January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -1-

AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, HELD ON Tuesday, January 15, 2013, AT 7:00 P.M., IN THE

COLONIAL COURTHOUSE, 6504 MAIN STREET, GLOUCESTER, VIRGINIA:

Complete E-Packet I. Call To Order and Roll Call

Ms. Theberge called the meeting to order and Ms. Garton took roll call.

THERE WERE PRESENT: Louise D. Theberge, Chair Robert J. Orth, Vice Chair

Carter M. Borden Ashley C. Chriscoe

Christopher A. Hutson Andrew James, Jr. John H. Northstein

THERE WERE ABSENT: None

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Edwin “Ted” Wilmot, County Attorney

Brenda G. Garton, County Administrator

II. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

Mr. Borden gave an invocation and then all in attendance recited the Pledge of

Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

III. Approval of the Minutes - January 2, 2013

Mr. Chriscoe moved, seconded by Mr. Borden, to approve the minutes from the

January 2, 2013 meeting. The motion carried and was approved by the following voice

vote: Mr. Borden, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Northstein, Mr. Orth, Ms.

Theberge - yes.

IV. Adoption of the Agenda Ms. Garton asked to add two items to the agenda: 1) item F on the regular

agenda, an update on the County’s request for legislation from the General Assembly

and the Board’s position on an email just received about a new bill and 2) after

Matters Presented by the Board she would like to make an announcement.

Mr. Borden moved, seconded by Mr. James, to adopt the agenda as amended.

The motion carried and was approved by the following voice vote: Mr. Borden, Mr.

Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Northstein, Mr. Orth, Ms. Theberge - yes.

V. Approval of the Consent Agenda Mr. Orth moved, seconded by Mr. Chriscoe, to approve the consent agenda. The

motion carried and the following consent agenda items were approved by the following

voice vote: Mr. Borden, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Northstein, Mr.

Orth, Ms. Theberge - yes.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -2-

A. Request to authorize the County Administrator to make an

application and accept a grant award from the Department of

Criminal Justice Services JAG funds - David Shield - Captain, Gloucester County Sheriff's Office

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT TO THE VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES (DCJS) FOR A ONE TIME EQUIPMENT GRANT.

WHEREAS, under the provisions of DCJS, federal funding assistance is

requested to aid in financing the cost of tactical ballistic vests and electronic control

devices and, WHEREAS, Gloucester County considers it in the best public interest to

complete the project described in the application;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. By the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that Brenda Garton, County Administrator, be authorized to make formal application to DCJS for funding

assistance and execute the grant application and take all other actions to apply for this grant and that she hereby is, authorized to take all actions and sign any contracts or other documents necessary as required by this grant program to

accept a grant reward;

2. Any fund assistance received will be used for purchasing and outfitting specially trained officers of the Gloucester Sheriff’s Office, to include tactical ballistic vests and electronic control devices,

3. We are aware that the grant, if approved by the DCJS, will be paid on a

reimbursement basis. This means the County may only request payment after eligible and allowable costs have already been paid to vendors and evidence of such has been provided to DCJS in the format required;

4. This resolution becomes part of a formal application to the Virginia Department

of Criminal Justice Services

Summary

Supporting Document B. Approval of changes to the 2013 Board, Committee, and

Commission assignments - Brenda G. Garton - County Administrator

1. Resolution for appointment to the Hampton Roads Planning

District Commission

HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that a member is needed to represent the Board on the Hampton Roads

Planning District Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has organized its

membership for the 2013 year; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has considered this

appointment and now wishes to act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that Carter M. Borden is hereby appointed for the year 2013 to the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -3-

2. Resolution for appointment to the Hampton Roads Transportation

Planning Organization

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING ORGANIZATION (HRTPO)

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has been informed that

an appointment needs to be made to the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO); and

WHEREAS, the bylaws of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) changed requiring that the voting member of each locality be an

elected official; and

WHEREAS, the bylaws of the HRTPO require that each locality designate a

second elected official as its alternate member to attend the HRTPO meetings in the absence of the voting member; and

WHEREAS, the bylaws of the HRTPO require that the County Administrator of each locality continue to serve and attend meetings of the HRTPO as a non-voting member.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors, that:

Carter M. Borden is hereby appointed to the Hampton Roads

Transportation Planning Organization;

John H. Northstein is hereby appointed as alternate to the Hampton

Roads Transportation Planning Organization; and

The County Administrator shall continue to serve and attend meetings of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization as a non-voting member.

3. Resolution for appointment to the Middle Peninsula Planning

District Commission

MIDDLE PENINSULA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that two (2) of its members are needed to represent the Board on the

Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has organized its membership for the 2013 year; and

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors has considered these appointments and now wishes to act.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors that John H. Northstein and Ashley C. Chriscoe are hereby appointed for

the year 2013 to the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission.

