Board of Supervisors

November 16, 2010 Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes

admin — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:35:36 +0000

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 2:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:

Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor

Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor – Chair

Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor

Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor – Vice Chair

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

Roger L. Collins, School Division Superintendent

Absent: None

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm with three (3) Supervisors present to establish a quorum. Mr. Hale and Mr. Harvey then joined the meeting at 2:09 pm.

Moment of Silence

Ms. Brennan asked that the moment of silence be dedicated to remembering all veterans in honor of Veterans’ Day.

Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Bruguiere led the Pledge of Allegiance

Prior to consideration of the Consent Agenda, Ms. Brennan asked for any changes to the overall agenda and Mr. Carter noted that Staff would like to defer Item IVA related to the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) dental program. He noted information had been received just prior to the meeting from Peggy Whitehead and that staff would like to review it and send it out to the Board later in the week for possible consideration in December. He then briefly noted that VDH had not been able to retain the services of a Dentist and would like to discontinue use of County funds for this program. He then reported that he had spoken with Peggy Whitehead about this, who was developing a plan for Rural Health Outreach to use the funds.

II. Consent Agenda

Ms. Brennan noted all of the Consent Agenda Items and Mr. Carter noted that the Sherriff had a funding request that was included in the listed Budget Amendment and also later in the agenda under Correspondence. The Board then agreed by consensus to remove the budget amendment from the Consent Agenda and consider it separately.

Ms. Brennan noted that the items for consideration under the consent agenda were now only A and B.

Mr. Hale and Ms. Brennan noted minor corrections for the minutes for approval and Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the Budget Amendment and with the corrections to the minutes. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:

Resolution – R2010–73 Minutes for Approval

RESOLUTION-R2010-73

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

(October 12^th and October 28th 2010)

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meetings conducted on October 12^th and October 28th 2010, be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.

Resolution – R2010 -74 COR Refunds

RESOLUTION-R2010-74

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE REFUNDS

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the following refunds, as certified by the Nelson County Commissioner of Revenue and County Attorney pursuant to §58.1-3981 of the Code of Virginia, be and hereby are approved for payment.

Amount Category Payee

$ 270.45 2010 Personal Property Tax GMAC

Attn: Property Tax

P.O. Box 198169

Nashville, TN 37219

Re: 2010 GMC Acadia #7379

$ 759.67 2008-2010 Personal Property Tax Brian K. Harlow and Monica G. Harlow

53 Sunnyside Lane

Afton, VA 22920

Re: 2008 Nissan #5458

$1,064.07 2008-2010 Personal Property Tax Toyota Motor Credit Corp

& Vehicle License Fees Attn: Corp Tax Dept.

19001 South Western Avenue

Torrance, CA 90501

Re: 2008 Lexus RX350 #0554

$122.59 2009-2010 Personal Property Tax Michelle Renee Kelley

Relief P.O. Box 84

Afton, VA 22920-0084

Resolution – R2010 -75 FY10-11 Budget Amendment – Considered later in the agenda

III. Public Comments and Presentations

Public Comments

Kenneth White, Roseland and Virginia Tax Payers Association

Mr. White distributed and read aloud the following prepared statement:

Madam Chairman and members of the Board, my name is Kenneth White, 93 Shields Gap Road, Roseland, and I am President of the Virginia Taxpayers Association. Violations of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Constitution of the United States and the Posse Comitatus Act by officials in Richmond and Washington AFFECTING CITIZENS OF NELSON COUNTY have become so frequent and so massive that it is necessary to lay some of them out before your Board so that you will take proper action, eliminating your own ADMITTED violations of your oaths of office. (Allegations which are not denied are in law deemed as admitted.)

U. S. troops now being trained to boss communities and run local governments are being readied by Northcom to oversee a post collapse America in which riots and civil unrest similar to that now exploding in Europe over austerity measures and pension cuts will be met with the iron fist of a militarized police state. Instances where this has already happened include: (1 Preparation of 3rd Brigade Team Mountain Division for situation where· they will become the local government by working with local officials in domestic law enforcement operations; (2) case in Kingman, Arizona last

September, where National Guardsmen were filmed providing security and directing traffic; (3 in Newport, Kentucky September 6, 2009, military checkpoints suddenly appearing by Military Police from U. S. Army National as well as Marines purportedly conducting traffic control, as result of harmonization of police and military, because city was strapped for funds; (4) during Kentucky Derby May 2, 2009, when Military Police were on patrol to deal with crowd control, an Associated Press photo showed armed MPs detaining a man who ran out onto track. (5) In January, 2009, Virginia National Guard soldiers from Lynchburg-based 1st Battalion, 116th Brigade Combat Team used to conduct personal searches at checkpoints in Washington, D. C. for inauguration of Barack Obama; (6 in February, 2009,2,200 Marines in urban operations training in Richmond involved throughout January in drills landing troops in populated areas, allowing military pilots to familiarize themselves with the area; (7) in March, 2009, U. S. troops dispatched to patrol streets of Samson, Alabama, after a murder spree.

(8) On April 3, 2009, planned DHS, federal, state, Air Force and local seatbelt checkpoint in conjunction with Department of Homeland Security and 251st Military Police in Bolivar, Tennessee, canceled after objections; (9) in December, 2008, Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center dispatching troops to work with police on checkpoints in San Bernardino County, California; (10) on April 22, 2008, deployment of 400 National Guard Combat Support Battalion troops to maintain public order at Boston Marathon; (11) on April 22, 2008, news video showing uniformed soldiers working with police officers at scene of car accident in El Paso, Texas, where local television news team was assaulted by irate police officer; (12) in June, 2008, article in Daily News Forecaster reporting deployment of 2,300 Marines in

Indianapolis under direction of the FBI and Department of Homeland Security. (13) Northcom recently received its own fighting unit: the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, deployed in United States for civilian law enforcement; (14) in June, 2009, Northcom distributed Congressional Fact Sheet entitled Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters, amending current law, thereby authorizing Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve to active duty for a major disaster or emergency; (15) in August, 2009, The Progressive reported Pentagon attempting to grant Secretary of Defense authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout United States in times of emergency or major disaster; (16) authorities have made preparations for deploying troops to round up Americans, as was done with Japanese Americans in World War II, in aftermath of immigration influx should Mexico completely collapse.

In the face of all this, will your Board continue to sit idly by, ignoring the safety and lives of all of YOUR OWN CONSTITUENTS until it is too late for you to act in accordance with law?

That concludes my Statement.

Mike Campbell Blundell Hollow Rd. Afton and Forest Wood, Woods Mill

Mr. Campbell noted that he was an avid hunter who was concerned about the right to run dogs on the east side of Route 151, where there is a trapping season that is concurrent. He stated that he wanted to prevent the setting of foot-held traps and the Game Commission advised him to bring this to the Board’s attention and ask for the Board to consider passing an ordinance prior to them being able to enforce it.

Mr. Harvey added that the issue was that some hunt clubs had large tracts of land that they did not want dogs running across when they were still hunting, so they set coyote traps in order to catch the dogs.

Staff and the Board offered to look into what other localities have along these lines.

VDOT Report

Mr. Carter noted that Mr. Hamilton was unable to make it to the meeting and would submit monthly reports henceforth.

The Board then discussed the following VDOT issues:

Mr. Bruguiere noted that he was unhappy that Nelson was not getting any of the half million dollars that was found; noting that the County needed maintenance funding and could use unpaved roads funds.

Mr. Hale had nothing to report

Mr. Harvey noted that he had not heard anything back on the issue south of Sunrise Drive, where a pipe was collapsing on the west side. He added that it was the culvert pipe under the road at the old house and the area was sinking.

Additionally, he noted that there was too much grass on the sides of Rt. 29 at Davis Creek, causing water to pool through the curve there.

Mr. Harvey reported that VDOT had approved the new driveway at Nellysford Brewery and the entrance to the CPA business there.

Mr. Johnson noted that he would like to know where the half million in VDOT money went.

Ms. Brennan noted that there was a lot of shoulder erosion on Rt.29 going north near the county line with Albemarle County.

Ms. Brennan added that she would like to ask Mr. Hamilton how new regulations are promulgated. Mr. Carter stated that he thought that public notices were issued, the laws were done by the General Assembly, and then the regulations were formulated. Mr. David Blount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison in attendance, added that the Administrative Process Act was followed which was at minimum a six (6) month process.

The Board agreed by consensus that they would like to be aware of these notices as they are occurring. It was noted that there were websites whereby, they could receive notices on specific topics.

Presentation – TMDL Piedmont Regional Pilot Project, Rivanna River Basin Commission

Mr. Steve Williams, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and Alysson Sappington of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District gave the following presentation:

Presentation Outline

TMDL Basics
What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL?
Where are we in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL process?
How will the Chesapeake Bay TMDL affect local governments?
Results of Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
What happens next?

What is a TMDL?

TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load
TMDL is a “pollution diet” to reduce pollutants and achieve water quality standards
A TMDL is comprised of:

- waste load allocations for point sources like wastewater treatment plants, urban stormwater systems, industrial plants

– load allocations for non-point sources such as polluted rainfall runoff from agricultural lands, construction and impervious surfaces

– a margin of safety and,

- if desired, an allocation to accommodate growth.

Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Largest and most complicated TMDL yet EPA sets pollution diet to meet states’ Bay clean water standards
Caps on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for all 6 Bay watershed states and DC and major tributaries
States set load caps for point and non-point sources for each major tributary
Includes Watershed Implementation Plans
2 Year Incremental Milestones for accountability
Goal: All practices in place by 2025 that will result in acceptable water quality in the Bay

Who is Polluting the Bay?

Average across the entire Bay watershed

Who will be affected by the Chesapeake Bay TMDL?

Federal, state and local governments
Point sources of wastewater (sewage treatment plants, esp.)
Permitted sources of stormwater runoff (local governments, VDOT, construction projects)
Agriculture
Citizens (limitations on fertilizers, etc.)

Everyone!

What is Happening Right Now?

Two documents just completed public review:

Chesapeake Bay TMDL –sets pollutant discharge limits by sector for six states and DC
Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) –describes how Virginia will meet pollutant limits set in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL

EPA also issued an Evaluation of Virginia Draft Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP)
EPA evaluation of the VA Draft WIP identified “Serious Deficiencies” in the Plan
Virginia will submit final Watershed Implementation Plan in late November
- EPA will release final Chesapeake Bay TMDL by Dec. 31, 2010.

Key Provisions of Draft Watershed Implementation Plan for Local Government

Onsite/ Septic:

Implement proposed Dept of Health regs for alternative systems
State to consider revisions to require nitrogen reducing technologies
State to consider revisions to encourage the use of community onsite systems
Expand the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program to include on-site systems

Key Provisions of Draft Watershed Implementation Plan for Local Government

Stormwater:

Revise Stormwater Management Regulations to prevent load increases from new development
Restrict application of non-ag fertilizers. Require reporting from “for-hire” applicators
Encourage all locality-owned non-ag lands receiving nutrients to develop and implement nutrient management plans
Require that redevelopment meet reductions in nutrient and sediment loads from Stormwater Management Regulations
Implement additional BMPs on existing pervious and impervious lands through future permits and wider adoption of stormwater utility fees

Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Task 1: Existing Conditions –Utilize local monitoring data to base line existing conditions and analyze pollution targets

Task 2: Conduct outreach to pollutant sector stakeholders (local government, developers/builders, agriculture, point sources) in order to:

Provide information about Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Solicit input from stakeholders on Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Identify information or resources that are needed for implementation of Chesapeake Bay TMDL within our region
Build support for development of a regional Watershed Implementation Plan in Phase II

Mr. Williams reported that all sectors indicated that everyone was concerned about the cost of meeting these regulations and that they would be implemented in an unfair manner. He added that all groups felt that the best way to meet the requirements of the TMDLs was to work out a system where everyone in the Region could do a little bit rather than one sector making major changes.

Input from Agriculture Focus Group

Good, clear information from trusted sources.
Concerns about financial impacts on farmers who operate on very thin margins.
Want recognition for work that has been done.
One size fits all regulations do not work
Solutions must be practical and common sense.
We recognize that there may be benefits to agriculture
We’d like to help craft a local solution.

Input from Builders/Developers Focus Group

Concerned about unregulated sources and fairness among sectors.
Another set of costly regulations.
Concerns about the Chesapeake Bay Model.
TMDL requirements are fundamentally anti-urban and are likely to lead to sprawl.
We want to get together with other sectors.

Input from Permitted Dischargers

Investments into reduction efforts have resulted in higher wastewater treatment capacity and sewer rates.
Will funding opportunities or federal government funding become available?
Focusing on point sources due to lack of implementation in other sectors is not fair.
All stakeholders within each county need to work together on this.

Input from Local Governments

No unfunded mandates!
Funding will be necessary to implement, not just the authority to raise new taxes
Most concerned about local water quality
Fairness –Virginia shouldn’t bear unfair share of the burden
Equity among sectors –no sector should be required to bear undue share of burden
Local governments want flexibility to figure out the best way to meet requirements within the region

What will happen next?

Virginia will submit final Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan to EPA in late November
EPA will release final Chesapeake Bay TMDL by Dec 31, 2010.
Virginia General Assembly must enable many provisions of Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan
VA DCR will inform localities of targetload reductions in early 2011 (non-point source).
Phase II Watershed Implementation Plans will be developed at the local level in 2011 (Watersheds? Regions? Cities and Counties?)

Questions?

Steve Williams, Executive Director

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission

(434) 979-7310 x110

www.tjpdc.org

Alyson Sappington, District Manager

Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District

(434) 975-0224

www.tjswcd.org

During the question and answer session following the presentation, Mr. Bruguiere asked who had developed the pie charts depicting who was polluting the Bay and Mr. Williams noted that the EPA had developed them from its monitoring sites, they represented the entire watershed, and they may not be representative of this particular region. He added that Pennsylvania was the largest contributor of pollution in Virginia.

The Board and the presenters discussed that manure/agriculture was including chemical fertilizers and biosolids applications. Mr. Johnson commented that biosolids hit two categories and that Counties had no control over the application of biosolids. Ms. Sappington noted that there would be nutrient management plans for this from the state.

Mr. Bruguiere commented that he was unhappy that the numbers include naturally occurring nutrients that were blamed on agriculture; with Ms. Sappington noting that a lot of these numbers were due to the contributions of the state of Pennsylvania. She added that she would like to see this done by watershed because it would be more responsive to actual conditions in the region, which were not represented in the pie charts.

The Board and presenters briefly discussed the allowance for the trading of carbon credits etc., which would be legislative actions.

Ms. Brennan then asked what was meant by “community onsite systems” and Mr. Williams explained that small subdivisions could have a community system located within the subdivision that takes all of the homes in that subdivision’s waste. Mr. Carter added that this would require permitting by DEQ and has caused problems in some localities. Mr. Williams noted that these systems were not better managed, but rather were collectively ignored. Ms. Brennan agreed and stated that she would not want to be responsible for those when they had problems and failed.

Mr. Johnson asked if the TMDL regulation could be stopped and Mr. Williams responded that it was moving forward because of a lawsuit and there was no legal mechanism to allow it to be stopped. He added that Congress may amend the Clean Water Act to actually stop it. He concluded by stating that if it doesn’t happen, they will have had meetings for nothing, but if so, they needed to be prepared.

Mr. Carter mentioned that he read in the paper where significant costs were to be incurred by Charlottesville/Albemarle and that they wanted to share the costs with their neighbors. Mr. Williams noted that they had estimated the costs and were hoping localities could band together to address these.

Presentation – TJPDC 2011 Legislative Program Approval (D. Blount) R2010-76

Mr. David Blount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison reported that the program was similar to the past one but contained a new TMDL statement.

He added that the TMDL legislative position was developed from in an depth process and drew upon the focus groups’ feedback and PDC input. He noted that this would be put in the position of influence with the General Assembly noting that Region 10 had people on the Money, Agriculture, and Local Government Committees that could help this along. He noted that the statement emphasized fairness in allocating loads, costs etc.

He noted that the statement on State and Local Funding (2nd action item) was revised to reflect the changes to the laws on BPOL, Meals and Lodging Tax etc. and that unfunded mandates were noted also.

He reported that the second section on Economic and Workforce Development focused on the Virginia Cooperative Extension changes, lending support for funding and opposition to the reorganization plan.

Mr. Blount then invited the Board to the Legislative Forum on November 30^th, where the Legislative Program would be presented with the focus on the TMDLs including representatives from each sector that would be affected.

In response to questions about the legislators’ attendance, Mr. Blount indicated that four –five were coming to the forum out of the nine that were usually invited.

Mr. Bruguiere asked if the Virginia Cooperative Extension plan on restructuring had been received and Mr. Blount noted that it included a Reduction in Force at local offices, shifting costs and the ability of the locality to provide funding to maintain local offices. Mr. Bruguiere noted that he was not against some of the restructuring and that the Amherst and Nelson offices could easily be combined.

Mr. Blount indicated that they were opposed to parts of the restructuring plan that shifted costs to localities and removed needed services. He added that the General Assembly may revisit this, now that it was out there.

Mr. Bruguiere suggested that the TMDL statement regarding self application needed clarification since lots of farmers self apply and that he could spell out self application by homeowners there. Mr. Blount noted that he would make that change.

Mr. Hale suggested that the transportation piece should include something on transportation standards (access management) that were negatively impacting economic development. Mr. Blount noted that he could work with Mr. Carter to develop a statement if the Board wished. The Board agreed by consensus to include such a statement.

Ms. Brennen expressed concern about Alternate On-site Systems and localities ending up being responsible for these, and Mr. Blount noted that there was a broad statement regarding these in the plan.

Following discussion, Mr. Hale moved to approve resolution R2010-76, Approval of 2011 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. It was then clarified that the resolution provided for approval of the program incorporating the Board’s recommendations as put forth 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-R2010-76

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF 2011 THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the 2011 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program be and hereby is approved by said governing body with the legislative program to serve as the basis of legislative positions and priorities of the member localities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for the 2011 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, with amendments presented by Mr. Blount on November 16, 2010 as well as incorporation of the recommendations put forth by the Board as applicable.

IV. Unfinished Business/New Business

FY11 VDH Dental Program Allocation

Mr. Carter noted that he preferred that this item be deferred until December and Mr. Johnson noted that he thought that the information provided indications that they were leaning towards suspension of the program and he did not want to see that happen if something could be worked out.

MOA with Thomas Jefferson Health District Re: Use of State Funding for Health Dept. Building Costs

Mr. Carter explained that the local Heath Department sought funding from the State for leasing and or new construction etc. and that the County received this funding, which is being held in escrow and has accumulated to approximately $117,282. He noted that staff and VDH have discussed using these funds to pay for A&E services related to the renovation of the current Health Department building, that the Richmond Office drafted the proposed MOA, and that Staff would like the Board’s endorsement. He added that the construction money would substantially help pay for the renovations and that they would need another lease agreement for twenty (20) years once VDH moved in, which would secure more funding to help pay for the debt. He noted the possibility that this type of arrangement could also work out for the Department of Social Services and that he was checking into this. He concluded by noting that the Health Department is currently paying rent to the County of around $30,000 per year.

Mr. Carter then advised that he would send out the state funding numbers to the Board for the Health Department and that there were no revised cost estimates yet from W&W for the renovations, but that the drawings were to be done by the end of December or early January.

In response to questions, Mr. Carter noted that the contract amount for A&E services was somewhere around the accumulated funds amount.

Mr. Hale then moved to authorize the County Administrator to execute the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Thomas Jefferson Health District and the Board of Supervisors for monies for the Architectural and Engineering (A&E) portion of the Health Department building renovations. Mr. Johnson 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 MOA was authorized:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

Between

Thomas Jefferson Health District, Virginia Department of Health

And

Nelson County Board of Supervisors

This Memorandum of Agreement, dated October 25, 2010, is made between the Thomas Jefferson Health District, Virginia Department of Health (“Health Department”) and the Nelson County Board of Supervisors (“BOS”) and specifies the manner and conditions for disbursement and reporting of Health Department funds held by BOS in the amount of $117,282.

I. Purpose

In a collaborative effort to serve the public health needs of the community of Nelson County, the BOS will disburse the said funds for use on Health Department specific building architectural/electrical design, relocation costs, equipment/furnishing, or other related costs.

II. General Terms

A. The BOS will expend funds for use only on Health Department-specific building architectural/electrical design, site relocation costs, equipment/furnishing, or other related costs.

B. The BOS agrees the funds will not be use for building construction costs or capital improvements.

C. The BOS agrees to submit monthly documentation of all disbursements to Dana Chadwell at Thomas Jefferson Health District, 1138 Rose Hill Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

D. At projection completion, any remaining balance of funds shall be applied to current and/or future Health Department building lease payments to BOS.

III. General Provisions

A. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority for either party to make commitments that bind the other party beyond the General Terms contained herein.

B. In the event of breach by either party to this Agreement, the other party shall have the right to immediately to rescind, revoke or eliminate the Agreement. In the alternative, the aggrieved party may give written notice to the other party specifically the manner in which the Agreement has been breached. If a notice of breach is given and the party is breach of the Agreement has not substantially connected the breach within 30 days of receipt of the written notice, the other party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement.

C. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Health Department and the BOS. No alteration, amendment or modification in the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is reduced to writing, signed by the parties and attached hereto.

Signature of this Agreement by all parties constitutes mutual agreement to all terms and conditions provided herein.

For Nelson County Board of Supervisors: For the Health Department:

Stephen Carter, County Administrator Lilian R. Peake, MD MPH, District Health

Director

________________________________ __________________________________

Date: ______________ Date: _______________

C. Introduced: Definition of Composting proposed for Solid Waste Ordinance

Mr. Boger noted that the Solid Waste Ordinance needed to be amended in order to amend the zoning ordinance to allow for composting. He explained that the way the Solid Waste Ordinance was worded now, home composting could be illegal. The language would be an addition and nothing would be taken out. He noted that this activity would not be regulated by the Solid Waste Ordinance but rather would be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance by Special Use Permit.

He then distributed the proposed definition as follows:

Composting

Add:

Sec. 10-26. Alternative Dispositions

The handling, treatment, or disposition of recyclable waste, vegetative rubbish, or organic waste allowed pursuant to any other provision of the Code of this County shall be exempt from the operation of this Article.

Add to Zoning Ordinance definitions:

COMPOSTING – The process by which organic wastes are combined in proper ratios to which might be added bulking agents, such as wood chips, to provide air space and by using controlled temperature, moisture, and oxygen, achieve accelerated decomposition, thereby producing a stable humus material. “Organic wastes” includes, but is not limited to, yard trimmings, agricultural by-products, food wastes, or manures.

Mr. Carter noted that cardboard recycling would still be regulated by the Solid Waste Ordinance and Mr. Hale added that this was designed to proceed with permitting by SUP, the composting request before the Planning Commission.

The Board and staff discussed the use of the term “recyclable waste “with some members suggesting that it could open the door for all recyclable materials.

Mr. Carter concurred with Mr. Hale, acknowledging that it needed more discussion with Mr. Payne but that the intent was to move composting along.

The Board discussed either using the term “disposition of compostable recyclable waste” or possibly removing the term “recyclable waste” altogether.

After brief discussion, it was suggested that the Board proceed with advertising for public hearing and then making adjustments to it at the public hearing and staff could send revisions and clarifications to the Board to consider prior to the public hearing. The Board’s consensus was to move forward and adjust it later with the understanding that the Planning Commission would look at the composting definition.

Mr. Hale then moved to advertise for a public hearing on a revision to the Solid Waste Ordinance dealing with the disposition of compostable material and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Mr. Boger noted that the Planning Commission had requested staff to study the definition to a greater extent and he would report back to them tomorrow night. He stated that they would have to decide what districts to allow it in and that Phil Payne said to treat it like a vegetative recycling facility; leaving it open ended.

Mr. Bruguiere asked how long from when Mr. Walter came in about the composting to when he could go ahead and Mr. Carter replied that he came in sixty (60) days ago and would not be able to start until January.

D. Introduced: Final Master Plan from Wintergreen

Mr. Boger noted that he had finally received the final master plan from Wintergreen five (5) yrs later and it needed signing by the Chairman.

V. Reports, Appointments, Directives, and Correspondence

Reports

1. County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Carter reported the following:

A. Courthouse/Government Center Project: Construction is proceeding well. The project is approximately 70% complete (per Blair Construction in mid October). Blair is planning to pave the primary parking lot in the very near future, which requires further discussion due to the potential for the new pavement to be damaged when the radio communications tower is constructed (later this year or in early 2011). Wiley Wilson is completing its submittals on the revised space allocation planning (following a series of meeting with County departments, offices, School Division, etc.). Wiley Wilson is also working towards completion of the schematic drawings for the renovation of the Health Department Building. This submittal is anticipated in late December or early 2011. A resolution approving a memorandum of agreement between the Commonwealth (VA Department of Health) and Nelson County is an agenda item for the 11-16 meeting. The MOA provides for the County’s use of $117,000 in funding, previously received from the state, towards the renovation of the HD Building.

Ms. Brennan asked if there were many changes in the schematics and Mr. Carter noted that there was not a lot of uniformity in the comments from the staff and the sorting may end up in the Board’s hands. In regards to the concerns of the Registrar, Mr. Carter noted that the Registrar did not think she had enough space and wanted the whole building; noting it was hard to satisfy everyone.

Mr. Carter noted that the Dept. of Social Services was happy with moving over to the Health Department building, but that the local VDH was not as happy about being in the “basement, but that Dr. Peake was fine with it. Additionally, he noted that he was not sure if Susan McSwain was out of the basement, and that they all may have to stay there but they would have to wait for Randy Vaughan’s drawings to come back. Ms. Brennan stated that she did not want anyone staying in the basement.

B. Broadband Project: Icon Engineering and County staff are continuing to work diligently in all areas of the project. This includes: 1) follow up on agreements from property owners for permission to access their property to install the middle mile, fiber optic cable system, 2) finalizing tower locations and design, 3) issuance of Request for Proposals for a) network operation and b) service providers, and development of contract documents for each of these, 4) continued work on finalizing the project’s Environmental Assessment, 5) coordination with federal NTIA staff, including formal reporting requirements, 6) ongoing design work and, 7) meetings with the project’s advisory committee.

The two RFP’s are being publicly advertised on 11-14 with an approximate one month turn around for receipt of proposals. The initial tower application, which is in partnership with CVEC for a location in the Colleen Business Park, has been submitted and received site plan review on 11-10. A second tower is planned for installation at CVEC’s Martin Store Sub-Station. The Afton/Avon tower is planned for installation at the former American Fibers facility and the Massies Mill tower is still in propagation analysis. As noted, a considerable amount of work is in process.

In relation to item 1) Mr. Carter added that over 50% and nearly 60% favorable responses for permission had been received and that staff was working full time to secure the balance of agreements. He noted that two (2) property owners in Colleen have said that they won’t sign because they are concerned that the fiber will devalue their property. He noted this to be a minor concern and that ICON had already altered the fiber route to go around them.

In relation to item 3) Mr. Carter advised that the intent was to first enter into a contract for someone to operate the fiber and towers, and then contract with service providers. He added that this would be discussed with the Advisory Committee tomorrow; however they had already been briefed on the general content and goals to be accomplished, although the actual RFPs were withheld from the group’s review, due to the prospect that a couple of advisory members would respond to the RFPs.

Mr. Johnson noted that he thought that the chance of having a large number of providers initially was slim and supposed that there may be more a couple of years from now. Mr. Carter and Mr. Johnson discussed the leasing of dark fiber for others to develop connections from and Mr. Johnson noted that he understood that Joe Lee McClellan had the build out rights with Digital Bridge. They briefly discussed whether the build out of the last mile was incumbent upon the responders or not and that this would be discussed with them in the interview phase. Mr. Johnson noted he was concerned about cherry picking by the providers to only serve those that they could “see”.

In conclusion, the rate structures included in RFPs were briefly discussed and Mr. Carter noted that they did allow for the set aside of some funds for future capital needs of the Broadband Authority.

In response to questions about the towers, Mr. Carter noted that the towers would be 120 feet to 140 feet. He noted that the location at Martin’s Store was the optimum location to serve that area, there was some concern over having a tower at the Rockfish Elementary School, and this option would be the path of least resistance; while it was seemingly the best site.

Mr. Johnson asked about similarities with Page County’s RFPs. etc. and Ms. Brennan asked what role, if any, did the Broadband Authority have at this point. In response, Mr. Carter noted that the Authority would need to get more involved at this point and he reported that Phil Payne had advised him that the County will own the network and the Authority will have to be the contracting entity. He then reiterated that staff was working on the current plan as funded by NTIA.

C. 2012 General Reassessment: Blue Ridge Mass Appraisal Co. is continuing its work to complete a review and photographing of each of the approximate 16,000 parcels of property that comprise the County’s tax base. Approximately 60% – 62.5% of the properties (10,000 parcels) have been visited by BRMAC. BRMAC is also continuing its valuation work, which will be in process until shortly before the company certifies the reassessment to the County (by 12-31-11). In a meeting with Messrs. Dave and Matt Hickey (BRMAC’s principals) on 11-8, County staff, including the Commissioner of Revenue, was briefed on an area of concern pertaining to variations in valuations of comparable properties (from the 2008 General Reassessment). BMRAC will address this concern but deemed it necessary to bring this to the County’s attention.

Mr. Carter noted that the assessors reported having issues with accessing gated or posted properties and that they were advised that if it was posted, they were to proceed at their own risk. He noted that they were using GIS for those that could not be accessed.

Additionally, Mr. Carter reported that the assessors had identified some neighborhoods where the land valuations were all over the place and they were working to fix it.

Ms. Brennan suggested that they could also use the pictography that was available; which showed properties front and back.

D. Blue Ridge Medical Center – CDBG Project: A ground breaking ceremony was conducted on 10-27 at BRMC. All project related documentation has been submitted to VA-DHCD with staff anticipating imminent receipt of the project’s contract documents from the Department. The project will initially encompass the major expansion of BRMC utilizing $5.0 million in federal funding that is separate from the County’s CDBG award. The CDBG funding will be utilized to renovate the existing BRMC facility to convert it to a dental clinic with plans for this work to commence in the fall of 2011.

E. TRES/RRES Roof & Window Repair Project: Dr. Collins will attend the 11-16 meeting to report on this project. In a discussion with him on 11-10, it is staff’s understanding that 1) the roof at TRES is approximately 90% complete and may be finished by 11-15, 2) the additional testing at TRES around the perimeter of the facility is still in process, 3) the window replacement project at RRES may be delayed until June of 2011. To date, no updated financial information has been received with respect to final expense for both projects.

Mr. Carter deferred to Dr. Collins, Chuck Wray, and Betty Slough to give the Board an update on these projects as follows:

Mr. Wray noted that they had updated the School Board last week with the following presentation:

Tye River Elementary School (TRES):

Mr. Wray reported that mold spores were found on the back side of the gypsum sheathing at TRES. He reported that the School Board thought that it should engage an environmental firm to study the extent of this more. He noted that he had met with a firm to discuss this and they said that they would want to know what’s inside the wall cavity before any drywall was removed on the inside; which could disperse mold spores inside the school.

He noted that there was no indication that there was any evidence on the face of the drywall in the buildings; only in concealed locations. He stated that this was unknown, and that they should bring in a consultant to find out. He noted that the consultant he spoke with was Joe Loving, but he noted that there were plenty of consultants out there to hire and they could utilize the emergency procurement provisions in the State Code to procure these services quickly.

Rockfish River Elementary (RRES):

Mr. Wray noted that they had presented two (2) options regarding replacing the brick around the windows at RRES.

Option 1: Saw-cut the window jambs and replace with stack bond brick. He noted that this option was recommended and was chosen by the School Board.

Option 2: Tooth in the window jambs. This option was not recommended and was not chosen by the School Board.

Mr. Wray noted that Option 1 would take half the time for the mason and would be less expensive.

He then noted the Options for the Schedule of Repairs as follows:

Option 1: Proceed with replacement during school.

Option 2: Postpone replacement until summer.

Mr. Wray noted that both he and the Contractor recommended Option 2.

