Board of Supervisors

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:      Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor
Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor
Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor
Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor
Thomas D. Harvey, North District Supervisor
Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
Candice W. McGarry, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
Fred Boger, Director of Planning and Zoning
Debra K. McCann, Director of Finance and Human Resources

Absent:    None

I.    Call to Order

Mr. Hale called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm, with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

A.    Moment of Silence
B.    Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Bruguiere led the Pledge of Allegiance.

II.    Consent Agenda

The Board agreed by consensus to remove Resolution R2009-86, Minutes for approval, item B, from the consent agenda and deferred its consideration until the October 13, 2009 meeting.

Mr. Harvey moved to approve the consent agenda less item B. and Ms. Brennan seconded the motion. Mr. Carter noted that representatives from Shelter for Help in Emergency were in attendance and Mr. Hale invited them to introduce themselves. The Spanish community outreach worker and Treasurer introduced themselves and noted their appreciation of the Board’s support.

There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following proclamation was adopted:

A.    Proclamation – P2009-02 Domestic Violence Awareness Month

P2009-02
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 2009
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

WHEREAS, violence against women, children, and men continues to become more prevalent as a social problem in our society; and

WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are supported by societal indifference; and

WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity, security, and humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic control and/or abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging; and

WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often suffer grave physical, psychological and financial losses; and

WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts to bring peace and equality to the home; and

WHEREAS, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate domestic violence on their own—we must work together to educate our entire population about what can be done to prevent such violence, support victims/survivors and their families, and  support agencies providing services to those community members; and

WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency has led the way in the County of Nelson in addressing domestic violence by providing 24-hour hotline services to victims/survivors and their families, offering support and information, and empowering survivors to chart their own course for healing; and

WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 30th year of providing unparalleled services to women, children and men who have been victimized by domestic violence;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in recognition of the important work being done by the Shelter for Help in Emergency, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, does hereby proclaim the month of October 2009 as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, urging all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency, and to work toward the elimination of personal and institutional violence against women, children and men.

B.    Resolution – R2009- 86 Minutes for Approval – Deferred until 10/13/09 Meeting

III.    Presentation
A.    Presentation – TJPDC Green Infrastructure Study (S. Williams)

Mr. Hale introduced Mr. Bill Wanner and Steve Williams of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, of which Nelson County is a member, and they distributed and presented the following report on the completed green infrastructure study:

Mr. Williams explained that the TJPDC conducted the study to:

•    Provide member governments with information about key natural resources.
•    To identify opportunities for benefitting from these natural resources
•    To assist member governments in achieving their goals.

He noted that green infrastructure is:

•    An interconnected network of green spaces
•    A network of large habitat areas (hubs) linked together by corridors

He then discussed the benefits of green infrastructure as being:

•    Economic Development
•    Attraction for tourists
•    Improved water quality and quantity
•    Areas for recreation
•    Stormwater and flooding control
•    Enhancement of community appearance

Mr. Williams further noted that key data layers had been developed that show:

•    Virginia conservation lands needs assessment habitat cores and corridors
•    Steep slopes greater than or equal to 25%
•    Third order streams
•    Existing trails and adopted greenway/trail plans
•    Protected public lands and land under permanent easement

He briefly spoke about each one of the data layer maps that was included in the distributed materials and referred to the enlarged merged composite map of the County that was being provided for the County’s use. The map also includes an overlay of all of the parcels in the County.

Mr. Williams then spoke about the opportunities that the study affords the County as follows:

•    Provides better water and sewer service delivery
•    Promotes economic development and agriculture
•    Offers increased property values
•    Promotes tourism
•    Creates and preserves areas for recreation
•    Helps maintain Nelson’s rural heritage

As far as implementation of the plan, Mr. Williams stated that only local governments know best how to consider the information and that the study presents tools to enable member governments to implement effective strategies for green infrastructure; and that the role of the TJPDC was to assist in implementing  goals for green infrastructure.

In conclusion, he offered the TJPDC as a resource for policy setting and assistance with the following funding tools available to implement green infrastructure development:

•    Virginia Land Conservation Foundation
•    Natural Resources Conservation Service Programs
•    Virginia Department of Forestry’s Urban and Community Forestry Grants
•    Virginia Recreational Trails Fund
•    Partners for Fish and Wildlife
•    Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
•    VDOT Transportation Enhancement Program Grants

Following the presentation, Mr. Hale opened the floor for questions and discussion, including the following:

Ms. Brennan thanked the TJPDC for their presentation and noted the benefit of the map overlaid with the parcels. She noted that the plan is to put the project together and finish it; with a draft report ready for circulation in a couple of weeks. She stated that study was a valuable tool for land use discussions.

