Board of Supervisors

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 7:00 p.m. in the Circuit Court Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:
Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor – East District
Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor – Chair
Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor – Vice Chair
Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor
Thomas D. Harvey, North District Supervisor
Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
Candice W. McGarry, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
Debra K. McCann, Director of Finance and Human Resources
Fred Boger, Director of Planning and Zoning
Betty Fortune, Secretary Planning and Zoning
Dr. Roger Collins, School Division Superintendent
Planning Commission Members

Absent:    None

I.    Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm, with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

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

Ms. Brennan suggested that the Board consider public comments as the first item of business and the Board agreed by consensus to do so.

II.    Public Hearings

A.    Joint Public Hearing with Planning Commission – Proposed Amendment of Appendix A,     Zoning , Article 10 General Flood Plain District, FP of the Code of Nelson County,     Virginia,1989 (O2010-03)

The Board considered this item following public comments and a five (5) minute break.

Ms. Brennan opened the joint public hearing for the Board of Supervisors and Ms. Proulx of the Planning Commission opened the Planning Commission public hearing.

Mr. Boger introduced Mr. Charlie Banks from DCR, the State Floodplain Coordinator who was in attendance.  He noted that Article 10 of the County’s Ordinance was adopted in 1978 including adopted flood insurance maps. He noted that the maps were being updated nationally and it was Nelson County’s turn to complete the update. He noted that the County was provided with new digital floodplain maps and a model ordinance with the required changes to be made. Mr. Boger reported that the County currently has ninety-four (94) policies for flood insurance. He stated that the County needed to update the Ordinance by May 11th in order to get it back to the state to have it adopted by June 18th.

Mr. Boger noted that the flood plain maps show flood plain and floodway designations and include the results of a flood insurance study with base elevations established. He noted that the new maps would be incorporated into the GIS system and showed an example of Cox’s Creek. He also showed Route 56 to Crabtree Falls being within a new floodplain area. Mr. Boger reported that the flood zones would also be incorporated onto the Zoning Map, which would show tax map information with floodplain areas.

Mr. Boger noted that the Ordinance included new definitions and that the County could not make its Ordinance less restrictive than the model ordinance and the flood insurance program could be suspended if it were not adopted by June.

Mr. Boger discussed the definition of “freeboard” and noted that Standards of Structures according to USBC requirements were incorporated into the Ordinance; noting that a 1 ft. separation from the top of water to the floorboard was required.

Other definitions such as that of “structure” and “floodway” were discussed and Mr. Boger noted that the current Ordinance did not address allowing residential structures in a floodway.  He gave an example of a current permit issued for tree houses in a floodway (the James River). He noted this section to be Section 10-16.

He also stated that there were more technical requirements to establish base elevations in order to prove a property was not in the floodplain. He reiterated that the Board of Supervisors was able to get some of the newly designated areas reduced.

Mr. Boger iterated that the process involved adopting the Ordinance, sending it to the state, and then to FEMA who would approve it or send it back for changes. He emphasized that the County must enact the ordinance changes in order to maintain its flood insurance program.

Additionally, Mr. Boger added that the maps could not be changed uniformly, but could be changed on an individual basis. He again described the FEMA process and the appeal process that was allowed.  He stated that an individual could appeal to FEMA for a map amendment at their expense and that the Zoning Department kept records of map amendments. He noted that technical documentation to prove the case would be required and that FEMA would make a determination of whether or not the case had been proven and the mortgage company would decide if the party still needed insurance.

Staff reiterated that the flood maps were what they were and that they were discussing the ordinance changes and the flood maps.

Following Mr. Boger’s presentation, the Planning Commission indicated that they did not have any comments or questions.

In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Boger noted that some of the flood plain areas had been shrunk down and there may have been one property that was no longer in a flood plain on the new maps.  He also noted that there were 261 properties; not all residences, that were affected.  He noted that the number of new structures were unknown because they were dealing with properties.  He stated that there were a lot in Tyro and the National Forest Area based on flooding of the river there. In conclusion, Mr. Boger noted that properties in newly designated floodplain areas would have to get flood insurance if the structure was in the floodplain and had a federal backed mortgage.