Summary

Supporting Documents C. Commending the Service of Mr. Rupert W. Thomas for his

dedication to the Mosquito Control Commission - Garrey W. Curry,

Jr., P.E. - Director of Public Works

A RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE SERVICE OF RUPERT W. THOMAS, JR.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -4-

AS A MEMBER OF THE GLOUCESTER MOSQUITO CONTROL COMMISSION

WHEREAS, Rupert Thomas has served with distinction as a member of the Gloucester Mosquito Control Commission, for 20 years, from December 1986 to April 2008; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas provided leadership and guidance during his tenure;

and

WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas has been a strong advocate for the implementation of

best management practices in the County’s mosquito control program and was instrumental in formulating the County’s Integrated Mosquito Management Program that was first adopted in April 2006;

WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas has been involved in numerous important decisions of

the County such as the selection of chemical controls to be utilized; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas is commended for bringing forth recommendations to

the program that resulted in an enhanced quality of life to all Gloucester citizens.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that the County of Gloucester hereby expresses its public appreciation to Mr. Rupert Thomas for his valuable public service as a member of the Gloucester

Mosquito Control Commission; and

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors

that this resolution be presented to Mr. Thomas as an expression of gratitude for this public service.

Summary

Supporting Document D. Commending the Service of Dr. Charles McComb for his dedication

to the Mosquito Control Commission - Garrey W. Curry, Jr., P.E. -

Director of Public Works

A RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE SERVICE OF CHARLES W. MCCOMB, PHD

AS A MEMBER OF THE GLOUCESTER MOSQUITO CONTROL COMMISSION

WHEREAS, Dr. McComb has served with distinction as a member of the Gloucester Mosquito Control Commission for sixteen years, from December 1996 to

December 2012; and

WHEREAS, Dr. McComb provided leadership and guidance during his tenure; and

WHEREAS, Dr. McComb has been a strong advocate for the implementation of best management practices in the County’s mosquito control program and was instrumental in formulating the County’s Integrated Mosquito Management Program;

and

WHEREAS, Dr. McComb has been involved in numerous important decisions of the County such as the use of light traps to capture, identify, and count the various species of mosquitoes present in mosquito control areas ; and

WHEREAS, Dr. McComb is commended for bringing forth recommendations to the program that resulted in an enhanced quality of life to all Gloucester citizens.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that the County of Gloucester hereby expresses its public appreciation to Dr. Charles W. McComb for his valuable public service as a member of the Gloucester Mosquito Control Commission; and

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -5-

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors

that this resolution be presented to Dr. McComb as an expression of gratitude for this public service.

Summary

Supporting Document E. Request to authorize the County Administrator to make an

application and accept a grant award from the Department of Criminal Justice Services Byrne Funds - Holly Smith -

Commonwealth's Attorney and Karen Mortensen - Victim Witness Director

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT TO THE VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES (DCJS) FOR A ONE TIME EQUIPMENT GRANT.

WHEREAS, under the provisions of DCJS, federal funding assistance is requested to aid in financing the cost of Audio-Visual Equipment for each of the three

courtrooms in Gloucester County Courthouse; and WHEREAS, Gloucester County considers it in the best public interest to

complete the update and installation and/or development project described in the

application;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

5. Brenda Garton, County Administrator, be authorized to make formal application to DCJS for funding assistance;

6. Any fund assistance received will be used for implementation and completion of improvements to the Gloucester County Courthouse,

7. Gloucester County hereby certifies that project funding is currently available and is committed for this project;

8. We are aware that the grant, if approved by the DCJS, will be paid on a

reimbursement basis. This means the County may only request payment after

eligible and allowable costs have already been paid to vendors and evidence of such has been provided to DCJS in the format required;

9. This resolution becomes part of a formal application to the Virginia Department

of Criminal Justice Services

Summary

Supporting Document VI. Citizens' Comment Period - (limited to topics on the Work Session

agenda only) (Speakers should provide 10 copies of any handouts for the Board)

HOWARD MOWRY - GLOUCESTER POINT DISTRICT

Mr. Mowry advised that they are beginning a new calendar year with the same

process as past calendar years and noted that a third of the County has no ability to

pay any money to the County’s budget process. He advised that a family of five has an

annual personal debt to the County of $8,040 this year. He stated that there are

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -6-

fourteen counties that do not tax bondsmen. He stated that the County needs to

eliminate the BPOL tax. Concerning the Capital Improvements Plan proposal, Mr.

Mowry advised to fund with existing cash and if not, do not fund the program until

you can pay as you go.

NATHAN BROWN - WARE DISTRICT

Mr. Brown advised that he found the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) very

confusing and asked if the requests for funding for school buses and an armored

personnel carrier for the Sheriff’s Department are funded from the special

vehicle/equipment replacement fund. He suggested that any long-term projects should

be included in the CIP and not come off of the plan until the project is paid for and

completed, including the Page Middle School and the Thomas Calhoun Walker

Education Center projects.

Further, Mr. Brown advised that as he recalled, the Board gave the School Board

funds to complete the design and cost estimates for the Thomas Calhoun Walker

Education Center renovations, which have not yet been presented.