He then reported that the School Board wanted to replace the windows that were taken out already, weatherproof the other windows that could not be replaced, and proceed with the cafeteria and arch window repairs. He added that the Contractor would provide onsite storage units to store the windows that were on hand. He also reported that the Contractor was to provide pricing on the window installation before proceeding.

Mr. Wray stated that he recommended doing environmental testing at both schools and reiterated that there was no evidence of mold found on the drywall taken out at RRES. He noted that sealing the brick and mortar had been discussed with the Contractor, but was a short term solution because the sealant tended to degrade under UV light and he did not know what that would cost. He added that they had seen the Tyvek on the walls at RRES and were less concerned there about mold.

Dr. Collins reported that he had met with Craig Hill of C L Lewis, the original builder at TRES, and he showed him the PowerPoint relating to the problems that had been found and suggested that he speak with Chuck Wray and the original architect for further information. Mr. Wray added that he had spoken with him and discussed the lack of weather barrier and the pictures that were taken at TRES.

In response to questions, Betty Slough noted that in commercial construction, a felt vapor barrier was standard and that in the last ten (10) years; the standard material used had become Tyvek. She reported that the shingle roof was now complete and the guttering was to be put up in the next day or so there. She added that the drip edge that was installed would keep birds from getting into the soffits now.

In conclusion, Mr. Wray reported that the School Board had approved Option 1 at RRES and had authorized the additional environmental testing at TRES. He expressed concern about the potential cost of the environmental testing even though it appeared to be necessary.

F. Blue Ridge Tunnel & Blue Ridge Railway Projects: (Tunnel) – Revised property appraisals (Tyler and Royal Orchards properties) are to be received on 11-12. The appraisals will be submitted to VA-DCR for certification. Staff plans to proceed, concurrent with the appraisal submittals to DCR, with initiation of final negotiations with the two property owners for acquisition of the trail heads on either side of the Tunnel. Woolpert and County staff have or are scheduled to attend VDOT workshops on the ensuing Transportation Enhancement (Grant) Program. Staff anticipates submittal of a TEP application for the project to VDOT and will meet with the County’s Commonwealth Transportation Board member to discuss the County’s project and application. Final design drawings and construction documents will likely be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2011 or shortly thereafter. The County did not receive a grant award from the federal Tiger II grant program (which would have enabled the project to be completed had the application been successful; no projects in VA received funding).

(Railway) – Receipt of the contract from VDOT for 2010-11 TEP grant award is pending (anticipated within the ensuing few weeks). One the contract is in place, County staff will initiate the responsibilities necessary to utilize the grant funding for renovation of the former train depot in Piney River and a weigh station along the trail route.

G. Radio Tower Project (PSIC): Work is in process on this overall initiative. Staff is awaiting final approval from the FCC for construction of the tower to be located at the Courthouse (with approval anticipated at any time). All elements are in place to initiate this work once FCC approval is received. The County has selected Alcatel-Lucent as the design consultant/contractor for completion of the regional microwave communications system with work currently in process. County staff is also working to establish and complete the design of the replacement tower at Devil’s Knob for which negotiations with WPOA were recently completed. Project completion is planned for not later than the end of March 2011.

H. Regional Artisan Trail Project: The project has been formally named “The Monticello Artisan Trail”. Kick off informational (town hall) meetings are scheduled for 11-16 (Albemarle County) at the King Family Vineyard in Crozet and 11-18 (Nelson County) at Hill Top Berry Farm. The meetings will from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and will provide information on the artisan’s trail, including how to become a part of it.

The Board and Staff discussed the name of the trail, noting that it was not actually near Monticello, but was used for name recognition and was likely a done deal per Maureen Kelly.

I. Equipment Grant: The application submitted to USDA-RD for $200,000 in Equipment Grant funding (vehicle and communication equipment) will not be received, as the Virginia office was not allocated additional federal stimulus funding that it had sought for projects in the Commonwealth.

J. Nelson County Green Assets Project: County staff (Administration, Econ. Develop & Tourism, Parks & Recreation) met on 10-26 with the graduate class from UVA (Urban and Regional Planning) that is working on a “green assets’ project for Nelson County. The meeting was to enable the work groups within the class to discuss their research and findings with County staff. The class will conduct a community public information meeting on its project on November 17^th from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Nelson Center.

K. Paid EMS/Revenue Recovery Program: Staff is finalizing a briefing on the County’s paid EMS/Revenue Recovery Program. The report is in review and is planned for submittal to the Board by 11-19 and can be formally reported to the Board at the December meeting to provide for comments, questions, follow up, etc.

L. BioSolids: A re-scheduled walk through by staff from VA-DEQ, the County and Synagro of four local farms that have been permitted for biosolid application was completed on 10-13. DEQ staff are completing the permitting process, which will be followed by a 30 day comment period. Once the permit process is finalized, Synagro (the biosolids applicator) can give the County the required 100 day notice and, thereafter, can schedule biosolid applications at each of the four farms.

M. Solid Waste (Region 2000 Services Authority): Authority staff reported on October 27th to the Authority Board of Directors on analysis that has been conducted on the “life span” of the regional landfill located in Lynchburg that is currently utilized by all members. It was projected that the facility had approximately four years of additional capacity prior to closing but this has now been found to be approximately 2+/- years. This determination will result in permitting and startup of the regional landfill located in Campbell County, as the replacement for the Lynchburg facility. Implications for all members are increased costs (tipping fees) to address the earlier than anticipated closing of the Lynchburg landfill and the sooner than expected opening of the Campbell County facility. While financial details have not been finalized to date, the Authority’s Executive Director (Clark Gibson) advised the Board members that local government tipping fees will likely increase in FY 11-12 from the present $25 per ton to $27 per, possibly higher. Staff will report on this with greater detail once such details are fully available.

Mr. Carter noted that the increase in tipping fees may be an annual increase of $20,000-$25,000 for the County. He added that additional land acquisition in Campbell County was in process which would add 50+ more years to the landfill there. He added that the increase in tipping fees did not include an increase in the County’s transportation costs of hauling the waste.

N. FY 09-10 CAFR (Audit): Staff from the County’s auditors, Robinson Farmer Cox, Assoc. completed their “field work” in the County’s offices on 11-5. RFC is now in process with finalizing FY 09-10 audit submittals to the state Auditor of Public Accounts. RFC plans to complete and submit the final audit report to the County by the end of November or early December. In an exit discussion with County staff (Administrator and Director of Finance & HR), RFC’s audit manager indicated no findings and noted appreciation to County staff for their efforts to assist with completion of the FY 09-10 audit work.

2. Board Reports

Mr. Bruguiere and Mr. Harvey had no report

Mr. Hale reported the following:

1. The EDA was meeting to discuss the Comprehensive Plan.

2. Attended a Heritage Center reunion, where he welcomed them on behalf of the County. He added that

the attendees were Graduates from the Training Center from the 40s.

3. Attended TMDL meeting and reviewed the final draft of the plan.

Mr. Johnson reported the following:

1. Attended VACo Conference and session on the State’s financial future. He reported that they expected a 6% growth in funding and Medicaid was expected to grow 15% the next 3 years. VRS costs would rise to make up for the short funding by the state. They were expecting a rise in revenues and not expecting significant cuts in funding this next Fiscal Year, but there would be no increases for the next four (4) years. He reported that the legislative review of the budget outlook included some review of unfunded mandates; the transportation Funding proposals included $16 tolls on Rt. 640 in the Hampton Roads area and that they are expecting an increase in road traffic due to an increase in cargo. He noted that they were going back to toll roads instead of highways.

2. Reported that the Department of Social Services had given good feedback on their future space in the renovated Health Department building; noting that they were happy about the layout, space, and security.

3. Stated that he would like the County to look at revising the purchasing policies to go by the State rules on small purchase procedures; and move away from a purchase order system to a credit card system. He indicated that they should have the School Board do their own policy.

4. Met with the Gladstone Rescue Department to address the issues they are having. Mr. Carter noted that he needed to brief Mr. Johnson on information received from the Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) regarding these issues. He added that he would advise the Board if something official came from OEMS on this.

Ms. Brennan reported the following:

1. Attended JABA meetings and discussed the PACE program for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible; which put them under one big umbrella and saved money.

2. Attended RVCC 10-year anniversary event.

3. Attended TMDL meeting.

4. Attended Chamber of Commerce annual dinner.

5. Attended Fundraiser for NCCDF.

6. Attended Senior Advisory Committee meeting

7. Spoke to NCHS youth Rotary Club.

8. Attended BRMC groundbreaking.

9. Attended Gladstone Seniors Veterans Day program.

10. Attended Business Appreciation event at Veritas.

11. Attended TJPDC meeting and reported that they had a good audit and had reviewed the strategic

plan and now would work on how to help counties with grant writing and procurement.

12. Attended VACo conference.

Appointments

Ms. McGarry reported that terms were expiring for seats on the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and the JABA Council on Aging. She noted that for the BZA, the Board recommended their appointee for certification by the Circuit Court Judge and that Kim T. Cash had indicated that she would like to be reappointed to the BZA. She added that Mary Lee Embrey also wanted to be reappointed to the JABA Council on Aging, but that Mr. Chuck Strauss was not seeking reappointment due to his other obligations; as noted in his letter of appreciation to the Board. Ms. McGarry then noted the existing vacancies on the JAUNT Board and the Jefferson Area Disabilities Board.

Mr. Bruguiere then moved to recommend to the judge that Kim T. Cash be reappointed to the BZA and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Mr. Hale then moved to reappoint Mary Lee Embrey to the JABA Council on Aging and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Correspondence

Sheriff D. Brooks – FY11 Funding Request

Mr. Carter noted that Sherriff Brook’s funding request was included in the Budget Amendment for the Board’s consideration. He stated that the request was for Asset Forfeiture money and Over Time money for traffic enforcement. He noted that he thought that the Sherriff’s Department was on course to meet or exceed the budgeted revenue amount by $60,000-$70,000 dollars. He added that the additional funding requested for over time would protect people and would provide additional revenue; which would cover the cost.

The Board and Staff then commented positively on the traffic enforcement in the county.

Mr. Johnson then moved to approve resolution R2010-75, Amendment of Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget, and Mr. Hale 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 R2010-75
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
	AMENDMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 BUDGET
	NELSON COUNTY, VA
	November 16, 2010

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County that the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget be hereby amended as follows:


	I.	Appropriation of Funds (General Fund)


		Amount	Revenue Account	Expenditure Account
		$ 3,000.00	3-100-001901-0015	4-100-012130-5420
		$ 2,710.00	3-100-009999-0001	4-100-031020-5409
		$ 5,000.00	3-100-001401-0001	4-100-031020-1007
		$ 5,000.00	3-100-001401-0001	4-100-031020-1009
		$ 15,710.00

	II.	Transfer of Funds (General Fund)


		Amount	Credit Account (-)	Debit Account (+)
		$ 4,000.00	4-100-999000-9901	4-100-021060-1003

	III.	Appropriation of Funds (CDBG Fund)


		Amount	Revenue Account	Expenditure Account
		$ 51,000.00	3-503-003201-0011	4-503-094810-3002
		$ 299,000.00	3-503-003201-0011	4-503-094810-3160
		$ 350,000.00

Directives

Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Harvey, and Mr. Johnson had no Directives

Mr. Hale had the following Directives:

1. Clear gutters on the main courthouse building. Mr. Carter noted that the gutter issues were more a matter of the downspouts being blocked and causing problem.

2. Mr. Hale asked if the Magistrates Office would be in the new building and Mr. Carter stated it would be.

3. Mr. Hale questioned the storm water management on the construction site and Mr. Carter reported that ENS controls were in place.

4. Mr. Hale questioned the time frame for the front steps repair and Mr. Carter noted he would have to get back to him on that.

5. Mr. Hale asked for the definite status on the Whitehead Law Offices and Mr. Carter reported that the deed research showed that the building was owned by the Whiteheads.

6. Mr. Hale asked about having a County Bulletin Board and Mr. Carter noted that there were two, one in front of the Clerk’s office and one in front of the County Administrator’s office. He noted that he would like to see the JAUNT brochure etc. posted.

7. Mr. Hale stated that the laptops that were issued to the Board should be turned back in if members were not using them.

Ms. Brennan had the following Directives:

1. Ms. Brennan asked about the status of the Tourism interviews and Mr. Carter noted that nine (9) applications had been received and were in review by staff.

2. Ms. Brennan noted that she would not be attending the Artisan Trail kickoff but that Mr. Bruguiere would attend

3. Ms. Brennan asked if there was anything new on the proposed brewery project and Mr. Carter noted that there were no new developments in helping them to a decision.

4. Ms. Brennan asked if the Woods Mill Tower had been approved administratively and she noted that she was upset about how visible it was from Rt. 29 and that it needed more landscaping. Staff noted that it had come before the Board for approval.

VI. Other Business (As May Be Presented)

There was no other business considered by the Board.

VII. Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session

At 5:55 pm, Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn until the evening session and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion.

EVENING SESSION

7:00 P.M. – NELSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm, with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

II. Public Hearings & Presentations

Special Use Permit #2010-004 – Adam H. & Kathryn E. Knott

Consideration of an application pursuant to Article 4, Section 4-1-3a of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to establish a summer camp on property located on Rocky Bottom Lane, Afton, Virginia, Tax Map #6-A-116, 116A, and 114C. The property is zoned Agricultural, A-1.

Ms. Brennan noted the public hearing procedures to be followed and turned the presentation of the application over to Mr. Boger, the Planning and Zoning Director.

Mr. Boger showed a picture of the plat and noted the address of the applicants. He reported that the Planning Commission had held two (2) public hearings and he noted the evolution over time of the revised plans of the applicants.

He then showed the current “Proposed School Concept” dated 10/13/10 and reviewed this with the Board as follows:

Proposed School Concept 10/13/2010

1. 16 days out of the year; would like to be permitted for 30 days.

2. Most all programs would be day programs with 4 days being overnight programs.

3. 16 days would be for their home-school program; 8 days in spring and 8 days in fall. These programs

run typically on Wednesdays, from 9:30am till 3:30pm. They have 15-20 kids. They teach ecology,

primitive living crafts, awareness, and teamwork. There is usually an overnight on the last day with a

campfire cookout.

4. Included in the 30 days would be 10 daylong adult programs with less than 10 participants with the

average being 5. The programs are day programs running from 9 until midi-afternoon. The subjects

often include survival skills, wild edibles, tracking, natural history, etc.

5. Also included in the 31) days, would be two adult/child programs, i.e. father/son, mother/daughter

weekends, etc. Subjects tend to be similar to other programs with a focus on nature and family

bonding.

6. They bring their own lunch/breakfast, but they do have a cookout over the fire for dinner. Participants

sleep in their own personal tents.

Mr. Boger noted that it was the element of having sleep-overs that required the Special Use Permit according to County Attorney. He added that the application was for sixteen (16) days but that they would like to be permitted for thirty (30) days.

Mr. Boger then noted the following Planning Commission recommendations for the Board:

The Planning Commission recommends approval of Special Use Permit #2010-004 for 1 year for Adam and Kathryn Knott as outlined in narrative to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors received in the Planning office on 10/13/10 and site plan consisting of 2 pages which I have dated 10/27/10 under the following conditions:

l. Permit allows 20 operating days per year – an overnight shall be considered 2 days.

2. Permit limits number of participants to 20 per program with a maximum staff of 4.

3. No electronically enhanced sound.

4. Starting June 30, 2011 and every 6 months thereafter, the permit holder must file a report with the Planning Director detailing the number of days, number of participants, and types of programs held during the previous 6 months to verify that the applicant is in compliance with the Special Use Permit. If not, the permit shall be voided and the applicant must apply for a new Special Use Permit.

5. This permit is non-transferable.

6. The Planning Commission will review this permit annually including holding a public hearing and filing a report with the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Boger clarified that the reporting requirement was similar to what was done for the vegetative waste facility. He noted that the Planning Commission made every effort to hear the concerns of the community, weighed both sides, and have come up with a reasonable solution.

Ms. Brennan then opened the public hearing and the following persons were recognized:

1. Bo Tremble, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Tremble stated that his property bordered the applicants’ property. He stated that he was opposed to the approval of the permit because the area is a residential hollow and its approval would degrade the character of the hollow. He stated that he could not get a full understanding of exactly what they wanted to do and is afraid that they may try to come back and expand. He added that he had a problem with the six (6) month monitoring report and did not see how they would honestly report a violation voluntarily and there would be no enforcement behind it. He also noted that the neighbors shouldn’t be placed in a position of monitoring their activities. He stated that he was concerned about traffic and there could be eighty (80) trips per day in Glass Hollow, which was 40% more than the current traffic load according to VDOT estimates. He stated that the Planning Commission was supposed to take into account the existing uses of the hollow and its character and he did not feel like that was done. He stated that he felt that the Knott’s’ interests were primary and theirs were secondary even though the majority were against it. He then reiterated his opposition to the granting of the permit.

2. Craig Vanderhauf, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Vanderhauf noted that he had attended the Planning Commission meetings and had written a letter to Mr. Boger opposing the permit. He stated that the area was an agricultural and residential area and he could not tell what the Knotts were really asking for given that their website didn’t comport with the permit as to what they would be doing. He added that their activities would impact the entire hollow because their property was at end of the hollow. He noted he was also concerned about traffic. He added that there were some health concerns about Goodwin’s Creek during periods of low flow. He also noted that the NC Times report left out some things that were in the discussion; and that they had discussed the length of the permit and it came out as a one-year probationary period to nullify hard feelings. He stated that he would like to see the final permit application before the Board makes a decision.

3. Valerie Mitchell, Glass Hollow Rd.

Ms. Mitchell stated that she was very opposed to the permit, mainly because of the increase in traffic and the character of the hollow, which has already been changed just by the application being made. She noted that a lot of people were upset over this. She stated that she understood the land use rights issue, but the majority of people in the hollow came there for a reason; which was to enjoy the country way of life, which does include music etc. and she said that listening to music had not been a problem before. She stated that introducing a program made them feel like their lives were changing because they would not see their point of view and she felt like their voice still has not been heard.

4. Joe Murray, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Murray indicated that he was in favor of the permit and noted that the Knott’s property abutted their property and that he has seen their programs in operation for the past few years and has not noticed anything unusual. He reported that he has worked at a lot of wilderness schools and that he thought that this was a model program and one of the best. He added that the Knotts have always helped other people and were shocked that the others were upset. He noted that they wanted to appease the community and that is why their numbers were changing (decreasing). He concluded by stating that their programs were desperately needed.

5. Juliet McConnelly, Coles Farm Drive

Ms. McConnelly indicated that she was in favor of the permit and that she had attended the Living Earth School since age five (5) and for the past five (5) years. She noted that she has had amazing experiences at the summer camps and has made best friends there that she will know all of her life. She said that there were always carpools to get there and back and did not feel like she saw a lot of cars there. She stated that kids ages 8-16 enjoyed the camp and would be sad if it couldn’t continue. She related having gone on a Wilderness Quest that was a backpacking trip through the mountains for a week one summer. She stated that the Staff were amazing people and were completely trustworthy; with all counselors treating them equally and with respect. She stated that they got to try new things and gained confidence in themselves. She stated that the camps were a great experience, have helped her grow as a person, and she could not imagine that it would cause a disturbance to others, as it was really peaceful there.

6. Raymond Glass, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Glass stated that he was an adjoining landowner to the Knotts. He indicated that he was opposed to the permit and the changing character of the hollow and traffic had been an issue. He stated that there were people outside of the hollow with opinions that were not going to be affected. He stated that the decision should be democratic and that the majority were against it. He added that he did not want to see business in the hollow; which might lead to more.

7. Bobby Bryant, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Bryant noted that he was opposed to the permit and stated that he had nothing against children learning but that it was not the proper place. He noted that maybe it could be established at another place and that he was strictly opposed to the camp coming to the hollow and destroying its character.

8. Mike Garth, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Garth noted that he was an adjoining land owner to the Knotts and indicated that he was opposed to the permit; having the same issues as everyone else, the destruction of the character of the hollow and being fearful that if a commercial type business came in, more would follow. He stated that he believed that they will move their Sugar Hollow operation to Glass Hollow. He added that he liked his privacy and did not want things to change. He noted that hunting was a part of Glass Hollow and he did not want that to change. In conclusion, he note that the character of the area had already changed due to the animosity of the neighbors over the way the application had gone forward and he could not be more opposed to it.

9. Diane Garth, Glass Hollow Rd.

Ms. Garth noted that she opposed the application, She stated that she enjoyed her privacy and did not want the character of the hollow to change and did not want the camp to run for more than twenty (20) days; which she thinks would happen if it was successful. She stated that she also believed that they were moving their Sugar Hollow operation there. She stated that she wished that they had come to the neighbors years ago when they started having the camps and noted that it had changed the character of the hollow. She named a few neighbors that could not come to the hearing that also opposed the permit and said that she thought that the advertisement in the paper was done wrong because it did not list the Glass Hollow address. She concluded by stating that the road was narrow and traffic would be a problem. She noted that she was not opposed to what they were teaching, but that she did not want it next to them.

10. Roy Glass, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Glass stated that he was opposed to the permit. He added that the character of hollow had changed and that they had shown disrespect by pushing the issue; knowing how opposed they all were to it.

11. Greg Corbin, Father of a Living Earth School Camper

Mr. Corbin noted that he was the father of a Living Earth School camper and has worked at outdoor camps. He indicated that he was in favor of the permit and stated that the Knott’s camp was exceptional and was highly rated in the area. He added that there were no other camps like theirs in Virginia. He stated that the Living Earth School kids were an exceptional group, were healthy and not obese, they did well in their classes, were quiet and there was no vandalism. He added that the living Earth School was instilling good things in the kids and the County should facilitate participation in the school instead of snuffing it out.

12. Matt Corbin, Living Earth School Camper

Mr. Corbin indicated that he was in favor of the permit and stated that he has gone to the camp for five (5) years and wanted to vouch for its impeccable reputation and that he believed that the camp would change things for the better. He noted that the camp was about preserving nature and would not disturb the peace.

13. Teresa Wrenn Shumate, Living Earth School Summer Camp Employee

Ms. Shumate indicated that she was in favor of the permit and that she was an employee of the summer camp and has stayed with the Knotts. She noted that she gave respect to the concerns over the hollow being changed and acknowledged that the original request was to move the whole camp operation and now it had been lessened. She stated that she felt that something could be worked out with the neighbors so that they all could fulfill their dreams and that compromise was needed in order to do this. She stated that they mentored students, who would remember the hollow and would come to its rescue if ever really threatened. She added that people should look at the bigger picture and see how the life that one loves needs a larger context.

14. Russell Fitzgerald

Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that he was opposed to the permit and stated that he was not opposed to learning, but that he has seen evidence of shelters and tepees that were built on state land and he wondered how much more would happen when more people came.

15. Matt Bukowski, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Bukowski noted that he was an adjoining property owner and indicated that he was opposed to the permit, noting that the noise and potential destruction was a concern. He noted that he has worked at these camps and there was already noise in the hollow and he did not expect there to be any disruption.

16. Mark Shannon, Glass Hollow Rd.

Mr. Shannon noted that he was an adjoining property owner, and indicated that he was in favor of the permit; noting that the Knotts were reputable people and were trustworthy. He stated that they may have gone about this in the wrong way but that they would do what they said they were going to do.

17. Michael McConty, Father of a Living Earth School Camper

Mr. McConty indicated that he was in favor of the permit and stated that his daughter went to summer camps. He stated that he has an agricultural business near the Rockfish Elementary School on Route 709 and was sure that his neighbors felt the same way as the Glass Hollow folks. He stated that business did bring in people, but that he has been there since 1987 and has never felt like the traffic was a problem. He noted that the impact was much less than many businesses and that Kate and Hubb’s camps were hardly noticeable, in his opinion; stating that they were great neighbors if you got to know them.

18. Travis Farrar

Mr. Farrar indicated that he was opposed to the permit and stated that he was a member of a hunt club in the hollow. He noted that it was nothing personal against them, but that he was concerned that a precedent would be started if approved, leading to more businesses coming into the hollow. He noted that this business may not cause as much of an impact as the ones that may come in the future. He concluded that it was not a personal battle and that the neighbors want to maintain the integrity of the hollow and stand up for it as they see fit.

19. Jane Taylor, Glass Hollow

Ms. Taylor indicated that she was not opposed to the activities, but thought that they were in the wrong place. She noted that she lived half way up the hollow and was not impacted at all by the proposed activities. She stated that she volunteered at the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center and encroachment on to the Parkway was a concern. She noted that there were more houses popping up now in the mountains and traffic coming in and out was a concern. She noted that she was concerned that more may come in if they were successful. She noted that she was concerned about fire hazards and that approving it would set a precedent that would invite further commerce. She concluded by stating that when she bought her land, she signed covenants and did so because she knew others were abiding by them too.

20. Mary Katherine Gunter, Schuyler

Ms. Gunter noted that she supported the SUP even though she did not live in the hollow. She noted that she wanted to be in a preserved place that people loved and to live off of the land. She stated that she had children who would attend the camps when they were of age. She stated that the Knotts were teaching kids how to take care of and honor the land. She noted that she respected the residents of the hollow and addressed the integrity of the Knotts; who she said were good neighbors. She noted that they were not going to just go ahead to make money and it was not just about making money. She stated that change was scary and that opening a Pandora’s box would be scary; but that the Knotts would take care of the hollow.

There being no other persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

The Applicants: Adam (Hubb) Knott and Kate Knott, 101 Rocky Bottom Lane then addressed the Board and explained that their mailing address listed on the application was used in the application process and it was in Glass Hollow.

The Knotts reiterated the permit they were asking for and clarified that what they were doing was not a summer camp but that was the category that they were advised to use in their application. They noted that in reality, they wanted to have an adult/child day camp. They noted on the map where the proposed parking area and program areas were and stated that they were willing to plant trees to block the sight of the parking areas etc.

They then described the typical programs that would be offered as follows:

An eight (8) day home school in spring and fall with one overnight and the hours being 9:30 am-3:30 pm on Wednesdays with the largest program having 20 kids. They noted that they encouraged carpooling and driving safely in a rural hollow. They noted that they facilitated quiet programs in the woods that were non-disturbing such as ecology, primitive living crafts, awareness, and teamwork.

The Knotts noted that they never imagined that there would be so much opposition to their plans and that yes, they had not informed the neighbors initially because they were busy training and getting things up and running. They stated that they do care for the neighbors and have not gotten any complaints for three (3) years about their programs until they came to get the permit. They noted that an average kid’s screen time is 7.5 hours per day, according to a recently published study and they believed that they need to be out in the woods learning about nature. They stated that their programs would not impact the hollow and if they thought they would, they would step back some more. They added that their teachings were low impact and did not destroy the forest; with the kids learning communication and teamwork skills; which would not have a huge negative impact on the hollow.

In conclusion, they noted that they hoped that the Board would support the permit and added that by right uses would create more traffic; using the example of a pumpkin patch. They reiterated that changes in their permit request had been made at the request of others and that they run a tight program.

Mr. Bruguiere then inquired as to the location of Sugar Hollow and the Knotts replied that it was in White Hall in Crozet. They noted that they could do their programs at Sugar Hollow, but the Girl Scouts have first priority there and it is hard to schedule. They added that they had been told to look for other places for their programs; however they can do the summer camp there because it was easier to get week blocks of time; and that the fall and spring was the busy time for the Girl Scout programs.

Mr. Johnson asked staff that if they did not stay overnight, would they be permitted by right for these activities and Mr. Boger confirmed that yes that was his understanding. Mr. Johnson then asked if there would be any construction involved, and the Knotts noted that the plan to build a pavilion had been cancelled and they could use the existing barn.

Mr. Bruguiere asked if they had looked into the camp at Holiday Lake and the Knotts noted that they had not, since their programs were during the day from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm, the distance to Appomattox would be prohibitive and they did not want to add travel time to their day.

There being no further questions of staff or the applicants, Mr. Hale then stated that this had been the fourth (4^th) public hearing on the matter and he wanted to say that he appreciated everyone coming forward and that he hoped that the outcome would be better than it appeared at present.

Ms. Brennan added that she too thanked everyone for coming out and stated that it was the pleasure of the Board to not make a decision that night and to review all of the information in preparation to make a decision on December 14th.

III. Other Business (As May Be Presented)

There was no other business considered by the Board.

IV. Public Comments

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

V. Adjournment

At 8:30 pm, Mr. Harvey moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting adjourned.

December 14, 2010 Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes

admin — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:26:49 +0000

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 2:00 p.m. in the Circuit Court Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:

Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor

Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor – Chair

Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor

Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor – Vice Chair

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

Roger L. Collins, School Division Superintendent

Debra K. McCann, Director of Finance and Human Resources

Susan K. Stevens, Dept. of Finance and Human Resources

Ray Uttaro, EMS Coordinator and Animal Control Supervisor

Jamie O. Miller, Deputy EMS Coordinator

Absent: None

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

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

II. Recognition of Nelson County Varsity Girls Volleyball Team (R2010-77)

Ms. Brennan announced the presence of the Varsity Girls Volleyball team to be recognized for winning the state championship.

Ms. Brennan then read aloud the proposed resolution and Mr. Johnson distributed these to the team members and coaches.

Following the presentation, Mr. Hale moved to approve resolution R2010-77, Recognition of the Nelson County Varsity Girls Volleyball Team and Mr. Bruguiere 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 R2010-77

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

RECOGNITION OF THE 2010 NCHS VARSITY GIRLS VOLLEYBALL TEAM

REGION B, GROUP A DIVISION I STATE CHAMPIONS

WHEREAS, the Nelson County High School varsity girls volleyball team had a 2010 Dogwood District record of nineteen (19) wins and three (3) losses; finishing as regular season and tournament Runner Up; and

WHEREAS, the team went on to defeat Madison County, Riverheads and William Campbell to become the 2010 Region B, Division I Regional Champions; advancing to the 2010 Group A, Division I State Tournament held at the Siegel Center on the Campus of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia; and

WHEREAS, the 2010 Nelson County High School varsity girls volleyball team completed its historic season with twenty-five (25) wins and three (3) losses; defeating Northumberland, Bath County and Matthews County to become the Group A, Division I State Champions and the first NCHS girls volleyball team in school history to win a State Championship;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize and congratulate the 2010 Nelson County High School varsity girls volleyball team, Group A, Division I State Champions, consisting of ten (10) players: Seniors: Brittany Crawford, Erika Toliver, Keona Loving, and Natalie Campbell, Juniors: Madison Carter, Maria McGarry, Ashley Wells, Nicole Taylor, and Annie Saunders, Sophomore: Fallon Viar; and coached by: Head Coach Vicki Crawford and Assistant Coaches: Heather Taress and Toni Donigan.

Following adoption of the resolution, Mr. Hale noted that in the case of the basketball state champions, the Board of Supervisors purchased rings and he then inquired as to what the team would like in terms of rings etc.; noting that the Board would be happy to reward the team.

Head Coach Vicki Crawford noted that the team had looked at rings and that the School Board was providing them with $100 per ring, with the cost of the rings being approximately $140.00 each.

Mr. Hale then moved that the Board of Supervisors make a contribution towards rings in an amount needed to purchase them and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.

Coach Crawford then noted that the team would be purchasing jackets but that they had not received a price quote for those yet.

Members briefly discussed the amount of contribution to be made and agreed by consensus to match the School Board’s contribution of $100.00 per team member including the coaches.

Mr. Hale then amended his motion to include matching the School Board’s contribution of $100.00 each for the team and coaches and Mr. Harvey seconded the amended motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion as amended.

III. Consent Agenda

Ms. Brennan read aloud the consent agenda items individually and asked if Members had any changes to be made. Mr. Hale suggested removing item B. Resolution R2010-79 for further discussion.

Ms. Brennan asked the Board if there were any suggested changes to the agenda as a whole and there were none.

Mr. Johnson then moved to approve the consent agenda minus item B. and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:

Resolution – R2010–78 Minutes for Approval

RESOLUTION-R2010-78

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

(November 16, 2010)

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meetings conducted on November 16, 2010, be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.