Mr. Williams stated that a person does not have to be for the environment and against economic development and that the study portrays both sides of the issue with balance.

Ms. Brennan noted her hopes to invest in all of the tourism opportunities in the county to generate jobs and enhance the quality of life in order to attract industries.  She stated that she thought the Board should include the maps and study in planning for the future.

Mr. Williams noted the upcoming VDOT – TEA grant application round with a deadline of December 1st.

Mr. Harvey disagreed that the study and developing green infrastructure is not contradictory to economic development; noting that it appears that the property owner owns nothing after the green is peeled away. He noted that if this information had been utilized in the past, Wintergreen would never have been developed.

Mr. Williams noted that the intent of the study was not to deny anyone an opportunity but was rather to preserve greenways along with creating economic opportunity. He reiterated that he was not trying to tell the Board what to do but was just providing information to consider.

Mr. Johnson noted that the growth corridor was in the South end of the county and that housing, investors, and businesses were needed, not just green business.

Mr. Bruguiere had no comments or questions and Mr. Hale noted that it was important to look at a couple of things, the maps show vast quantities of land without Federal or State ownership or conservation easements and that most of this land is not suitable for development.  He pointed out that the map does not show the latest conservation easement at Wintergreen and should be updated for this.  Additionally, he advised not to get carried away about the green that Nelson County is a forested county for the most part. He noted that Conservation Easements are not really a problem and is a choice.
He further stated his belief that you can have development without destroying the green infrastructure and that the study is a tool to use for its development that is not detrimental to economic development and are not opposing ideas.

Mr. Williams indicated that traditional conflicts exist everywhere and communities that can reach a consensus for the long term are the best communities.

Ms. Brennan noted that the maps show where connectors could be and can help a property owner in planning the development of their property. She noted that water supply issues could be addressed and concluded by saying that she thought it was a good planning tool and that folks don’t have to do anything with the information.

In conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Carter noted that the data layers could possibly be incorporated into the County’s GIS system and be useful.

IV.    Public Hearings
A.    Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Article 22 Small Wind Energy Ordinance (O2009-12)

Mr. Hale introduced the item and deferred to Mr. Boger who presented the following:

The Commission held five work sessions to develop an ordinance and on July 22, 2009, held a public hearing on it. On August 6th the Commission had a work session to consider the comments made during the public hearing and made some changes to the proposed ordinance and then unanimously voted to recommend to you the adoption of the ordinance. He noted that the proposed ordinance is designed to permit by right a small wind energy system on any parcel of one (1) acre or larger in size. Approval of a small energy system will be done administratively by the Planning Director and Building Official. The permit requirements for a zoning and building permit are essentially the same currently used for a building and zoning permit with the exception of locating any overhead utility lines, which is necessary to make sure there is enough separation between them. He noted that during the work sessions the Commission had discussions on the number of small energy systems per lot, the height of the towers, shadowing/flicker effect on adjacent properties, setbacks etc. They reviewed existing Virginia ordinances and several out-of-state ordinances. He reported that Mr. Jeremy Hayes, President of Skyline Turbine was invited to attend one of the work sessions to discuss with them the evolving technology of small wind energy systems and local regulations. To develop the proposed ordinance, the Commission also took into consideration the various types of land uses such as agricultural, residential, residential subdivisions, commercial, and industrial uses.

Mr. Boger stated that the Planning Commission’s draft is a liberal ordinance, allowing systems by right in all districts. He noted however; that the proposed Ordinance has the following restrictions:

Number of towers:
(a)  Parcels less than one acre – tower(s) not permitted.
(b)  Parcels 1-2 acres in size – one (1) tower permitted
(c)  Parcels greater than 2 acres and less than 5 acres in size – one (1) tower permitted.
(d) Parcels 5 acres or greater in size – one (1) tower permitted.  Conditional Use Permit required for additional tower(s).

Tower Height: The maximum tower height shall be:
(a)  Parcels 1-2 acres in size – 45 feet
(b)  Parcels greater than 2 acres and less than 5 acres in size – 60 feet
(c)  Parcels 5 acres or greater in size –100 feet

Setback:  A small wind energy system shall be set back a minimum distance equal to one-hundred and ten (110) percent of the extended tower height from     property lines, public and private roads, and overhead utility lines.