DON MITCHELL - YORK DISTRICT

Mr. Mitchell expressed his displeasure with the County getting deeper in debt

with no plans to pay off the debt. VII. Work Session Agenda A. Presentation on County's Financial Position as it relates to Capital

Planning - Ted Cole - First Vice President, Public Finance, Davenport & Company

Mr. Cole addressed the Board and advised that his company serves as financial

advisors to the County and have assisted over the past several years with capital

planning and with specific financings. He advised that the information he would be

presenting would be for informational purposes and that this information had already

been presented to the Capital Improvements Plan Committee. He thought it would

helpful to present the same information to the Board to give them perspective on the

County’s current and future financial position, including ways to measure the impact

of specific capital projects. He reviewed the following goals and objectives:

Review the County’s Historical Financial Performance to develop an

understanding of the County’s finances;

Present a Detailed Analysis of the County’s Existing Debt Profile; Develop a Series of meaningful Peer Group Medians with which to gain a

perspective on the County’s current and future financial position; Apply the Medians to a Series of Key Financial Ratios so as to better

understand

the County’s Existing Debt Profile and Future Debt Capacity; Existing Debt Profile and Future Debt Capacity; Provide the County Staff, Board, and CIP Committee with an initial perspective

on “Affordability” of Potential Funding and obtain detail on the County’s Capital Improvement Program such that we may measure the impact of specific projects

(i.e. Debt Affordability).

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -7-

He noted that the County currently has the following implied General Obligation

ratings: Moody’s: NR S&P: A+ Fitch: AA-

Mr. Cole reviewed the General Fund Balance comparison from 2008 to 2012. He

noted the following for FY 2012:

Nonspendable Fund Balance:

Prepaid items $52,204

Restricted Fund Balance

Asset Forfeitures $128,885 Committed Fund Balance Mosquito Control $147,990

Tourism Projects 202,407 Daffodil Festival 69,797 Program Donations 22,940

Probation/Pretrial Regional Program 69,048 Cable Services Program 409,564

Total $921,746 Unassigned Fund Balance $15,321,565

The County’s total General Fund Balance is slightly below the National Medians

and certain Virginia Peers (Counties of Appomattox, Carol, Dinwiddie, Henry, Pittsylvania, Warren and Washington).

The County’s Unassigned General Fund Balance is above the National Medians and in line with Virginia peers.

Outstanding Tax Supported Debt**: $40,883,086 County $15,236,946

School $25,646,140 **Estimated as of 6/30/2012

If the County issues no new debt, all of the County’s existing debt would be

paid-off by 2035.

The County’s 10-year payout ratio is in line with its Virginia Peers and National Medians.

Davenport recommends that the County consider adopting a policy limiting the 10-year payout ratio to 55-60% or better.

Existing Debt Ratios-Population Assumptions:

5-year average growth: 0.34%

10-year average growth: 0.57%

Assumed natural growth: 0.50%

Debt Per Capita:

FY 2012: $1,100

Current Policy: $1,700

Observations:

The County’s Debt Per Capita is below Virginia levels, but in line with National

Medians.

The County’s current policy states that Net Debt Per Capita will not exceed

$1,700.

Davenport recommends that the County consider reviewing its policy in the

context of its current CIP.

Existing Debt Ratios-Assessed Value Assumptions:

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -8-

5-year average growth: 2.13%

10-7ear average growth: 8.62%

Assumed natural growth: 2.00%

Debt to Assessed Value:

FY 2012: 0.98%

Current Policy: 3.00%

Observations:

The County’s debt to assessed value is below both Virginia Medians and National levels.

The County’s current policy states that Net Debt as a percentage of Assessed Value will not exceed 3.0%. Davenport recommends that the County consider

reviewing its policy in the context of its current CIP.

Existing Debt Ratios-Governmental Expenditure Assumptions:

5-year average growth: (0.81%)

10-year average growth: 0.53%

Assumed natural growth: 2.00%

Debt Service vs. Expenditures:

FY 2012: 7.28% (with Utility Transfer)

6.66% (without Utility Transfer)

Current Policy: 10.00%

Observations:

The County’s Debt Service vs. Expenditure Ratio is in line with Virginia Medians

and National levels.

The County’s current policy states that General Obligation Debt Service and

Capital Lease payments as a percentage of General Governmental Expenditures will not exceed 10%. Davenport recommends that the County consider reviewing the policy in the context of its current CIP.

Page Middle School Construction:

The County is currently in the process of planning for and financing the

Construction of Page Middle School.

The Construction is estimated to cost $26 million and the construction bids are

currently expected to be received in August 2013.

The Construction is expected to be financed as follows: Insurance Payout: $8,000,000 ($6MReceived; Rest to be

Reimbursed) Qualified School Construction Bonds: $6,000,000 (Already Received) Remaining Required Financing: $12,000,000 (To be Received)

Total: $26,000,000

As construction bids are not due until August 2013 (Fiscal year 2014), it is

assumed that the remaining required financing is issued in the July 2013 timeframe with the first interest due in January 2014 and principal payments beginning in July 2014 (Fiscal year 2015). A 20 Year level debt service structure

with a 4.50% interest rate has been assumed.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -9-

Observations:

Overall, this presentation has discussed capital, rather than focusing on

operating costs. Any additional unfunded operating cost would be additive to the proposed tax impact model.