Resolution – R2010- 79 FY11-12 Transportation Enhancement Grant Application – Blue Ridge Tunnel Project – Considered Separately

Resolution – R2010 -80 COR Refunds

RESOLUTION-R2010-80

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE REFUNDS

Amount Category Payee

$ 307.19 2007-2009 Personal Property Tax Haley, Chisolm & Morris, Inc.

& Vehicle License Fee P.O. Box 550

Earlysville, VA 22936

$ 386.31 2009-2010 Personal Property Tax Lovingston Veterinary Hospital

Holm Investments LLC

8151 Thomas Nelson Hwy

Lovingston, VA 22949

Resolution – R2010 -81 FY10-11 Budget Amendment

IV. Public Comments and Presentations

Public Comments

Peggy Coffee, Riverbluff LN, Edgehill Subdivision.

Ms. Coffee noted that there were six (6) houses on her Lane and that there were three (3) houses that altogether had five (5) large dogs. She stated that she has had several issues with them. She noted that she loves animals and that she has retired now and has cats. She further explained that her next door neighbors now had a Rottweiler, German Shephard and an Irish setter who roam unsupervised and that there had been a recent incident where she tried to keep some smaller dogs from being attacked by these dogs. She stated that she wanted a substantive containment law because she was unsure what would happen to the children that are in the area. She advised that she had found an Ordinance on the Internet from another state (KY) that had good language; noting that it referred to areas of high population density and defined it. She stated that she wanted something to be done and that she did not want to or should have to live in fear of these dogs.

Mr. Bruguiere asked if she has had any interaction with the dog owners and she said she has tried to be nice with no results and their response is that there is no leash law.

Mr. Harvey asked if their subdivision had any Homeowner’s Association Agreement and she replied that they did not; and only had a road maintenance agreement at one time.

Henry Heller, Buck Creek

Mr. Heller noted his agreement with Ms. Coffee’s comments and stated that he also wanted a containment law; noting that people needed to take responsibility for their dogs before a death occurred.

Gwen Casale, Shipman

Ms. Casale noted that she has had issues with dogs, and that she raises sheep and cattle. She noted that she has gotten guard dogs now for her sheep to keep the neighborhood dogs away. She noted that people who don’t have any respect for others are allowing their dogs to roam and the County needed a containment law.

Dr. Roger Collins, School Division Superintendent

Dr. Collins noted that he wanted to give the Board a brief update on the two elementary school projects and distributed an expense summary of the projects as follows:

Total Appropriation for the Projects $831,525.00

Amount Spent Through 12/14/2010

A&E Study 24,313.85

Bid Expenses 2,742.25

A& E Regular Contract 78,195.00

A&E Reimbursable Expenses 2,928.69

A&E Building Envelope 17,052.75

Reimbursable Expenses 22.64

Consultant Charges 6,268.24

Roofing Delay 4,417.50

Cafeteria Window Frames 1,395.00

Consultant Charges 5,423.00

Contractor Charges 218,357.73

Clerk of Works Wages/fica 10,086.81

Remaining Balance -371,203.46

460.321.54

Less: Amounts Billed but not yet paid (Work done in November, 2010)

A&E Contract 1,720.00

Reimbursable Expenses 27.72

Dunbar Milby Consultant 5,423.00 -7,170.72

Less: Contracted Balances Not Yet Billed

Architect -5,828.59

Contractor -406,642.27 Amount Unobligated 40,679.96

Expenses Outstanding:

Clerk of the Works Salary

Testing of the Buildings

Additional A&E Fees

Additional Construction Costs for Window Flashing/Brick Work at RRES

RRES: He noted that the contractor completed two (2) model windows there and the remaining work on the current open windows would be done during the winter break per the School Board’s direction. He added that the school’s maintenance staff had reinforced the window coverings on their own but that it would cost approximately $30,000 for the completion of the rest of the windows. He added that this work was included in the current scope of the project budget, but that they did not know what else was to come down the road. He also noted that he was uncertain as to whether or not the numbers presented on the project status included the project’s contingency; noting that there was a small one to start with but he thought that this may have been used up. He added that the numbers reflected bills paid up through the end of November for the projects and inquired as to whether or not the Board wanted to move forward with this.

Mr. Carter clarified that the $30,000 estimate was for the boarded up windows at RRES and Dr. Collins confirmed that it was, but did not include the replacement of metal panels or rowlocks that may need to be replaced.

Mr. Carter then clarified that the additional work of $30,000 would need to be subtracted from the presented unobligated amount of $40,679.96. Dr. Collins confirmed that this was the case and that the next phase was to be determined but the costs should be approximately $300,000.

Dr. Collins added that Mr. Loving, an environmental consultant, was coming in to do extra environmental testing. He noted that in terms of the budget, there would be $10,000 remaining after the work, if in fact the contingency had been used up, but he would need to verify this with Shannon Irvin.

Mr. Hale asked for clarification on the cost of completing the rest of the windows and Dr. Collins noted that per the architect, the cost was approximately $2,300 per window; with there being twelve (12) left to do, which were all upstairs windows with not much masonry.

Mr. Hale noted his concern that the A&E costs were a high percentage of the total work done; close to $140,000.

Mr. Harvey asked Dr. Collins to explain the expense category shown as “roofing delay” and Dr. Collins stated that these were the additional costs associated with the items found related to the windows such as rotten boards, covering the exposed roof area, and the delay from shop drawings not being done correctly etc.

Mr. Carter added that Dr. Collins has reported the changing picture to the Board and he has had conversations with the Architect about costs etc. and at this point it was what it was. Ms. Brennan asked if the presented costs included the environmental survey and Dr. Collins confirmed that it did not and that he would be coming back to report on this. Mr. Carter supposed that the costs could be a couple of hundred thousand dollars more. It was then noted to Dr. Collins that expenses for Dunbar Milby appeared twice in the expense summary sheet.

Dr. Collins concluded by saying that the Contractor would go in over the holiday break to do the twelve (12) windows, weather permitting, and he noted that they would be making sure it was done the right way and were being cost conscious. In response to questions, Dr. Collins noted that the proposed $30,000 may not cover all of the costs of the windows, but would get them weather tight etc. He added that the completed windows looked nice and had a thermal barrier in between the panes that would also be more efficient and were tinted to reduce glare.

Mr. Carter advised the Board to agree to proceed by consensus since the money ($30,000) was already appropriated for the project. The Board then agreed by consensus to go ahead as presented.

Following public comments, the Board discussed whether or not to have Ray Uttaro, Animal Control Supervisor come back to discuss the citizens’ concerns. Mr. Uttaro, who was in attendance, noted that in the 2006 case that was mentioned, the Animal Control employee involved was no longer with the County and the incident would have qualified for an investigation and a charge of the dog could have been made. When questioned about the statute of limitations, Mr. Uttaro noted that he was not sure if the statute of limitations had passed and that the dogs in question were licensed and registered.

Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of what happened if a dog was declared dangerous and Mr. Uttaro noted that it was very expensive and the owners had to buy a $100,000 insurance policy and make costly penning arrangements for the animal. He noted that these declarations were mostly governed by State Code and Mr. Carter added that it was also subject to the judge’s decision. Mr. Uttaro noted that the Animal Control Officers were bringing solid cases to the judge. Mr. Uttaro suggested that the path to take was getting the State Code changed because the County Code could not be more restrictive than the State Code. He added that the County could do certain things but could not define dangerous or vicious dog.

Ms. Brennan stated that the Board needed to get themselves together on this subject and that it might help to lobby the state legislators to make changes. Members and staff discussed whether or not an ordinance could be breed specific and Mr. Carter thought that the County Attorney had said that it could. Mr. Johnson stated that they needed to make it a financial liability to the responsible party. Ms. Brennan suggested that this subject be brought up again, possibly to have another public hearing on the issue and Mr. Bruguiere noted that he would call Watkins Abbitt to see if something could be done at the State level; noting that dogs should be allowed only one incident not three.

VDOT Report

Mr. Carter noted that Mr. Hamilton had submitted a monthly report that was in the Board’s package and the most recent weekly status report for the district. He added that he had submitted the Board’s VDOT directives and was awaiting responses.

Mr. Johnson inquired as to the right to set the speed limit on paved rural rustic or unpaved roads and Mr. Carter noted that these roads were 35 mph unless otherwise posted by VDOT or the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). Mr. Johnson suggested that the County make this public and let law enforcement begin ticketing. Mr. Carter noted that he would send a memo to Sheriff Brooks about this to initiate enforcement. Mr. Johnson suggested putting an ad in the paper also to advise the citizenry. Ms. Brennan suggested that staff contact VDOT about placing the ad.

Mr. Hale noted that the VDOT report did not cover at least two (2) culvert replacements on Rt. 623 and Rt. 617 and the Board had not heard about these until they were observed. He noted that the Board was not consulted on these and they are huge and costing a lot of money. Mr. Harvey added that he had reported one needing replacement on Sunrise Drive that had not been addressed.

Mr. Hale added that he has brought up maintenance issues regarding no shoulder such as on Route 639.

Mr. Carter noted that he was reporting these to VDOT and getting responses.

Mr. Johnson asked if VDOT was going to respond to the needed ditching on unpaved roads and Mr. Carter noted that he would follow up to see.

Mr. Bruguiere stated that he wanted to see VDOT representatives at their meetings at least quarterly starting in January. Members agreed that this would be appropriate and Mr. Carter noted that he would address this with VDOT.

Presentation – Senior Advisory Committee Report (K. Lyle & F. Mitchell)

Ms. Frances Mitchell of the Senior Advisory Committee gave the third annual state of the seniors report as follows, focusing on the two sections regarding transportation and aging in place:

STATE OF THE SENIORS FY2010

The Third Annual Report to the Nelson County Board of Supervisors

From the Senior Advisory Committee

December 30, 2010

Senior Advisory Committee Mission Statement: to promote the well-being of Nelson County’s seniors and those who care for them by identifying needs and issues as well as resources and solutions.

The purpose of this report is to draw attention to the status of seniors in the County and to familiarize the Board of Supervisors with the issues facing seniors today and in the future.

Where We Are Now:

Statistics from the 2009 Weldon Cooper Population Estimates

4438 seniors (60 and over)
According to this estimate, the senior population increased by 502 since 2008
Seniors comprised 19% of the total population in Nelson

Statistics from the 2000 census

3246 seniors (60 and over)
747 have a disability of some kind, 183 of these are living below the poverty line
444 of the seniors are women living alone

Dental

BRMC’s Rural Health Outreach Program provided affordable dental care to approximately 32 seniors so far in 2010 through a voucher program

Health Care

Nelson County has three primary care sites, all of which offer a sliding fee scale; the County is listed as an official “medically underserved area” primarily because of the distances residents must travel to get to specialty care and hospital based care
So far in 2010 BRMC has served 1596 seniors, comprising 20.9% of their patient population
According to the Nelson Volunteer Coalition approximately 363 trips were made to health care facilities which were not in Nelson
The Nelson Senior Center provided 140 health promotion activities which include assessments, screenings, health education, physical activity and other therapeutic social recreational activities, a 16% increase over FY2009
The Medication Assistance Program at BRMC has served 105 seniors so far in 2010; This represents a 36% increase over 2009
The Nelson County Health Department and Department of Social Services provided 46 health screenings to seniors to evaluate their need for nursing home care and companion services (assisting with house-cleaning, grocery shopping etc.)

Meals

In FY10: 9824 meals were served to Nelson seniors: 50 Nelson County residents received 2,150 meals served at the Nelson Center, 915 at the Gladstone Center (including 50 meals delivered to shut in seniors), 807 at the Schuyler Center (which includes 279 meals delivered to shut in seniors), 1,225 at the Rockfish Center (including 22 meals delivered to shut in seniors) and 65 Nelson County residents received 7674 Home Delivered Meals in their homes. Meals were sent

JABA is required to meet the Virginia Department of Aging nutrition requirements for meals served at the Nelson Center as well as the JABA Home-Delivered Meals program

Housing

Ryan School Apartments currently has seniors in 21of its 32 affordable units. Seniors 60 and over compose 65% of the residency
Lovingston Ridge Apartments currently has seniors in 20 of its 64 affordable units. Seniors 60 and over compose 31% of the residency
Rosewood Village at Wintergreen is a 55 and older community. Of the 25 units available 12 are occupied

Transportation

In FY10: JAUNT provided 5,269 trips to seniors
Began providing additional routes to the senior centers in FY10 with the aid of a state grant and matching funds from JABA
JAUNT services include three commuter routes (two to Charlottesville one weekdays and one to Wintergreen seven days/week), Monday-Wednesday-Friday service to Charlottesville, Monday-Tuesday-Thursday intracounty service, primarily to the senior centers. New in FY10 – a route connecting Charlottesville and Wintergreen that can provide service in the Rockfish Valley.
The Nelson Volunteer Coalition helped approximately 271 clients in FY10; seniors composed 90% or 244 of the total clients helped in the county by the coalition

Home Care

In FY10: JABA provided approximately 180 field visits to seniors to help ensure they had access to programs and services which assist them with home safety, nutrition, caregiver support, medication, dental and eye care, transportation, housing and other important initiatives which put senior concerns first

Aging in Place

JABA’s Community Living Program 1 (CLP1):

This grant funded program began October 2009 and was aimed at providing a menu of supports and services to individuals in the community 65 and older.

Eligibility for participation in the program included:

65+ years of age
need for assistance in 2 or more areas of personal care or cognitive deficits that prevent a person from performing activities of daily living
current caregiver is experiencing difficulty meeting individual’s needs
monthly income is at or below $2,022/month (and likely to be denied Medicaid)
liquid assets are between $21,912-$43,824 for an individual and between $43,824-$219,120 for an individual with a spouse

This program targeted middle income individuals at risk of nursing home placement without the benefit of added supports.

Services Provided:

Individuals were provided a budget of up to $1200/month with which to purchase goods and services based on a menu of allowable categories including but not limited to:

Personal Care Assistance
Respite Services
Companion/Homemaker Services
Home Delivered Meals
Groceries
Adult Day Care Services
Nutritional Supplements
Personal Emergency Response System

During the year, 24 total individuals were enrolled throughout the Region Ten Planning District. Three (3) were from Nelson County; all of whom avoided Nursing Home placement.

Implementation of the Community Living Program proved effective in keeping targeted individuals safer and in their preferred living environment for longer.

Safety & Security

Personnel Emergency Devices are a Nelson – TRIAD project

The recipient’s cost is a onetime fee of $80.00

Over 293 have been installed by the Nelson County Sheriff’s office; an increase of 26% over FY09

Project Lifesaver is a device that tracks people who may have Alzheimer’s, Down-Syndrome or Autism. The commonality between the three diagnoses is that the persons have a tendency to wander. Start up cost for the Project Life Saver tracking equipment was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2007. The recipient is asked to pay $300 per unit. An added $15 monthly service fee is needed for battery and bracelet replacements. Ongoing equipment cost is raised by Nelson – TRIAD and it has funding for two additional units.

The Nelson County Sheriff’s Office has installed 2 Project Lifesaver units

What’s Needed This Year:

Health Care

Affordable dental care that is integrated with primary care; there are many more seniors who are suffering from serious oral health problems
BRMC has a goal of adding a six-operatory facility on site by April 2012
Improved and more affordable home-based services so that low-income seniors can “age in place” by remaining in their own residences longer
Mental health services that cater to seniors
Funding to sustain the Mobile Dental trailer program

Meals

Expanded meals programs at Nelson, Rockfish, Gladstone and Schuyler centers to allow more seniors to participate as well as attend more often
JABA notes that seniors are now getting meals five days a week but need the full seven days. 2,563 additional home-delivered meals are needed as well as help with funding to meet meal cost increases

Housing

An assisted living facility
Additional units of affordable housing are needed for seniors

Transportation

More flexible services to reduce long waiting times after doctor visits, as well as to reduce long ride times
- Five day/week service to doctors appointments, etc. in Charlottesville
- Five day/week service to destinations within the County

Home Care

At-risk seniors need monthly visits to help with bill-paying
According to the Nelson County Department of Social Services, currently there are 7 seniors on the waiting list for companion services

Aging in Place

As JABA’s Community Living Program 1 (CLP1) begins its second year sustaining funding for individuals enrolled in the program is challenging. People continue to live in their preferred environment but offering access to the same level of supports provided during implementation of the Community Living Program will require additional state and local funds.

JABA’s Community Living Program 2 (CLP2) began October 1, 2010 and will run through September 30, 2011. CLP2 extends the CLP 1 efforts to include Telemedicine. The objective of Telemedicine is to provide rural individuals’ access to physicians, health assessments and medical monitoring of chronic health conditions without the need for travel to a physician’s office.

JABA has partnered with Blue Ridge Medical Center and UVA to provide this service under CLP2. As one of the rural communities in the Region Ten Planning District, Nelson County was allocated 5 of the 10 total slots under CLP2. All 5 of the Nelson County participants will be equipped with Telemedicine capabilities. This partnership allows Nelson residents to maintain communication with their physician, receive medical intervention or assessments and monitoring without leaving the county.

Approximately 22% of the funding for implementation of this program comes from a federal grant. The remaining 78% is funded through alternative sources in order to off-set the costs not covered under grant funds.

How Do We Get There?

We need to engage the entire community to work toward solutions for the growing population of seniors

Additional funding from the County can draw down more federal and state dollars to improve the lives of senior citizens

Following Ms. Mitchell’s remarks, there were no questions from the Board and Ms. Brennan noted that the programs she overviewed were wonderful.

Presentation – Paid EMS and Revenue Recovery Program (J. Miller & S. Stevens)

Mr. Carter introduced Jaime Miller and Susan Stevens who were present to report on the Paid EMS and Revenue Recovery Program, noting that the team had thought it important to give the Board an update as follows:

Fiscal Year 2009-2010

Review of the Revenue Recovery Program

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to give a brief overview of the progress achieved with the Revenue Recovery Program during Fiscal Year 2009-2010. This report will include call statistics, issues that have been encountered with the various agencies involved, the resolution of issues that have been encountered, as well as billing and revenue information.

Background Information

In April 2006 an agreement was entered into between the County, Wintergreen Property Owners Association (“WPOA”), and Gladstone Volunteer Rescue Squad, Montebello Volunteer Rescue Squad, Nelson County Volunteer Rescue Squad, Rockfish Valley Volunteer Fire Department, Roseland Volunteer Rescue Squad, and Wintergreen Property Owners Volunteer Rescue Squad (collectively, the “Volunteer Companies”); due to the increasing demand for emergency medical services in Nelson County and the burden placed upon the volunteers to meet the demands to provide such care. It was agreed that to augment the work performed by the Volunteer Companies and WPOA Fire and Rescue, the County shall provide funding to employ six full-time personnel (the “Paid Personnel”), one of whom shall be designated shift captain.

WPOA Fire and Rescue, per the contract, shall provide, when personnel are available and not otherwise engaged, Advanced Life Support Transport Services within the County each week day from the hours of 5:00 o’clock a.m. to 6:00 o’clock p.m. It was agreed that the Volunteer Companies would continue to answer calls for service outside of the Coverage Period of the Paid Personnel. It was also anticipated that the Volunteer Companies would continue to respond as necessary during the Coverage Period when personnel and equipment are available. The Paid Personnel are employed by WPOA and shall follow the WPOA Fire and Rescue treatment protocols. WPOA Fire and Rescue will retain the original Patient Provider Care Report for six years and maintain a record of all other incidents.

The funding for this program was initially requested in FY07 for the amount of $418,297 and it was placed in the agreement that the proposed budgets for each year would be submitted to the County not later than December 15^th; funding for the budget shall be subject to annual review and appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. WPOA was to submit monthly to the County a statement setting forth the expenditure for each line item of the budget.

In the agreement it was anticipated that from time to time, it would be necessary for a company to respond to an incident beyond its geographic area of responsibility; in such instances the County was to reimburse the responding company at the rate of $1.25 per mile for the actual transportation of a patient (“Loaded Transport”). Each company was to render an invoice to the County quarterly with such explanatory information for each Loaded Transport as may be requested by the County. At this time the Volunteer Companies have entered into a rotation with the Paid Personnel for the rotation of their ambulances to use for transport. The agencies participating in this rotation are Nelson Rescue, Rockfish Rescue, Roseland Rescue, and Wintergreen Rescue; a truck from each agency is rotated between the 29 Corridor and the 151 Corridor on a schedule agreed upon by all Captain’s involved.

Currently the Paid Personnel are stationed at Nelson Rescue Station 2 on Route 29 in Lovingston. This crew primarily handles calls on the Southern, Central, and Eastern ends of Nelson County. The second crew of Paid Personnel is stationed at Wintergreen Station 2 on Monacan Drive in Nellysford. This crew primarily handles calls on the Western and Northern areas of Nelson County.

The contract that was entered into between the parties on April 20, 2006 was for the term of three years; being subject to annual appropriation by the Board of Supervisors, the agreement would automatically renew for successive one-year terms, unless a party gives written notice three months prior to the expiration of the term, of its intention not to renew. Currently the County has not entered into a new contract that would consist of an updated longer term or increased mileage reimbursement rates; opting instead for the automatic successive one-year terms.

Call Statistics – Summary for FY ’09 – ‘10

	Billable Calls	Non-transport	Cancelled Enroute	First Due Area/No Response *	Total Calls
Gladstone	46	13	13	26	98
Montebello	45	22	30	0	97
Nelson	261	96	104	0	461
Rockfish	110	0	75	0	185
Roseland	192	0	88	0	280
Wintergreen	111	0	0	0	111
Career Staff	477	213	148	0	838
	1242	344	458	26	2070

*First due area outside of Nelson County

	No Response/First Due Area*	Mutual Aid Answer
Gladstone	20	6
Montebello	0	22
Nelson	61	41
Rockfish	27	15
Roseland	75	13
Wintergreen	0	86
	183	183

*First due area inside of Nelson County. This chart represents no response calls after the hours of the Career Staff; calls between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m.

Total Calls Paged from Dispatch for Ambulance Services: 2070

Gladstone Rescue

Gladstone Rescue answered 46 calls for service that resulted in billable transports. Of those 46 calls, 6 transports were mutual aid calls for either Roseland or Nelson Rescue Squads. Gladstone responded to 13 calls for service that did not result in a transport. Gladstone had 26 calls in their first due area outside of Nelson County and 20 calls in their first due area within Nelson County that they did not respond to, these calls were answered by another Nelson County agency. Gladstone had 35 calls for service in their first due area outside of Nelson County that they did not respond to and had to be answered by an agency outside of Nelson. Additionally, Gladstone had 13 calls for service that they responded to that were cancelled en route.

Montebello Rescue

Montebello Rescue answered 45 calls for service that resulted in billable transports. Of those 45 calls, 22 transports were mutual aid calls for either Roseland or Nelson Rescue Squads. Montebello Rescue did not have any no response calls for their first due area. Montebello responded to 22 calls for service that did not result in a transport. Additionally, Montebello had 30 calls for service that they responded to that were cancelled en route.

Nelson Rescue

Nelson Rescue answered 261 calls for service that resulted in billable transports. Of those calls, 41 transports were mutual aid calls for Roseland Rescue or Gladstone Rescue. Nelson responded to 96 calls that did not result in a transport. Nelson Rescue had 61 calls that were paged for their first due area that resulted in a no-response from their agency. Additionally, Nelson had 104 calls for service that they responded to that were cancelled en route.

Rockfish Rescue

Rockfish Rescue answered 110 calls for service that resulted in billable transports. Of those calls, 15 were mutual aid calls for Roseland and Nelson Rescue. Rockfish Rescue had 27 calls that were paged for their first due area that resulted in a no response from their agency. Rockfish responded to 75 calls for service that they responded to that were cancelled en route.

Roseland Rescue

Roseland Rescue answered 192 calls for service that resulted in billable transports. Of those calls, 13 were mutual aid calls for Nelson, Gladstone, or Rockfish. Roseland Rescue had 75 calls that were paged for their first due area that resulted in a no response for their agency. Roseland responded to 88 calls for service that ended up being cancelled en route.

Wintergreen Rescue

Wintergreen Rescue answered 111 calls for service that were “after hours” and resulted in billable transports. 25 of these calls were in what is considered Wintergreen’s “dual response area” with Rockfish Rescue that consists of property in the County, not on Wintergreen’s Master Plan. The remaining 86 calls were mutual aid calls for Roseland, Nelson, Gladstone, and Rockfish Rescue Squads that resulted in transports. I did not review each individual call sheet to see if these mutual aid calls were for full crews or simply medic assist mutual aid calls. Wintergreen Rescue did not have any calls that were paged for their first due area that resulted in a no response from their agency.

Career Staff

The County’s Career Staff answered 477 calls for service that resulted in a billable transport; these calls were answered during the daytime hours for all the volunteer agencies in the County. The Career Staff responded to 213 calls for service that did not result in a billable transport. Additionally, the Career Staff responded to 148 calls for service that ended up being cancelled en route.

Issues and Respective Resolutions:

Initially we were experiencing issues with the squads turning in their paper copies of the billable transports on time. In working with Susan Stevens, we developed a database to track billable transports from the date of the call to the final stages of billing. This proved to be very beneficial on several levels. First, we were able to keep track of which squads were actively participating in the system and were diligent in turning in their calls sheets. Secondly, we were able to identify which squads were not fully participating in the system and we could send them specific requests for call sheets that needed to be turned in and to encourage these squads to become more diligent; as well as offering any advice or assistance to them that we were capable of giving. Lastly, this allowed us to see exactly when, and if, DAB was processing the calls for billing. We were able to identify several instances where the proper paperwork was sent to DAB but it was not billed, so we were able to promptly address this issue with DAB. We formulated a plan with DAB to help simplify their handling of our calls; we package the call sheets separated by agency and month of service, each piece of paper associated with a call is stapled together, and a packing slip that lists all calls in a single packet is placed in the mailer before it is sent.

Early in fiscal year 2009-2010 the Office of EMS offered a grant opportunity to all the rescue squads, we assisted in the application process and received Toughbook® laptops for each licensed vehicle at each of the rescue agencies. With this receipt of these laptops the State offered software to the agencies to go to a paperless system for the Pre-hospital Patient Care Reports (PPCRs) which would bridge to another State system that would be used for reporting all calls to the State. This also provided a means for the County to pursue a paperless billing system where the call sheets could simply be downloaded by DAB from the State system. The training and rollout for this was to be using the laptops for call entry and State reporting beginning January 18, 2010. Assistance was offered from the County’s Department of Emergency Services with the set-up and training on the new software.

Since the start date there have been several agencies that have experienced difficulties in logging into the system and entering their calls into the system. Wintergreen Rescue has been instrumental in assisting agencies of the setup of the system for the agencies; as well as being the first agency to have the system in use within our County. Wintergreen Rescue has the system fully operating and has been very diligent in submitting the calls to the County in a timely manner.

Roseland Rescue was the second agency to begin using the system; initially they were doing really well with submitting their calls in a timely manner. Since inception they have started to become more lax in submitting their calls. Using our tracking database, Susan Stevens and I have been able to be proactive in our requests for submitting call sheets from this agency. Most of our requests, to date, have been ignored. It appears that Roseland enters their calls for a period of time and then there is a lapse in the date that the calls are submitted. To date there are approximately ten that have not been submitted to the County from Roseland Rescue. Multiple attempts have been made both via email and phone calls to the agency administrators to rectify this situation. Roseland Rescue has since had a change in their leadership and in working with the new administration we have been able to alleviate some of the problems that Roseland was experiencing. The new leadership is being very diligent and proactive in assuring that the membership is entering the calls into the system in a timely fashion so the information can be submitted for billing.

Rockfish Rescue was the third agency to begin using the system. Rockfish has the system functioning fully and has been very faithful in submitting all paperwork in a timely manner. Rockfish has, and continues to be, one of the most diligent participants in this program.

Montebello Rescue was able to get their system in to operation in October 2010. They initially had internal issues that delayed the setup of their system. Montebello has overcome the internal issues and they have been working to get on line with the system as soon as they possibly can. They have had issues with the Office of EMS that were later resolved with the assistance of the Emergency Services Department. Montebello joined in with Wintergreen Rescue and they were able to get their initial information entered into the system. Due to major illness within their agency they have not started using the system because of lack of training. Montebello was able to transmit their October 2010 calls for service for the billing system online for the first time.

Nelson Rescue was able to get their system online in October 2010. They have been working with Wintergreen Rescue to get their system setup to begin using it. Nelson Rescue has provided the County with the proper information needed to log into their system and October 2010 was the first month that we were able to transmit their calls electronically for billing.

Gladstone Rescue has their system fully functional as of October 2010 as well. I have personally been working with Gladstone since December 2009 to assist them in getting the system up and running. Gladstone did not list me as an agency administrator for their agency as they initially said they had, so my ability to assist them as far as getting information from the State has been denied due to confidentiality issues. Gladstone has not answered any calls to submit electronically and they have not relayed any issues regarding training or use of the system at this time. The Emergency Services Department remains in close contact with Gladstone Rescue offering any assistance we can to assure that this agency is able to use the system properly.

Financial Data:

	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	FY11*		Total
Revenue	$0.00	$149,561	$402,349	$419,288	$129,302		$1,100,500
Expenditure	$297,638	$336,673	$358,772	$398,889	$119,286		$1,511,258
Total	($297,588)	($187,112)	$43,577	$20,399	$10,016	($410,758)

* YTD June – October, 2010

	FY09	FY10	FY11	Total
Bad Debt Write Off	$153,332	$344,346	$100,968	$598,646
Period of Write Off	Jan-Dec 07	Feb 07 – Nov 09	Jan-Nov 08

Volunteer Write Off	$9,262	$1,217		$10,479
Total	$162,591	$345,563	$100,968	$609,125

	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10	FY11	Total
Actual Billed	$231,235	$607,079	$403,541	$743,176	$169,784	$2,154,815

The paid EMS program has generated revenue of $1,100,500 since its inception in FY07. However, expenditures incurred have been $1,511,258 reflecting an overall program deficit of $410,758.

Bad debt write offs have reached $598,646 primarily due to back billing of charges from February 2007 to January 2008. DAB was unable to process billing until the Medicare and Medicaid accounts were established. The Medicare account was finalized in October, 2007 and the Medicaid account became effective in August, 2008. Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance have a billable time allowance of twelve months from date of service. In addition to bad debt write offs, in accordance with policy there have also been volunteer write offs. To date, write offs related to transport of the volunteer total $4,250.98. Write offs related to transport of a volunteer’s same household family member were $6,228.28.

Medicare and health insurance payments comprise the majority of program revenue. Based on FY10 data, Medicare provides 62% of revenue and health insurance provides 29% of revenue. Further detail is outlined below.

Percentage of FY10 Revenue
Private Pay	6%
Medicare	62%
Medicaid	3%
Health Insurance	29%

Ms. Miller highlighted the report and reviewed the methodology behind the statistics and billable calls. She explained that they had broken down the information by each squad and highlighted the issues and resolutions that have been experienced.

Mr. Bruguiere questioned the statistics labeled “Cancelled Enroute” and Ms. Miller noted that these showed every time that they were called out such as with a fire engine etc. Mr. Harvey asked whether or not the “No Response” statistics were due to the career staff answering calls during the day and Ms. Miller noted that the numbers did not include the daytime hours, when Career Staff was on duty. She noted that there were very few calls that were not answered at all and there were probably none due to the cooperation of the sister squads.

She described the process of getting paper call sheets from the squads for billing and processing theses. She noted that the County had recently rolled out the laptops purchased with OEMS grant funds and that Wintergreen Rescue and County staff had helped to get these up and running for the squads.

Mr. Bruguiere, a member of Roseland Rescue Squad, noted that the Toughbook computers have not been easy and were not as user friendly as was expected. Ms. Miller also noted that there was monthly training via the web for users.

Ms. Stevens reported on the financial data and bad debt write-offs noting that most of this was due to the lapse in the processing of claims in the beginning of the revenue recovery program.