The Board and Staff briefly discussed the tree houses to be built, with Mr. Boger noting that their design was PE certified and designed to Code. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance had no definition of tree house and they will be allowed based on the cabin definition. He also stated that an Arborist had certified the strength/health of the trees.

There being no further questions or discussion, Ms. Brennan opened the public hearing as did Ms. Proulx of the Planning Commission and the following persons were recognized.

1. Gene Beard, Lovingston

Mr. Beard stated that he was a property owner in Tyro, the Flood Maps were a big joke, and the County will lose tax money if land is in the floodplain.  He noted that Cox’s creek was higher in 1995 than in 1969 and that he was concerned about the County making sure that there were not ulterior motives for this. He stated that the USBC addressed this with the setbacks from streams requirements. He also stated he was concerned that the Board was not representing people, but individuals.

2. Larry Whitaker, Nellysford

Mr. Whitaker asked for definitions of floodway and floodplain and these were provided by Mr. Boger who noted that you can build in a floodplain and in a floodway if the structure is above base elevation.
It was noted that there was new language regarding fences in the proposed ordinance.

2. Sam Price, Tyro

Mr. Price questioned whether or not the Ordinance defined what could be done in a floodplain and Mr. Boger responded affirmatively and noted that ponds were subject to whether or not dirt is brought in or taken out; but that it was referenced in the Ordinance.

3. Daniel Stevens, Tyro

Mr. Stevens noted that he was a Hawk’s Creek landowner of 69 acres, and that his land should not be in the floodplain if it did not flood in 1969. He stated that he did not see the point of changing the zone now. Mr. Stevens asked that staff confirm whether or not his property is in the floodplain and provided his phone number.

There being no other persons wishing to be recognized, Ms. Proulx closed the Planning Commission public hearing and Ms. Brennan closed the Board of Supervisors public hearing.

Ms. Proulx, Chair of the Planning Commission stated that she would like to wait to make the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the Ordinance and plan to send it up to the Board for consideration at their May 11, 2010 meeting.

Mr. Banks with the DCR Floodplain program noted his appreciation for the aggravation that the new maps have caused; however he noted that more accurate data and topography had been used for the maps and that was why the floodplain has been expanded in some cases. He noted that the contour lines were now close together and the accuracy was better because done by computer now.

In conclusion, he stated that if the County did not adopt the Ordinance with the new maps, the maps would become effective anyway and the County would be suspended from participating in the federally subsidized flood insurance program. He noted further, that if the County was not participating, then the mortgage companies could not offer federally backed flood insurance; which was much less expensive than private insurance and was a good program. He then encouraged the County to consider adopting the provisions of the Ordinance.

In response to questions, Mr. Banks further noted that Region 3 did not have enough compliant Ordinances, which included the County.  He also stated that in response to Mr. Steven’s comments, the more accurate topography is the likely reason that the maps changed. He noted that the not flooding in 1969 contrasted with Rockfish, and guessed that it was the amount of water in the watershed and may be based on computer modeling. He noted that the maps have been made better; there was better information available to potential builders, and a better insurance program available.

Ms. Proulx stated that the Planning Commission was ready to adjourn and agreed to send the Board their recommendation. Then the Planning Commission meeting adjourned.

Ms. Brennan reiterated to the public that the County had no control over the maps and that they would be effective and the Board had no control over this. She noted that the Ordinance was to protect the citizens of County and to allow citizens to be offered flood insurance at a reduced rate. She further noted that the Board was not trying to do anything to negatively affect County citizens and that the Board had gotten the maps significantly modified.

Mr. Hale added that he recommended that citizens go to the Planning and Zoning Office if there are specific questions about property.  He noted that sometimes there are small sections of property that are affected and not the entire parcel; but the landowner would get notified because of this.

Mr. Bruguiere commented that more people were in hardship because of having to get insurance and it doubled the premiums.

In conclusion, it was noted that the Planning Commission would take the Ordinance up at their meeting and forward their suggestions to the Board on May 11, 2010.