The County has historically managed its debt in a conservative fashion. Having

policies in place is seen as a positive from a credit rating and “Best Practice” perspective, and the County should strive to follow these policies in its operating

and capital planning efforts. The County pays debt service from current year revenues, which is also a

positive, as it does not rely on one-time monies for recurring expenses.

Implementation of a formalized CIP process is a positive step, which will further promote long-term planning and help insulate the County from unexpected events.

Existing Utility Debt Service:

Outstanding Utility Debt: $21,288,833

FY 2013: 51.06% Assumed Natural Growth: 3.00% FY 2013 Budgeted Transfer: $673,578

Debt Service Coverage: FY 2013 - $1.19 Debt Service Coverage target of $1.20 from current year revenues is ideal.

Mr. Cole answered various questions from Board members regarding his

presentation.

Summary

Supporting Document B. Presentation of the Capital Improvement Plan Advisory Committee

recommendation - Thomas W. Sawyer - Chairman, County

Administrator's CIP Committee Mr. Sawyer reviewed the following information from his PowerPoint presentation:

A capital improvement plan is a tool that can help us ensure that decisions on capital projects and funding are made wisely and are well planned

Objectives:

o To build the facilities required to support the County’s public service

responsibilities

o To improve financial planning by comparing needs with resources, estimating

future bond issues and debt service, and identifying tax rate implications

o To establish priorities among projects so that limited available funds are used to the best advantage

o To plan public facility construction and major equipment purchases and coordinate timing with public needs

o To support the physical development objectives contained in the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans and policies

Members of the Committee:

Christopher A. Hutson, Board of Supervisors Louise D. Theberge, Board of Supervisors Ann F. Burruss, School Board

Natalie Q. Johnson, Planning Commission Thomas J. Danaher, IV, Citizen Representative Thomas W. Sawyer, Citizen Representative

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -10-

Assisted by: Brenda Garton, County Administrator; Anne Ducey-Ortiz, Planning Director and Nickie Champion, Director of Financial Services

Goals:

o Attempt to balance the considerable amounts of money required by projects

with capacity for issuing new debt o Discuss project alternatives

o Discuss funding alternatives o Develop a multiyear plan identifying capital projects to be funded during the

planning period

Mr. Sawyer advised that early in the process, the Committee recognized that if

all General Fund projects were funded, it would result in an 11 cent increase in the

real estate tax rate.

Projects Not in the Recommendation:

o Page Middle School Construction o Thomas Calhoun Walker Education Center renovations

o Emergency Communications Center basement build out o Did not use $3.1 million Capital Fund Committed for Future Capital

Projects

o Did not use the entire $3.4 million excess fund balance in General Fund

Recommendations:

o Invite Davenport & Company, the County’s financial advisors, to review the County’s current financial condition as well as other information

beneficial to adopting a formal capital plan. o Use excess fund balance in the General Fund of $1.8 million (from the

$3.4 million available) for the most immediate, urgent capital needs (as

recommended by the Committee). o Endorse a grant application, which can be used to offset some of the costs

associated with Woodville Park improvements. o Use $85,000 of Capital Fund Assigned by County Administrator to offset

some of the costs associated with Woodville Park improvements.

o Issue additional debt of $5.0 million to address the most critical school roofs and HVAC issues, which is expected to require a $.01 increase in the real estate tax rate in calendar year 2014 or 2015. The Committee would

stress the debt be used for the most critical school needs with the expectation that no additional borrowings are possible until at least FY

2019. o Continue to fund a vehicle/equipment replacement fund with $.30 of the

personal property tax rate.

o Dedicate the amount of revenue that $.12 on the real estate will generate to funding the Debt Fund with any excess to be used for capital needs or accumulated for smoothing future debt payments.

After much deliberation, the CIP Committee recommends the following projects for

inclusion in a five-year capital plan:

$750,000 for tax assessment and receipting software. Funding for this project will be provided from excess fund balance in the General Fund.

$270,000 for voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) to replace the County’s phone system. Funding for this project will be provided from operational savings and

excess fund balance in the General Fund.

$409,563 for the improvement of the Cable Services Program, which is used by

both the County and the school division. Funding for this project will be provided by a portion of the Cable TV Franchise Tax as well as Cox Cable capital payments.

$77,000 for County HVAC automation system upgrades. Funding for this project will be provided from excess fund balance in the General Fund.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -11-

$34,398 for site design and engineering for Woodville Park to prepare for

installing infrastructure. The funding for this project will be provided from excess fund balance in the General Fund.

$600,000 for electrical infrastructure and athletic lights at Woodville Park.

Funding for the project will be provided from $85,000 from the County Administrator’s Assigned Fund Balance for Park Projects, $300,000 from a state

grant, and $215,000 from excess fund balance in the General Fund.

$250,000 for new computer aided dispatch software, which will make Gloucester

totally interoperable with other radio system partners in the regional communications system. The funding for this project will be provided from

excess fund balance in the General Fund.