Mr. Carter added that the deficit shown was projected for the first couple of years and that Year-To-Date, the County was running even as far as revenue compared to expenses. He noted that any given year was different and so far, the revenue recovery was paying for the paid staff program. He added that when the County started the program, it took a significant time to get the billing process to work and that in working through all of that, a lot was written off due to the lapse in time in processing the claims. He noted that as a credit to Ms. Miller and Ms. Stevens, things had started to work out as originally intended and the question was would it be enough to bump the program up if desired.

Ms. Miller clarified that because the County operates under a Medicare license; all claims have to be submitted within one year of the date of service, even if private insurance gives you two years, because the County could not treat private insurance holders differently than Medicare subscribers.

Ms. Miller then noted that she thought that the electronic system was working very well and that she had seen an improvement in the process. Ms. Brennan asked if use of the Toughbooks would increase the amount billed and Ms. Miller noted that their use did improve the speed at which the claims were processed, which may increase the revenue.

Ms. Stevens added that their use did help speed up the billing process, especially for Medicare, which was where 62% of the revenue recovery revenue came from.

V. Unfinished Business/New Business

Amendment of Regional Jail Service Agreement (R2010-82)

Mr. Carter explained that the security system at the Regional Jail needed to be replaced, at a cost of $850,000, and in lieu of asking localities to budget for this or financing it, the Authority Board had proposed to reduce the reserve fund from 25% to 20% of the annual operating budget. He noted that the current fund was over $2 million dollars. He noted that the service agreement needed to be amended to allow for this reduction in 90 day reserve from 25% to 20% and to use monies from the reserve to purchase the security system. He added that the amendment would also allow them to tap into the fund when needed for capital improvements, as long as the funds were restored within three (3) fiscal years and that he recommended that the Board endorse the resolution.

When asked if Mr. Carter had heard comments from the other member localities, he stated that he was sure that the others would do it and if they did not, then the amendment to the agreement would not pass.

Mr. Harvey then moved to approve resolution R2010- 82; Resolution to Amend Section 5.3 of the Service Agreement for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 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 R2010-82

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

A RESOLUTION TO AMEND SECTION 5.3 OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT FORTHE ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL

WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle and Nelson (the “Member Jurisdictions”) have previously established the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority, and adopted an agreement (the “Service Agreement”) that established their respective rights and obligations regarding the financing, construction and operation of the regional jail serving their jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, since its initial adoption, Section 5.3 of the Service Agreement has included a provision, intended to provide assurance to the bank that provided the financing for construction of the jail, that the Jail Authority would maintain an Operating Reserve Fund equal to 90 days, or twenty-five percent, of its annual operating budget; and

WHEREAS, over the ensuing decade, the amount in the Operating Reserve Fund has increased, and the unpaid balance of the Jail Authority’s indebtedness has decreased; and

WHEREAS, SunTrust Bank, the holder of the current revenue note representing that outstanding indebtedness, has advised the Jail Authority that the note does not require the maintenance of the Operating Reserve Fund, and that SunTrust does not object to a reduction of the balance in the Operating Reserve Fund; and

WHEREAS, the Jail Authority has determined that certain major security system components in the jail have reached the end of their useful life, and need to be replaced; and

WHEREAS, the Jail Authority and the Member Jurisdictions have determined that the most prudent and cost-effective way to pay for the security system replacement is to withdraw the required amount, not to exceed $850,000.00, from the Operating Reserve Fund; and

WHEREAS, the Jail Authority and the Member Jurisdictions wish to amend the Service Agreement to allow that withdrawal, thereby reducing the Operating Reserve Fund to twenty percent of the current Annual Budget, and to provide a method for approval of future withdrawals; now therefore, be it

Resolved by the Boards of Supervisors of Albemarle, and Nelson Counties and the Council of the City of Charlottesville, with the concurrence of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority, that

Section 5.3 of the Service Agreement is amended and readopted as follows:

Section 5.3 Operating Reserve Fund. The Authority agrees to provide for an Operating Reserve Fund in each of its Annual Budgets in an amount equal to not less than 90 days twenty percent of its projected Annual Budget for each year, less debt service. The Operating Reserve Fund will be established as a separate account and will be used to cover periods of revenue shortfall when the Authority’s revenues are not sufficient to cover its Operating Expenses or Debt Service, or in such other instances as may be approved by the Authority and concurred in by the chief administrative officers of all member jurisdictions. If such withdrawals reduce the Operating Reserve Fund below twenty percent of the Annual Budget, the Authority shall adopt a plan to restore it to that level over a period not to exceed three fiscal years.

2. The chief administrative officers of the Member Jurisdictions and the Jail Authority are authorized to sign a conformed copy of the Service Agreement incorporating this amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the governing bodies of the Counties of Albemarle and Nelson, and the City of Charlottesville have authorized and caused this Resolution to be approved and their respective seals to be affixed hereto and attested by their respective clerks.

FY11 VDH Dental Program Allocation

Mr. Carter noted that sixty (60) days ago, Dr. Peake had noted having difficulty in retaining a part time dentist for the program and noted that maybe Blue Ridge Medical Center /RHOP could use the funds. Mr. Carter indicated that the total of $48,700 would come back to the County and could be reallocated to them for dental services and possibly eye glasses for people who were 200%-400% below poverty level. Mr. Carter added that the primary use of the funds would be dental services for children but that the funds could be used for adults as RHOP does now. He noted that Ms. Whitehead had submitted the following proposal for the Board’s review:

Mr. Johnson then moved to reallocate the VDH dental funding to the Rural Health Outreach Program (RHOP) dental and vision program and Mr. Hale seconded the motion.

Mr. Bruguiere clarified that the money was already allocated for this, approximately $36,700 to VDH and that there was no new funding; just a reallocation of funds. Mr. Carter confirmed that VDH had not expended any of the funds so it would be a reallocation of the full amount.

Mr. Bruguiere asked that when the Blue Ridge Medical Center put in its dental clinic, would the Board have to provide this funding anymore and Mr. Carter noted that it may be a future consideration. And he added that Medicaid payments would cover the cost of the program there. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Board reconsider this funding in two (2) years when dental clinic was up and running.

Mr. Hale indicated that he was fully in support of the purpose, but suggested that if RHOP could not fully utilize these funds, that they would come back to the County. Mr. Carter suggested that this be included in the motion and Mr. Johnson amended the motion to include this language. Mr. Hale seconded the amended motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

VI. Reports, Appointments, Directives, and Correspondence

Reports

1. County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Carter distributed and gave the following report:

A. Courthouse/Government Center Project: Construction in process (all facets). Next monthly construction meeting is on 12-16 at 1 p.m. Blair Construction has advised that front stairwell replacement (Court Street) is not scheduled for completion until near the end of the project. Wiley & Wilson is working on completion of designs and cost estimates for the second floor connector (existing Courthouse), Health Department Renovation and space allocation plan (existing Courthouse) with inputs to the Board by February 2011.

Mr. Carter noted that the front steps would not be completed until the end of the project per the Contractor.

Mr. Johnson asked that Mr. Carter talk to VDOT about the roadway, where the Sherriff’s Dept. parks, that was caving in.

Mr. Carter noted that the completion of design and cost estimates for the connector was nearing completion per Randy Vaughan and that he has met with DSS and Health Department staff on the proposed building renovation. He added that the space allocation plan for the existing courthouse would be reported to the Board in early February or late January. Mr. Hale stated that the Committee wanted to see this before the full Board did; and Mr. Carter stated that he has noted this to Mr. Vaughan.

Mr. Hale then inquired as to what was happening with the courthouse window sill replacement and Mr. Carter stated that they had started and were working on them and would incorporate Bob Self’s recommendations. Mr. Hale added that where they have cut the bottom of the steps on the North side of the courthouse, there was a large drain pipe to ask about before the trenches were filled in. Mr. Carter added that the drainage on the south corner was likely the result of clogged or crushed terra-cotta pipe in the ground.

B. Broadband Project: Meetings of local Wireless Authority (inaugural) and Broadband Advisory Committee scheduled for 12-14 at 1 p.m. and 12-16 at 1 p.m. respectively. Messrs. John Taylor and Alan Patrick elected committee Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively RFP responses (service providers and backbone network operation) due on 12-17. Icon and County staff working on all facets of the project.

Mr. Carter noted the proposed locations for the tower sites as follows: Colleen (CVEC tower), Martin’s Store (in process, have comments on EA), American Fibers property (negotiating with property owner and adjacent owner for fall zone) Massies Mill still not secured but they were looking at the Bruguiere property and the Flippin/Seaman property (Saunders).

Mr. Johnson noted that the High Top tower site could affect the Broadband Authority’s work and could have an impact on broadband disbursement within the County. Mr. Carter clarified that this site was not part of the grant project, and that the consultants and staff were focusing on that right now.

C. 2012 General Reassessment: In process.

D. Blue Ridge Medical Center: CDBG Project: Contract for $700,000 CDBG grant received, executed and returned to VA-DHCD.

Mr. Carter noted that these funds probably would not be drawn down until next year when they are scheduled to construct the dental clinic.

E. TRES/RRES Repair Project: Dr. Collins to report on project status on 12-14.

F. Blue Ridge Tunnel & Blue Ridge Railway Projects: (Tunnel): Transportation Enhancement Program grant application for $728,627 in funding submitted to VDOT on 12-1 (funding decisions anticipated in May 2011). Project has been divided into three phases for funding purposes. The funding noted herein would be used in Phase I to complete trailhead, trail and tunnel to bulk head on the Nelson County side of the project. Phase II encompassed bulk head completion and tunnel restoration work ($379,119). Phase III ($1,366,173) completes the tunnel restoration and the western (Augusta Co.) trail and trailheads. Crozet Tunnel Foundation had its inaugural meeting on 12-1 (Veritas Winery). Initiation of easement acquisition negotiations (Tyler and ROLC) anticipated late December 10 to early January 11. Funding application to VA-DCR anticipated in January 2011 (easement and other/TBD funding). Final design from Woolpert is expected by second quarter 2011. (Railway) – Contract from VDOT for 2010-11 TEP grant award received, executed and returned. VDOT contract execution is next step followed by initiation of planning, design and construction of train depot and weigh station renovation/restoration.

Mr. Carter noted that for the Blue Ridge Tunnel project, staff would ask for an extension of time to use $100,000 in DCR funds for the acquisition of easements. He added that the County started the project in 2000, and has made substantial progress since hiring Woolpert.

Mr. Hale suggested that the Board consider item B. from the Consent Agenda as it related to the project being discussed and Ms. Brennan agreed.

Mr. Hale noted that he was concerned about the budget as presented in the TEA application and asked for clarification of the $600,000 in preliminary engineering; noting that the total was $700,000. He then asked what the contracted amount with Woolpert was. Mr. Carter noted that he would have to look for the Woolpert contract amount; but that this amount included all preliminary engineering done by the prior consultants and he noted that Woolpert had been diligent in its use of funds, but would likely spend out the contract. Ms. McCann then reported that the Woolpert contract amount was $384,453.

Mr. Carter noted that the Foundation would work towards raising funds and that the proposed resolution did commit the County for a 20% match of funds; which was still carried by the value of the tunnel.

There being no further questions, Mr. Hale moved to approve resolution R2010-79 FY11-12 Transportation Enhancement Project Endorsement for Blue Ridge Tunnel Project and Mr. Harvey 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 R2010-79

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FY11-12 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ENDORSEMENT

FOR BLUE RIDGE TUNNEL PROJECT

WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the sponsoring local jurisdiction, Nelson County, in order that the Virginia Department of Transportation establish an enhancement project in Nelson County,

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that Nelson County requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project for the improvement of The Blue Ridge Crozet Tunnel; namely to restore the old railway tunnel and convert it to a pedestrian trail (greenway) inclusive of parking and related amenities.

Be It Further Resolved, that Nelson County hereby agrees to provide a minimum 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right of way, and construction of this project; and

Be It Further Resolved, that Nelson County hereby agrees to enter into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation to provide oversight that ensures the project is developed in accordance with all state and federal requirements for design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a federally funded transportation project; and

Be It Further Resolved, that Nelson County will be responsible for maintenance, upkeep and operating costs of any facility constructed with Enhancement Program funds; and

Be It Further Resolved, that if Nelson County subsequently elects to cancel this project, Nelson County hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Nelson County also agrees to repay any funds previously reimbursed that are later deemed ineligible by the Federal Highway Administration.

Mr. Carter noted that the Blue Ridge Trail $330,000 grant contract had been received and executed as previously authorized by the Board.

G. Radio Tower Project (PSIC): Project is in process with progress on all elements proceeding well. FCC has advised County staff that only one new tower will be approved at Devils Knob (negotiations pending).

Mr. Carter noted that the FCC was concerned that the towers at Devils Knob would impact the Blue Ridge Parkway and that they thought that only one tower was necessary. He noted that if two towers were done, there may be a “Finding of Significant Impact” which would require mitigation and the County wanted to avoid that.

Mr. Harvey added that Russell Otis was going to talk to the local park ranger and maybe he could contact the reviewer to see how to proceed. He stated that he did not think this would hold things up and everyone was aware of it and was working on it.

H. Regional Artisan Trail Project: In process.

I. FY 09-10 CAFR (Audit): Draft audit report received on 12-13 and in is review.

2. Board Reports

Mr. Harvey reported that the Service Authority should have the new facility at Wintergreen in operation that week.

Mr. Hale reported the following:

1. Attended the initial meeting of the Crozet Tunnel Foundation; also attended by the Augusta County Economic Development Director, Dr. Rogers of VMI, and VDOT representatives. He noted that they were trying to get Albemarle Supervisor Mallek to attend, as well as the Buckingham Branch Railroad. He added that they would meet again early in the New Year and that they have a goal of raising $100,000. He stated that they would eventually have a website and a brochure etc. He noted that donations should be made to the Crozet Tunnel Foundation; with contributions being mailed to Mr. Carter right now; since Ms. McCann currently received the bank statements and has the deposit slips. In conclusion, he noted that the Foundation Board had not yet organized.

2. The Service Authority would have significant projects down the road that fees alone would not cover and that they were taking care of a lot of old business right now.

Mr. Johnson reported the following:

1. Will attend the Broadband Advisory meeting on Thursday.

2. DSS is moving forward with new hires to replace retirees.

3. He has been working with Gladstone Rescue and will have a joint meeting on December 29th with the Fire and Rescue Departments. He noted that he attended an initial meeting with them and they have drafted a letter responding to the State’s concerns. He noted that the Fire Department would provide a driver for a night during the week and the Rescue Squad would respond on fire calls. He concluded by noting that the parties were making an effort to come together and he would know more after the 29th.

Mr. Bruguiere reported that he attended the Artisan Trail meeting with Maureen Kelley, where they discussed putting up a web site and resolving some zoning issues in Albemarle County; they do not have a home occupations use right now. He noted that there may be a fee involved with website participation and that they used Monticello in naming the trail for the purpose of name recognition.

Ms. Brennan reported the following:

1. Attended the last Broadband Advisory Committee meeting and was impressed with the participants.

2. Attended Green Assets public meeting to see the UVA student project presentation. She noted that they accepted public input and then presented their final report to staff etc. afterwards. She noted that they would provide a more formal report with some follow up work completed by Karen Firehock. She noted that the gist of it was that there are some areas to look at to allow wildlife and green space to connect to other areas; which would be helpful in development planning.

3. Attended TMDL meetings.

4. Attended legislative dinner at TJPDC and focused on TMDLs with four (4) panel members from the four (4) sectors affected, who spoke about their concerns. She noted that she thought that the present Legislators learned a lot and they were complimentary of the panel. She reported that they passed a Rural Long Range Transportation Plan, reviewed a solid waste plan with emphasis on composting and electronic recycling.

5. Attended JABA Long Range Planning Committee meeting.

Appointments

Ms. McGarry overviewed the appointments for consideration as follows:

1. Jason Hatfield – applicant for the unexpired term ending 6/30/2012, on the Jefferson Area Disabilities Services Board.

2. No applications had been received for the JABA Council on Aging term that was expiring on 12/31/2010; with Mr. Chuck Strauss not seeking reappointment.

3. Patrick D. Parrish – applicant for the unexpired term ending 12/31/2011, on the Keep Nelson Beautiful Council. KNB has up to fifteen (15) at large members.

4. James S. Turpin – applicant for the unexpired term ending 6/30/2013, as the business representative on the Piedmont Workforce Network Board; with Greg Kelly of CVEC not seeking reappointment.

She then noted that there was still a vacancy on the JAUNT Board being advertised.

Mr. Johnson then moved to appoint Jason Hatfield, Patrick Parrish, and James S. Turpin to the Jefferson Area Disabilities Board, Keep Nelson Beautiful Council, and the Piedmont Workforce Network Board respectively; and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.

Mr. Carter reluctantly noted that Mr. Hatfield has sent several strongly worded correspondences to him and Maureen Kelly in the past; however it was noted that this would provide a good outlet for his thoughts. Mr. Carter added that Mr. Parrish was a current collection site employee, and the County has another employee who has resigned and serves on a council; which causes some concern. Mr. Bruguiere noted that he knew Mr. Parrish and that he would not give the County any trouble.

There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the appointments.

Correspondence

Mr. Carter noted the letter of thanks from the NCHS FFA Team.

Directives

Other Business was considered prior to the Board’s Directives.

Mr. Bruguiere directed staff to have the VDOT people report in person at the January meeting.

Mr. Johnson directed staff to price out and publicize the speed limit change to 35 mph on unpaved roads in the county.

Mr. Hale directed staff to weather-strip the bottom and possibly the side of the main entrance door of the Courthouse, near the Clerk’s Office.

Mr. Harvey directed staff to advise VDOT that the stop sign coming from Avon Rd to the intersection of Rockfish Valley Rd at Anderson’s Store was gone.

Ms. Brennan had the following directives:

1. Look at the feasibility of crunching up glass again. Mr. Carter noted that the County would pay a higher tipping fee to recycle glass than to dispose of it and there were higher transportation costs for recycling than in including it in the regular waste stream. It was noted that it may be worth looking at if there was an increase in tipping fees from going to the Campbell County Landfill. Mr. Harvey suggested that Susan McSwain contact the Rivanna Solid Waste person and that maybe KNB could look at electronic recycling as well.

2. Look at the feasibility of the County participating in the VACo fuel purchasing program. Mr. Carter noted that the County did not participate right now, as it was thought that participants had to have their own tanks, but he would look into it.

3. Advertise for the free NACo Drug Prescription Program utilizing free marketing materials from NACo to be provided by her.

4. Look at doing EMS provider audits; with Mr. Harvey adding that the County should do this with all organizations starting with them. Staff noted some difficulty with this in that they would all have to use the same reporting format.

5. Inquired as to the interest in having a joint budget committee with the School Board; with staff to look into what other counties do on these committees. Mr. Carter suggested that maybe it could be similar to a conference committee; whereas when the two entities get far enough along in their processes, they meet to discuss things. There was no consensus from the Board as to the direction to take in establishing a budget committee.

VII. Other Business (As May Be Presented)

Introduced: Employee Bonuses

This item of business was considered before Directives in order to accommodate Dr. Roger L. Collins, School Division Superintendent in attendance for this matter.

Ms. McCann distributed a handout regarding employee bonuses that showed two (2) options for the Board’s consideration. Option 1 which provided a bonus of $500 for Full-time employees, $300 for Part-Time employees working over 20 hours per week, and $150 for Part-Time employees working less than 20 hours per week, for a total cost of $45,497.88 including Workman’s Comp and FICA taxes. Option 2 provided for $350 for Full-time employees, $200 for Part-Time employees working over 20 hours per week, and $100 for Part-Time employees working less than 20 hours per week, for a total cost of $31,544.68 including Workman’s Comp and FICA taxes.

Ms. Brennan noted that she pushed for the two (2) different options presented and Mr. Carter added that this had been discussed with Dr. Collins generally and that Ms. McCann had taken input from the Board and had worked up the numbers.

In response to Mr. Harvey’s question, Ms. McCann noted that a gross bonus of $350 would net around $325. She then reported that she had spoken with the County’s auditors who advised that the County could forgo withholding Federal and State taxes but did have to withhold FICA taxes. Ms. McCann then noted that the gross pay would have to be increased to approximately $378 to net $350. She noted that Lynchburg and Albemarle had opted to take out all taxes on their bonuses; but that the County would do a separate payroll run to avoid the bonus being lumped in with the employees’ regular pay; which would inflate the taxes taken out.

Mr. Harvey suggested going with Option 2, but bumping up the gross bonus for Full-Time employees to $378 so that the employee would net $350 and so on. Ms. McCann advised that if the Board’s thought was to do a separate payroll, it could be done within the next few days prior to Christmas. The Board agreed by consensus that it should be done in the manner that was easiest for staff.

Mr. Harvey then moved to approve employee bonuses based on Option 2, using the numbers just discussed, such that the employees’ netted $350, $200, and $100 as presented and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.

Mr. Hale noted that it has been his position all along that the County has made the effort not to lay off employees and that there were many from the private sector in the county who had been laid off. He added that this was taxpayer money and that the County would be faced with contributing more to VRS for employees and that he could not support giving a bonus. He concluded by stating that his position was not a reflection on the job that the County and School employees did.

Mr. Johnson noted that he had no problem giving a bonus when the employees had not gotten a raise in three (3) years.

Ms. Brennan noted that the Governor had approved a bonus of 3% for State Employees, which was a lot more and that she was in favor of giving the bonus.

There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (4-1) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the employee bonus, with Mr. Hale voting No.

VIII. Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session

At 5:10 pm, Mr. Harvey moved to continue the meeting until 7:00 pm and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion.

EVENING SESSION

7:00 P.M. – NELSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE

I. Call to Order

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

Ms. Brennan noted the public hearings that would be held and stated that members of the Board needed more time to make a decision on the Special Use Permit #2010-004 for Adam H. & Kathryn E. Knott and that action on that agenda item would be deferred until January.

Mr. Hale noted that he thought that the Board should make a decision, but that he would defer to the other members of the Board. He suggested that should the Board plan to make a decision, the interested parties should be notified so as not to make an unnecessary trip to the meeting.

Following discussion, the Consensus of the Board was to decide by the first meeting in January to be held on January 11th.

II. Public Hearings & Presentations

Class II Communication Tower with Exceptions – Central Virginia Electric Cooperative – Wintergreen Permit # 2010-005

Consideration of an application by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative for a Class II Communication Tower Permit with exceptions, pursuant to Sections 20-7-5k, 20-7-2a, 20-7-2b, 20-7-2c and 20-7-4c of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a 90 foot monopole communication tower with a 4 foot lightening rod to be located on Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen Resort, Virginia, Tax Map # 11-A-2D. Property is zoned Residential Planned Community.

Mr. Fred Boger reported the following regarding the application:

Central Virginia Electric Cooperative has submitted an application for a Class II Communication Tower Permit to erect a ninety four foot (94’) Communication Tower on Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen Resort. The property is identified as Tax Map #11-A-2D which is owned by WPOA. CVEC is also requesting the following:

Section 20-7-5K, Landscaping. A wavier by the Planning Commission of the landscaping requirements because the facility will be enclosed by a wood stockade fence and will be screened by existing trees.
Section 20-7-2a, Distance to Property Line. An exception to the required fall area of the tower from 117.5 feet to approximately 90 feet.
Section 20-7-2b. There are no existing tower options.
Section 20-7-2c, Maximum height on mountain ridge or peak.
Section 20-7-4c, 8 foot chain link fence.
20-7-3 Proximity to an Existing Tower. CVEC requests an exemption to the requirement of 2 miles separation from existing towers. Other towers within the 2 mile separation neither have the required height or location to provide the connectivity into CVEC’s communication network or the coverage required for mobile communication.
20-7-2e View shed of Scenic By-Way (The correct Section is 20-7-2d View shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway). CVEC requests exemption to this requirement due to the fact that the site will be within 1.0 mile of the right of way of the Blue Ridge Parkway. BRP comments concerning this tower application will be forwarded when received.

Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments.

WPOA is trying to cluster communication towers into specific areas of Wintergreen. Placing this tower on Waterworks Lane requires the proposed height in order for it to communicate with the High Top near Lovingston.
The existing towers on Waterworks Lane are wood and at a height making them unsuitable for installing a dish antenna on them.
The required fall area should be reduced as requested since the distance to the road appears to be over 90 feet.

It appears by the photographs that the proposed tower will be more than 30 feet above the existing tree canopy in this area. Therefore, an exception is required to permit the tower height of 94 feet.

The proposed tower will be located within 1 air mile of the Blue Ridge Parkway. As of this date we have not received comments from the Superintendent of the Parkway as required by Section 20-7-2d.

It appears the proposed tower will be visible from the restaurant located south of the site. A representative of WPOA has signed the application for this tower indicating they have no major concerns with the tower’s height.

The Nelson County Planning Commission held a public hearing on CVEC’s permit application on November 17, 2010. Following a brief discussion the Commission unanimously voted to waive the landscaping requirement as requested by the applicant and approve the Class II Communication Tower Permit contingent upon the following:

A favorable or no opinion response is received from the Superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
The tower and appurtenances are painted Wintergreen Brown.

The Planning Commission also recommends approval of the following exceptions to Article 20, Communication Tower Ordinance:

Section 20-7-2a, Distance to Property Line. An exception to the required fall area of the tower from 117.5 feet to approximately 90 feet.
Section 20-7-2b. There are no existing tower options.
Section 20-7-2c, Maximum height on mountain ridge or peak. More than thirty (30) feet above the existing tree canopy
Section 20-7-4c, 8 foot chain link fence.
20-7-3 Proximity to an Existing Tower. The tower will not have the required 2 miles separation from existing towers Class II or Class III towers.
Section is 20-7-2d View shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Tower will be located in the 1 mile view shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

The Applicant representative, Mr. Robert Harris of CVEC noted that the tower would be used for their communications system and would use microwave technology which required a metal pole. He noted that the pole would be painted wintergreen brown. He reported that it was a collapsible monopole and mentioned that they would only have one antenna on the pole, but may have collocation in the future. He noted that there were some parties interested in collocating, but that nothing had been finalized. He noted that the Planning Commission did approve the permit and the Board would have to approve the exceptions.

Ms. Brennan then opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Boger noted that he did not have to have a letter from the FCC, just the Blue Ridge Parkway people.

Mr. Johnson then moved to approve the Class II tower as presented with the exceptions for CVEC, permit #2010-005 and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Class III Communication Tower – Central Virginia Electric Cooperative – Colleen Permit # 2010-006

Consideration of an application by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative for a Class III Communication Tower Permit, pursuant to Section 20-8 of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance, to construct a 120 foot lattice communication tower with a 4 foot lightening rod to be located on the North side of Cooperative Way, Colleen, Virginia, Tax Map # 66-A-36. Property is zoned M-1.

Mr. Boger reported the following regarding the application:

Central Virginia Electric Cooperative is requesting a Communication Tower Permit to erect a one hundred and twenty foot (120’) lattice communication tower with a four foot (4) lighting rod at the top for a total height of one hundred twenty four feet (124’). The proposed tower will be located on Cooperative Way to the right of the Nelson County Service Authority property.

CVEC is also requesting the following waiver and exceptions from the requirements of the Communication Tower Ordinance:

A waiver of Section 20-8-5k Landscaping.

CVEC requests the Planning Commission to waive this requirement due to the fact that the site will be surrounded by trees and brush on three sides and the elevation of the tower base is below that of nearest road. The tower base would not be visible unless within just a few hundred feet of the site.

20-8-2 Standards for Location

CVEC requests a Special Exception from the Board of Supervisors to reduce the required setback of 155 feet fall zone for the tower to 119 feet. Relocating the tower on the property to achieve such distance will be contrary to maintaining required system line-of-site design parameters. Relocation would result in lower ground elevation and a more marginal line-of-site path to the Hightop Tower location, which is required for the system to operate. Installation at a lower ground elevation would require additional tower height.

20-8-3 Proximity to an Existing Tower

CVEC requests an exception to the requirement of 2 miles separation from existing towers. An AT&T monopole tower does exist within 2 miles. Obtaining line-of-site communication between this tower and Hightop or CVEC’s headquarters would be difficult. The AT&T monopole tower is not suitable for microwave communication.

The microwave antenna (a Radio waves 5.7 GHz 2’ solid parabolic dish) features an extremely narrow beam width of 6 degrees, and it will be used to make a point-to-point connection to a tower 6.5 miles away. The wireless connection will provide primary connectivity for the site to backhaul mission-critical land mobile radio traffic as well as eventual IP connectivity for remote metering and controls.

It is essential that the directional microwave antenna be mounted to a structure with absolutely minimal twist and sway. The AT&T tower is functional for attaching cellular sectors, omni-directional antennas and wide-beam directional antennas. These antennas have antenna patterns that are five, ten and even twenty times wider than the beam width of the microwave antenna, which must stay in alignment at all times to remain connected.

The site for the tower was selected by CVEC because it would provide a line of site to the High Top Tower. The County approached them to collocate on this tower in order to bring broadband to this area and eliminating the need for a second tower in this area. In order for the County’s antenna to communicate with a tower (to be constructed) in Massie’s Mill area, the height of CVEC’s tower had to be increased to 120 feet.

Staff has reviewed the application and we have the following comments:

VDOT has stated that the entrance will have to be 16 feet in width instead of the 11’ shown on the site plan.
The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Office has received the plan, and the required review fee was paid on 11/10/2010.
The proposed tower will be located in an industrial park which already has a large AT&T lattice tower in it. The overall visual impact of this tower should be minimal however; it will impact the few surrounding residential properties. The tower is necessary to bring broadband to the medical facilities, schools, library, government offices, businesses and residences from the Afton area to Colleen and to Massie’s Mill area.

On November 17^th the Nelson County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Communication Tower Permit application. Following the public hearing the Commission unanimously voted to waive the required landscaping requirements and to recommend approval of the permit with the following exceptions:

20-8-2 Standards for Location. Reduce the required setback of 155 feet fall zone for the tower to 119 feet.
20-8-3 Proximity to an Existing Tower. The proposed tower will not have the required 2 mile separation between it and another Class II Tower.

The permit is contingent upon approval of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District.

Mr. Boger added that the tower would be visible from Stage Rd, but that it was not a problem and the Planning Commission recommended approval with the exceptions.

Mr. Johnson noted that it was one of the essential towers for the Broadband Project and would be able to reach the High Top tower from there and would improve county radio communications. It was then noted that it would be above the wireless provider’s tower at the DMV in Colleen.

The Applicant representative, Mr. Robert Harris of CVEC, noted that the tower served as a vital part of their communication system for radio and data transmissions and that they were happy to be able to collocate with the County. He reported that they have had other inquiries about collocation, but nothing had been decided. He clarified that the High Top tower location was located on the tower that the state police had erected.

Ms. Brennan then opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Johnson then moved to approve the Class III communications tower and exceptions for permit #2010-006 and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Ordinance to Amend Chapter 10, Solid Waste, of the Code of the County of Nelson, Virginia, to add Section 10-26, Alternative Dispositions (O2010-10)

Mr. Carter noted that the underlying premise of considering this amendment was to allow composting to occur under the Zoning Ordinance. He added that the amendment would allow for composting not to be prohibited by the Solid Waste Ordinance, since Chapter 10 of the County Code currently did not have any provisions that spoke to recyclable waste; which would also allow commercial recycling to be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that this would be the first step in enabling the establishment of composting businesses in the county.

Additionally, it was noted that the amendment was initiated by a party interested in establishing a composting business and that the Planning Commission was holding its public hearing the next night to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow for this use.

Mr. Harvey inquired as to what made up the composting and did it include brush. Mr. Boger noted that this did not address brush and stumps which was already accounted for in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Boger added that the business owner would have to get a license from DEQ to operate and Mr. Harvey suggested that this was not much different than stump grinding.

There being no further discussion, Ms. Brennan opened the public hearing and there being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Hale then moved to approve Ordinance O2010-10 Amendment to Chapter 10, Solid Waste of the Code of The County of Nelson, VA To Add Section 10-26 Alternative Dispositions and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.