III.    New/Unfinished Business

A.    Authorization to Participate in Commonwealth of VA Voluntary Group Long Term Care Insurance Program (R2010-22)

Mr. Carter noted that the proposed resolution was to authorize the County to participate with VRS and allow employees to elect to participate in a long term care insurance program. He noted that the program was voluntary and premiums were paid by the participating employees, not costing the County anything.

Ms. McCann added that premiums were not tax deferred and the program would be offered to Full Time or Part Time employees working twenty (20) hours per week. She noted that when a participating employee left County employment it would transfer to a private policy. She noted that the program offered a certain guaranteed benefit and would be another benefit offered by the County. She added that employees could get the coverage for immediate family members also.

In response to questions, Ms McCann confirmed that there was no cost to the County except for administration and the premiums depended on the age of the insured. She noted that the program was offered through Genworth, who provided online account access and premium quotes. She stated that employees could sign up now and premiums would be payroll deducted in July.  She said that the initial enrollment was advantageous because there were not as much underwriting criteria to meet.  Ms. McCann also confirmed that per the Code, the Board was eligible to participate in the program.

There were no further questions from the Board and Mr. Hale moved to approve resolution R2010-22,
Participation in Commonwealth of Virginia Voluntary Group Long Term Care Insurance Program.  Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion and 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 (R2010-22)
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PARTICIPATION IN COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA VOLUNTARY GROUP LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM

WHEREAS,  The Commonwealth of Virginia has established, and VRS has assumed responsibility for, the Commonwealth of Virginia Voluntary Group Long Term Care Insurance Program  in which employees of local governments, local officers and teachers, as defined in Section 51.1-513.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended (the “Code”), may participate, and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to the same section of the Code, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, as Employer, desires to enter into an Agreement with VRS to permit participation in the Plan by its employees,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby authorize participation in the Commonwealth of Virginia Voluntary Group Long Term Care Insurance Program and authorizes the County Administrator or County Finance Director to execute the Employer Adoption Agreement to facilitate participation in the program.

B.    Procurement of Engineering and Construction Administration Services – Broadband Infrastructure Project (R2010-23)

Mr. Carter reported that staff was wading through the initial phases of compliance with the NTIA Broadband Grant and has submitted the proposed resolution for the Board’s consideration. He noted that the Board would certify, by adoption of the proposed resolution, that ICON Engineering was the only practicable source so that staff could move along expeditiously and not have additional expenses. He noted that the State Code and Federal Regulations allowed this type of procurement exception.

Mr. Carter noted that their scope of work would include final design and all things related to the project. He noted that the draft resolution had been submitted to the Federal agencies for review and hopefully approval. He cautioned the Board that even if they adopt the resolution, it may not fly with the Federal agencies and then staff would still have to do a competitive procurement RFP. Mr. Carter concluded by stating that the same resolution was used to retain Draper Aden & Associates (DAA) for the Piney River III project but that its acceptance was not a certainty.

Mr. Johnson then moved to approve Resolution R2010-23, Procurement of Engineering Services for Broadband Infrastructure Project and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.

Mr. Carter reiterated that the overall intent was to work with the Company that was most familiar and would expedite the implementation of the project; noting that issuing an RFP would take longer to get there. He also reiterated that the Federal agencies were reviewing the draft resolution with the knowledge that the Board was considering its passage that night.

Mr. Carter explained that the County would have three (3) years to complete the project per NTIA and that staff was now doing registrations etc. and needed to complete the Environmental Assessment.

Members clarified that they would be authorizing the County to select ICON Engineering and then would develop the contract for services. It was further noted that the scope of work would be what was in the grant application

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 R2010-23
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PROCUREMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors (the Board) has authorized the construction of the Broadband Infrastructure Project (the Project), which will construct four new towers and install 31 miles of fiber optic cable in order to provide the broadband network infrastructure needed to deploy high speed internet services in underserved and unserved areas of Nelson County (the County); and,

WHEREAS, preliminary project planning and engineering has been completed, which has enabled the County to secure a Federal Stimulus Funding grant and potentially a State CDBG grant to enable the project to be completed; and,

WHEREAS, to provide for the project’s completion, the County must retain the services of a professional engineering company licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and,