$5.0 million for the School Division’s HVAC and roof replacement program. The

School Division has identified the most critical need as Petsworth Elementary School with a projected cost of $3.4 million. Additionally, some urgency exists at Botetourt and Achilles Elementary Schools. The funding for this project will

be provided from general obligation debt ($5.0 million) of the County.

$233,820 to refurbish the running track and associated competitive areas at

Gloucester High School. The funding for this project will be provided from excess fund balance in the General Fund.

$130,000 for voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) to replace various school phone

systems. Funding for this project will be provided from operational savings and excess fund balance in the General Fund.

The Department of Public Utilities operates as an Enterprise Fund. In order to make

the fund more financially viable, the General Fund supported a $3.8 million borrowing

completed late in 2011 to address various issues with the system. At the time of this

report, approximately $3.1 million remains from this borrowing. An unknown amount

will be needed to continue work for a DEQ Consent Order; but, the CIP Committee

recommends (after concurrence from the Utility Advisory Committee) that $2.3 million

of the remaining borrowing be used for the following projects:

$1.5 million for a Utility Yard.

$430,000 for Water Treatment Plant rehabilitation.

$300,000 for HVAC and dust collection remediation at the Water Treatment Plant.

$80,000 for an excavator.

While the proposed projects included in this recommendation are the results of the

deliberations of this Committee, the Committee wishes to emphasize the need for

continued discussion of capital project funding, maintenance of facilities, cost

estimates of future projects, and other capital related issues. Capital planning and

budgeting is an essential element of financial management for our County. The

following charts show the recommended FY 2014-FY 2018 CIP.

THE CHART BEGINS ON THE NEXT PAGE

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -12-

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -13-

Questions were answered from several Board members.

Ms. Garton clarified that the Board was not being asked to adopt the Capital

Improvements Plan at this point but this was an introduction to the recommendations

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -14-

from the Committee. When the public hearing is held on the budget, it would include

a public hearing for comments on the Capital Improvements Plan recommendations.

Further, she advised that the Board could adopt the Capital Improvements Plan when

they adopt the budget.

Mr. James advised that he understands that there are capital needs they must

address, but they need to go slow with some of these needs. He expressed his concern

that they need to remember at all times the constituents they represent, while keeping

their best interests at heart, and not make the debt load more than the taxpayers can

handle.

Ms. Theberge advised that the intent of the Capital Improvements Plan

Committee was to show the most critical capital needs, especially the HVAC and

roofing issues with the schools. Further, Ms. Theberge clarified that the

recommendation of dedicating .30 cents of the personal property taxes for vehicle

replacement needs is something that is currently being done and the CIP Committee is

endorsing that they continue the dedication of the .30 cents for this purpose.

Summary

Supporting Documents C. Discussion of setting potential budget for the Thomas Calhoun

Walker Education Center -Brenda G. Garton - County Administrator

Ms. Garton advised that in discussions with Bill Lindsey, Purchasing Manager,

regarding the bidding for the Thomas Calhoun Walker Education Center project, Mr.

Lindsey has advised that if the County has established a budget for this project, when

the lowest bidder is identified, he can negotiate down with a willing bidder toward that

budget. Further, she advised that without a previously established budget for this

project, if the project comes in above the amount the County is willing to commit, the

bids must be rejected and the process starts all over again. Ms. Garton recommended

that the Board set a minimal project budget that would allow Mr. Lindsey to negotiate

with the low bidder, if desired. She noted that relative to the local code Section 22-32

of the County Procurement Ordinance, which also reflects the state code; the budget

must be established prior to the bid opening, which is February 5.

Mr. Lindsey updated the Board on the bidding program for this project. He

advised that the bids were advertised on December 21, thirty-six bid notices were

mailed out and sixteen were sent to local bidders. They advertised in the local

newspaper, posted it on the County’s website, and placed it on their public bulletin

board. They had a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting at the site on January 7 and a

large group of forty-four people attended, with twenty-six companies being

represented. He explained that the bid document includes seven hundred and seven

pages of specifications with fifty-four plan sheets, along with seventeen construction

divisions and it asked for one base bid and three alternates.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -15-

Mr. Lindsey reiterated that bids are due back on February 5 and as indicated in

the County procurement ordinance, Section 22-32, and the state code, he has no

ability to negotiate unless a budget has been established prior to the bid opening. He

asked the Board to consider establishing a budget prior to February 5.

Mr. Chriscoe inquired as to whether this project would include renovations for

the entire school.

Mr. Lindsey advised that this project was not for renovations for the entire

school but would include renovations for the school administrative offices, some

drainage work outside, some ground maintenance site improvements, and head start

site improvements for the loading areas.

Mr. James expressed his concern that he was not in favor of repurposing the

Thomas Calhoun Walker Education Center and building a new school at the same

time because it would be asking too much of the County citizens to handle the debt.

Ms. Garton advised that the Board has a joint meeting scheduled with the School

Board on February 2 and they talked about discussing this item with the School Board

at that time, but her concern is that this meeting could be cancelled because of snow.

If the February 2 meeting were to be cancelled and the Board does not set a budget at

this meeting, you would not have an opportunity to set a budget for this project prior

to the bid opening on February 5. The bids would have to be rejected if the bids are

higher than the amount of the money County is willing to commit.