Mr. Harvey questioned whether or not the Board knew all the ins and outs about this, noting that food waste would be on the ground and what about rats etc. Mr. Hale stated that the proposed ordinance did not address that and that was DEQ regulated.

There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (4-1) by roll call vote to approve the motion, with Mr. Harvey voting No, and the following Ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE O2010-10

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 10, SOLID WASTE

OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF NELSON, VA

TO ADD SECTION 10-26 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITIONS

BE IT HEREBYORDAINED, pursuant to Title 15.2, Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Code of Virginia, that the Chapter 10, Solid Waste, of the Code of the County of Nelson, Virginia, is hereby amended to add therein Section 10-26, Alternative Dispositions, as follows:

Section 10-26. Alternative Dispositions:

The handling, treatment, or disposition of recyclable waste, vegetative rubbish, or organic waste allowed pursuant to any other provision of this Code of the County shall be exempt from the operation of this Article.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance becomes effective upon adoption.

III. Other Business

Special Use Permit #2010-004 – Adam H. & Kathryn E. Knott (R2010-83 Approval, R2010-84 Denial)

Consideration of this item of business was deferred.

Introduced: “The Festy” Opponents Request Meeting with Two Board Members

Mr. Bruguiere noted that opponents of the Devil’s Backbone event called “The Festy” wanted to meet with two Board members to discuss their concerns.

Ms. Brennan noted that she has discussed this with both Ron Bush and Steve Crandall and that she thought that Mr. Crandall, Mr. Boger and Ms. Kelley should weed through the papers, come up with some ideas, and then they could meet sometime after Christmas.

The Board’s consensus was that this was reasonable and Mr. Harvey suggested that they (the opponents) sit down with Mr. Crandall and resolve things.

IV. Public Comments

Ms. Brennan opened the floor for public comment and the following person was recognized:

Mr. Gary Wood, Lovingston

Mr. Wood thanked the Board for all of their hard work on behalf of the County

V. Adjournment

At 7:31 pm, Mr. Harvey moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting adjourned.

January 11, 2011 Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes

admin — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:08:50 +0000

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 2:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:

Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor

Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor – Chair

Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor

Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor – Vice Chair

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

Susan Rorrer, Director of Information Systems

Absent: None

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm, with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

She then asked if there were any changes to the Agenda and Mr. Carter noted that item VI A. needed to be removed as the Health Department would be returning the funds to the County and item II should be deferred due to school being closed because of inclement weather.

Moment of Silence

Ms. Brennan asked that the moment of silence be dedicated to those involved in the tragedy in Arizona.

Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Bruguiere led the Pledge of Allegiance

II. Recognition of Nelson County High School One-Act Play Ensemble (R2011-01)

This item of business was deferred until such time that the drama team could attend.

III. Reorganization of the Board

Ms. Brennan then turned the meeting over to Mr. Carter who noted that reorganization was incumbent upon the Board per the Code of Virginia as was establishing its regular meeting dates, times, rules of order etc. He then stated that they would first conduct the election of Chair and Vice Chair.

Election of Chair

Mr. Carter opened the floor for nominations for Chair and Mr. Hale moved to nominate Mr. Johnson. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and nomination and there being no other nominations, the nominations were closed. Supervisors then voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and elect Mr. Joe Dan Johnson as Board Chair.

Election and Appointment of Vice-Chair

Mr. Carter then opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair and Mr. Hale moved to nominate Mr. Bruguiere. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and nomination and there being no other nominations, the nominations were closed. Supervisors then voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and elect Mr. Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. as Board Vice Chair.

Mr. Carter then turned the meeting over to the Chair elect, Mr. Johnson.

Resolution- R2011-02 Annual Meeting of the Board

Mr. Hale noted that he had looked over the resolution and found it adequate, noting that the proposed meeting dates were to remain the second Tuesday of the month at 2pm and 7pm and the fourth Thursday at 7 pm. He then moved to approve resolution R2011-02 Annual Meeting of the Board. Members noted that they needed to also handle the annual appointments listed in the resolution, and being in agreement, Mr. Hale withdrew the motion on the floor.

Members discussed the Planning Commission Liaison designation, with Mr. Hale noting that Ms. Brennan had indicated that she would serve in a nonvoting capacity. They briefly discussed wishing to revise the current Ordinance with respect to having a Board Member on the Planning Commission because having a Board member in a voting capacity gave that member two (2) votes. They all agreed that maintaining close liaison with the Planning Commission was important. Ms. Brennan stated that she was willing to do it as long as it was understood that she would be a nonvoting member and Mr. Carter suggested that she could just abstain from voting. Following brief discussion, the Board’s consensus was to appoint Ms. Brennan in this capacity.

Members discussed representation on the local EMS Council and it was noted that Mr. Bruguiere attended these meetings already and he could be the Board’s representative. Members discussed that this was different and separate from the Regional EMS Council meetings that Ray Uttaro was appointed to attend. Following brief discussion, the Board’s consensus was to appoint Mr. Bruguiere in this capacity.

Mr. Johnson then summarized the changes to the resolution as discussed and Mr. Hale moved to approve resolution R2011-02 Annual Meeting of the Board with the changes that had been made and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion.

Ms. Brennan then suggested that Mr. Hale could be on the Piedmont Workforce Network Board since she has been on it for years. She noted the meeting time and place; however no change to the appointment was made.

Following this discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION-R2011-02

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ANNUAL MEETING

JANUARY 11, 2011

WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of Title 15.2 of the Code of VA and Chapter 2, Article 2 of the Code of the County of Nelson, VA, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors conducts an annual organizational meeting at the Board’s first meeting in January of each year; and,

WHEREAS, matters to be determined by the Board of Supervisors in addition to the appointment of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman include the establishment of a schedule of regular and, as applicable, special meetings, the establishment of rules of order, the establishment of (a) meeting agenda(s), and the establishment of Board appointments, including a Clerk and Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, a Zoning Administrator and a Hazardous Material Coordinator.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors as follows:

Regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors shall be conducted during Calendar Year 2011 in the Board Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse in Lovingston, VA on the second Tuesday of each month, beginning at 2:00 p.m., and reconvening thereafter at 7:00 p.m. and on the fourth Thursday of each month beginning at 7:00 p.m., except for the months of November and December. Should the regular meetings fall on any legal holiday, the meeting shall be held on the next following regular business day, without action of any kind by the Board; unless otherwise cancelled. Should the Chairman or Vice Chairman (if the Chairman is unable to act) find and declare that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to attend regular meetings; the meeting(s) will be continued on the following Tuesday. Such finding shall be communicated to the members, staff, and the press as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting(s) and no further advertisement is required.

Special meetings of the Board of Supervisors may be convened from time to time, as determined by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Code of VA and the Code of the County of Nelson, VA.

In accordance with the Code of the County of Nelson, VA, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, shall be observed as the rules for conducting the business of the Board of Supervisors and the agenda for all meetings of the Board of Supervisors shall be established by the Clerk of the Board in consultation with the Chairman.

Board of Supervisors appointments for Calendar Year 2011 shall be as follows:

Nelson County Planning Commission: Constance Brennan

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission: Constance Brennan

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission: Fred Boger

Director of Emergency Services: Thomas D. Harvey

Deputy Emergency Services Coordinator: Jaime O. Miller

Piedmont Workforce Network Council: Constance Brennan

Clerk to the Nelson County Board of Supervisors: Stephen A. Carter

Deputy Clerk to the Nelson County Board of Supervisors: Candice W. McGarry

Zoning Administrator: Fred Boger

Hazardous Materials Coordinator: Raymond M. Uttaro

Thomas Jefferson EMS Council: Raymond M. Uttaro

Nelson County EMS Council: Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr.

Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: Joe Bolling

Thomas Jefferson Community Criminal Justice Board: Constance Brennan

Nelson County Social Services Board: Joe Dan Johnson

IV. Consent Agenda

Ms. Brennan moved to approve the consent agenda as presented and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:

Resolution – R2011-03 Minutes for Approval

RESOLUTION-R2011-03

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

(December 14, 2010)

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meetings conducted on December 14, 2010 be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.

Resolution – R2011-04 FY10-11 Budget Amendment

	RESOLUTION R2011-04
	NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
	AMENDMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 BUDGET
	NELSON COUNTY, VA
	January 11, 2011

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County that the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget be hereby amended as follows:


	I.	Appropriation of Funds (General Fund)


		Amount	Revenue Account	Expenditure Account
		$ 25,500.00	3-100-003303-0021	4-100-032030-7007
		$ 287.00	3-100-009999-0001	4-100-022010-5504
		$ 25,787.00

	II.	Transfer of Funds (General Fund)


		Amount	Credit Account (-)	Debit Account (+)
		$ 8,765.00	4-100-999000-9901	4-100-032020-7007

	III.	Appropriation of Funds (School Fund)


		Amount	Revenue Account	Expenditure Account
		$ 85,370.00	3-205-003302-0010	4-205-061100-9301
		$ 1,632.00	3-205-003302-0010	4-205-062100-9302
		$ 24,988.00	3-205-003302-0010	4-205-063100-9303
		$ 10,229.00	3-205-003302-0010	4-205-064100-9304
		$ 6,820.00	3-205-003302-0010	4-205-065100-9306
		$ 3,672.00	3-205-003302-0010	4-205-068000-9306
		$ 46,575.00	3-205-003302-0097	4-205-061100-9301
		$ 17,132.00	3-205-003302-0097	4-205-068000-9306
		$ 196,418.00

IV. Public Comments and Presentations

Public Comments

Mr. Johnson opened the floor for public comment and the following person was recognized:

Mr. Dale Rogers, Roseland and Virginia Taxpayers Association.

Mr. Rogers distributed and read aloud the following prepared statement:

My name is Dale Rogers of 176 Toms Lane, Roseland, Va. 22967. I am a member of The Virginia Taxpayers Association. I am speaking today for Kenneth White who is at the Lovingston Health Care Center recovering from streptococcus pneumonia and cannot attend today.

His progress and the recovery is coming along very well and we anticipate that he will be able to speak as has been his practice for the last 23 months consecutively to speak at every Nelson County Board of Supervisors meeting.

The Virginia Taxpayers Association has already compelled the Chairman of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors to state publicly, as she did not want to do, that there will be NO full body scanners in the Nelson County Courthouse. This was the correct decision because full body scanners involve permanent toxic x-rays into the persons body who goes through them, as well as low-kill toxic x-rays to the Deputy Sheriff who operates the full body scanners. In that enlarged main entrance there must be a desk where a female clerk is seated who will answer questions of everyone entering the newly enlarged entrance. If a citizen enters and wants to talk to the Division Head of the Nelson County School Board or wants to talk to another member of the School Board or to some Teacher in the School Board Office she will direct the citizen to that location. If the citizen wants to talk to the District Court Clerk of Nelson County or the Circuit Court Clerk of Nelson County or wants to talk to the Nelson County elected Assessor or wants to go to the Docket Book Room the female clerk will direct the citizen to these locations.

The Virginia Taxpayers Association agrees that there shall be metal scanners at the entrance of the District Court Room and the Circuit Court Room when those Courts are in session to prevent individuals from carrying revolvers into those Court Rooms in order to shoot the Judges. So that is why The Virginia Taxpayers Association today is demanding a Public Hearing. That concludes my statement.

Presentation – Robinson, Farmer & Cox, FY10 Financial Audit

Mr. Carter introduced Mr. David Foley lead Auditor for Robinson, Farmer, Cox who worked with Ms. McCann and staff from last May through this fall. He noted that Mr. Foley and staff had indicated that they were happy with the audit experience.

Mr. Foley then addressed the Board and thanked Ms. McCann, Mr. Carter, and staff for pulling together the audit information and also Ms. Mary Earhart for getting the proper adjustments made. He noted that new audit standards required more work on behalf of the County in terms of audit preparation. He noted that the report presented was a finalized draft and that they were in the process of finalizing it and would be releasing it next week. He noted no significant changes were anticipated and there would be no changes to the numbers.

Mr. Foley noted that page 1 was the independent auditor’s report that stated that the financial statements were the responsibility of management, were done to standards, and an unqualified opinion was issued, which was the cleanest opinion that they could give. He added that internal controls and compliance opinions were issued as clean, meaning there were no material weaknesses or deficiencies noted and no instances that required the issuance of a management letter this year.

Mr. Foley noted that Page 3 began the Management Discussion and Analysis (MDA), which was a narrative version of the financial highlights and he recommended that the Board read it to get a sense of the audit. He noted that Page 15 contained Exhibit 3 -Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds and he highlighted the General Fund Balance of $13.1 Million and a total Fund Balance of $18.3 Million. He added that Page 17 contained the Revenue and Expenditures and the Change in Fund Balance; noting that the General Fund had increased by $992,000 during FY 2010 and the total had increased by $1.1 Million during the year; which was a positive thing.

Mr. Foley then took questions from the Board as follows:

Ms. Brennan questioned the Principal Officers listed at the front of the audit and it was agreed that some of these needed to be corrected as of June 30, 2010.

Ms. Brennan noted that she was concerned about the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability fund showing as underfunded but that there was no comment on it from the auditors. Mr. Foley stated that the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 45 required that unfunded OPEB liability be reflected in the financial statements, but it did not affect the fund balance. He added that the County was not required to fund that liability and could operate on a pay as you go basis, but that again the County was required to show it if it was an unfunded liability. He stated that it was a small amount for both the County and Schools. Mr. Carter concurred and noted that because the amounts were so minimal, they have not been funded. Ms. McCann added that the liability had to do with providing health insurance benefits to retirees which contributed to a blended rate for the County.

Mr. Johnson suggested that the Board would need to look at the audit during the budget process and highlight certain pages at that point. Mr. Carter noted that certain things that were consolidated in the audit would be segregated for the Board during that process.

There being no further questions or comments, Mr. Foley concluded by thanking the Board and Staff.

VDOT Report

Mr. Randy Hamilton of VDOT gave the following report:

MAINTENANCE (For the next 30 days):

• Over the next month, VDOT will focus on the following:

1. Customer Service Requests

2. Brush Cutting

3. Machining Stabilized Roads as Weather Permits

• Recent or ongoing activities:

1. Working shoulders on Route 29 North of Lovingston.

2. Reviewed culvert at Route 151 and Route 760. It appears to be only pavement settlement.

We will continue to monitor and repair as weather permits.

3. Route 647 at Route 626 – Road closed during bridge deck repairs.

4. Reviewed Route 640 and placed stone. Road is scheduled to be machined after working

shoulders on Route 29.

CONSTRUCTION

0029-005-130,C501,B645 – Tye River Design-Build Bridge Rehabilitation (UPC 76552)

• North/Southbound traffic will use the southbound lanes of Route 29 during the bridge

rehabilitation. The work zone will be in place through late 2012.

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ISSUES

• Route 631 is being reviewed for curve warning signs.

• Route 617 – SCHOOL BUS STOP 800 FEET Signs to be installed for both directions of travel in

advance of the intersection of Silver Lane.

• Route 638 – Damaged STOP Sign was repaired.

Mr. Hamilton noted that traffic engineering issues were being routed through the call center and that Route 712 was now open.

Mr. Hale noted that on US 29 northbound, after passing Ridgecrest Baptist Church towards Woods Mill, there is a sign that says narrow bridge ahead and he stated that he thought that it would be better to have a warning sign or blinking yellow lights there ahead of the bridge. He noted that maybe the safety people should take a look at this because it is a steep and curved area.

Ms. Brennan noted that there had been culvert work done on Rt. 617 and at Rt. 623 at Myndus that the Board had not been advised of and that the Board was interested in knowing what was going on there. Ms. Brennan thanked them for the work they have done on the roads and for fixing the shoulders on Rt. 29.

Mr. Hamilton noted that it sounded like a pipe-jacking contract, where a metal sleeve was inserted into the existing pipe which caused fewer disturbances to traffic etc. Mr. Hale reiterated that the Board would like to know about these beforehand.

Mr. Harvey noted that at Rt. 760 and Rt. 151 the pavement settlement was getting worse. Mr. Hamilton noted he would pass this on to Mr. Austin and respond back.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Tye River Rd patching was great, but that on Rt. 654 from bridge to bridge it was wash-boarding badly. He noted the same was occurring on Greenfield Rd. off of Wingina Rd. He reiterated his concerns about ditching, and reported that not a great job was done on Greenfield Rd. Additionally, Mr. Johnson reported being in Gladstone the previous Sunday and at about 75-100 yards off of Rt.29 onto Rt. 60 at Gladstone Rd, there was ice and snow still on the road. He noted that the triangle at Allen’s Creek and Rt. 622 was also still under snow and ice.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that on Dickie Rd., Rt. 666, a creek runs parallel along the edge and the cones that were put up there were now down and the culvert there needed extending. He added that the landowner there has granted their permission for this. He noted that the creek had seeped over and washed out the road, but it was now fixed. Mr. Bruguiere then noted that railings were too close to the road on a lot of bridges in the county.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that Level Green Loop, off of Dickie Rd, needed to be ditched as there were no ditches there at all.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that it had come to his attention after his accident at the Food Lion intersection that drivers were given two green lights at the same time. He suggested that VDOT do away with the Food Lion green light (yield on green) and just have a leading green to eliminate the confusion. Mr. Hale clarified that if you are going Northbound or Southbound, you should have a green arrow only. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would have traffic look at this and respond back.

Mr. Bruguiere questioned the money found in VDOT and asked what happened now. Mr. Hamilton noted that the earmarked monies would stay in the County and that VDOT would be developing six year plans for ten (10) counties now and would be looking at secondary roads.

Mr. Johnson asked that when the County reduced the speed limit on unpaved roads, could the county get signage on these. Mr. Hamilton noted that he had sent Mr. Carter a response on this stating that VDOT did not post these since it was part of the law relating to unpaved roads. He added that VDOT could not do an advertisement on this, but could issue a press release to the media and that they were working on it. He added that Rural Rustic Roads by statute carried a 35 mph speed limit. Mr. Johnson requested that VDOT remove the 35 mph ahead sign on Greenfield Rd. off of Wingina Rd, since it was now all 35 mph.

V. New Business/ Unfinished Business

Request to Carryover FY10 Funds for Local VDH

This item was removed from the agenda due to the request being rescinded by the local Virginia Department of Health Director.

VI. Reports, Appointments, Directives, and Correspondence

Reports

1. County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Carter distributed and reviewed the following report:

A. Courthouse/Government Center Project: Construction meeting conducted on January 6,

2011. Project is proceeding well with no major issues. Courthouse Committee to meet with Wiley Wilson (R. Vaughan) on 1-13 to review current statuses of second floor connector (existing Courthouse), Health Department Renovation and space allocation plan (existing Courthouse) with committee/staff report to full Board on 1-27 or 2-8.

Mr. Carter noted that Blair was focusing on the internals of the building and that it was coming together with occupancy expected by the end of March. Mr. Carter noted that W&W was guarded about this given that having the furniture by then was a concern. He reported that there were no major issues at this time.

Mr. Carter noted that the Courthouse Committee was to meet Thursday morning. He noted that W&W had reviewed the Health Department floor plans with Social Services and the Health Department and now the Health Department says that their area is not large enough, which has thrown a snag into things. He reported that the connector estimates should be ready by the meeting and so should the space allocation plan and cost estimates.

B. Broadband Project: RFP(s) response proposals received (Network Operator – one; Service

Providers – four) and being reviewed by Advisory Committee sub-committee and County staff.

Meetings with owners of prospective tower site locations (Afton and Massies Mill) completed in

December 2010. Confirmation of final tower site locations and initiation of acquisition negotiations anticipated January-February 2011. Property owner approvals for stringing fiber optic cable on CVEC pole lines are approximately 75% and continue in process. Icon is working on all facets of the project. Reporting to NTWBTOP is ongoing and successful.

Mr. Carter noted his and the Advisory subcommittee’s concern that there were so few responses to the RFPs and that they may recommend going back out with another RFP for a Network Operator.

Mr. Carter noted that staff would be meeting with potential tower property owners along with ICON next week and that they were still finalizing a site for the Massies Mill tower. He reported that the right- of- way agreements were moving along and that Debbie Bowling, Dandridge Payne, and Mr. Harvey were working to get them.

C. 2012 General Reassessment: In process.

Mr. Carter noted that he had sent questions to the assessment staff and was waiting on a response. Mr. Carter noted that he would check to see if they were ready with the information for them to hold town meetings.

D. TRES/RRES Repair Project: Previously boarded windows at RRES replaced with minor follow up work pending completion. No additional status from school division at present.

Mr. Carter reported that they were deferring the balance of the work at the two schools until summer.

E. Blue Ridge Tunnel & Blue Ridge Railway Projects: (Tunnel): Grant application (Recreational Trails Program) for $100,000 in funding submitted to V A-DCR on 1-7-11. Funding proposal is to provide for trail easement acquisition. Appraisals for acquisition of trail easements completed, submitted to and certified by DCR appraiser with formal approval from DCR pending receipt. Once DCR approval is received, negotiations will ensue with respective property owners. Woolpert Inc. is working towards completion of environmental assessment and final project design. (Railway) - Contract from VDOT for 2010-11 TEP grant award received, executed and returned. VDOT contract execution is next step followed by initiation of planning, design and construction of train depot and weigh station renovation/restoration.

Mr. Carter noted that the plan was to use current funding for land acquisition on the East side and the new grant funds would be for the West side. He reported that the DCR process for certifying appraisals was being followed and the County was waiting for the go ahead to negotiate the East side Easement.

F. Radio Tower Project (PSIC): Project is in process with progress on all elements proceeding well. Construction of tower at Courthouse location anticipated within ensuing sixty days (or less). County staff working with WPOA and AT&T to address installation of one communications tower at Devils Knob in the Wintergreen community per advisement of BR Parkway and FCC staffs.

Mr. Carter noted that they had been advised that only one tower would be approved and to work with AT&T and Wintergreen to make that happen. He noted that there had been good cooperation so far and that staff was meeting with WPOA and AT&T to discuss tower height and attachments, etc. He noted that they may have to increase the tower’s height slightly but that they would not know until they had the details. He added that minor changes to the tower, once approved by the Board, could be approved administratively per the Ordinance and that Mr. Boger has confirmed that if the change in height was 10 feet or less, he could do it administratively. He also noted that there may be some cost savings there for the overall project.

Ms. Brennan questioned the ability to raise the tower height without additional public comment and Mr. Carter stated that it was not known for certain and that they should proceed as planned. He added that they were asking for an exception to the fall zone and if the tower was taller, this would have to move back to accommodate the new required fall zone. He noted that these details would be worked out the following day at the meeting and that he did not want to jeopardize the tower’s approval by the Board.

G. Regional Artisan Trail Project: In process.

Mr. Carter noted that more was happening with the Artisan Trail and that Albemarle was amending its Zoning Ordinance to allow for ease of application for these folks. He noted that meetings were upcoming, solicitations for businesses to become active, and a website has been established to garner interest.

H. Added: Budget Projections

Mr. Carter reported that staff was working on revenue projections and was monitoring the state budget information that was coming out. He noted that staff was just starting the process and that they were 4-6 weeks out from seeing a draft budget. Mr. Carter reported that tax collections were coming in okay per Ms. McCann and that Paid EMS revenue had ramped back down. He noted that Sales Tax revenue projected out higher than budgeted and that Meals and Lodging revenues would hit or exceed the numbers budgeted.

Mr. Bruguiere asked if it was possible to look at businesses and know how much sales tax was coming in and Mr. Carter noted that this information comes in to the Commissioner of Revenue and she should be able to pull this information out.

2. Board Reports

Ms. Brennan reported the following:

1. Attendance of TMDL meetings have continued. She reported that she was going to Richmond to a meeting on implementation. She also noted that the State revised WIP was accepted by EPA. Mr. Carter added that this was not as imposing as once thought and that allocations would be given and then they would have to come up with an implementation plan. He noted that they were not sure how the allocations would be done.

2. Reported there would be a meeting with DEQ on the Rockfish River TMDL.

3. Attended Piedmont Sustainable Woods meeting overseen by the PDC. She noted that there was a huge market for unusual wood for homebuilders such as in Albemarle County. She noted that the group was being rejuvenated and that there was a lot going on there.

4. Did not attend the PDC meeting and had no report.

5. Attended the Interagency Council meeting where JAUNT rides to the food pantry were promoted.

6. Park and Ride – need one in South District near Gladstone etc. Mr. Johnson noted that there were locations in Colleen and at the Old Middle School.

7. Martha Jefferson Hospital was doing another program to help with prescription drugs and the United Way was providing for taxes being done for free if the client made under $49,000.

Mr. Harvey had no report.

Mr. Hale reported that at the NCSA meeting, the Engineer reported that it was possible that they could add a line to the sewage treatment plant to take care of copper and zinc levels that they were currently exceeding. He reported that this meant that the proposed effluent line to the Tye River was off the table at this time. He noted that the new method under consideration was now being done in three (3) communities with success and the Board directed that it be investigated fully before implementation. He added that the search for the James River Spiny Muscle would be pursued.

Mr. Bruguiere reported that the Agri-tourism workshop was cancelled, and was to be put on by the EDA, Extension, SBVA, and TJPED. He noted that it would now be held on March 14^th. He reported that forty-nine (49) people had signed up to participate and that it tied in with the Artisans Trail and would be held at the Nelson Center. He added that businesses should see Maureen Kelley to sign up on the Artisan Trail website and that there was a small fee.

Mr. Johnson reported the following:

1. The Social Services Board had a person to attend their last meeting to make public comment.

2. The Schools were winning Championships and awards, including the Director of Information Technology.

Appointments

Ms. McGarry noted that there were no appointments to be made currently and that there were still vacancies on the JAUNT Board and the JABA Council on Aging that were being advertised. Ms. Brennan requested that information specific to these to Boards be made available to her for distribution at the Interagency Council meeting. Ms. McGarry then noted that she would be updating and distributing the 2011 catalog of appointments to the Board.

Correspondence

It was noted that a letter from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was distributed noting a public meeting to be held on the water quality in the Rockfish River watershed on January 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm at Rockfish Elementary School in Afton. Members and staff briefly discussed the attendance of this meeting and no action was taken.

Directives

Mr. Bruguiere:

Mr. Bruguiere commented on the number of holidays observed by the County and stated that he thought the County ought to curtail taking off for holidays in January. Mr. Carter noted that all of the holidays observed by the County were prescribed State Holidays in the Code of Virginia. He noted that this was done sometime in the past to streamline things and to not have to bring the holiday schedule to the Board. Members briefly discussed looking at this during the budget deliberations and Mr. Johnson noted that bank closures can affect the operations of certain offices such as the Treasurer’s Office.

Mr. Johnson:

Mr. Johnson reported that there would be a meeting in Gladstone on the 16th for Fire and Rescue. He noted that a meeting had been held on December 29th and it had been decided to go ahead with the Community meeting.

Mr. Harvey:

Mr. Harvey noted that all had stepped up to the plate in Gladstone in January in providing rescue services there. Members and staff briefly discussed the meaning of “cancelled enroute” from the statistical reports provided by the Emergency Services Department. Mr. Carter noted that the report may not reflect dropped calls and Mr. Harvey noted that they were still having calls not answered. Mr. Carter confirmed that this information was being provided at the monthly EMS Council meetings.

Ms. Brennan:

1. Ms. Brennan inquired about the Historical Marker to be placed in Norwood and if there would be a ceremony for this. Mr. Carter noted he would have to check and report back.

2. Ms. Brennan inquired about the meeting staff had with Roland Kooch of Davenport and Mr. Carter reported that Mr. Kooch had completed an update of the budget model but that staff was still providing him with additional information to make it more accurate. He noted that at this point the model was not that insightful and was not an accurate representation and showed no real trends to be shared. Mr. Carter noted that staff could report on the fund balance and cash flow etc. and that the school funding formula that was put in place in 2000 had worked and was no longer needed. He added that after ten years, the debt reduction had caught up and that some of the set-asides did not need to continue which had resulted in some amount of unobligated funds in the capital fund. The Board and staff briefly discussed the retirement of Service Authority debt in 2016 and Ms. Brennan noted that she would like to see a presentation by Davenport at some point.

3. Ms. Brennan inquired as to whether or not Mr. Bruguiere had contacted Watkins Abbitt about dog legislation. Mr. Bruguiere noted that he had not.

4. Ms. Brennan asked if the Board should send a letter to Wintergreen Rescue staff thanking them for helping rescue agencies with the new laptop computers and Mr. Carter noted that County staff (Ray and Jaime) had actually been the most helpful. There was no consensus from the Board to take any action.

5. Ms. Brennan inquired as to the status of the County doing fuel purchasing with VACO and Mr. Carter noted that he had a report ready on this and just needed to send it out. He noted that there was no advantage to the county doing this because the County did not have any fuel tanks. He added that there may be two service stations in the county that participated in the program. He added that the County currently used Tiger Fuel and that he would look to see if they were being competitive.

6. Ms. Brennan inquired as to the status of doing audits for EMS agencies and it was clarified that this had been discussed as audits for all agencies that were County funded. Mr. Carter noted that the County would need a statement of revenue and expenditures and substantiation of these. The Board and staff discussed the possibility that the County could pay some of their bills directly and get better rates; however this would be a considerable burden on county staff to keep up with. It was agreed that some oversight of these budgets was needed. Members indicated that they wanted to make sure that County funds were spent where they were supposed to be. It was briefly discussed that there were differences in bookkeeping between agencies and that something needed to be set up so that they were all on the same page. Members agreed that there was a benefit to doing this and agreed by consensus to work on this.

Mr. Carter indicated that the level of cooperation with this was questionable as was whether or not the Board would be able to stick with it. He recommended looking at their budget requests and submissions and solidifying what the Board wanted to get out of doing this.

7. Ms. Brennan inquired about the status of creating a Budget Committee and she suggested looking at other counties on this.

8. Ms Brennan inquired as to the Board having a meeting on the Festy with Mr. Crandall and staff and the consensus of the Board was that it could be handled at the District Supervisor level and need not involve the Board as a whole.

9. Ms. Brennan inquired as to the Board working on coyotes and traps and the Board’s consensus was to not do anything at the Board level. Ms. Brennan reiterated her concern regarding dogs getting caught in coyote traps.

Introduced: Closed Session

Mr. Hale indicated to the Board the need to go into closed session to discuss a personnel matter and the Chair indicated his approval. Mr. Hale then moved to go into closed session to discuss a personnel issue as provided for by the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 (A) (1) and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and convene in closed session.

Supervisors conducted the closed session and upon its conclusion, Mr. Hale moved to come out of closed session and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and reconvene in open session.

Immediately upon reconvening in open session, Mr. Hale moved to certify that in the closed session just concluded, nothing was either discussed or considered except public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and which were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened. Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and certify the closed session.

VII. Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session

At 5:40 pm, Mr. Harvey moved to recess until 7:00 pm and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting was adjourned.

EVENING SESSION

7:00 P.M. – NELSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE

I. Call to Order

Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

II. Public Hearings & Presentations

A. Class III Communication Tower with exceptions – County of Nelson – Wintergreen Permit # 2010-007

Consideration of an application by the County of Nelson for a Class III Communication Tower Permit, pursuant to Sections 6-1-16 and 20-B of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance with exceptions to 20-7-2a, Distance to property line, 20-7-2c, Maximum tower height, 20-7-4c, Fencing, 20-8-3, Proximity to an existing tower, 20-7-2d, Within view shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway and a waiver to 20-7-5k, Landscaping, to construct a 94 foot communication tower to be located on Fern Circle, Wintergreen Resort, Virginia, Tax Map # 11-F-Open. Property is zoned Residential Planned Community. (R2011-05)

Mr. Boger noted the location of the proposed tower on a map, indicating it would be near the existing Devil’s Knob tower. He reported that there had been a reduction in the tower height due to its proximity to an adjoining home being in the original fall zone. He noted that the Planning Commission had waived the requirement for security fencing and landscaping and that the County was requesting the following exceptions:

1. Section 20-7-2a, an exception to the required fall area of the tower from 112.5 feet to approximately

90 feet. The proposed tower will be located to minimum distance equal to the total tower height from

any residential structure.