He noted that the application documents are the same thing required for a building permit today and noted that the draft Ordinance outlines a process for the abandonment of systems. He reiterated that additional systems could be granted by Special Use Permit.

In conclusion he stated that this Ordinance is very liberal comparatively to other localities and there was not much undue burden on the installer.

The Board questioned whether or not the draft Ordinance addressed turbines that would mount on a structure’s roofline since the draft language pertains to towers. Mr. Boger noted that the Planning Commission discussed this but structural issues were a concern and the Planning Commission elected not to include it.  He noted that in terms of the height restrictions, you would take the building plus the windmill height and the tower height requirement must be met; the building is considered the tower.

Mr. Carter suggested that it might be helpful to clarify this before it needs to be interpreted. He noted that the Board could give direction after the Public Hearing and have it amended and brought back.

The Board discussed whether this should be clarified or not and agreed by consensus that this should be clarified.

The Board questioned the clarity of the Ordinance as related to the allowance by right of only one tower no matter how many acres are in the parcel; whereas there are varying tower heights allowed. Mr. Boger noted that the applicant could come back for a CUP for additional systems and the Board would make a decision on that.

The Board then decided to hold the public hearing prior to any more discussion. Mr. Hale then opened the public hearing and read aloud the Ordinance number and title.  There being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

The Board then discussed the issues raised as follows:

Mr. Johnson suggested that a piece be added to address structural development and the number of towers permitted per space needs re-looking at – one may be too few. He also noted that the Planning Commission did not seemingly discuss terrain and keeping them off of the crest of the mountains.

Mr. Harvey noted that he was unsure how he felt about it and has only seen pictures; noting that the systems may be more conspicuous than cell towers.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that use of these systems is all about location and there is no need to place them where there isn’t wind and there is generally no wind in low lying areas.

Mr. Hale reiterated for the public that the Board was not discussing commercial wind production but on-site residential consumption of wind energy.

Ms. Brennan expressed concern about asking people to come back for an SUP; however she would like to be sure that people are placing them accordingly. Mr. Boger noted that they would have spacing guidelines to follow if multiple towers were placed.

The Board questioned the rush to complete an Ordinance and Mr. Bruguiere noted that the system representative that spoke to the Planning Commission had 72 people interested and Mr. Boger noted that there was currently one building permit pending. Mr. Bruguiere further noted his disagreement with having visual impact restrictions and stated that the systems should be an accessory use.

The Board discussed the fact that the Ordinance is a permissive document and that if it doesn’t specifically address something you can’t do it; thus the discussion regarding placement of turbines on structures.

Mr. Hale suggested that this concern could be addressed by removing the word tower from the definition of a small wind energy system on page 1.  He also suggested the elimination of item B and use (c) 1-5 acres in size to address the number of towers per acre issue.  He also suggested that the tower height needs to include height of structure here.  He also indicated that limiting the number of towers based on acreage makes sense related to the visual impact issue.  Mr. Bruguiere reiterated his opposition to any visual impact restrictions. Mr. Hale suggested, and the Board agreed, that they should go up on the acreage minimum to two (2) acres to agree with minimum lot size provision.

Mr. Carter questioned how the visual impacts will be monitored when it is a use by right and it meets the setback, requirements; with Mr. Boger noting that this would be reviewed during the site plan review and planning process and the installer would show the visual impact during the application process. Mr. Bruguiere noted the potential for this to drive the associated costs up.

In conclusion, the Board agreed by consensus that the Ordinance is a work in progress and that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hale should work out the details of any draft changes with Mr. Boger and no action was taken by the Board on this item.

B.    Conveyance by Nelson County of a perpetual easement to the Virginia Department of Transportation for Route 29, State Highway Project 0029-005-130, C-501 (R2009-87)

Mr. Carter noted the 0.81 acre easement area on a map that is under the US 29 bridge at Tye River. He further described the area as the County owned property near the Wardlaw property. He stated that the County was contacted by VDOT, because when the wanted to begin work on the bridge, they noted that the VDOT did not have access to the area under the bridge because the County owned the property. He noted that the County Attorney, Phil Payne reviewed and changed the easement agreement so that the County would still be able to do what it wants with the property, since the Blue Ridge Trail runs through there.

The Board agreed that it did not want any permanent impediment of County activities.