Ms. Theberge advised that she encouraged Ms. Garton to place this item on the

agenda for discussion because: 1) if the February 2 meeting were to be cancelled, the

Board would not have the ability to set a budget prior to the bid opening and 2) the

discussion about setting a budget for this project was based on money in the reserved

capital fund of $3.1 million dollars and she thought this was a reasonable request to

set a minimal budget of $1 million dollars. Further, she advised that setting this

budget does not mean the Board has to appropriate or spend this amount of money,

but it allows Mr. Lindsey to negotiate with the low responsible bidder. She noted that

the project would still need to come back before the Board for approval before any

money is spent.

Mr. Chriscoe advised that two weeks ago they discussed the completion of the

Emergency Operations Center (EOC) building, but would not commit to this project

because of not having a clear vision of budget expenses facing them this year.

Further, he advised that he does not feel comfortable setting a budget for this project

because he has no better understanding of the expenses facing them for this budget

year then he had two weeks ago.

Mr. Borden advised that he feels the Board is in a position that they should set a

budget for this project and they owe it to the citizens to find out what this project will

cost.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -16-

Mr. James advised that he sees the $3.1 million dollars in the capital reserve

fund as a rainy day fund which does not mean they need to spend this amount of

money.

Mr. Hutson advised that he would like to see in the future a budget established

for these types of construction projects in advance before it goes to bid so that the

Board will not have to go through this again. Further, he advised that he agrees with

Mr. Borden that they owe it to the citizens to see what the cost will be and to propose a

budget of $1 million dollars, while giving Mr. Lindsey an opportunity to be able to

negotiate with the low bidder.

Mr. Borden moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, that they propose and project a $1

million dollar budget for the Thomas Calhoun Walker Education Center project, so

that Mr. Lindsey will have the opportunity to negotiate with the low bidder when the

bids are opened on February 5, 2013. The motion carried upon the following poll vote:

Mr. Borden, Mr. Orth, Ms. Theberge, Mr. Hutson - yes; Mr. Northstein, Mr. James, Mr.

Chriscoe - no.

Summary D. Discussion of agenda topics for the February 2, 2013 Joint

Meeting with the School Board - Brenda G. Garton - County Administrator

Ms. Garton advised that she would like to know proposed topics that the Board

members would like to discuss at the joint meeting with the School Board. She and

Dr. Kiser have set up a joint meeting with the chairs and vice-chairs of both Boards to

review agenda items for discussion at the February 2 meeting. Additionally, she

advised that the location for the meeting had been set for the Social Services

Conference Room but there has been some concern that this meeting room may not be

large enough. She advised that another option for the meeting is to meet in the Main

Street Center offices that requires a small amount of cost for use of the facility.

Mr. Borden and Mr. Chriscoe advised that they were comfortable with the chairs

of both Boards setting the topics for discussion at the February 2 meeting. Further,

Mr. Chriscoe advised that he would like a public comment period added to the agenda

for this meeting to allow citizens to present their views on the potential projects they

would be discussing.

Ms. Theberge explained that the Board members indicated at the last meeting

that they wanted a dedicated block of time for a work session with the School Board to

discuss issues and typically in the past we have not had public comment at these

meetings. Further, she advised that citizens could comment on these matters at the

Board’s February 5 meeting.

Mr. Chriscoe advised that they should afford the citizens the opportunity to

address both Boards at one time and with the 9:00 a. m. starting time, they would still

have ample time to have plenty of discussion.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -17-

Mr. Borden advised that this meeting is a dedicated work session and he feels it

would not be appropriate to have a citizen comment period.

Mr. Orth inquired as to whether there was a possibility of having this joint

meeting taped, so that it could be streamed on our system so that the public could

view the discussions between the two Boards.

Ms. Garton advised that we do not have the capability for that type of portable

recording.

Mr. Orth advised that this is an important meeting and he inquired as to

whether the high school could record the meeting and stream it on our system.

Ms. Garton advised that she could check with the schools about taping the

meeting.

Mr. Chriscoe advised that he would leave it up to the chairs and vice chairs of

both Boards, Dr. Kiser, and Ms. Garton as to whether a public comment period should

be included on the agenda for the February 2 joint meeting with the School Board.

Mr. Hutson advised the he would like to see the schools figure out a way to tape

this meeting so that the citizens could view the meeting rather than having a citizen

comment period on this agenda.

Mr. Chriscoe advised that if they decide to place a citizen comment period on the

February 2 agenda, limit the comment time to 3 minutes for each speaker and they

only get to speak once.

Mr. James inquired about topics for the agenda and Ms. Theberge and Mr. Orth

reiterated that he should email them the main topics he would like discussed at this

meeting.

After a brief discussion, it was the general consensus of the Board to move the

joint meeting with the School Board on February 2 to the Main Street Center.