WHEREAS, the County has previously retained to complete the project’s preliminary planning and engineering, the services of Icon Engineering, Inc.; and,

WHEREAS, the County wishes to continue to utilize Icon Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering and such related services, as may be required, for the final design, completion and operation of the Broadband Infrastructure Project; and,

WHEREAS, to provide for the employment of Icon Engineering Inc., the County wishes to proceed in accordance with Section 24.36 of 15 CFR 24, Procurement and Section 2.2-4303, Methods of Procurement, Subsection E, of the Code of Virginia, 1950.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that said Board herewith affirms, pursuant to Section 24.36 of 15 CFR 24 and Section 2.2-4303, Subsection E, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, that only one source, Icon Engineering, Inc. is practicably available to provide professional engineering services to Nelson County for the County’s Broadband Infrastructure Project, as Icon Engineering, Inc., through a previous procurement completed by the County in accordance with the responsibilities of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, has developed the scope of the project for the County, including preliminary engineering, project scoping and assistance with determining broadband infrastructure deficiencies and needs, through its contractual work on behalf of the County which is integral to the successful accomplishment of the Project, and has agreed to accept compensation that cannot exceed limitations established by project funding sources, and therefore cannot benefit greater than or less than another firm that may be similarly qualified; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that said Board herewith finds and further affirms that securing proposals from other qualified engineering firms is not advantageous, or in the best interest of the County, as such consideration will result in the Project being unduly delayed and will require the County to incur greater costs.

LASTLY, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the County Administrator publicly post this decision of the Board of Supervisors, as required by Section 2.2-4303 E of the Code of Virginia, 1950 and, that the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute a contract agreement with Icon Engineering, Inc. for the provision of professional engineering and related services to Nelson County for the accomplishment of the Broadband Infrastructure Project.

C.    FY09-10 Budget Amendment (R2010-24)

Ms. McCann noted that the Piney River III project was complete; the County had received and expended all project funds. She noted that staff did not bring as much forward in this year’s budget and the budget amendment was just a formality.

Mr. Hale then moved to approve Resolution R2010-24; Amendment of Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Budget and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.  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 R2010-24
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AMENDMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 BUDGET
NELSON COUNTY, VA
April 22, 2010

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County that the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Budget be hereby amended as follows:

I.     Appropriation of Funds (Piney River 3 Project Fund)

Amount    Credit Account(-)     Debit Account (+)
$    4,198.00     3-112-003201-0007    4-112-094100-3140
$    4,198.00     3-112-003201-0007    4-112-094100-3141
$  17,413.00     3-112-003201-0007    4-112-094100-3145
$  81,536.00     3-112-003201-0007    4-112-094100-3160
$  53,409.00     3-112-003201-0007    4-112-094100-9999
$  85,469.00     3-112-003201-0007    4-112-094100-3161
$ 120,347.00     3-112-003201-0017    4-112-094100-3161
$ 366,570.00

D.    FY10-11 Budget Work Session

1.    TRES & RRES Roof/Window Replacement Project

Mr. Carter noted that the PowerPoint from BCWH had been included in the Board’s packet and that Dr. Collins had provided updated cost information from the architectural firm, which he then distributed.

He noted that the School Board would like to proceed with the Tye River Elementary School (TRES) work and the replacement of windows at Rockfish River Elementary School (RRES). Mr. Carter noted that the cost estimates provide for two (2) options for roof types (shingle and metal) and an additional option for replacing the RRES roof. He noted that the current roof there had a lifespan of 5-8 additional years and the schools could include this as an add alternative. He noted that depending on the chosen options, the schools were ready to approve proceeding; however the means to fund the project still needed to be determined.

Mr. Bruguiere reported on the presentation provided by BCWH to the School Board and noted that they recommended using the 30 year shingle roof vs. a metal one because the metal roof was 2.5 times as much and would require maintenance in 20 years and at that point they could do another shingle roof for the cost of just maintaining the metal roof. He stated that Tim Rutherford had noted problems with the Nelson Middle School metal roof and thought it made sense to go with shingles.

He reported that the windows at RRES were discussed as having been put in backwards and that the glazing had allowed water to drain to the inside instead of to the outside and that after it has been ten (10) years, they were stuck.