Mr. Carter further noted that the public hearing process was required to convey the easement and reiterated that 0.81 acres was right below the bridge so that VDOT can access the bridge on Rt. 29 to reconstruct the northbound lane. He noted that he could get information related to the time frame of the project and related costs etc.

There being no questions from the Board, Mr. Hale opened the public hearing.  There being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Johnson then moved to approve resolution R2009-87, Conveyance of a Perpetual Easement to the Virginia Department of Transportation State Highway Project 0029-005-130; C-501 and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.  Mr. Carter clarified that the easement was perpetual.

There being no further discussion Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION-R2009-87
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONVEYANCE OF A PERPETUAL EASEMENT TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE HIGHWAY PROJECT 0029-005-130, C-501

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that a perpetual easement is hereby granted to the Virginia Department of Transportation; the area embracing the easement is situated in the Massies Mill Magisterial District, is part of Tax Map #74-A-1F, and is described as follows:

Parcel No. 001, as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans for Route 29, State Highway Project  0029-005-130, C-501, and beginning on the southeast (right) side of the Route 29 Survey Baseline, from a point in the lands of Grantor (Nelson County) opposite approximate Station 221+09, and ending on the northwest (left) side of said baseline, the lands now or formerly belonging to Edith N. Wardlaw, opposite approximate Station 224 +77, and containing 0.81 acre, more or less.

V.    Unfinished/New Business
A.    Disposition of County Owned Property- Sale of Former Rockfish Valley Elementary School to the Rockfish Valley Community Center.

Mr. Carter distributed the current lease agreement with RVCC and noted that staff had provided the current tax assessment card in the Board’s packets. He noted that staff had discussed that the lease agreement contains sale provisions; however Mr. Payne had advised that any subsequent agreement that was agreeable to both parties would supersede any provisions contained in the lease document.

Mr. Hale noted that as a result of the public hearing previously held and comments from the Board, he would entertain a motion to convey the property to RVCC with the conditions that have previously been discussed: a survey showing the property to be conveyed leaving ingress/egress to the adjacent solid waste convenience center site, a reversion clause should the property no longer be used as a community center etc.  He suggested that a decision was needed by the Board before the conveyance documents could be drafted.

Mr. Harvey suggested that the Board should go by what the lease says if they were to handle this sale like all of the other ones. In response to the Board’s inquiry, staff noted that Ms. McCann had compiled a listing of County expenditures for RVCC during the lease period that totaled approximately $175,000 with approximately $75,000 of it being a HUD grant for the roof replacement.

Mr. Carter suggested that if the Board agreed to the conditions, they could revote on them by resolution after the details are ironed out in an agreement.

Mr. Hale suggested that the Board direct staff as to how the deed should be drawn after making a decision; with Mr. Carter reiterating that they could follow the lease, but could also establish anything they wish as long all of the parties agree.

Mr. Hale then recommended that Mr. Harvey and Ms. Brennan work with RVCC and come back on October 13th with information and a recommendation on how to proceed.

The Board agreed by consensus to defer further discussion on this item until the October 13th regular meeting and no other action was taken.

Introduced: FY 2010 Budget Update

Mr. Carter noted that he would like to brief the Board on the County’s financial status and the need to look at the State’s budgetary reduction impacts to Constitutional offices that take place October 1st.

Ms. McCann, Finance and Human Resources Director, reviewed the following handout:

FY10 Adjusted Revenue Forecast

Projected
GENERAL FUND    Shortfall    Surplus    Net
Local Revenue
Public Service (Based on actual assessment)     $  107,199      $   107,199
Sales Tax     $       (76,797)         $   (76,797)
Lodging Tax     $       (80,364)         $   (80,364)
Court Fines     $       (52,892)         $   (52,892)
Landfill Tipping Fees     $       (71,852)         $   (71,852)
Communications Sales & Use Tax     $     (109,836)         $ (109,836)
EMS Revenue Recovery         $  192,000      $   192,000
Region 2000 Services Authority Refund         $    28,752      $      28,752
NCSA Connection Fees (Colleen)          $    27,000      $      27,000
$     (391,741)     $  354,951      $   (36,790)

State Revenue
Compensation Board:
Sheriff      $       (46,722)         $   (46,722)
Commonwealth Attorney     $         (7,866)         $      (7,866)
Clerk Circuit Court     $       (15,056)         $   (15,056)
Treasurer     $         (7,762)         $      (7,762)
Commissioner of Revenue     $         (5,052)          $      (5,052)
$       (82,458)     $               –      $   (82,458)