2. Section 20-7-2c, Maximum height on mountain ridge or peak. The tower will be 90 feet high instead

of the required 35.

3. 20-8-3, Proximity to an Existing Tower. The tower will not have the required 2 miles separation from

existing towers Class II or Class III towers. Other towers within the 2 mile separation neither have the

required height or location to provide the connectivity into the County’s communication network or

the coverage required for mobile communication.

4. Section 20-7-2d, View shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Tower will be located in the 1 mile view

shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Mr. Boger noted that the Blue Ridge Parkway had been contacted and they indicated that a lattice tower was acceptable to them. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the requested exceptions.

Mr. Johnson then opened the public hearing, and there being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Bruguiere then moved to approve resolution R2011-05, A Resolution Approving a Communication Tower Permit, Class III, #2010-007 for Nelson County on Property Identified As Tax Map #11-F-Open Located At The End of Fern Circle, Wintergreen Resort and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.

Ms. Brennan expressed her disappointment that there would be one taller tower rather than two smaller ones and Mr. Harvey indicated that this was not written in stone yet. Ms. Rorrer, representing the applicant noted that AT&T may require a little higher tower and it may have to be moved back from the adjoining house, but that one larger tower seemed to be the desire of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

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 R2011-05

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMMUNICATION TOWER PERMIT, CLASS III, # 2010-007 FOR NELSON COUNTY ON PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP # 11-F-OPEN LOCATED AT THE END OF FERN CIRCLE, WINTERGREEN RESORT.

WHEREAS, on January 11, 2011, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the application of Nelson County for a Class III Communication Tower Permit to erect a new 90 foot) lattice communication tower (86 ft. tower with a 4 ft lighting rod) with accessory structure(s).

WHEREAS, On December 15, 2010, the Nelson County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the permit application and the commission voted 5-0 to waive the following requirements:

Section 20-7-4c, Fencing
Section 20-7-5j, Security Fencing;

Section 20-7-5k, Landscaping

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that a Special Exception be granted to the following Sections of Article 20, Communication Tower Ordinance:

Section 20-7-2a, an exception to the required fall area of the tower from 112.5 feet to approximately 90 feet. The proposed tower will be located to minimum distance equal to the total tower height from any residential structure.
Section 20-7-2c, Maximum height on mountain ridge or peak. The tower will be 90 feet high instead of the required 35.

20-8-3, Proximity to an Existing Tower. The tower will not have the required 2 miles separation from existing towers Class II or Class III towers. Other towers within the 2 mile separation neither have the required height or location to provide the connectivity into the County’s communication network or the coverage required for mobile communication
Section 20-7-2d, View shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Tower will be located in the 1 mile view shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors considered the County’s staff report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the comments made by citizens during the public hearing;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors as follows:

The Nelson County Board of Supervisors approves a Class III Communication Tower # 2010-007 and grants a Special Exception to Appendix A, Zoning, Article 20, Communication Tower Ordinance, Sections 20-7-2a, 207-2c, 20-8-3, and 20-7-2d.

B. Special Use Permit # 2010-007 – John Washburn

Consideration of a site plan submitted by John Washburn, represented by James Gates, pursuant to Article 4, Section 4-1-3a and 4-1-2a of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to build a farm winery to produce hard apple cider, consisting of an enclosed apple juicing processing area, cider pub restaurant, gift shop, and 2 apartments. Property is located on Rockfish Valley Highway, Nellysford, Virginia, Tax Map # 21-9-1 & 1A, and zoned Agricultural. (R2011-06)

Mr. Boger noted that the Special Use Permit was for the Cidery, the mill room with a gift shop, and apartments. He showed the project site on the tax map and noted the adjoining land zoning designations. He reported that the Planning Commission had discussed the Comprehensive Plan, had concluded that the requested use would comply with it, and recommended its approval.

He then noted the location of the Ellis property on the tax map and noted its proximity to the project as being 140 ft. from the adjoining property line. Mr. Gates, representing the applicant, noted that the Ellis property was on the south side of the slope and sloped off to the south.

Mr. Bruguiere questioned whether or not there was space to build a residence on the Ellis property and Mr. Boger noted there was, but it would be close because of the flood plain, and the site might have to be elevated. He added that at least half of the property was in the flood plain.

Mr. Johnson then opened the public hearing and the following person was recognized:

1. Jim Gates, representing the applicant, John Washburn

Mr. Gates briefly reviewed the proposed site plan. He then noted that the applicant’s family, the Washburns, and the Cider maker’s family, the Shanks, were moving here from New Zealand and would occupy the apartments. He stated that the Cidery would be visible from the restaurant but not open to the public. He then noted that the Cidery was considered a farm winery by Zoning regulations and ABC laws and that they could establish this by right. The square footage of the proposed buildings was noted and he stated that they would be using apples exclusively from Nelson County, possibly over 200,000 bushels per year. Mr. Gates stated that Mr. Shanks had started ciderys in various other locations, and that he was not new to the business. He noted that they were asking for the exceptions for the restaurant and gift shop in order to build the brand of “bold rock”. He explained that it fit within the current zoning because it was agricultural and used apples. He added that the neighbor, Peter Agelasto, was in favor of the project and that the Cidery had agreed to sponsor the Rockfish Valley Foundation (RVF) and build trails that connected to the existing trails there. Additionally, the Cidery would be on the Brew Ridge Trail and would help tourism and apple growers in the county.

In response to questions, Mr. Gates noted that they would be selling bottles of cider in the same format as the breweries in the county.

Ms. Brennan referred to the letter from adjoining property owner, Ms. Ellis, and inquired as to the impact the project would have on her property and if she would be able to see the Cidery from her property. In response, Mr. Gates stated that they have pledged to be good neighbors and in general, the Cidery property sloped down to her property. He added that there were trees there now and that they would be happy to work with her any way they could. He added that he was not sure where her house site would be, but that all lighting associated with the project would be down lighting, with no lights shining down into the valley below. He noted additionally, that the lighting on the river side would be minimized.

Ms. Brennan noted having spoken to Ms. Ellis, who was concerned about the value of her property and its peacefulness, but was not necessarily opposed to the project. Mr. Gates noted that the truck or motorcycle noise would be no more than as if they were driving down Rt. 151 past her house site. He noted that they may have outdoor festivals, but these would be more family oriented in nature and that they were looking to be good neighbors.

There being no further questions, discussion, or persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Ms. Brennan then moved to approve resolution R2011-06, A Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit #2010-007 For James Gates and John Washburn and Mr. Hale 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 R2011-06

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT # 2010-007 FOR

JAMES GATES AND JOHN WASHBURN

WHEREAS, on January 11, 2011, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the application of James Gates and John Washburn for a Special Use Permit to construct a farm winery to produce hard apple cider, a restaurant and a gift shop. The proposed development will be constructed on a site located on Rockfish Valley Highway across from Horizons Village Road south of Nellysford. The property is owned by Mr. John W. Washburn, Jr. and is identified as Tax Map #21-9, parcels 1A and 1B.

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors considered the County’s staff report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the comments made by citizens during the public hearing;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors as follows:

The Nelson County Board of Supervisors approves Special Use Permit #2010-007 for

James Gates and John Washburn for a Special Use Permit to construct a farm winery to produce hard apple cider, a restaurant and a gift shop on property owned by Mr. John Washburn located on Rockfish Valley Highway and identified as Tax Map #21-9, parcels 1A and 1B.

C. Amendment to the Code of Nelson County, Appendix A Zoning, Article 2 -Definition of Commercial Composting,

Article 2, Definitions to add definition of Commercial Composting, Article 4, Agricultural District, A-1, Section 4-1-42a to add Commercial Composting as a use permitted by Special Use Permit. Article 9, Industrial District, M-2, Section 9-1-12a to add Commercial Composting as a use permitted by Special Use Permit. (O2011-01)

Mr. Boger noted that this proposed ordinance was a follow up action to amend the county code to define commercial composting. He reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval.

Mr. Boger noted the following additions to the Zoning Ordinance as noted in the proposed Ordinance:

That Article 2, “Definitions” be, and the same hereby is amended to include the following definition:

Composting, Commercial: The process by which organic wastes are combined in proper ratios to which might be added bulking agents, such as wood chips, to provide air space and by using controlled temperature, moisture, and oxygen, to achieve accelerated decomposition, thereby producing a stable humus material. “Organic waste” includes, but is not limited to, yard trimmings, agricultural by-products, food wastes, and manures.

That Article 4, Agricultural District, A-1 §4-1-a, “Uses- Permitted by Special Use Permit only”, Subsection 4-1-42a be, and the same hereby is amended to add the following use:

4-1-42a Composting, Commercial

That Article 9, Industrial District, M-2, §9-1-a, “Uses-Permitted by Special Use Permit only”, Subsection 9-1-12a be, and the same hereby is amended to add the following use:

9-1-12a Composting, Commercial

Mr. Johnson then opened the public hearing and the following person was recognized:

1. Eric Walter, Black Bear Composting Company

Mr. Walter noted that he wanted to share a little about composting with the Board. He noted that commercial composting was not the same as backyard composting and was not a garbage dump. He noted that it was a complex process of combining biodegradable products which was carefully regulated and permitted by DEQ, and was subject to routine inspections. He noted there were several benefits such as having a cost effective outlet to recycle organic wastes, having a local facility that would reduce transportation costs, and it was complimentary to agri-tourism in the county and to preserving the county’s natural beauty. He added that there was also the potential for job creation.

In response to questions about how he would market his product, Mr. Walter noted that he planned to sell in bulk to landscapers, nurseries, and agricultural operations. He noted that in terms of regulation, DEQ required a level 3 permit and was not the same as the permitting of biosolids.

Mr. Walter reported that he had two (2) locations identified at this point but was talking to neighbors to gauge their support, prior to having to apply for a Special Use Permit for the operation. He noted that he wanted a large property with lots of buffer so that he would be a good neighbor.

Mr. Hale inquired if it was conceivable that this type of facility could work within the county’s solid waste stream and whether or not a compostable waste container could be delivered to his facility. Mr. Walter indicated that it could and he had spoken with Susan McSwain a little bit, and he saw a great synergy there; noting that he would love to partner with the county and/or schools. He further noted that paper could be composted even though the best reuse for unsoiled paper was new paper; but that soiled paper, newspaper, and cardboard were a great source of carbon.

There being no other persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Harvey then questioned how this use compared with vegetative waste recycling where it was against the law to take anything from one property to another. Mr. Boger noted that Mr. Payne, the County Attorney, had determined it was different. Mr. Walter added that he had spoken with DEQ and could not find out anything about it being illegal to transport vegetative waste.

Mr. Harvey supposed that the grinding of vegetative waste and the emissions of the grinder was the issue, but that vegetative waste could not be hauled more than 1 mile to another piece of property if it belonged to someone else.

Mr. Hale stated that there was a feeling that there was a definition of vegetative, that emanated from vegetative waste from the clearing and grubbing of construction sites. Mr. Harvey questioned the difference on this indicating he wanted the answers.

Mr. Hale inquired of Mr. Walter if he could use dump truck loads of stumps and dirt in his operation. Mr. Walter noted that he could, but that he would want it ground up elsewhere because of where the property would be. He noted that he did not want this to be a sticking point in amending the ordinance and suggested that this could be hammered out during the SUP permitting process.

Mr. Carter stated that the one business could benefit the other and that in vegetative waste recycling the waste was ground up, but in composting it was broken down organically through biodegradation. He noted that in composting a small chipper may be used, but that it was part of the business and was not as involved, being similar but not exactly the same. He then read the definition of vegetative waste as stated in section 10-1-t of the Solid Waste Ordinance as follows: Vegetative rubbish means plant materials generated by yard and lawn care or land clearing activities and includes, but is not limited to, leaves, grass trimming, brush, shrub and tree limbs, and stumps.

Mr. Bruguiere then inquired as to why they would not make it a by-right use in an Industrial Zone, and Mr. Boger noted that the Board may want to impose restrictions on the use, which it could not do if it were a by-right use.

Following discussion, Mr. Hale moved to approve Ordinance O2011-01 An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Appendix A. Article 2 Definitions, Article 4, Agricultural District, A-1 Section 4-1-a, Subsection 4-1-42a; Article 9, Industrial District, M-2, Section 9-1-1A Subsection 9-1-12A of the Code of the County of Nelson, 1989, Generally relating to Zoning. Ms. Brennan 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 Ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE O2011-01

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT

APPENDIX A, ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 4, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, A-1 §4-1-a, SUBSECTION 4-1-42a; Article 9, Industrial District, M-2, §9-1-1A SUBSECTION 9-1-12A OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF

NELSON, 1989, GENERALLY RELATING TO ZONING

WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good planning and zoning practice requires revision of the Zoning Ordinance; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NELSON:

That Article 2, “Definitions” be, and the same hereby is amended to include the following definition:

That Article 4, Agricultural District, A-1 §4-1-a, “Uses- Permitted by Special Use Permit only”, Subsection 4-1-42a be, and the same hereby is amended to add the following use:

4-1-42a Composting, Commercial

That Article 9, Industrial District, M-2, §9-1-a, “Uses-Permitted by Special Use Permit only”, Subsection 9-1-12a be, and the same hereby is amended to add the following use:

9-1-12a Composting, Commercial

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance becomes effective upon adoption.

III. Other Business

A. Special Use Permit #2010-004 – Adam H. & Kathryn E. Knott (R2010-83 Approval, R2010-84 Denial) Withdrawn By Applicants

Mr. Johnson reiterated that this Special Use Permit application had been withdrawn by the applicants.

IV. Public Comments

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

V. Adjournment

At 7:47 pm, Mr. Harvey moved to adjourn and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting adjourned.

February 24, 2011 Meeting Agenda

admin — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:22:58 +0000

AGENDA

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

February 24, 2011

THE REGULAR MEETING CONVENES AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROOM, SECOND FLOOR, COURTHOUSE, LOVINGSTON

I. Call to Order

A. Moment of Silence

B. Pledge of Allegiance

II. New/Unfinished Business

A. Resolution – Scenic By-Way Designation (Routes 617 and 800) R2011-12

B. Funding Request – Nelson County High School (Drama Team)

C. Annual Calendar (Discussion)

D. TJPDC – FY 2012 Rural Transportation Planning Work Program (Review)

E. Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget (Status & Next Steps)

F. Other (As May Be Presented)

III. Public Comments

IV. Adjournment

THE MEETING OF THE NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL BE HELD IN THE CIRCUIT COURTROOM ON A BY REQUEST BASIS IF NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE HANDICAPPED

Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes-October 28, 2010

admin — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:55:06 +0000

Virginia:

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

Present:

Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor – Vice Chair

Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor

Allen M. Hale, East 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

Absent: Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor – Chair

I. Call to Order

In Ms. Brennan’s absence, Mr. Johnson, acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM with four (4) Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

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

Mr. Johnson inquired as to there being any changes to the agenda and there were none.

II. Consent Agenda

Mr. Johnson noted the items for consideration on the Consent Agenda and there being no questions or discussion, Mr. Bruguiere moved to approve the Consent Agenda and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.

Mr. Carter briefly noted that staff had added a second vehicle to the resolution, to be transferred to the school system at their request, which was not included in the Board’s packet. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:

Resolution –R2010-70 Support for Farm-to-School Week (Nov. 8-12)

RESOLUTION-R2010-70

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

SUPPORT FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF AND PARTICIPATION IN VIRGINIA FARM- TO -SCHOOL WEEK IN NELSON COUNTY SCHOOLS

(NOVEMBER 8-12, 2010)

WHEREAS, In partnership with the Virginia Department of Education and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, The Virginia Farm-to-School Program is an initiative seeking to bring nutritious fresh food from local farms to schools including K-12, colleges, and universities; and

WHEREAS, The Farm-to-School Program in Virginia will promote the expenditure of funds for produce in Virginia and will provide opportunities for schools, distributors, and growers to work together to increase the volume of locally grown products served in school cafeterias and dining halls; and

WHEREAS, The 2010 Virginia General Assembly unanimously passed House Joint Resolution 95 (HJ95) establishing November 8-12, 2010 as Virginia Farm-to-School week;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that said Board supports and encourages the participation of Nelson County Schools in the observance of Virginia Farm-to-School week, November 8-12, 2010.

Resolution-R2010 –71 Transfer of County Vehicle to NCSB

RESOLUTION-R2010-71

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

TRANSFER OF COUNTY VEHICLES TO THE NELSON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the following vehicles be transferred to the Nelson County School Board upon adoption of this resolution:

Vehicle Make/Model Last 4 Digits of VIN Number

1994 Chevrolet Truck 9079

2002 Dodge Intrepid 8814

III. New/Unfinished Business

Easement Agreement, Devil’s Knob Communications Tower

Mr. Carter briefed the Board on the draft agreement and noted that staff and Mr. Harvey had been working with Phil Payne and WPOA’s attorney on completing it.

Mr. Carter then gave some background information, noting that in 1993, the County worked with WPOA to build a tower at the site and that recently in working with the PSIC grant, the County needed to place its equipment on a stronger tower. He then noted that the lease agreement with the NCSA was found to be erroneous and that WPOA was the owner of the site. The County then began negotiating with them to establish the new tower and has worked the deal so that WPOA and the County could each have a new tower in the same area. He then recommended that the Board endorse authorizing him to sign off on the agreement as the County was ready to move forward on the PSIC grant project and the agreement was a key piece. He noted that WPOA had already signed off on it and it was in the Board’s court.

Mr. Harvey added that a lattice tower instead of a monopole had been approved, that AT&T would turn over their tower to WPOA, and that the agreement allowed for co-location on each other’s towers. He added that the towers were thirty (30) feet apart from each other and less than forty (40) feet from the NTelos tower, but that all of the towers were pointing in different directions so they would not interfere with each other. It was then noted that the lease amount was $1.00.

There being no further questions or discussion, Mr. Harvey moved that the Board accept the lease with WPOA and give staff the authority to sign and execute the document. Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

IV. Correspondence

2012 Revenue Sharing, VDOT

Mr. Carter briefed the Board on VDOT’s Revenue Sharing Program. He noted that they had $12 million in funds and were soliciting interest in program participation. He noted that interest in the program helps them with going back to the General Assembly to get their fund allocation back up to $50 million. He noted that the program has a 50% local match requirement and that the County has never done this before and it would be unlikely that its projects would get funded. He noted that this was submitted more for informational purposes to gauge the Board’s interest.

Following Mr. Carter’s comments, the Board agreed by consensus that they were not interested in the county participating in the program.

Introduced: EMS Council Generator Request for Montebello Fire and Rescue

Mr. Carter noted that the EMS Council, on behalf of Montebello Fire and Rescue, was seeking funding to replace an existing generator that has mechanical problems and is not repairable. He noted that the County has typically provided funding for these. He added that cost estimates have been provided from Mountain Electric for various KW powered generators. In conclusion, Mr. Carter noted that staff could follow up, upon the Board’s authorization, to get quotes to be brought back at the November meeting.

It was noted that the council would like to get approval as soon as possible.

Mr. Bruguiere questioned which generator was requested and Mr. Carter noted that Ray had spoken to Eddie Embrey who said a 20 KW generator was needed; but that he could confirm this with the Montebello people to be sure.

Mr. Johnson supposed that the cost was probably $9,000, with Mr. Carter confirming and noting that staff could get other pricing.

Mr. Harvey reiterated that the purchase needed to be made right away and Mr. Carter suggested that staff could use contingency funds for the purchase if so authorized by the Board.

Mr. Harvey then moved to approve the purchase of a 20 KW generator for Montebello Fire and Rescue and to give staff the authority to spend up to $9,500 to get it done as soon as possible and Mr. Hale seconded the motion.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that General Electric has an extended warranty and was worth looking at. He added that he would not buy anything made by Briggs and Stratton. Mr. Harvey added that the other generator that is swapped out was to come back to the county even though he understands that they do not make the head gasket for it anymore.

There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Introduced: Resolution in Support of CPA Practice and VDOT Entrance Requirements

Mr. Carter noted that a resolution had been prepared late that afternoon to help a CPA practice in the Nellysford area who was working with VDOT on their access management regulations; specifically the separation requirement for entrances and the sight distance requirements. He noted that the entrance in question still had a forty (40) ft sight distance deficiency and that VDOT would be meeting with Julia Rogers, the business owner, next week and but had indicated that they thought it could be overcome. He added that a request had been made for the Board’s endorsement and he noted what the resolution said.

Mr. Harvey added that the property was already zoned for business, was beside the old School House and the owner has been working with VDOT on these issues. He noted that Clayton Thomas of VDOT was working with him and the owner and has said that as long as there is an existing entrance and it is not creating any more traffic, it is a write off. He noted that the problem with sight distance was created by two (2) mailboxes that could be moved, one of them being the business owner’s. He added that the Pheasant Run entrance was counted as commercial because it is a subdivision; however the business would not create ten (10) cars per day and it was not open on weekends. The customers would be scheduled thirty (30) minutes to an hour apart. He noted that Sharon White and Clayton Thomas of VDOT have been wonderful to work with and the Board needed to thank them. In conclusion, he noted that Clayton Thomas thins that a loosening of these regulations will be coming down.

On a side note, Mr. Harvey reported that the M. Wolf entrance had been approved to be kept as is.

Mr. Hale then moved to approve resolution R2010-72 In Support of Establishing Certified Public Accounting Business at 2471 Rockfish Valley Highway (Tax Parcel 21 A 90) and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION – R2010–72

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

IN SUPPORT OF ESTABLISHING CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING

BUSINESS AT 2471 ROCKFISH VALLEY HIGHWAY

(TAX PARCEL 21 A 90)

WHEREAS, the Nelson County Comprehensive Plan establishes an economic development goal to “enhance the quality of life for Nelson County residents by maintaining and encouraging a diverse and vibrant local economy in designated development areas compatible with the county’s size and rural character” and, includes within this stated goal a principle to “encourage a diverse mix of business and industry”; and

WHEREAS, the County’s Comprehensive Plan has designated development areas, including a Neighborhood Mixed Use Development Model which identifies the Nellysford area of the County as a basis for this model, and, includes as an appropriate land use for this model, “a variety of commercial establishments including professional offices”; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Julia Rogers, CPA, CVA, is endeavoring to establish a professional accounting practice in the Nellysford community at 2471 Rockfish Valley Highway (Tax Parcel 21 A 90); a location that has been utilized for commercial endeavors from 1995 to 2009-10; and

WHEREAS, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its support for the business and is concerned that the regulations of the Virginia Department of Transportation may preclude the establishment of the business at the proposed location.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that said Board hereby requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation facilitate the approvals necessary to enable Ms. Rogers to establish her business at 2471 Rockfish Valley Highways, including, as may be required, exception(s) to Department regulations that would prevent the business from being established at the proposed location.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board recognizes and is most appreciative of the assistance and cooperation Department staff have provided to date to Ms. Rogers and asks, as stated herein, that this assistance continue through to the approvals needed from the Department for Ms. Rogers to open her business.

V. Public Comments

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

Introduced: Planning Commission Update

Mr. Hale noted that at the Planning Commission meeting the previous night, the Planning Commission recommended Board approval of the SUP for the Knotts in Glass Hollow. He added that the SUP was approved for one (1) year, was restrictive to twenty (20) days and twenty (20) students, and required reporting by the applicants. He noted that they had also removed the inclusion of a pavilion from the application. He noted that no activity would happen until spring and he hoped the neighbors would keep an open mind. In conclusion he noted that there would be a public hearing at the next Board meeting and they would hear more about it.

Introduced: Update on Mountain View Brewery Location

Mr. Carter noted having met with Steve Crandall that week who expressed similar concerns about locating the business expansion elsewhere; noting that there were similar issues in doing so. Mr. Carter reported that staff mostly just gathered information and encouraged him to stay in the county. He added that staff was looking at ways to help him finance the pretreatment costs. He reported that Mr. Crandall indicated that he had not made a decision yet but that construction would likely be deferred until spring.

In response to questions, Mr. Carter stated that he was not sure if Mr. Crandall was still looking at the possible use of a lagoon, but that he is looking at accommodating growth up to ten (10) years out. In conclusion he noted that pretreatment of the effluent would cost $220,000 in first 3 years of production and up to a total of $660,000 through year ten (10).

VI. Adjournment

At 7:24 pm, Mr. Bruguiere moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. It was noted that the next meeting would be held on November 16^th at 2pm and was the third Tuesday of the month, and not the second. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting adjourned.

Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes-October 12, 2010

admin — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:53:40 +0000

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 2:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:

Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor

Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor – Chair

Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor

Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor – Vice Chair

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

Roger L. Collins, School Division Superintendent

Debra K. McCann, Director of Finance and Human Resources

Jean Payne, Commissioner of Revenue

Erma D. Harris, Treasurer

Absent: None

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 2:10 pm with four (4) Supervisors present to establish a quorum. Mr. Bruguiere joined the meeting at 2:12 pm.

Moment of Silence
Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance

II. Consent Agenda

Ms. Brennan polled the Board for any changes to the agenda or the consent agenda and Mr. Hale suggested that R2010-66 be changed to read that some members were attending the VACo conference. The Board agreed by consensus with this suggestion and Ms. Brennan then gave an overview of the items on the consent agenda.

Following the overview, Mr. Johnson moved to approve the consent agenda (as amended) and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. Mr. Hale then recommended that the Minutes for Approval be considered separately since neither he nor Mr. Bruguiere were present for one of the meetings. Mr. Johnson then amended his motion to approve the consent agenda less the minutes for approval, which Mr. Hale seconded. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:

Resolution – R2010 -63 Minutes for Approval – Considered Separately

Resolution – R2010 -64 COR Refunds

RESOLUTION-R2010-64

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE REFUNDS

Amount Category Payee

$ 8.85 2010 Personal Property Tax Nelson County Volunteer Fireman’s Association

Lovingston Volunteer Fire Dept.

P.O. Box 6

Lovingston, VA 22949

$ 90.35 2010 Personal Property Tax Cheryl Borgman

92 Bull Pine Rd.

Afton, VA 22920

Resolution – R2010 -65 FY10-11 Budget Amendment

Resolution – R2010 -66 November Meeting Date Change

RESOLUTION-R2010-66

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

RESCHEDULING OF FIRST NOVEMBER 2010 REGULAR MEETING

WHEREAS, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors hereby establishes that alternate dates for the Board’s regular monthly meeting on November 9, 2010 is necessary due to the attendance of some members of said governing body at the annual conference of the Virginia Association of Counties on November 7-9, 2010;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors pursuant to §15.2-1416 (Regular meetings) of the Code of Virginia that the regular meeting of the Board on November 9, 2010 be and hereby is rescheduled to November 16, 2010 with the place and time(s) of said meeting to continue to be as established at the Board’s annual meeting in January 2010;

BE IT LASTLY RESOLVED, that the regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors after the regular meeting on January 11, 2011 shall be in accordance with the schedule of regular monthly meetings established by the Board at its annual meeting in January 2011, unless otherwise approved, and, that, the County Administrator shall post notice of the rescheduling of the Board’s November 9, 2010 regular meeting in accordance with the requirements of §15.2-1416 of the Code of Virginia.

Mr. Hale then moved to approve the September 14, 2010 meeting minutes and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Mr. Harvey then moved to approve the September 23, 2010 meeting minutes and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (3-0-2) by roll call vote to approve the motion, with Mr. Bruguiere and Mr. Hale abstaining.

By virtue of the favorable vote, the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION-R2010-63

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

(September 14^th and September 23rd 2010)

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meetings conducted on September 14^th and September 23rd 2010 be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.

III. Public Comments and Presentations

Public Comments

Ms. Brennan opened the floor for public comments and the following persons were recognized:

1. Mr. Kenneth White, Roseland and VTA President

Mr. White distributed and read aloud the following prepared statement:

Madam Chairman and members of the Board, my name is Kenneth White, 93 Shields Gap Road, Roseland, and I am President of the Virginia Taxpayers Association. On September 14, 2010, in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, immediately before start of the Board meeting at 2 p.m., I said to the reporter of the Nelson County Times covering the meeting: (QUOTE) “There is a possibility of getting a photograph for your paper this coming Friday (3 days hence), Constitution Day/Citizenship Day, of a teacher in a classroom explaining Constitution Day to his/her students.” (UNQUOTE)

The reporter responded: (QUOTE) ”Well, I’ll run it by my editor.” (UNQUOTE) Following that response I sat down, since no further statement on my part was required.

Prior to my giving the reporter the above suggestion, I had spoken by phone with a representative of the Virginia Department of Education in Richmond who was well acquainted with the fact that the law establishing Constitution Day was passed in 2004, mandating that all educational institutions receiving government funds provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day. The VDOE representative also said the State Superintendent of Education had included in Superintendent’s monthly letter to all division school superintendents a reminder that September 17 is Constitution Day, and recommending ways in which it might be properly observed. My suggestion to the Nelson County Times reporter Sept. 14, 2010 was an indirect way of encouraging action by the Nelson County schools 3 days later.

On Sept. 20, 2010, an employee of the Nelson School Board courteously called me and said Constitution Day had been observed in a number of ways in Nelson schools, and I thanked her for this important information. However, when the next issue of Nelson County Times came out, dated Sept. 23, 2010, among numerous large 4-color photographs there was no picture of any classroom teacher, and no news or editorial mention of Constitution Day.

An employee of Nelson School Board told me by phone Sept. 28 that she had contacted the Nelson County Times reporter, who told her that she, the reporter, had received no instruction from her supervisor to follow up on the Constitution Day suggestion. In other words, and this is what all citizens of Nelson County need to know: the management of Nelson County Times DOES NOT CARE WHETHER OUR GOVERNMENT IN NELSON COUNTY OBEYS THE LAW OR NOT! And I suggest that is the reason why my 21 public Statements on obedience to the Constitutions of Virginia and the U. S. in 21 consecutive monthly meetings of the Board of Supervisors since January, 2009, have been totally censored by the Nelson County Times, even though these Statements have been regularly discussed at length on WINA Radio, Charlottesville, central Virginia’s most popular talk show, heard by thousands, and also reprinted word for word on Virginia’s top news website, www.virginianewssource.com. The inevitable outcome of this lawless attitude by Nelson County

Times management is ACTIVE PROMOTION OF TYRANNY, and we in VTA demand this dangerous attitude be stopped!

While you are already in violation of your oaths of office, your crimes will be partly mitigated if one of you has the courage to tell the local newspaper they ought to uphold United States law instead of trashing it. But whether you take any action or not, I can GUARANTEE that because of VTA exposure of this event, the Nelson County Times WILL mention Constitution Day next year in 2011, which will demonstrate for all that we in VTA have MORE INFLUENCE than the local newspaper, and your actions need to be guided by this fact. That concludes my Statement.

2. Dr. Roger Collins, Superintendent of Schools

Dr. Collins gave the Board an update on the two school projects. He noted that the roof was being put on at TRES and the work had started on Thursday and that the crew had worked over the weekend. He showed the Board a sample of what shingles were being used, noting that the color was selected by a school committee. He reported that the back side of the roof at TRES was almost covered and that the Owner’s representative was watching the progress of the contractor and that they also have someone checking behind her to ensure proper installation. He noted that pictures would be forwarded to them soon.

Dr. Collins then discussed the RRES window project schedule and noted that the contractor would complete remediation of two (2) model windows and price that out and then there would be a suggested change order for the remainder of the work. He noted that the contractor would be working at night and on weekends and would be done in two-three (2-3) weeks. He confirmed that the proper flashing would be done.

VDOT Report

Mr. Carter reported that he had spoken to both VDOT representatives and that Mr. Hamilton was coming to report next month. He referred to the VDOT report submitted in the Board’s package as follows:

Route 6 @ Cove Creek (632-639) – Bridge rehabilitation project. Signs, signals and barriers used to direct traffic. One lane of traffic restricted to 9’ width. Comp. date 10/21.