Summary E. Discussion on possible modifications to Chapter 10 - Licenses -

Ted Wilmot - County Attorney and Brenda G. Garton - County

Administrator Mr. Wilmot advised that on June 5, 2012 the Board adopted comprehensive

amendments to Chapter 10 of the County Code that deals with Business, Professional

and Occupational License (BPOL) taxes which currently generates $1.4 million dollars

annually in revenue. He advised that recently Board members had been approached

by a bail bondsman in the County, and she expressed her concern regarding the

substantial increase in her yearly BPOL taxes to $500 due to the amendments to the

ordinance. Formerly bondsmen were taxed $50 per year plus $0.10 per $100 of gross

receipts over $50,000.

He advised that in response to the legitimate concern raised by this

taxpayer/business owner, he generated a memorandum that he shared with the Board

dated January 2, 2013 that included all information relative to bail bondsmen tax

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -18-

provisions that the Board considered. These ordinance amendments dealt with the

taxation of all businesses, so each business was not singled out and researched

relative to tax rates imposed by other localities. He has now researched what other

jurisdictions tax bail bondsmen, and included in the Board’s materials is a survey of

one hundred two jurisdictions in the Commonwealth and the taxes imposed on bail

bondsmen by these localities. He noted that a large number of jurisdictions do impose

BPOL taxes and they range from $0.05 per $100 in Mount Jackson (the lowest),

Gloucester’s was $0.10 per $100 prior to the ordinance change, which is at the low

end, and goes up to $0.36 per $100 in many jurisdictions and up to $500/yr. in

Roanoke County.

Mr. Wilmot advised that at the last meeting he was asked by the Board to find

out how much money bondsmen make in order to gear this to the tax rate. He tried to

find out this information from the Sheriff and district court clerks, and was informed

that this information was not available. He then contacted the Department of

Criminal Justice Services and bondsmen are required to file monthly reports of their

outstanding bonds. He requested under the Freedom of Information Act this

bondsmen’s monthly reports to get some idea of the amount of revenue based on the

amount of bonds posted. He stated that it was his understanding that bondsmen

charge between 10-15% of the bond amount. He took the bond amounts in total for

each year and multiplied that by 10% or 15%, which gave him an estimate of the

revenues. Based on this, for 2011 and 2012 this bondsman should have been paying

on $0.10 per 100 of gross receipts, the County’s former rate, between $130 to $160

per year.

Mr. Wilmot advised that the Board has two options: 1) take no action, or 2)

amend the chapter to reduce the rate to one more in line with an appropriate rate.

Further, he advised that there is a time constraint because bills were recently mailed

out for the BPOL taxes and are due March 1, 2013. He stated that if the Board desires

to change the ordinance there is only one other meeting between now and the

beginning of the due date to change the ordinance. He advised that if the Board would

like to change the ordinance a resolution was included in the packet authorizing and

directing the Board Clerk to advertise a public hearing for the February 5, 2013

meeting to consider changing the ordinance to a regular tax rate determined by the

Board.

Mr. Borden moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, to accept the resolution

authorizing and directing the Board Clerk to advertise a public hearing for February 5,

2013 on the BPOL taxes for bail bondsmen.

Mr. Wilmot advised that in advertising the public hearing the Board must

include the tax rate change being considered.

After some additional discussion, Mr. Borden amended his motion, seconded by

Mr. Huston, to include in the public hearing notice the tax rate of $0.10 per $100 of

gross receipts for bondsmen, that was the former rate prior to the June 5, 2012

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -19-

amendments. The motion carried and the following resolution was adopted by the

following polled vote: Mr. Orth, Ms. Theberge, Mr. Northstein, Mr. James, Mr. Hutson,

Mr. Chriscoe, Mr. Borden - yes.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC

HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10 OF THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY CODE ENTITLED LICENSES

WHEREAS, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors desires to set a public

hearing to consider an Ordinance to amend Chapter 10 of the Gloucester County Code entitled Licenses.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors that the Clerk is directed to advertise, in a newspaper of general

circulation, a public hearing notice for a public hearing to be held in the Colonial

Courthouse located at 6504 Main Street on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 8:00 p.m., to

consider amending Chapter 10 of the Gloucester County Code.

Summary

Supporting Documents F. An update on the County's legislative request from the General

Assembly Regarding Utilities

Ms. Garton advised that she received an email from Larry Land with the Virginia

Association of Counties (VACo). As the Board may recall, Gloucester County is being

required to implement a stormwater program and an ordinance must be developed for

this implementation. Originally, the deadline for implementation of this program was

July 1, 2014, but there is a bill introduced in the House that would move the

implementation deadline to July 1, 2015.

It was the general consensus of the Board that Ms. Garton let Mr. Land know

that Gloucester County supports the delay of this deadline for one year to July 1,

2015.

Ms. Garton explained that the previous Board, before the most recent election,

had requested that the County solicit support from Delegate Harvey Morgan to add

Gloucester County to state code section 15.2-2110 relating to water and sewer

connections, along with some other counties already in this code section, to allow

Gloucester County to require connections to water and sewer systems by owners of

property that may be served. Further, if the property owner already has a potable

water system and an operational sewer system, the County could not require them to

connect but we could require them to pay the connection fee, a front footage fee, and a

minimum monthly nonuser service charge. The Board asked staff to have Delegate

Morgan introduce this legislation and he passed it on to Delegate Hodges. In last year’s

General Assembly, Delegate Hodges indicated that it died in Committee because the

County did not adopt a resolution that proved that the Gloucester County Board of

Supervisors was in support of this legislation. Last summer the Board passed this

resolution. She stated that she found out at the legislative dinner on January 3, that

Delegate Hodges was not sure he could support this legislation. She noted that Mr.