SCHOOL FUND
State Revenue
Basic Aid         $    50,347      $      50,347
Sales Tax     $     (146,555)         $ (146,555)
VRS & Group Life     $       (77,835)     $    77,835      $                 -
Other     $         (1,709)          $      (1,709)
$     (226,099)     $  128,182      $   (97,917)

TOTALS     $     (700,298)     $  483,133      $ (217,165)

Notes:
The Surplus amount noted for VRS & Group Life represents the minimal amount of
savings resulting from the 4th quarter VRS premium holiday proposed in the Governor’s
Budget Reduction Plan.  School division staff will be providing information regarding
additional savings that will be realized by the premium holiday.

State revenues in the current year school budget are based on average daily membership
(ADM) of 1950 students.  Current school enrollment is 1920.  Some state funding is
based on the March ADM.  If the enrollment does not increase by March, the schools could
be impacted by additional reductions of approximately $100,000.

The General Fund recurring contingency is $121,382 and the non-recurring contingency
designated as Reserve for Capital Improvement is $268,485.

Mr. Carter noted that these projections were based on only two months worth of data and things may be more optimistic as the economy picks up throughout the year. He noted that staff’s intent is not to paint a bleak picture, but rather to show how things are projecting out.

Mr. Carter noted that the schools have been asked to provide their analysis of the impacts of the cuts when they are ready; however based on the staff’s comparison of the Dept. of Education funding sheets for the budgeted amount and the revised numbers the loss in funding is about $97,917. Staff noted however that the schools budget is based on an estimated enrollment of 1950 and according to Dr. Collins the ADM now is 1920. Mr. Carter noted that the Dept. of Education’s funding is based on March 2009 enrollment and doesn’t reflect any loss in enrollment; only the funding loss from the Governor’s reductions. He noted that the loss of funding due to lower enrollment would be another $100,000 if the ADM stays at 1920.  He explained that a loss in sales tax means basic aid goes up by some formula but does not cover it completely.

Ms. McCann reported that the change to VRS should not affect retirement for employees. She noted however that the VRS rate for future years may be higher to cover the premium holiday being amortized over 30 years. She noted that some school employees that don’t get payment for VRS may be a savings and she has asked the schools for this information; with them noting that they will need to report this to the School Board first. She then noted the remaining contingency amounts listed in the Notes of the handout.

The Board and staff discussed the enrollment numbers briefly; with Mr. Johnson suggesting that enrollment will pick up when the economy picks up. Whether or not enrollment was trending downward was also briefly discussed.

Mr. Carter concluded by stating that staff was concerned and watching the revenues but noted that there will be a lot of change throughout the year.  He noted of primary concern was what direction the Board wanted to give on the reduced state funding to Constitutional Offices, noting that staff could work with them and come back to the Board with options.

The Board and staff discussed the likelihood or not of their being a pay cut or loss of personnel. Mr. Carter stated that it was likely if the Board did nothing given that the cuts would be hard to make up outside of salaries. He noted that the Board could choose to absorb it; the State revenues just wouldn’t come in but the money is budgeted for on the expenditure side and they could use the contingency funds to cover it.

Mr. Hale stated that this was constructive information and emphasized the need to impress upon the constitutional officers that they need to take a hard look at their budgets and that the Board cannot commit to using up contingency funds to the extent required; with his direction being for them to make an effort to look at cuts to recover the State revenue shortfalls. Mr. Johnson added that the County absorbed recurring costs last year for those offices and he would like for the County to take a stand against the State.

Mr. Harvey noted that the budgetary concerns should be stressed to County departments also and any cuts should be across the board; with Mr. Hale noting his agreement. It was suggested by staff that the across the board cuts should also apply to the Schools and areas of potential savings were discussed.

In conclusion of this discussion the Board’s direction was to bring back something on October 13th to address the Constitutional Offices.

Mr. Bruguiere then questioned whether or not the NCSA Connection Fees go toward paying the system debt. Mr. Carter noted that the Board agreed to provide for annual debt service on the Colleen system and NCSA would repay this debt with connection fees generated by the system. He noted that they would never pay it back at the rate it is going.