Route 29 North @ Tye River – Contractor has started to mobilize to location for reconstruction of northbound bridge and approaches. The inside lanes of existing Route 29 will be closed soon for construction of temporary crossovers.

Route 60 over CSX Railway @ Bent Creek – Crews will patch concrete and repair bridge decks. Flaggers will assist motorists during temporary lane closures.

Route 648 (56 – 719) – Road closed to through traffic beginning 9/15/10 for approx. 3 weeks. Crews will replace a damaged drainage pipe. A signed detour will be in place.

He added that they would be working on the replacement bridge at Tye River and would be paving the cross over bars with the work being completed in late 2012.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that he would like to know how much Nelson County would get out of the .5 million dollars in funds identified by the State’s audit.

Mr. Hale had no VDOT issues for staff to report.

Mr. Harvey asked that staff thank VDOT for their response in fixing the inside curve problems at Greenfield Drive in Afton. He noted that they had paved around the curve to the guardrail now. He reported that they had denied the 35mph reduction there, but that he was satisfied with 45 mph, since there have been no accidents or black marks on the pavement.

Mr. Johnson inquired about putting up road signs for the back roads related to the speed limit reduction to 45 mph. He noted that he was looking at four (4) main dirt roads in his area. Mr. Carter noted that he would check on this and report back.

Ms. Brennan had no VDOT issues for staff to report.

Presentation – 2012 Reassessment (Blue Ridge Mass Appraisal Company)

Mr. Matt Hickey from BRMAC introduced himself as Vice President of the company and project supervisor for the County’s 2012 reassessment. He reported the following relative to the status of the current reassessment:

1. Field Work Completed – 4,706 parcels or 28% of the total number of parcels have been inspected as of October 8^th.

2. Current Locations of Field Assessors –

Mike Dundas – Moving southward in the Lovingston District

Eric Shiflet – Directly east of the Town of Lovingston moving westward toward the town. He then will work his way northward.

Hunter Jones – Moving northward in the Massies Mill District

Matt Hickey – Currently in Stoney Creek will move to Wintergreen

3. Preliminary Findings – Wintergreen and Stoney Creek are currently experiencing substantial decreases in values. The remainder of the county is also seeing a decrease in values; however, the level of decrease is minor in comparison to Wintergreen and Stoney Creek. With the current economic conditions and unstable real estate market our primary goal at this point is to verify all information on the properties accurate and monitor the market. Our final values will reflect the 2010 and 2011 sales.

He then noted that the presentation he was about to give would be used in presenting to various civic groups and at town hall meetings, with the data being tailored for the specific area of the County that he was addressing. He then gave the following PowerPoint Presentation, using examples from the Stoney Creek area:

Property Taxes

Property Taxes are a form of Ad Valorem Taxation
Ad Valorem Taxation – A Tax levied against taxpayers in proportion to the value of the thing being taxed. Ad Valorem is taxing the worth or capacity of the item rather than the income derived from use or occupation.
Ad Valorem taxation is the oldest tax in the world that dates back to Ancient Egypt. It began as a tax on the value of crops and has evolved to Real Estate.
To find the worth or value of Real Estate a process called a General Property Tax Reassessment occurs.

What and Why

What Is A General Real Estate Reassessment?

– A General Reassessment is a process designed to equalize real estate values to current market conditions in a given locality

Why Is A Reassessment Required?

– The Code of Virginia (§58.1-3201) requires that all jurisdictions in the Commonwealth periodically perform a general reassessment, requiring at least one reassessment every 6 years. In 1977, the code was amended to further stipulate that all property must be assessed at 100% of market value. Since real estate taxes provide the bulk of each jurisdiction’s tax revenue, it is essential that property be periodically reassessed to ensure that taxes are levied in an equitable manner

Land Valuation

The value of land is based on location, physical characteristics, and “Highest and Best Use”
- The “Highest and Best Use” of a parcel is determined by:

» What is Physically possible

» What is Legally permissible

» What is Financially feasible

» What is Maximally productive

The value is determined by analyzing recent sales of similar properties, called “Comparables”
- Examples of similarity factors Include:

» Lot Size or Acreage

» Road Frontage

» Residential, Agricultural, Woodland, etc.

» Location

Home Sites

What is a “Home Site”?

– A “Home Site” or “House Site” is all or part of a parcel that is best suited for single family residential construction. Applying the concept of “Highest and best use”, this part of the land parcel is worth significantly more than the residual acreage.

– Home sites are valued separately from their surrounding acreage (known as Residue)

– This separation helps ensure that the value attributed to home sites is applied equitably to like properties regardless of overall acreage

– In the same fashion, the residual acreages can be treated equitably because their value is not unduly influenced by the presence of a home site

Why Break Out a Home Site

House sites are broken out to maintain equity.
Tract A

– 8.52 acres sold for $57,600

– ( 1ac @ $20,000 + 7.52 ac @ $5,000) = $57,600

– Price per acre = $6,761

Tract B

– 3.79 acres sold for $34,000

– ( 1ac @ $20,000 + 2.79 ac @ $5,000) = $34,000 rd

– Price per acre = $8,971

Location Factors

Location – Location – Location

As with all real estate, location is of primary concern when assessing the value of property. Location features can either enhance or detract from the value of the property.

– Features that enhance value

Water frontage
Accessibility
Pleasing Views
Adjoining Golf Courses

– Features that detract from value

Flood zones
Proximity to a landfill
Adjoining a junkyard

House Valuation

The value of a home is determined by analyzing recent sales of similar homes, called “Comparables”

– Some characteristics used to determine similarity include

Square Footage
Story Height
Exterior Finish
Basements / Finished Basements
Bathrooms
Heating / Cooling Systems
Location of Property
Fireplaces
Attached / Detached Garages Etc.

Summary

The purpose of a Reassessment is to equalize the value of properties to current market conditions
Real Estate like any other market fluctuates due to external factors
The best way to understand the current Real Estate Market is to view properties that have recently sold

Stoney Creek Vacant Land Sales

Stoney Creek Residential Sales

Property 1:

Map Number: 11J – J – D40
Address: 1247 Black Walnut Dr.
Sale Date: April 28 2010
Price: $ 305,000
Old Assessment: $ 382,800
Acreage: 2.58
Total Square Footage: 1,763
Percent Change: <-20.3%>

Property 2:

Map Number: 11I – C – 34
Address: 1154 Monacan Dr.
Sale Date: June 09 2010
Price: $ 369,000
Old Assessment: $ 441,700
Acreage: 1.09
Total Square Footage: 1,876
Percent Change: <-16.5%>

Property 3:

Map Number: 11J – D – 7
Address: 15 Windthistle Ln.
Sale Date: July 23 2009
Price: $ 485,000
Old Assessment: $ 730,700
Acreage: 1.03
Total Square Footage: 3,498
Percent Change: <-33.6%>

Property 4:

Map Number: 11I – D – 20
Address: 1498 Monacan Dr.
Sale Date: May 01 2009
Price: $ 399,900
Old Assessment: $ 525,600
Acreage: 1.32
Total Square Footage: 2,465
Percent Change: <-23.9%>

How are Assessments Measured

Assessment Sales Price Ratio: The Assessment Sales Price Ratio, A/S, Expresses the Assessed Value as a percentage of the Sales Price.
Example: Assessed Value – $ 93,500

Sales Price- $100,000

A/S Ratio = $ 93,500/ $100,000 = 93.5%

Measures Assessment Performance
Provides for the measurement of uniformity
Gives local authority an indication of the need for conducting an assessment
Provides foundation for measuring assessment trends for specific property types,

neighborhoods, etc.

Virginia Law mandates 100% Fair Market Value assessments

Assessment Appeals

How to I appeal my new Assessment?

– You may make an appointment with the Board of Assessors to appeal your assessment. Contact information, Dates, and Times will be provided with your notice.

What information should I present?

– The Board of Assessors will be happy to take any information you have for their consideration. The most helpful type of information to best support your appeal would be recent sales of properties similar to yours.

– Additional evidence may be found by carefully reviewing your record on line prior to your appointment to identify any potential factual errors in your record. The Assessments will be posted on VAMANET.COM.

How will I know if the Board of Assessors adjusted my assessment?

– You will be notified by mail approximately two weeks after to completion of all hearings.

What happens if I don’t agree with the Board’s decision?

– A Board of Equalization will be appointed in the spring to hear further appeals.

– The Board of Equalization process is similar to the Board of Assessors.

Are there any further avenues of appeal if I still don’t agree?

– The final appeal would have to be made to the Court.

In conclusion, Mr. Hickey stated that the statistical analysis of the sales was their mission.

When asked if he thought if the old assessment was too high, Mr. Hickey preferred not to comment, however he concurred with the Board’s discussion of the previous assessment and the conclusion that the sales were what they were and market conditions had certainly changed.

Mr. Hickey noted that after the first of the year, they would be able to do presentations for civic groups if given two (2) weeks’ notice.

He added that they were on schedule to do assessors hearings before December depending on the weather between now and then and whether or not the Board wanted to offer the hearings close to the Christmas holidays. He noted that their contract says they have to be done by December 2011. In response to questions, he noted that they were taking pictures front and back of everything with a value of over $5,000 except for swimming pools. He noted that the front photo was used in the computer system and the back picture was to prove that they did walk around the structure.

He noted that they had not had any problems with citizens; however they had found that in some cases, having casual conversations about sales had resulted in negative opinions about the previous assessments, so he had advised the field personnel to be polite and to only offer what properties had currently sold for. He noted that they in no way wanted to be anything other than courteous and personable with the citizenry. He then added that if they cannot get to a property, then a card is left requesting future access.

There being no further questions or comments from members, Ms. Brennan thanked Mr. Hickey for his presentation.

Presentation – GIS Demonstration (S. Rorrer)

Ms. Susan Rorrer distributed a handout that was printed from the Help section of the GIS system that described the functionality of the map elements and the GIS system tools. She began the demonstration by noting the GIS website as www.nelsoncountygis.org . She then proceeded to demonstrate how to use the map elements and tools of the system, with the Board following along on their computers.

Following the demonstration, she reported that the Reverse 911 system installation was completed in September and was a citizen notification system, for 911 emergencies, that used the current database from Verizon. She noted that it had a mapping interface that would dial in an area determined by dispatchers. She added that one could input different calling lists, such as employees etc. that could be dialed if needed. She noted that it probably could not be used to notify a certain group if having a town meeting, for example.

Mr. Johnson noted that the School’s notification system cost was $2,000 to $5,000 per year. Mr. Johnson inquired as to whether or not citizens could log into the system to change phone numbers and Ms. Rorrer noted that there was a web interface and that they would be working towards that at some point in the future.

She noted that it had a plume modeling feature that could be used in the case of hazardous material leaks that would notify those closer to the incident first and then would work its way outward. In conclusion, she noted that the purchase and installation of the system was funded with Homeland Security grant funds.

IV. Unfinished Business/New Business

Approval of Job Descriptions (R2010-61)

Mr. Carter noted that the County’s salary scale had been provided to the Board and he noted that the Planner position was a Grade 15, starting at $31,396 and the Tourism and Economic Development position was a Grade 14 starting at $29,884. He reiterated that the Tourism position would be filled, but not the Planner position. He added that staff would bring back a budget amendment to transfer funds from the Building Dept. to Tourism to cover the deficient funds that were needed; due to the rework of the position to make it more highly effective.

Mr. Hale noted that he was surprised that a clerical position (Tourism) would be almost the same grade as a Planner. Mr. Carter reiterated that the Clerical EEOC classification did not necessarily suit the Tourism position and was primarily for EEOC reporting purposes. Ms. McCann added that if the County were to have an EEOC complaint, they would have to report this classification; and it did not really pertain to the job description, but provided guidance. Mr. Hale maintained that it was a clerical position and should be several notches below a Planner. Ms. McCann noted that the Finance positions were Grade 14s and although they did provide clerical work, they did technical work as well. Ms. Brennan acknowledged that the EEOC classifications were not very descriptive.

Mr. Carter then noted that staff normally advertised the hiring range of the first six (6) steps of the grade and then would negotiate with the successful applicant based on their education and experience. Ms. McCann added that they used to advertise the full range of a grade, which created unrealistic expectations for applicants.

In response to questions, Mr. Carter reported that the last time the Board reviewed the classification system was around 2002. He noted that staff has been looking at overall policies, but that the classification scale had not been revised for twelve (12) years. Ms. Brennan noted that this needed to be looked at again in the future.

Mr. Hale reiterated that he did not like the grade level of the Tourism position and that it should possibly be grade 12, but not grade 14. Mr. Harvey suggested that the Board vote on each position separately. Mr. Carter reported that the median household income of one (1), in the MSA that included Nelson County, was approximately $43,000 and he noted the difficulty in recruiting good candidates with low salaries. He added that Maureen Kelley had worked with staff on the job description and approved of the description and the assigned grade.

Following this discussion, Mr. Hale moved to adopt the job description and salary for the Planner position and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Mr. Johnson then moved to approve the job description, grade scale, and hiring of the Tourism position and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (4-1) by roll call vote to approve the motion, with Mr. Hale voting No.

By virtue of the vote, the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION R2010-61

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF JOB DESCRIPTIONS

PLANNER and

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM SPECIALIST

WHEREAS, the County of Nelson has a position classification plan that includes job descriptions for full and part-time employment positions;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors hereby incorporates the job descriptions for Planner and Economic Development & Tourism Specialist into the County of Nelson position classification plan and that the noted job descriptions as attached are hereby made a part of this resolution.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planner position remain vacant until such time as funds may be budgeted and that the Economic Development and Tourism Specialist position be advertised and filled.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that unless the candidate had experience, they should come in close to step 1; which was the consensus of the Board. Mr. Bruguiere also noted that he did not think that the County should use median income levels. Mr. Carter noted that a starting teachers’ salary, with no experience was approximately $37,000 to $39,000 and the County would hire County residents where the School’s did not. It was acknowledged that new teachers’ salaries did not increase for the first few years and also that the County’s pay scale had not changed for at least that long.

Memorandum of Agreement, Courthouse Communications Tower (R2010-67)

Mr. Carter described how the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) had come about. He noted that as part of the environmental assessment review by the Department of Historic Resources (DHR), they determined that there was an adverse visual impact to the historic courthouse that required mitigation. He then reported that the County’s proposed mitigation was the placement of an exhibit in the entryway of the new courthouse that would pictorially portray the evolution of the courthouse complex buildings. He added that the mitigation required the Board’s approval of the MOA that included local, federal, and historic agencies i.e.: the Historical Society. He noted that staff and the Historical Society met and came up with the draft MOA, which included preservation of the old Magistrates office and the old attorney’s office. He noted that staff had tried to negotiate these away; however the Historical Society representative said that they wanted to maintain the preservation of the Magistrates office, but would take out reference to the attorney’s office building. He noted that the County owned these buildings and the attorney’s office was dedicated as an attorney’s office unless there was a lapse in time where it wasn’t used for an attorney’s office; then the County could take it back.

Mr. Carter then noted that the draft MOA was presented, but that staff would need to incorporate the Magistrates office therein. He explained that the current Board could not obligate a future board but that he had no issue with preservation of the building.

Ms. Brennan then confirmed that they would be agreeing to the display and to the preservation of the Magistrates office. Mr. Hale suggested using “intends to preserve” language and the consensus was that use of the word “will” was a moral obligation and indicated the intent to do it.

Following discussion, the Board agreed by consensus to add to paragraph 1 pertaining to the Magistrates office as proposed by the Historical Society as follows:

To paragraph I., Mitigation, under Stipulations, of the MOA, we would add: “In addition, the County will preserve the Magistrate’s office on the courthouse green and will cooperate with the Nelson County Historical Society in determining its future use, interpretation and disposition.”

Mr. Hale then moved to approve resolution R2010-67, Authorization to Enter into Memorandum of Agreement with the Nelson County Historical Society and Department of Historic Resources to Provide for Mitigation of the Visual Impact of the Courthouse Communications Tower and Mr. Harvey 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-R2010-67

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE NELSON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES TO PROVIDE FOR MITIGATION OF THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE COURTHOUSE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER

WHEREAS, an outcome of the Environmental Assessment for federal approval of the installation of the courthouse communications tower is that the County is required by the Department of Historic Resources to provide for mitigation of the visual impact the tower will have at the Courthouse and to Lovingston,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the County Administrator is hereby authorized to enter into a three party Memorandum of Agreement including the County, The Nelson County Historical Society, and the Department of Historic Resources in order to provide for mitigation of the visual impacts of the courthouse communications tower; thereby meeting the requirements of the Department of Historic Resources and the FCC and providing for the installation of the tower.

Citizens Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Compost Business)

Mr. Fred Boger presented the item and noted that contact was made by Eric Walker, who wanted to start up a composting business and it did not fit into the categories in the Zoning Ordinance except for possibly sanitary landfill. He noted that the County would need to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit this use. He noted that the following things needed to be considered and he added that it did not fit into the vegetative waste facility use either:

1. Proximity to residential uses and property.

2. Proximity to bodies of water.

3. Prevailing winds

4. Leachate that originates from the compost.

5. Excessive nutrients that could negatively affect surrounding area or groundwater.

6. Noise from equipment on site.

7. Possibility of Fire

8. Odor

He noted that the idea needed more study and that a definition had been provided. He noted that Bedford County was doing this now and the definition came from them and could be used by the County with modification. He noted that he had not pursued this any further, as he wanted to see if the Board wanted to do a resolution of intent to the Planning Commission first and then they would do the research. He added that DEQ would likely be involved.

Mr. Carter noted that staff could come back with a resolution of intent and then the matter would be sent to the Planning Commission for specifics and recommendations. He added that this could cut down on food waste from the schools etc. Ms. Brennan concurred and noted that it would have an impact on the land filling of the waste.

Mr. Walker, the citizen requesting the use, addressed the Board and noted that he would use a tractor pulled wind row turner to turn rows of compost periodically. The compost would be on the ground and could be covered with tarps or covered with wood chips to mitigate any odor concerns. He noted that this was being done in Albemarle County, out in Earlysville. He added that he currently lived in Crozet right across the Nelson County border but wanted to open up a compost operation in Nelson County and was looking for property with a natural buffer. He noted that the operation could be smelly if not managed properly. He added that he had a market for it and would sell it in bulk to be spread. He noted that there were no permits needed from DEQ to spread it, but that he would need permitting for the operation. He noted that the compost can be stored under cover or in the open and is a six (6) month process from start to finish. He added that he needed three (3) contiguous acres that were fairly flat for the composting operation and a total of forty (40) acres to have a sufficient buffer.

Mr. Carter noted that staff would like to bring back a resolution of intent; however the Board could vote to refer it at this time.

Mr. Hale then moved to instruct staff to work with the Planning Commission on defining a composting facility and amending the Zoning Ordinance for the possible inclusion of a composting facility; with no time limit imposed.

Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and Ms. Brennan indicated her desire to see the Planning Commission do this as soon as possible. Mr. Bruguiere inquired about whether or not the finished product would have an analysis of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium (n,p,k) and Mr. Walker noted that this could be attainable, but the compost would not be applied on a large scale and he would most likely follow the field guide for proper application from the National Composting Association. In relation to the impending TMDL regulations it was noted that compost contains slow-release nitrogen.

Following discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.

Introduced: Knott Special Use Permit:

Mr. Harvey noted that he has looked into the Glass Hollow special use permit and reported that they plan to operate less than sixteen (16) days per year with less than twelve (12) campers. He added that they would prefer to not go through the permitting process and that he had spoken to Phil Payne and he thought it still fell under the use of camp ground.

Mr. Carter noted that at the Planning Commission meeting, the neighbors were overwhelmingly opposed to it, even the watered down plans.

Mr. Harvey stated that he thought that this was a prime example of a snowball effect and that no one that was talking to him was opposed to it. He added that the Zoning Ordinance was for the whole county, not just Glass Hollow.

Mr. Hale then noted that it seemed to him that what Mr. Harvey was suggesting, was that the Board recommend that they withdraw their Special Use Permit application and go ahead and do what they want to do.

Mr. Harvey then questioned at what point one was limited to what can be done on one’s property. He noted that they were planning on one overnight stay per year and would an overnight party require a permit. Mr. Carter and Mr. Hale noted that the distinction was that what they were doing was a commercial enterprise, so then they would fall under the categories in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Carter agreed that the applicants were well intended etc. and Mr. Johnson added that it was a legal question.

Mr. Harvey confirmed with Mr. Boger that the overnight camping and the commercial nature of the operation make them have to get a permit. Mr. Boger noted that the operation was more of a training or school type thing and that private schools would need to do a site plan. He added that staff had looked at the training school definition etc.

Mr. Johnson suggested that they should look at the Zoning Ordinance definition and possibly change it to reflect thresholds for days of operation and number of kids etc. Mr. Harvey stated that the scale of operation presented in the application now seemed appropriate and Mr. Hale noted that if the Board agreed then they could just approve the Special Use Permit. Mr. Carter added that it would be hard to change course now that the application was ¾ of the way through the process.

Mr. Harvey noted that the fear of the neighbors was that it would grow once the permit had been approved and Mr. Carter stated that under the permit that was limited, they would have to come back to the Board and if the limits were exceeded, staff could enforce it. He noted that the Board could set the limits of the SUP or have the Planning Director set the limits. Mr. Harvey asked if they could go through the special events process rather than applying for a SUP and it was noted that they could do that if it were written into the Ordinance.

Mr. Hale suggested that the Board let the process take its course and then they could modify/limit the permit. Mr. Johnson suggested that afterwards, the Board amend the Ordinance to accommodate these types of activities.

Following this discussion, no action was taken by the Board.

Introduced: Tower Ordinance Definitions:

Mr. Harvey suggested that the requirements for administrative approval on towers as stated in the Ordinance needed to be reworked.

Mr. Hale clarified the definitions in question and it was noted that it was a problem because the definition did not allow for many administrative approvals and most have to be reviewed as a Class II tower. Mr. Harvey then requested that the definition in question be sent to him.

V. Reports, Appointments, Directives, and Correspondence

Reports

1. County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Carter distributed and gave the following report:

A. Courthouse/Government Center Project: Construction is proceeding well. No issues or concerns to report. Blair has begun initial insulation and dry wall work within the new facility. Substantial progress is being made on the parking lot, which Blair plans to resurface by the end of the year or in early 2011 (weather permitting). Wiley Wilson is continuing work on a) finalizing the second floor connector between the 1940s and 1960s Courthouse additions, b) design for the renovation of the Health Department Building, c) space allocation plan for reuse of floor space that will become available once the new court/public safety building is completed. The BOS committee met on 10-12 with R. Vaughan of Wiley Wilson to discuss initial work space re-allocation(s).

B. Broadband Project: Icon Engineering is working diligently on all aspects of the project. Meetings will be conducted the week of 10-18 with companies interested in operating the broadband backbone and, possibly, providing services. Notices are being forwarded to property owners to obtain their permission for the project to hang the fiber optic cable on CVEC utility poles located therein (approximately 300 properties with ½ of the notices sent on 10-7). Third quarter project reports have been completed and either forwarded or to be submitted to NTIA this month. The local broadband advisory committee will next meet on 10-19 at 1 p.m.

Mr. Carter added that Mr. Kersey was doing a preliminary feel for companies interested in managing the network. He noted that the County would keep permissions from property owners on file and they would not be recorded easements. He added that once the County got feedback from the mailing, they would send someone door to door to get permission.

C. Blue Ridge Medical Center – CDBG Project: BRMC and County staff are working on completion of legal documents that are the last requirements prior to VA-DHCD issuing the CDBG contract to the County for execution which enables the project to commence thereafter. It is anticipated this work will be completed the week of 10-11.

Mr. Carter noted that BRMC staff took on the obligation to make the project work with the County’s assistance.

D. TRES/RRES Roof & Window Repair Project: Replacement of the roof at TRES resumed on 10-11. The insurance provider (builder’s risk) for the construction of TRES has formally advised Dr. Collins that they are reviewing this subject and will notify the school division once they have made a determination. At RRES, BCWH and its remediation sub-contractor, WDH, are working on final details for the window replacement project and will coordinate with the project contractor on installation of two test windows, based upon the installation details; afterwards, the contractor will provide a fully scoped change order for the RRES project.

E. Blue Ridge Tunnel & Blue Ridge Railway Projects: (Tunnel) – Sixty-five (65%) design drawings completed and distributed for review/comment by Woolpert (9-13) to County staff, VDOT, VA-DCR, VA-DHR, etc. Revised property appraisals for acquisition of east and west trail heads and parking areas to be completed by 11-1. Tiger II grant application for construction funding of the project has been submitted to FHA/HUD. (Railway) – Contract from VDOT for 2010-11 TEP award will be provided at forthcoming enhancement grant workshops, which County staff will attend.

Mr. Carter noted that staff and Mr. Hale would be meeting with an Irish Clan group, who may want to put up an Irish monument at the tunnel.

He added that the needed easements had been laid out, the owners had received these, the appraiser was updating the appraisals as of November 1st, and the County had a sixty (60) day window to complete negotiations.

F. Radio Tower Project (PSIC): Grant award letter received from VDEM with project completion date of March 2011. Alcatel/Lucent top ranked for provision of microwave network design and construction/installation(s). Negotiations in process. County staff working towards finalizing tower location at Devils Knob working with WPOA. Courthouse tower construction is pending approval of Environmental Assessment (MOA review scheduled for 10-12 BOS meeting).

Mr. Carter noted that three (3) firms were interviewed for the tower installation.

G. Regional Artisan Trail Project: In process.

H. Equipment Grant: Application submitted to USDA-RD for $200,000 in Equipment Grant funding (vehicle and communication equipment). Funding decision is pending.

I. BioSolids: An initial walk through by staff from VA-DEQ, the County and Synagro of five farms that have been permitted for biosolid application was conducted on 10-5 but was not completed due to access issues with one or more of the permitted farms. The walk through is in the process of being rescheduled. Thereafter, biosolid applications can begin.

2. Board Reports

Mr. Bruguiere:

Mr. Bruguiere reported that he attended a committee meeting to discuss the Brewery expansion with NCSA and Steve Crandall. They discussed what to do with the effluent discharge and decided that they would have to build a pretreatment facility of some type with the initial costs of doing so being between $150,000-$300,000 dollars, which would increase with production. He noted that Mr. Crandall had called him and said that he would not be able to build in the County because of these costs. He stated that that they were looking at other sites to do an alternate septic system. He noted that Lexington was courting them and that our system was set up to handle residential waste. It was noted that it was more expensive for NCSA to build a holding tank and allow it to gradually flow through than to pre-treat the waste.

Mr. Hale, who also attended the meeting, added that they had made it clear that they were in favor of having him at the business park and that the Board was amenable to providing the tax abatement for three (3) years, for about $90,000; which would assist him in offsetting the pretreatment costs. He added that according to the NCSA, there was no way around pretreatment as he understood it. Mr. Bruguiere added that the discharged water would still contain a lot of yeast and sugars that would mess up the waste works.

Mr. Hale:

Mr. Hale reported on his attendance of a Courthouse Committee meeting. He reported that Randy Vaughn was working on floor layouts for the current building and would work with departmental staff to see what worked best. As it was laid out, the Commissioner of Revenue would occupy the County Administrator’s Office and the Treasurer would move down to the Finance Office. Finance, the County Administrator’s Office and IT would move upstairs and the basement would be used for archival and storage area. Mr. Hale noted that they said that the overall plan looked good and to work with occupants to see how to work it out.

He then reported that the floor plan for the Health Department building included the Health Department on the first floor and the Department of Social Services on the upper floor. He added that this looked good and that Randy Vaughn would come back with more detailed plans.

He noted that the Registrar’s Office would go into the current Sheriff’s Office; which would allow for Saturday access. He noted the potential for large a conference room there also.

Ms. Brennan, who also attended the meeting, added that the School Board would acquire new space in the corridor and that Susan McSwain would be moved out of basement.

Mr. Harvey:

Mr. Harvey reported the status of the Wintergreen tower; noting that they were waiting on drawings and that the agreement needed to be done by this week under the existing WPOA Board; because it was changing as of October 21^st. He added that the committee has decided to give them the replacement tower (Class I) which was already approved and the County would go through the application process for its tower. Mr. Harvey added that the draft Lease was too long as written.

Mr. Harvey reported on the M. Wolf property entrance and noted that VDOT had requested numbers from her Engineer on the number of cars etc.

Mr. Harvey reported that the recent mud bog had gone well and that $4,000 had been raised and contributed to Relay for Life.

Mr. Johnson:

Mr. Johnson reported that the FFA bluegrass festival did well and raised money for nationals.

Mr. Johnson reported that the parent portal was opening at schools soon and parents would be able to login and check kids’ grades etc.

Mr. Johnson reported that the DSS Board would be working on procedures for the roles of Board Members etc.

Mr. Johnson reported that he would be attending the Blue Ridge Parkway Conference and Ms. Brennan suggested that something should be done about entrances to the Parkway to make them more visible. Mr. Johnson noted that he would also suggest that they adjust to technology and allow towers in order to allow for technology to be used to map locations and find facilities etc. He would also mention that they were not promoting any businesses off of the Parkway.

Ms. Brennan:

Ms. Brennan reported that the Nelson County Food Systems Council was forming to promote Nelson County locally grown food. She added that Farm-to-School week was up-coming and would promote schools making an effort to purchase food products locally. Mr. Bruguiere added that the Schools already buy Dickie Bros. apples through Cavalier Produce. Ms. Brennan inquired as to whether the Board would be in support of a resolution to support Farm-to-School week, Nov 6-10^th and no opposition was noted.

Ms. Brennan reported that Wintergreen Performing Arts brought in chamber music to NCHS; which was the only school in the area to have this brought in.

Ms. Brennan reported that the PWC met and discussed that the one stop in Lovingston has been inactive. She noted that Becky would meet with George to make this a more viable thing. She noted that Greg Kelley and Alphonso Taylor were involved with this.

Ms. Brennan reported that the JABA Board was working on forming an organization for seniors on Medicare for one-stop services.

Ms. Brennan reported attendance of the Virginia Farm Bureau dinner and noted that she would like to see locally grown food served there.

Ms. Brennan attended a 2×2 with NCSB, which was not very productive.

Ms. Brennan reported that the Development focus group for TMDLs was done now.

Ms. Brennan reported attendance of the VA GIS Board meeting and reported that surveyors were to be GIS certified now.

Ms. Brennan reported attendance of a TJPDC meeting in their new meeting space. Mr. Boger, also in attendance added that the TMDLs would be imposed on a local level next year and that Richmond’s plan was woefully deficient.

Ms. Brennan reported that on Wednesday morning at 10 am, Congressman Perriello would be at RVES to talk about Broadband and to conduct a Skype conversation with someone in the African Congo.

Appointments

This item of business was considered during the evening session.

Ms. McGarry noted the appointments summary sheet and that the only application that had been received was from John Bruguiere for the unexpired EDA term vacancy.

The Board and staff discussed the current make up of the EDA in terms of district and business/industry representation and discussed the need for diversity; noting a strong west district presence and nothing from the east.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that the application was for an unexpired term that would end 6/30/2011 and the Board, if not satisfied with the representation, could not reappoint him. Ms. Brennan noted that she was inclined to support the application but the EDA already had orchard representation.

Mr. Harvey then moved to appoint John Bruguiere to the EDA to fill the unexpired term and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. Ms. Brennan noted she would support the nomination but that the Board needed to consider diversification. The Board then voted unanimously (4-0-1) by roll call vote to approve the motion, with Mr. Bruguiere abstaining from the vote.

Correspondence

This item of business was considered during the evening session.

Schuyler Community Center

Mr. Carter noted the request for funding from the Schuyler Community Center and that the letter did not mention the amount of the request and also that it was for next fiscal year as she had indicated to him by phone. Mr. Harvey noted that per his conversation with Ms. Roberts, the request was for $10,000. Following brief discussion, the Board’s consensus was to take the request into consideration during the next budget development year.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that he would like to see the whole financial picture and Ms. Brennan would like to know how many people visit the Community Center and Museum. It was noted that they have other funding sources that may require financial disclosure.