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -20-

Wilmot did a great deal of research on this matter. She spoke to Delegate Hodges late

this afternoon, and Friday is the deadline for the introduction of legislation, and she

could not get a commitment that he would support Gloucester County’s request for

this piece of legislation. She advised that Delegate Hodges told her today that he was

talking to some people and touching base with Committee members and whether or

not he can support it depends on their reaction. Further, she explained that Ms.

Theberge, Marty Schlesinger, Ted Wilmot, and she had discussed this matter with

Delegate Hodges through a conference call and they are still having difficulty getting

his support of this legislation.

Mr. Wilmot advised that in 1988 the Board passed Chapter 19 of the County

Code which deals with water and sewer. In that code there were provisions that would

require mandatory connections to water and sewer under certain circumstances, and

in lieu of hook-ups would require the property owner to pay the minimum monthly

charges. Further, he advised that Chapter 19 requires connections to sewer but only

when state law allows it. To date, he understands that Delegate Hodges has based his

objection to the proposed legislation on his perception that it violates the Dillon Rule.

He noted that the Dillon Rule indicates that localities are only permitted to do

that which the General Assembly states that they are allowed to do. Delegate Hodges’

argument is that the County’s current practices, which are included in our

ordinances, deal with water. When a property owner’s property abuts a running

County water line, they are required to connect to it, or if they do not connect, they

must still pay the minimum monthly charge. There have been a small number of

constituents that have objected to this, but they have used their own potable water

systems and have been paying the minimum monthly charge since 1988. Delegate

Hodges indicated that the County was doing something that the Dillon Rule does not

permit us to do, so he will not support this legislation until the County works this out.

Mr. Wilmot advised that this lead to his extensive research and he believes that

Delegate Hodges’ concerns regarding the legality of the County’s practices are not valid

for two reasons: 1) the legislative acts of Board of Supervisors are presumed to be

lawful, regular, and legitimate unless or until they are declared or proven otherwise

and 2) a lawsuit was filed by Gloucester County in 1988 against the taxpayers,

property owners, and citizens and the purpose of this lawsuit was in conjunction with

a $20 million dollar bond issue for the Beaverdam project and the running of the water

lines. He stated that the County did not want to incur this debt without an indication

that it had the authority to require connections to its water system and to be able to

charge a minimum monthly fee for those properties abutting the water system. This

lawsuit went to court in June 1988 and the Judge declared clearly and unequivocally

that the County had this authority under the Dillon Rule. He advised that there are

three other reasons for supporting this legislation which are: 1) the Board of

Supervisors represents all of the citizens, 2) if the County was not allowed to require

connections and charge a minimum monthly charge, the cost would be borne by the

January 15, 2013 Board of Supervisors Meeting -21-

entire tax base, including those citizens who do not enjoy the availability or use of the

water system, and 3) it would handicap the County regarding our ability to comply

with regulatory requirements, including the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay

Preservation Act and the Consent Order. Mr. Wilmot advised that he hopes that

Delegate Hodges would change his mind and support this legislation.

Ms. Theberge advised that the Board voted to have this legislation put forward

and it simply indicates that the County may require sewer hook-ups and then after

public hearings the Board could decide if they would enact it. She noted that this

legislation just allows us to have options if the Board so chooses and this is the

simplest and most cost effective way for the County. She encouraged Board members

to call Delegate Hodges and ask him to support the introduction of this piece of

legislation since the deadline is Friday, January 18, 2013 at 3:00 p. m. because we

desperately need it due to environmental issues and failing septic systems.

Mr. Chriscoe asked Mr. Wilmot to email the Board members tomorrow the five

points he reviewed at this meeting so that each Board member could call Delegate

Hodges and ask him for his support of this legislation based on these points.

VIII. Matters Presented by the Board

There were no matters presented by the Board.

Announcement by the County Administrator - Business Development Focus

Group Public Forum - January 30, 2013

Ms. Garton announced that she had been working with the Business

Development Focus Group that she appointed at the Board’s request. The Board

asked that they hold a public forum that would allow the public to come and comment

on the recommendations made by this group. These recommendations have been

posted to the County’s website and the public forum will be held on Wednesday,

January 30, 2013, from 4:00 p. m. to 7:00 p. m., at the Main Street Center.

IX. Closed Meeting (none scheduled) X. Adjournment

Mr. Borden moved, seconded by Mr. Hutson, that the meeting be adjourned.

The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Mr. Borden, Mr. Chriscoe, Mr.

Hutson, Mr. James, Mr. Northstein, Mr. Orth, Ms. Theberge - yes.

______________________________ Louise D. Theberge, Chair

________________________________________ Brenda G. Garton, County Administrator