Ms. Brennan stated that she would like to see any shortfalls covered without using the contingency funds. Mr. Carter stated that at this point only the State revenue shortfall is certain.
Ms. McCann elaborated that the Constitutional Officers have a choice of cutting their budget in the system or leaving it alone, using all of their money and not getting reimbursed at the end. Given this she noted that they may not see all of the cuts right now and the picture becomes clearer in January after the County’s first tax collection. The Board and staff discussed the wait and see approach given that staff will know more in January about how the local revenues are coming in and in the meantime ask everyone to sharpen their pencils and be ready to adjust budgets then.

Staff inquired as to the Board’s willingness to cut agencies, with the consensus being yes; everyone would be cut across the board.

In response to questions about the County hiring a maintenance worker, Mr. Carter noted that the County was interviewing now and that this would not be a place he would choose to cut.  The Board and staff discussed looking at closing the convenience centers for a day per week, noting that people would adjust to the new schedule. Mr. Carter noted that most of the traffic at the sites is on weekends and closing half of the sites on Tuesday and half on Thursday was suggested. Turning computers off at night was also suggested as a means to cut energy costs.

Mr. Carter reiterated that in terms of the Schools it would be helpful to wait for the School Board to report on those numbers, but that he would report back to the Board on October 13th with an overview of where cuts could be made.

Introduced: County Flag

Ms. Brennan suggested that the County Flag design be opened up to everybody, distributed a proposed ad for the paper, and asked for any comments etc. Ms. Brennan noted that the responses were due October 15th in order for the flag to be ready in time for the VACO Conference in November.  The consensus of the Board was to proceed as suggested.

Introduced: KNB Appointment

Mr. Hale noted that he had received a request from Keep Nelson Beautiful to have an additional person appointed since they can have up to 15 members. He noted that Ms. Nancy Uvanitte had previously applied, and he requested her appointment by the Board.

Ms. Brennan then moved to appoint Ms. Nancy Uvanitte to the Keep Nelson Beautiful Board and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion and the appointment.

Introduced: Invitation to Board – Whistle-stop Train

Mr. Hale noted an invitation he received for the whistle-stop train,  indicated that both he and Mr. Carter are unable to accept the invitation, and the information was passed on to Ms. Brennan for possible attendance.

Introduced: Invitation to Chamber of Commerce Dinner

Mr. Carter inquired as to the Board’s attendance of the Chamber of Commerce dinner on October 13, 2009 with the Board’s consensus being to send the Chamber their regrets and note they would be happy to attend if it were not scheduled on the same date as their regular Board meeting.

Introduced: Faber Collection Site

Mr. Harvey indicated that he had heard that there were problems with bids on the Faber collection site and that numerous addendums had been issued.  Mr. Carter noted that a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting had been held with ten contractors in attendance.  He noted that there were no real concerns about the questions that were asked. He noted there was some concern about the surplus soils; however local site information was given for a willing recipient of the surplus soil. He added that only one addendum had been issued after the pre-bid meeting noting a clarification of no charges for Building or E&S permits and that there was no rock clause included.  He stated that there was only a small section where there was un-crushable rock and including a rock clause was not in the best interest of the County per the geotechnical firm, and confirmed by Wiley and Wilson. He noted no reason to delay receipt of the bids at this point.

Mr. Hale noted for the record that there had been a concern expressed on the amount of waste material generated from the site and the cost in removing it to another site. He noted that he thought it was important to note that in terms of the design, three engineers, one being an independent person, had looked at the plans and modifications were made; however the limitations of the site requires the removal of that much earth and the current design is the most feasible.

Mr. Carter added that if the bids were not acceptable, or exceeded the available funding, the County would reject all of the bids, but if they were within budgetary ability, he would want to move forward because time is of the essence. He noted that the bid opening was at 2pm on September 30th and he could report immediately after on Wiley & Wilson’s recommendation and then he would want to go ahead with it. The Board indicated no opposition to moving forward.

Introduced: Flood Plain Maps

Mr. Bruguiere noted that he had gotten some calls on the flood plain map from people who said that the maps show an increased flood plain area at their house. Mr. Hale suggested that he go look at the sites in question with Mr. Boger to see if there is a problem. The Board and staff briefly discussed the affect this may have on flood insurance and Mr. Carter noted that he would look at the process of providing comment on the maps etc.

Miscellaneous:

Mr. Johnson noted that the new Department of Social Services Director would be sworn in on September 28th in the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office.

Mr. Hale noted that he will be out of the Country until October 9th.

VI.    Public Comments

There were no persons wishing to be recognized for public comments.

VII.    Adjournment

At 9:54 pm, Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting adjourned.