BOS Minutes 02/12/02 Adjourned Meeting

Adjourned Meeting
October 28, 2003

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, October 28, 2003, 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.

Sheila S. Noll was absent.

Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator; J. Mark Carter, Assistant County Administrator; and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.

WORK SESSION

SECONDARY ROAD PLAN

Mr. McReynolds stated there were no more funds available than last year, and there is a 44 percent reduction from year before last to this year. He noted the Board members had been provided with an update on the previous cost estimates for projects with new cost estimates annotated.

Mr. Carter stated the Board gets a lump sum and it gets to set the priorities. He indicated that Resident Engineer Steve Hicks will discuss the funding and projected ad dates, and he will also talk about different ways to do projects, with Seaford Road being one example he will discuss. Mr. Carter then briefly reviewed the projects that have been completed.

Mrs. Noll arrived at 6:02 p.m.

Mr. Steve Hicks, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, reviewed the Seaford Road project, which is a $350,000 rehabilitation and repaving project. He stated it has been advertised with a completion date of summer 2004. He stated that in the future he would like to focus on projects that will see results within a year or so rather than those that take years and years.

Mr. Zaremba asked that Mr. Hicks explain what is meant by rehabilitation.

Mr. Hicks stated the concept for Seaford Road is keeping the existing center of the road. There are some portions where there are not adequate shoulders, and the department will widen the shoulders and overlay the entire thing. He noted that with any project like this it is his goal to maximize the maintenance dollars and look at other areas where improvements can be made and the entire roadway overlayed.

Mr. Carter stated staff was also looking at where the County will be doing utility projects because there are some opportunities of doing both road and utilities together to maximize dollars.

Mr. Hicks then continued his review of the County’s Secondary Six Year Plan for FY2004-2010 as follows:

Project

Ad Date

Estimated Cost

Difference from Last Year’s Estimate

Lakeside Drive (From Route 17 to Route 621)

9/30/2005

$4,100,000

$300,000

Big Bethel Road (From Route 134 to Route 171)

2/28/2005

$2,389,000

($276,000)

Fort Eustis Boulevard (From Route 17 to Route 634)

5/30/2005

$5,234,000

($133,056)

Penniman Road (From Int. Alex. Lee to Route 723)

7/30/2007

$2,150,000

($96,400)

Cary’s Chapel/Yorktown (From Route 171 to Route 171)

12/20/2003

$2,105,000

$90,000

Water Country Drive (From Route 199 to Route 641)

7/30/2008

$3,176,000

$409,637

Grafton Drive (From Route 17 to Route 17

$90,000

$40,000

Burts Road (From Route 621 to Route 17)

$160,000

$135,000

Yorkville Road (From Route 1522 to Route 620)

11/30/2006

$650,000

$625,000

Cook Road (From Route 634 to Route 238)

$20,000

Mr. Hicks noted that any project that has an ad date is fully funded.

Discussion ensued during the review with Mr. Hicks answering questions about the projects. A more in-depth discussion took place concerning Water Country Drive and determining the probability of obtaining more financial support from the area business community because of the project providing better access to their businesses and properties.

Mr. Carter addressed other highway needs, stating staff and VDOT have figured out a way to widen Mansion Road in cooperation with developers. Some intersection improvements will be done imminently on Dogwood Road. Allens Mill Road was just recently repaved, and a County utility project is scheduled for later in this decade. He noted that another two concerns were Penniman Road in front of the industrial complexes and Yorktown Road between Tabb Lane and Tabb High School. He stated they are two potential candidates for the next "Seaford Road" treatment. Mr. Carter recommended that the Board consider Penniman Road because it is a heavily traveled industrial corridor, and it needs something done as soon as possible. He stated the next step would be for the Board to consider a resolution to adopt the Six Year Plan. He noted the timing for adoption would be early next year, and between now and then staff will work on preparing information on the Water Country Parkway area for the Board. He asked the Board members if they had any suggestions for amendments to the plan, noting that money isn't available to add any more projects.

Mr. Hicks then introduced two new members of his department, Mr. Todd Halacy who will be in charge of preliminary engineering, and Tony Handy, a member of the County’s Stormwater Advisory Committee, licensed engineer, and surveyor.

ROUTE 17 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. McReynolds noted that the Board at its annual retreat instructed staff to work with the Industrial Development Authority to study Route 17 and what improvements could be made. A committee was established and has worked diligently with staff and the IDA to put together a report and a recommendation. Mr. McReynolds noted the Board had received the recommendations of the committee, and staff is asking for further direction from the Board.

Mr. James W. Noel, Jr., Director of Economic Development, reviewed the time line on the study thus far. In February, 2003, the Board of Supervisors reaffirmed its commitment to improving the Route 17 Corridor at goal setting retreat; in March, 2003, the IDA established the Route 17 Revitalization Committee to develop an action plan to revitalize the corridor; in April, 2003, the Committee held its initial meeting—six committee meetings followed and a fact-finding trip to Fairfax, Virginia, was taken; in June, 2003, a presentation on committee activities was given to the Board at a work session; in August, 2003, a subcommittee meeting with salvage yard owners took place; on August 20 a town meeting was held to get citizen input; and on September 16 the final committee report was presented to the Board of Supervisors.