Members noted that the windows should last for a good fifty to sixty (50-60) years and that they should move away from using hollow cored windows. Mr. Bruguiere noted that BCWH spoke about the RRES roof and that they stated that they should get five to seven (5-7) more years of roof there and possibly ten (10) more years with proper maintenance. He noted that they also discussed problems with the window installation at TRES.

Ms. Brennan echoed Mr. Bruguiere’s summary of the presentation and reiterated that they would have to maintain the metal roof option in ten (10) years per the Architects.

Mr. Johnson commented that the window replacement may entail replacement of 2x4s and insulation around the windows and noted that the scope only included replacing or repainting the drywall.

Ms. Brennan noted that they briefly discussed the presence of mold being a small concern, but that it was unknown if it was there or not. She noted that she would be more interested in looking at who was responsible if molding had occurred, since its abatement would be expensive.

Members and staff discussed making the short term window to do the project when school was closed and Mr. Carter noted the tentative schedule provided in the Architect’s power point. He noted that they would use one General Contractor and then sub out the work.

It was noted that the RRES windows weren’t as imperative as the TRES roof. Safety concerns were discussed, with Mr. Carter noting that the shifting of the front door wall at RRES could easily be corrected as a minor structural problem.

Mr. Carter then noted that if no roofing was done at RRES, and everything else was done except the flat roof at TRES, including AE fees, then it would cost $790,700.

Members and staff discussed using Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs).  Mr. Carter noted that they could pay for it out of pocket using $645,000 from the courthouse set aside and $143,000 that would be reallocated back to the General Fund from the Piney River III fund. There would then only be a balance of $2,700 that would be needed and they could use General Fund monies. He stated that the project could then be done expeditiously and with cash even though it would likely overlap into the next school year.

It was noted that the flat roof at TRES (two small areas) was recommended for replacement but that it was not necessary.

Mr. Johnson commented that even if they used current available funds in meeting the expeditious timeline, they would still have contingency funds and may get $200,000 in CDBG funds to offset the budgeted local match for the Broadband grant.

Members asked for Dr. Collin’s opinion and he responded as follows:

He noted that they have been dealing with leaking at TRES every year during certain storms and needed the roof at TRES and the recommended windows replaced. He stated that they have noticed when painting that the windows there have rapidly deteriorated. He also stated that Tim Rutherford had noted that he thought the windows at RRES were put in backwards about a year ago and they decided to monitor them and they have gotten worse; so they decided to issue the RFP for architectural services and got BCWH on board. He noted that he had a high degree of confidence in them and his recommendation was to move forward with TRES as quickly as possible; while noting that, RRES, depending on the speed of deterioration, was problematic.

Mr. Carter indicated that he agreed with Dr. Collins and was also impressed with BCWH. He suggested looking at legal recourse without spending too much to do so; either using the County Attorney or the School Board’s attorney to look at the contract documents to see if there was an opportunity to proceed.

Ms. Brennan agreed that they should have an attorney look at it. Mr. Carter noted that he had not asked county staff about who was at fault and that there might have been clerks of the works at the time.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Johnson moved to authorize the schools to move forward on the project as presented with the A&E firm for replacement of the shingle roof  (with shingles) and windows at TRES and the windows at RRES; paying for it with Courthouse set-aside and Piney River III carryover funds.

Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Mr. Carter indicated that he and Dr. Collins would look into the legal side of things and it was the Board’s consensus that they do so. It was clarified that the original project was contracted by the Schools.

There was no other Board consideration of the FY10-11 budget.

IV.    Other Business (As May Be Presented)

Mr. Johnson stated that he would like for the Board to look at restrictions on dogs running free from other counties; giving Loudon County as an example. He stated that there seemed to be escalating issues between neighbors on this matter and the use of public trails etc. were being affected by roaming dogs.

Mr. Bruguiere stated that animals could be shot if they are after livestock.

