote. Then the size
would be unlimited.
Mr. Shepperd asked if the new committee would have any tasking
authority for the County staff.
Mr. McReynolds indicated it would be an advisory committee only.
Mr. Shepperd asked if a VDOT representative would be included.
Mr. Hudgins stated he felt a VDOT representative would be a very
good idea.
Discussion then followed concerning the NPDES and VPDES MS4 rules
and the control measures in the Phase II program.
Mr. Hudgins noted that because of the Bay Act, the County has
already taken care of the post-construction stormwater and
pollution/prevention in municipal operations. He stated a number of
required steps have already been implemented by the County.
Mr. Zaremba indicated he remembered a briefing the Board received
about four years ago on this subject, and there was discussion as to
major potential costs for implementation of Phase II. He asked if staff
anticipates any significant costs at this time.
Mr. Hudgins stated the answer was not known at this time. He
indicated he was sitting on the committee with the Hampton Roads
Planning District Commission (HRPDC) regarding the Phase II development.
The State is in the process of developing its implementation rules to
regulate the program. One of the big questions having to do with money
is what happens to the stormwater detention ponds in the localities and
who is going to regulate them. He indicated there would be significant
costs involved if the localities have to do the regulating and
maintenance. In order to do this, Mr. Hudgins stated the County will
have to consider a stormwater fee.
Mr. Shepperd noted it sounded like another unfunded State mandate.
Mr. Hudgins indicated HRPDC was trying to develop a program that
the localities could share to reduce the costs.
Mr. Wiggins stated the BMPs being developed today must be looked
at to make sure the localities aren't saddling themselves with problems
in the future.
Mr. Hudgins noted staff was doing that and has been since 1997. He
spoke of the need for maintenance on many of the BMPs in the older
subdivisions.
Mr. Zaremba stated his purpose in bringing the cost up is that
what appears to be a very innocent endeavor has the potential for having
some very major costs associated with it, and the Board needs to be kept
informed on its progress.
Mr. McReynolds stated that staff would prepare the necessary
paperwork to formalize the proposed committee to bring to the Board for
approval.
Mr. Shepperd indicated his desire to work with staff on this
committee because he was a member of the previous Drainage Committee.
TAX EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR CARITAS (Not on Agenda)
Mr. Barnett explained that the original resolution adopted by the
Board in support of the tax exemption for the Caritas Center did not
contain all the required information for the Division of Legislative
Services to prepare a bill for the General Assembly's consideration. He
indicated that proposed Resolution R01-233 has been prepared for the
Board's consideration which contains all the required information.
Mr. Wiggins moved the adoption of proposed Resolution R01-233 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION R01-187, SUPPORTING THE REQUEST
OF CARITAS OF YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA, A VIRGINIA NON-STOCK CORPORATION, TO
BECOME EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAXATION
WHEREAS, Caritas of Yorktown, Virginia ("Caritas") has
forwarded to the Board a request for support for a real and personal
property tax exemption which Caritas desires to seek from the Virginia
General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, § 30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia addresses such
exemptions and subsection B of § 30-19.04 requires that the local
governing body advertise and conduct a public hearing and consider a
series of questions prior to adopting a resolution supporting the
requested exemption; and
WHEREAS, the required public hearing has been advertised and
conducted and the Board of Supervisors has duly examined and considered
the questions contained in subsection B of § 30-19.04 of the Code of
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined that real estate
currently owned by Caritas is assessed for the year 2001 at a total
value of $533,900.00 ($213,000.00 for the land and $342,900.00 for
improvements) for which a real estate tax was levied in the amount of
$4,700.74;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 11th day of December, 2001, that this resolution
be, and is hereby, adopted in support of the request of Caritas to
become exempt from property taxation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is recommended that the property of
Caritas be classified as property used for charitable and benevolent
purposes in accordance with those tax exemption categories set out in
Code of Virginia § 58.1-3650.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution R01-233 shall
supercede and replace Resolution R01-187 adopted on October 16, 2001.
On roll call, the vote was:
Yea: (3) Zaremba, Wiggins, Burgett
Nay: (2) Noll, Shepperd
CLOSED MEETING. At 7:27 p.m. Mr. Wiggins moved that the
Board convene in Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(a)(3) of
the Code of Virginia regarding the acquisition of public property for a
public purpose; and Section 2.2-3711(a)(7) regarding consultation with
legal counsel on a legal matter.
On roll call, the vote was:
Yea: (5) Noll, Wiggins, Shepperd, Zaremba, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Meeting Reconvened. At 7:42 p.m. the meeting was reconvened
in open session by order of the Chair.
Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of proposed Resolution SR-1 that
reads:
A RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT REGARDING MEETING IN CLOSED SESSION
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and
in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3711.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the York County Board of Supervisors that such closed
meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 11th day of December, 2001, hereby certifies that,
to the best of each member's knowledge, (1) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution
applies, and (2) only such public business matters as were identified in
the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or
considered by the York County Board of Supervisors.
On roll call, the vote was:
Yea: (5) Wiggins, Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Meeting Adjourned. At 7:45 p.m. Mr. Wiggins moved that the
meeting be adjourned sine die.
On roll call, the vote was:
Yea: (5) Shepperd, Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins, Burgett
Nay: (0)
____________________________
_______________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk
James S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
NOTE: In accordance with Section 15.2-1241 of the Code of
Virginia, the minutes of this meeting were read at the February 5, 2002,
Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors, and Chairman Wiggins was
directed to sign such.
Back to Index
|