He then reviewed each of the recommendations of the committee as follows to get the Board's feelings and direction with respect to how it wishes staff to proceed:

Business Incentives:

•Design assistance for sites or buildings.

IDA contract with architectural/landscape firm(s) for design assistance; charge IDA to develop eligibility requirements

•Property Improvement Grant Program.

Authorize IDA to establish grant program for building façade, landscaping, signage, and or entrance improvements; determine level of funding for grant program

•Tax Exemption Program.

Direct staff to prepare program guidelines and ordinance for tax exemption for renovation/rehabilitation of commercial structures over 20 years old

County Initiatives:

•Install landscaping improvements in rights-of-way/easement areas.

Direct staff to proceed with additional landscaping in medians and shoulders in Fall 2004 utilizing existing $220K in Revenue Sharing Program and additional $65K to be requested in March 2004

•Implement special landscaping/buffering improvements along auto salvage yard frontage.

Direct staff to procure landscape services for planting/fencing; solicit input and participation from property owners and prepare proposal for BOS review/approval and funding

•Underground overhead utilities.

Direct staff to include $125K for underground utility conduit in 2004 Revenue Sharing Program

•Additional County funded maintenance efforts within the VDOT right-of-way.

Direct staff to include this proposal in FY 2005 budget discussions

•Secure landscape/maintenance easements on certain “blighted” properties.

Direct IDA to proceed with securing landscape/maintenance easements

•Consolidated route number and directional/mileage signs on single panel formats.

Direct staff to include $25K in 2004 Revenue Sharing Program request for sign replacement

Regulatory Reforms:

•Review and update the existing Automobile Graveyard ordinance (Section 5-1 through 5-30).

Appoint a committee to review existing ordinance, propose amendments and make recommendations to Board of Supervisors

•Develop special requirements for fuel dispensing equipment, tanks and canopies if the business closes.

Sponsor zoning ordinance amendment requiring SUPs for businesses with fuel dispensing equipment

•Develop Route 17 Commercial Revitalization Overlay District.

Direct staff to finalize overlay district recommendation for BOS consideration, sponsorship and referral to Planning Commission

•Review permitted land uses in GB zoning district.

Appoint a committee to review permitted GB land uses and make recommendation for BOS consideration, sponsorship and referral to Planning Commission

Chairman Burgett suggested that the review of the GB land uses would be an appropriate follow-up to the Comprehensive Plan review that would begin in 2004.

Mrs. Noll asked how many businesses could benefit from the proposed program.

Mr. Noel stated there was one candidate, a strip center that had already expressed interest. He noted the program could impact 4-5 businesses with one grant. Potentially 15-20 businesses would benefit.

Discussion followed on the flexibility of the program regarding tax exemptions and incentives.

Mr. McReynolds stated staff was looking this evening for direction concerning the tax exemption and grant program.

Chairman Burgett asked who would set the criteria.

Mr. Noel indicated the IDA would set the criteria.

Chairman Burgett stated the Board would need to review what the IDA proposes. Once the Board members get it in writing, they can make necessary adjustments.

Mrs. Noll stated from her first reaction she thought the program would be terrific, but she has serious concerns about giving someone a tax break for 15 years. She stated she agrees that the Board must be consistent for all businesses.

Mr. Noel stated staff needs direction from the Board as to how long the tax break should last and at what percentage. It will be difficult for the IDA to make that determination.

Chairman Burgett stated he felt it should be 5 years and 50 percent of the improvements.

Mr. Zaremba noted the Board could see that the businessman would benefit by the program and bring in more business. He stated he felt the number crunchers could decide what numbers to use.

Mr. Shepperd stated that as a part of the general guidelines he would like to see what the incentive would be to the business. He noted that 15 years may seem like a long time, but it is a matter of what the Board is trying to accomplish. Mr. Shepperd asked that the IDA tell the Board what the motivators will be for business.

Mr. McReynolds stated staff would work with the IDA and put together a proposal that has some examples in it. He indicated he understands that the consensus of the Board is that 15 years is too long a time period for a tax abatement, and that something in the range of 50 percent of the improvements would be acceptable.

Discussion followed concerning landscaping improvements and working in concert with VDOT on road improvements. Also discussed was the undergrounding of utilities and the development of a Route 17 commercial revitalization overlay district and the possible need for the same in other commercial corridors of the County.

Mr. Noel then addressed the project funding broken down as follows:

Property Improvement Grants

Design Contracts

Landscape Easements

(Economic Development Fund) $400,000

Revenue Sharing Program FY2005 $365,000

State $182,500

Local $182,500*

(* funds already programmed)

Total County Funding $582,500

Current Revenue Sharing Program $220,000

Mrs. Noll asked how this projected funding would impact the County’s overall revenue sharing program.

Mr. McReynolds stated staff has looked at what is available and feels it does not limit what the County can do otherwise.

Discussion followed regarding revenue sharing funds and the Board’s continued, periodic involvement in the program.

Meeting Adjourned. At 7:43 p.m. Chairman Burgett declared that the meeting be adjourned sine die.

____________________________                      ______________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk                                   James S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors                             York County Board of Supervisors