V.    Public Comments

The Board considered public comments as their first item of business. Ms. Brennan instructed the public on the procedure for participating and then opened the public comments session. The following persons were recognized:

1. Hank Schieb, Arrington

Mr. Schieb spoke regarding a roaming dogs issue in his neighborhood and commented on the damage that they were doing. He noted that he had given up sheep farming due to the roaming dogs. He stated that he has lost other livestock and pets from pit bull attacks. He noted that he was concerned about his child coming home from school to face these roaming dogs who had recently attacked his pet dog. He stated that they were causing emotional and economic loss and requested that the Board consider an Ordinance with teeth to control these dogs.  He encouraged the Board to address this issue to keep others from going through same thing.

2. Elizabeth Snead, Arrington

Ms. Snead noted that she was terrified of dogs and that she had six (6) stray dogs at her house this week. She stated that she had been bitten before and was a prisoner in her own house. She also noted that she had lost three (3) cats to the dogs and then the dogs were eventually euthanized because the owner let them run and didn’t keep them in their pen.  She stated that she wanted to be able to go where she wanted to and feel safe.

3. Sigrid Mirabella, 1416 Indian Creek Rd.

Ms. Mirabella stated that she worked at Almost Home Pet adoption center, but was expressing her own opinion.

She stated that Animal Control takes care of injured animals and it is an expense to the County. She noted that she was concerned about the danger to drivers of roaming dogs crossing the roads and noted that she thought this to be a liability to the County for not having a leash law. She requested that the County look into this.

4. Darlene Owings, Arrington

Ms. Owings reported that she was tormented by roaming dogs in the neighborhood that have killed animals in her yard.  She stated that she has a right to be in her own yard and not feel unsafe. She stated that she was concerned about roaming dogs on the highway that could cause accidents; noting that they were a road hazard and nothing could be done without an ordinance. She urged the Board to implement a confinement Ordinance to help protect the animals that are running at large as well and stated that dog owners should keep their animals safe.

5. Debbie Lupton

Ms. Lupton noted that she has dogs that are kept in her yard. She noted that dog owners should be responsible for keeping them in their control. She stated that responsibility and education is needed and that dogs running at large are not the fault of the animal.

6. Gretchen Price, Tyro

Ms. Price noted that she was an SPCA member speaking on her own behalf. She stated that there was a subset of other issues. She noted that she has provided a fenced area for her animals, but that not everyone has the luxury of providing this, but there were other options. She noted that the SPCA asks about this when adopting out dogs. She stated that it is also a two way street, some animals are let out and are vulnerable. She also noted that the SPCA gets a large amount of lost dog calls, and proper containment solves this issue. She stated that it would create a safer community if the Board would institute an ordinance to keep dogs on their owner’s property.

7. Dave Holme, 8151 Thomas Nelson Hwy.

Mr. Holme noted that he was a working Veterinarian in Lovingston. He stated that he saw lots of clients with the same story as Mr. Schieb. He stated that there was concern about a containment ordinance that it would affect hunters; however he thought this could be addressed with a proper containment ordinance. He noted that these issues were not confined to any specific breed that attack. He reported that recently Animal Control had brought in several dogs that were poisoned and had to be euthanized. He concluded that confinement could be done humanely and the County could have a progressive ordinance.

8. Betty Graham, Shipman

Ms. Graham of the SPCA noted that she goes over to the Animal Control shelter weekly to bring animals to the SPCA. She noted that many dogs were there for court cases because they had gotten into trouble and were taking up space that nice adoptable dogs could use. She stated that she was in favor of placing the responsibility on owners to contain pets.

9. Gwen Casale, Shipman

Ms. Casale noted that she raises sheep and cattle and have had dogs chase her livestock. She had approached the neighbors about this and they did not respond. She noted Animal Control came out and had them tied up for about an hour and was advised to shoot the dogs; which she thought was a poor solution. She stated that she was in favor of an ordinance of containment.

10. Shirley Allen, Arrington

Ms. Allen noted that she was concerned about a neighbor with roaming dogs that have injured two (2) of her cats. She noted that she confronted the neighbor and he was ignoring her. She stated that she was also an employee of the SPCA and favored a leash law.

There being no other persons wishing to be recognized, the Public Comments session was closed.

VI.    Adjournment

At 9:20 pm, Mr. Hale moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting adjourned.