Mr. Johnson reiterated his support for establishing a community center fund for these kinds of emergencies; possibly a no-interest loan fund. The Board agreed that they did not want the community centers to have to spend their hard earned funds on loan interest.

Directives

This item of business was considered during the evening session.

Mr. Bruguiere:

Mr. Bruguiere stated that he would like the Board to have a work session on TMDLs in order to decide what to tell Legislators. The Board briefly discussed funding of the regulations and what that might mean for localities. It was noted that all of Virginia would be affected and the Board questioned whether or not the costs would be equally split across the state.

Mr. Harvey, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Johnson had no directives.

Ms. Brennan:

Ms. Brennan noted that she would not be in attendance at the next meeting and directed that a resolution be drafted in support of Farm-to-School week.

Ms. Brennan inquired as to the status of discussions with the Heritage Center and it was noted that nothing was happening on that front.

VI. Other Business (As May Be Presented)

There was no other business considered by the Board.

VII. Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session

At 5:50 pm, Mr. Harvey moved to continue the meeting until 7:00 pm and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting was recessed.

EVENING SESSION

7:00 P.M. – NELSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm, with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

II. Public Hearings & Presentations

Public Hearing- Verizon Class II Communications Tower: application to erect a 91 foot metal communication tower with a 1 foot lightning rod on property identified as Tax Map #45-7, Parcel 1, Pine Trail owned by D. Thomas (SR 624), Myndus, and a waiver of Section 20-7-5(k) of the Zoning Ordinance

Mr. Boger over-viewed the application, noting that Clare Novak, Consultant for Verizon Wireless had submitted an application to the Planning Commission for a Class II Communication Tower permit for construction of a 91 foot metal communication tower with a lightning rod extending the height to 92 ft. He noted that the site was located on Pine Trail (SR 624) and was identified as Tax Map #45-7-1.

Mr. Boger reported that in the application, Verizon requested the following two exceptions to the Communication Tower requirements:

1. 20-7-2a sufficient land shall be acquired for all Class II Communication Tower sites to contain any ice or debris that happens to fall from the tower, antenna, or guy wires. The minimum distance from the tower’s base to the property line shall be equal to one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the Tower Height.

Section 20-13, “Special Exception” states that the Board of Supervisors may grant a special exception to the location and height regulations contained in Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception to reduce the tower’s fall area from a 115 foot radius to 50 feet.

Mr. Boger noted that staff recommended approval of the Special Exception as requested.

2. A waiver of the landscaping requirement because the visual impact of the tower will be minimal and the proposed facility is located in a heavily wooded area. Also, the tower will be enclosed by stockade fence which will screen the equipment compound from adjacent properties.

Mr. Boger noted that the Planning Commission waived the landscaping requirement and recommended that the Board approve the reduced fall zone to 50 ft. He noted that this was an exception to a setback requirement and if it were not approved, they would have to move the tower back. He noted that the site was good and was not very visible and added that the Planning Commission was pleased with it.

The Applicant representative, Mr. Steve Blain with LeClair Ryan in Charlottesville addressed the Board. He asked that the Board approve the requested exception to fall zone and noted that they would build the tower as soon as permitted; by the end of the year.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that there were four (4) permitted tower sites along Rt.151 and none had been built yet, while citizens weren’t able to get good reception. He added that two (2) years had passed, nothing had happened, and they should not be granted the permit if it was going to be so long. He concluded by stating that the County had less coverage now, since Verizon had acquired Alltel.

Mr. Blain noted that since 2008, the merge with Alltel had occurred and decisions about overlapping facilities and equipment has taken time. The Board noted that coverage has dropped significantly and Mr. Blain stated that he would take these concerns back to Verizon.

Ms. Brennan then opened the public hearing, and there being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Bruguiere then moved to approve Resolution R2010-68 a Resolution Approving a Special Exception Pursuant to Section 20-13 of Appendix A, Zoning, For Verizon Wireless to Reduce the Required Setback For a Class II Communications Tower Permit From a 115 Foot Radius to 50 Feet to Erect a 92 Foot Metal Communications Tower: Pine Trail (SR 624) Myndus.

Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and Mr. Hale confirmed the acreage of the parcel at 8.2 acres. 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 R2010-68

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO §20-13 OF APPENDIX A, ZONING, FOR VERIZON WIRELESS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A CLASS II COMMUNICATIONS TOWER PERMIT FROM A 115 FOOT RADIUS TO 50 FEET TO ERECT A 92 FOOT METAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWER;

PINE TRAIL (SR (624) MYNDUS.

WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless, represented by Ms. Clare Novak, Consultant has filed a request with the Nelson County Planning Department for a Class II Communication Tower Permit pursuant to Article 20, Communication Tower Ordinance of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to erect an 91 foot metal tower with a lightning rod extending the height to 92 feet, a waiver of Section 20-7-5k, and for a recommendation to BOS for an exception to Section 2-7-2a, of the Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the proposed communications tower site is located on Pine Trail (SR 624), Myndus on property owned by David L. Thomas and is identified as Tax Map #45-7-1; and

WHEREAS, a notice of the required Public Hearing by the Nelson County Planning Commission was published in the Nelson County Times on September 2, 2010 and September 9, 2010; and

WHEREAS, on October 12, 2010, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors held the required Public Hearing on said application; and

WHEREAS, the Board has considered the Planning Director’s report, the Planning Commission’s recommendation and comments from the applicant and citizens;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS as follows:

The Nelson County Board of Supervisors approves a Special Exception for Verizon Wireless to reduce the required 115 foot radius setback to a property line for a 92 foot Class II Communication Tower to 50 feet to be erected on the property of David L. Thomas, identified as Tax Map #45-7,Parcel 1, Pine Trail (SR 624), Myndus.

Presentation – North Rockfish River Study (J. Patterson)

Ms. Jenny Patterson of Charlottesville, formerly of Nelson County reported that she was an environmentalist hired to do a study of the North Fork of the Rockfish River, which was grant funded and administered by the Master Naturalists.

She noted that they wanted to get baseline data on this section of the river which is impaired. She noted that the section studied ran parallel to Rt. 151 and down to about Rt. 6. She reported that a previous study was done in 2004; which was a physical assessment and indicated visible degradation. She noted that the group studied 7.25 miles of river and seven (7) tributaries. The group sampled six (6) of the seven (7) tributaries regularly and described how the monthly sampling was done. She reported that most sampling came back within DEQ regulations.

Items of concern reported were nitrogen and phosphates. Ms. Patterson reported that there were no nutrient hot spots found and the only small spikes occurred in June. She reiterated that during the 2004 physical assessment there were erosion issues found, especially near open fields as a result of high access to waterways by livestock and slim riparian buffers. She reported that E.coli levels exceeded DEQs levels and in May, all but one site was above these levels. She noted that lower water levels did contribute to this finding along with warmer weather. She stated that this condition was observed in a local swimming hole, which was of concern.

Ms. Patterson reported that as part of the grant, the group had to do community outreach. She noted that they did brochures and sent the testing results to various agencies as well as doing outreach with farmers along the river to discuss the fencing out of livestock. She noted that there are various funding sources that offer cost-sharing programs to help with the costs of this, along with the second form of mitigation which was to increase riparian buffers. She noted that increasing the riparian buffers slowed down the flow of water and decreased erosion; which was a longer term solution.

Additionally, she noted that some property owners had tried some of these mitigations and had helpful comments. One being that you were fencing out your own use of the land and still having to pay taxes on it.

In conclusion she noted that they found only a few things that were negative, but that these had known solutions and then she advocated for spreading the word and increasing the interest in the results of the study by landowners.

Mr. Bruguiere referenced pictures that showed thick grass growing along an eroded bank and suggested that the erosion problems have occurred naturally from flooding etc. which created the high silted banks represented. He also noted that the E.coli presence was not all caused by livestock and suggested that many houses near the streams may not have working septic systems. Additionally, he added that the cost-sharing funds for mitigation were taxable and counted as income for the recipient.

Ms. Patterson noted that there were not many houses along the sampling area, but that water levels were back up and there was now more dilution. She added that the study was meant to be a data baseline study and the grant had required that they offer solutions to the findings. She added that the brochures at the Extension Office showed ideal buffer areas that were more wooded than grassy.

In conclusion, Ms. Patterson noted that the group just wanted to make known what was there and wanted to get the word out to the property owners, who could then follow up on the results.

III. Other Business (As May Be Presented)

There was no other business considered by the Board.

IV. Public Comments

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

V. Adjournment

AT 8:45 pm, Mr. Harvey moved to adjourn the meeting 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.

Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes-June 24, 2010

admin — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:27:02 +0000

Virginia:

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

Present:
Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor – East District
Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor – Chair
Thomas D. Harvey, North District Supervisor
Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West 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

Absent: Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor – Vice Chair

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm with four (4) Supervisors present to establish a quorum and Mr. Johnson being absent.

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

Prior to consideration of the Consent Agenda, Mr. Carter announced that the County had been awarded a Grant of $700,000 for the Blue Ridge Medical Center (BRMC) project.

Supervisors then agreed to move the Public Comments item for consideration following the Consent Agenda.

II. Consent Agenda

Ms. Brennan noted to the Board that she would like to defer consideration of the Minutes for Approval, R2010-35 and members agreed. Mr. Hale then moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the minutes for approval and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:

A. Resolution – R2010- 35 Minutes for Approval (Deferred)

B. Resolution – R2010- 36 Approval of CDBG Grant Documents for Blue Ridge Medical Center Expansion Project

RESOLUTION-R2010-36
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION APPROVING DHCD-CDBG PRE-CONTRACT GRANT DOCUMENTS FOR BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, that the following DHCD- CDBG pre-contract grant documents are hereby approved for the Blue Ridge Medical Center Expansion Project:

1. Local Business & Employment Plan;

2. Residential Anti-Displacement & Relocation Assistance Plan;

3. Non-Discrimination Policy

4. Section 504 Grievance Procedure; and

5. Fair Housing Certificate

C. Resolution – R2010- 37 Auth. to Amend VDOT Agreement for Blue Ridge Tunnel Restoration Project

RESOLUTION-R2010-37
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENTS/ AMENDMENTS WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE BLUE RIDGE TUNNEL RESTORATION PROJECT

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator, Stephen A. Carter, be and hereby is authorized to execute on behalf of Nelson County, administrative agreements/amendments with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the Blue Ridge Tunnel Restoration Project EN02-062-142, P101, C501, (UPC 63574).

D. Resolution – R2010 -38 Authorization to Use Right of Way Easement (NCSA)

RESOLUTION-R2010-38
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE COUNTY’S RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT BY NELSON COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, that the Nelson County Service Authority is hereby authorized to utilize the County’s right of way easement along Route 56 from the Colleen Wastewater Treatment Plant facility to the location of where the Tye River Bridge and Route 56 meet; a distance of 2.2 miles; in order to install a pipeline of treated water to discharge into the Tye River and enable the Nelson County Service Authority to comply with a Department of Environmental Quality mandate of May 1, 2012.
E. Resolution – R2010- 39 FY10 Budget Amendment
RESOLUTION R2010-39
AMENDMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 BUDGET
NELSON COUNTY, VA
June 24, 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 (General Fund)

Amount Revenue Account Expenditure Account
$ 1,073.00 3-100-002404-0002 4-100-032020-5650

II. Transfer of Funds (General Fund)

Amount   Credit Account (-)   Debit Account (+)
$    2,150.00    4-100-999000-9901   4-100-012040-3002
$    1,493.00    4-100-999000-9901   4-100-013020-1001
$       228.00    4-100-999000-9901   4-100-013020-2002
$       370.00    4-100-999000-9901   4-100-032010-8225
$    4,241.00

III. Appropriation of Funds (Street Light Fund)

Amount   Revenue Account    Expenditure Account
$         96.00    3-505-001210-0001   4-505-041320-5899
$    6,477.00    3-505-009999-0001   4-505-093100-9100
$    6,573.00

F. Resolution – R2010- 40 75th Anniversary of the Nelson County Garden Club

RESOLUTION-R2010-40
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE NELSON COUNTY GARDEN CLUB

WHEREAS the Nelson County Garden Club, established in 1935, celebrates its 75th Anniversary on July 9th, 2010, and

WHEREAS the Nelson County Garden Club has over the past 75 years been a vital part of the very human fiber and fabric of our county enriching the daily lives of Nelsonians, past and present, by its good works, and

WHEREAS the members of the Nelson County Garden Club have unselfishly Contributed to the unique history and traditions of our county, and

WHEREAS the citizens of Nelson County have benefited greatly from the organizational spirit, volunteerism and community activities of the Nelson County Garden Club, and

WHEREAS the members of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors wish to commend and congratulate the Nelson County Garden Club for its civic mindedness, which is indeed appreciated by all our citizens,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby officially recognize the day of July 9, 2010 as Nelson County Garden Club Day, and respectfully asks all citizens alike to join in expressing their sincere gratitude and appreciation for the many long hours of outstanding volunteerism and commitment to our community by the members of the Nelson County Garden Club for the past 75 years.

III. New/Unfinished Business
A. TRES &RRES Roof/Window Project (Dr. Roger Collins)

Dr. Collins gave his report after the Board’s consideration of Public Comments.

Dr. Collins reported that they were in the process of having a preconstruction meeting on Tuesday of next week with Robertson Inc. and Betty Slough, the new Clerk of the Works. He introduced Ms. Betty Slough in attendance and noted that Ms. Slough was a Nelson County resident with twenty-two (22) years experience in construction and much experience with windows. He reported that the projected finish date was in the fall; and would likely go into the school year. Dr. Collins reported that the low bid provided by Robertson Construction was $716,300 and that they would not be able to add in the alternate, as the funding would be short by $43,000; so they had not accepted the alternate at this point. He added that he was encouraged by the A&E being on site and keeping staff apprised. He noted that the Clerk of the Works would give daily reports electronically and he would be happy to share this with staff. He reported that some materials would need to be fabricated etc., they would try to have the least amount of disruption once school started, and it was estimated that there would be about 30% to go at that point. He added that the construction contractor would work during off hours once school had started.

In response to questions, Dr. Collins and Ms. Slough noted the following:

• The School start date was August 23rd or 24th.

• There could be some salvageable materials, such as metals coming out of the project, but it wouldn’t be worth the effort to salvage them. Ms. Slough noted that the glass from the windows could be reused, but you would have to custom make the frames since the metal frames were the problem and wouldn’t be too valuable. Ms. Brennan noted that she would like to see if there was any possibility to reuse the windows without costing the project money and the Board and staff briefly discussed the liability of people coming on site to collect windows etc.

• It remained to be seen through forensic work as to whether or not there were any mold related issues; not enough boring was done preliminarily to determine this with any confidence.

Dr. Collins then reported that there were 144 graduates this June and that 77% were going on to college, trade school, or in to the military. He noted that this was the 6th year in a row that he anticipated Nelson County schools would be fully accredited and he thanked the Board for its support.

B. Health Department Building

Mr. Randy Vaughan of Wiley and Wilson addressed the Board and noted that a decision was needed on the Health Department building, specifically what to do about the roof contracted for replacement.

He reported that Blair Construction’s proposal would be a credit for not replacing the roof on the Health Department of about $25,000 including materials and labor.

Mr. Vaughan advised the Board that if they left the building as is, he would recommend doing the roof, but would defer doing the roof if they intended to do something with the building in the next 5-10 years.

He also advised their immediate consideration of the issue because of the parking lot work that needed to be done, and sidewall work that would need to be done, even if the building was left as is. He noted that his other concern with building now was the ADA accessibility to the lower level, which was being temporarily provided by temporary ramps and the Registrar was currently down there. He noted to the Board two (2) options of renovating the building or tearing it down and building a new building. He offered a third option of tearing the building down and doing nothing else.

Members, Staff and Mr. Vaughan discussed the various options that were previously presented in Mr. Vaughan’s December study of the building. Option 1 was discussed to renovate the existing building and provide ADA accessibility. Mr. Vaughan noted that when the study was done, the Health Dept. was to possibly move to another location and the space would be used for NCSB, Planning & Zoning and Building Inspections.

Option 4 was discussed, which entailed building a new building of three (3) floors for a total of approximately 20,000 sq ft, which would address all of the space needs identified previously. This plan provided that the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Health Dept. would still be located in a space not on the current complex and had a $5.5 million dollar price tag.

Members then revisited Option 1 and discussed that the current building renovation could include moving the Health Dept. to the lower floor and housing the Dept. of Social Services in the upper floor; which would group these two agencies together and would free up the current DSS space.

Mr. Vaughan advised that if the Board went with Option 1; they would need to consider installation of an elevator; because a ramp down would not be sufficient for ADA compliance. He noted however, that whether or not to keep the Health Dept. roof in the Courthouse project contract was what presently needed to be decided.

Mr. Carter stated that going with Option 1; with DSS and the Health Dept. occupying the building would enable County Administration to move upstairs and bridge over to the front and the space could suffice for the next 10 years. He added that then the School Board Offices could be relocated to the current DSS building; with a more permanent solution sought for them down the road. He also noted that staff had not touched up the financial information that was in the original package, but if the State Health Dept. funds were still in place and the County considered the DSS funding for rent, it could almost pay for itself; depending on what the Board decided to do.

Mr. Carter reported that he had met with Judge Gamble and the Clerk who reiterated their interest in getting more space for the Clerk’s Office. He added that Staff could put together a plan of who fits where the best depending on what is decided.

Mr. Vaughan advised that the School Board currently has 3,600 sq ft of space and the current DSS building has 5,000 sq ft which would give them room to expand. Additionally, he noted they could put all of the Clerk’s functions on one floor with this scenario. He also stated that with this scenario, you could plan for possible expansion in the future, and that if they were to renovate, he would recommend insulating, using thermal windows, and a high efficiency HVAC system, so there should be a drop in operational costs.

Mr. Hale stated that he thought the Board should focus on what they have to do and the best way to accomplish it. He noted that with the building being occupied by the Health Dept., if it were to be demolished, they would have to find somewhere for them to be. He added that the Registrar is also a public office that must have a place to occupy. Mr. Bruguiere added that that these two (2) offices were the primary people to think about right now. Mr. Hale further complimented Mr. Vaughan for outlining the things that needed to be done with the building; but that he thought they had gone off track in looking at other space needs. He added that the reality was that Judge Gamble had recognized that the other courts had to be done and has expressed a preference that the Board of Supervisors Room becomes a court functions area. He noted that he did not feel that he was pushing the Board to get the whole building, but that the Clerk needed more space. Mr. Hale stated that he would like to agree that the County was not going to build anything for County Administration at this time given that the County cannot afford it and doesn’t need it.

Mr. Hale further stated that he thought that the most important consideration was the cost per sq ft. He noted that using the figures provided, a renovation would cost $93 per sq ft for under 9,000 sq ft., whereas a new building would be $140-$150 per sq ft. He then suggested that renovation would offer the best bang for the buck. Mr. Vaughan noted that the difference per square foot reflected the savings from using the same foundation and structure and not demolishing it and he agreed that it would make the most economical sense.

Mr. Hale stated that he thought that County Staff had demonstrated that by utilizing it for the Health Dept. and DSS that it could largely pay for itself generally. Mr. Carter noted that he would need to update the financials and talk to Dr. Peake to confirm their funds, and then could look at moving other County offices back more completely. Mr. Vaughan noted that the $1.6 million costs could be tweaked etc.

Mr. Hale noted he was concerned about the way the County dealt with old buildings and he liked looking at the historical Courthouse complex with different styles of architecture.

Ms. Brennan noted that she would rather finance the project for 25 years vs. 40 years, with Mr. Carter concurring that he would not recommend doing a 40 year financing. He noted that the savings from the Health Dept. and DSS rent covered the financing for a 40 year term.

Mr. Harvey inquired about any structural problems under the floor of the current Health Dept. building, with Mr. Vaughan responding that he had not seen an indication of that, and there appeared to be no water infiltration other than at the one window. He further noted that he would recommend excavating down and waterproofing the foundation, if the Board were to renovate building. He noted no cracks have been seen in the building.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that he did not share Mr. Hale’s sentiments about the beauty of the buildings, noting that the only positive thing about keeping the building is it is cheaper. He added that it was a financial decision, but that he would rather get rid of it and build a new building. He noted that he did not want to spend the money and did not want to raise taxes for it. His preference was to only put the Health Dept. and the Registrar back in the building and look at moving DSS and the School Board later; stating that the County could not build or renovate as cheap as it could rent the space. Mr. Carter clarified that Staff was not proposing to renovate anything for them and Mr. Bruguiere noted that he would rather leave those offices where they were.

Mr. Harvey asked about the possibility of adding a third floor to the current building and Mr. Vaughan noted it would be cost prohibitive and would be hard to get the whole building up to Building Code.
He suggested that they could take out the interior partitioning and reconfigure the space; noting that there were metal roof trusses in the building. He noted that the main drawback is the low floor to floor height; and that there was only 8ft from the slab to the floor joist above on the lower floor which would present a challenge.

The Board discussed being willing to defer the roof, but not do the renovations. Option 6, rebuilding on the same footprint was discussed as costing an additional $900,000.

Mr. Harvey and Ms. Brennan indicated that they wanted to see how much it would cost to rebuild the exact same square footage and Mr. Vaughan noted that he would recommend shelling out additional space at a minimum.

The Consensus of the Board was to do something with the building, so they would not replace the roof right now.

Mr. Vaughan advised that there were advantages to building right now and Mr. Carter added that Blair Construction had suggested that they could renovate the building by change order.

At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Hale moved that the Board authorize staff to proceed with plans to renovate the existing Nelson County Health Department building and then come back to the Board with proposals as to how to pay for it, including an updated estimate for Option 1 to renovate the existing building.

Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion, and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (3-1) by roll call vote to approve the motion with Mr. Harvey voting No.

Introduced: Tourism Copier

Mr. Bruguiere noted the status of the Tourism Department copier and Mr. Carter reported that staff was looking into leasing a new copier for the County Administrator’s office and giving them the old one.

IV. Closed Session as permitted by Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A) (1): A personnel matter involving appointment or promotion of particular officers or employees, performance evaluation or job assignments of specific employees, and salary or other compensation of a specific employee.

Mr. Hale moved that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors convene in closed session to discuss the following as permitted by Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A) (1): A personnel matter involving appointment or promotion of particular officers or employees, performance evaluation or job assignments of specific employees, and salary or other compensation of a specific employee. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion, and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and go into closed session.

Members conducted the closed session, and upon its conclusion, Mr. Hale moved to reconvene in public session and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and reconvene in public session.

Mr. Hale then moved that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors certify that, in the closed session just concluded, nothing was discussed except the matter or matters (1) specifically identified in the motion to convene in closed session and (2) lawfully permitted to be discussed under the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information act cited in that motion. Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and certify the closed session.

Following certification of the closed session, Mr. Hale moved to adopt R2010-41 Appointment of Nelson County Building Official, David L Thompson, effective July 1, 2010. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION R2010-41
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPOINTMENT OF NELSON COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL

PREAMBLE

Chapter 4 (Buildings) of the Code of the County of Nelson, Virginia provides at Section 4-27 for the establishment of a Building Inspection Department and for the appointment by the Board of Supervisors of a Building Official. Mr. David L. Thompson is currently serving in the capacity of Interim Building Official and has faithfully served Nelson County with excellence and the highest of professionalism throughout his employment tenure with the County. Mr. Thompson is deemed by the Board of Supervisors to be highly qualified to be permanently employed as Nelson County’s Building Official.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that Mr. David L. Thompson be and hereby is appointed Building Official for Nelson County, effective July 1, 2010 and, at an annual salary of $60,912.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is directed to report Mr. Thompson’s appointment to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and to provide for Mr. Thompson’s completion of certification requirements for local Building Officials as facilitated by said Department of Housing and Community Development.

V. Public Comments

Public Comments was considered immediately following the Consent Agenda. Ms. Brennan opened the floor for public comment and there being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public comments session was closed.

VI. Adjournment

At 8:50 PM, Mr. Hale 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.

Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes-May 27, 2010

admin — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:24:02 +0000

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 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

Absent: Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor

I. Call to Order

Ms. Brennan called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm, with four (4) Supervisors present to establish a quorum, and Mr. Bruguiere being absent.

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

II. Public Hearings

A. FY10-11 Nelson County Budget (All Funds)
The Nelson County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for the 2010/2011 fiscal year. Comments from county citizens will be accepted on all Funds of the proposed budget.

Ms. Brennan introduced Ms. McCann who gave a PowerPoint presentation and reported the following on the FY10-11 Budget:

Budget Funds Include:

•   General Operating Fund
•   School Operating Fund (&Textbook Fund)
•   Debt Service Fund
•   Capital Fund
•   Courthouse Project Fund
•   Broadband Project Fund
•   Community Development Block Grants
•   Piney River Water/Sewer Operations

There are ten funds that comprise the overall county budget. The primary fund is the general fund which often supports other funds as is the case with the School Fund and the Debt Service Fund. The remaining funds are generally project oriented such as the Community Development Block Grant fund or a fund may relate to an enterprise operation such as Piney River water & sewer operations.

General Fund Budget Compared to FY09-10:

•   FY09-10   $31,107,215
•   FY10-11   $31,044,438
•   Decrease   ($     62,777)
•   % Change      -0.2%

Compared to the current year budget as amended (through 3/10), the proposed FY11 General Fund budget reflects a decrease of approximately $63,000 which is a .2% decrease. Note: Although school funding has been significantly increased, this has been offset by variations in spending for capital outlay (convenience center project) and grant funded projects.

Significant Revenue Factors:

•   Minimal growth in Real Estate tax due to new construction.
•   Minimal growth in Personal Property values for 2010.
•   Increase in motor vehicle license fee.
•   Declining trends in interest earnings.
•   Leveling and slowed decline in recordation taxes & building permit fees.
•   Continued reductions in state aid to localities, in particular reduced funding for education and Constitutional Offices.

The economy continues to be the driving force behind anticipated revenues for the coming year. The county anticipates little to no growth in real estate values due to new construction. Overall personal property values are anticipated to be fairly level—trends reflect substantial depreciation of newer vehicle values while older vehicles reflect equal or slightly higher values. The motor vehicle license fee was increased from $20 to $30 for cars and from $8 to $13 for motorcycles. This fee increase is anticipated to generate approximately $150,000 in additional annual revenue. There are declining trends in interest earnings on investments, receipts from recordation taxes are anticipated to be fairly level in the upcoming year, and building permit fees continue their downward trend due to the slowdown in the housing market. These economic trends are also forcing the state to deal with revenue shortfalls by significantly reducing aid to localities; in particular funding for education and Constitutional Offices.

Local Revenue:

•   FY10 Budget                 $24,182,378
•   FY11 Projections        $24,522,751
•   Overall Increase         $340,372
•   Percent Change           +1.4%

FY11 local revenue makes up 79% of the total General Fund budget. The primary source of local revenue is general property taxes ($20,017,091) which accounts for 82% of all local revenue. The FY11 budget reflects a 1.4% budgetary increase, $340,000, in local revenue primarily due to the increased motor vehicle license fee and less conservative estimates of property tax receipts.

State Revenue:

•   FY10 Budget              $3,531,577
•   FY11 Projections              $3,197,559
•   Overall Decrease              -$334,018
•   Percent Change         – 9.45%

Although the current year budget (as amended through 3/10) reflects $3.5 million in state revenue, continued revenue reductions have been implemented during the year, such that actual state revenues are anticipated to be approximately $227,000 less than budgeted. State revenue makes up 10.3% of the total General Fund budget in FY11 as compared to 11.4% in FY10. The largest sources of state funding within the General Fund include Compensation Board funding for Constitutional Offices and state support of public assistance and social services programs. Next year’s budget reflects an overall net reduction of $334,000 primarily due to fluctuations in grant funding (Tunnel-$250,000 expended in FY10) and additional reductions in state funding for constitutional offices.

Federal Revenue:

•   FY10 Budget         $2,372,333
•   FY11 Projections               $1,716,766
•   Overall Decrease               -$655,567
•   Percent Change             -27.6%

Federal revenue makes up 5.5% of the total General Fund budget. Generally, federal sources include social services funding and the payment in lieu of taxes from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Also reflected here is a Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant awarded in FY10. Much of this grant has not been expended and approximately $1.2 million will carry forward to FY11. The reduction reflected here is due to this fluctuation in grant funding. (Terrorism Prevention Grant $92,720, Trail T21 $350,000, EMS Laptops $65,700, Recovery Act Byrne JAG $10,147, and PSIC $100,000)

All Sources of Revenue:

•   Local                 $24,522,751
•   State                           $ 3,197,559
•   Federal                         $ 1,716,766
•   Transfers from other funds        $    890,700
•   Year Ending Balance           $    716,662
•   Total                   $31,044,438

Local, state and federal revenues together with intergovernmental transfers from the Courthouse Project Fund and the Capital Fund allocated for the roof & window replacement project at Tye River and Rockfish River Elementary schools and the year ending balance allocated for local match requirements for the PSIC grant ($260,000) and the Broadband grant ($456,662), make up all projected revenue supporting the FY11 proposed expenditures.

Expenditure Highlights include:

•   Debt service for Courthouse renovation project
•   Roof and window replacement at Tye River and Rockfish River Elementary Schools will be completed in FY11 (summer 2010)
•   2012 Property Reassessment to begin in FY11
•   Contingency reserve

The Courthouse renovation project is underway with estimated completion in January 2011. The new facility will house the General District Court, the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, the Sheriff’s Department and the Dispatch Center. The new Faber convenience center included in the current year budget (located on Cove Valley Lane) is almost complete and is anticipated to be operational in July. $740,700 is allocated in the FY11 budget for roof replacement at Tye River Elementary and window replacements at Rockfish River and Tye River. The FY11 budget also includes funding for the 2012 Property Reassessment ($245,000). Finally, the FY11 budget also includes a small contingency reserve of approximately $360,000 ($361,039–specific projects TBD). The reserve is unallocated to provide for future contingencies—particularly important during the current uncertain economic climate.

Grant Projects Include:

• Blue Ridge Tunnel restoration
Funded with Transportation Enhancement grants from the Virginia Department of Transportation

• Public Safety Interoperable Communications
Funded with Homeland Security grant

• Middle Mile Broadband Project
Funded with Recovery Act Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program Grant
Non-Federal local match is funded within the General Fund using FY10 carryover

The Blue Ridge or Claudius Crozet Tunnel restoration project encompasses tunnel restoration and development of access trails (located in Augusta and Nelson counties). Grant funds will be utilized to work towards completion of the Final Design for the restoration. Additionally, a non-profit foundation has been established to assist with project funding.

The county is serving as lead agency in a regional Public Safety Interoperable Communications project that will provide for implementation of a regional microwave network and installation of mutual aid repeaters. The network will provide infrastructure to enhance public safety communications for Nelson County. Our regional partners include Albemarle County, Augusta County and the Cities of Charlottesville, Waynesboro and Staunton as well as the Virginia State Police. All partners will benefit from the interoperability and regional data sharing that will be provided through this microwave network. Funds for this project are provided by the US Dept of Homeland Security through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

The county was awarded a $1.8 million grant through the Recovery Act Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program. This grant requires a non-federal match of $456,662 which is within the FY11 General Fund budget. A separate construction fund will be established for this project. This project will provide for the installation of a fiber optic network and towers running north to south linking the communities of Afton, Avon, Lovingston, Colleen, Tyro and Massies Mill. (The middle mile backbone proposes to serve community facilities along the network route by delivering greater amounts of bandwidth at a much lower cost. The County’s Broadband Authority will establish agreements with last mile service providers to utilize the county-built open access network to serve areas not directly along the backbone route.)

Operations Include:

•   No salary adjustments (small increase in health insurance benefit costs)
•   Overall level funding for departments
•   Level funding to most agencies
•   Operational expenses relative to new judicial facility (Jan-June 2011)

Operational funding within the proposed budget will change very little; salaries are level funded with a minimal increase in health insurance benefit costs (4%). Included is overall level funding for departments and most agencies. The budget does incorporate estimated expenses relative to the new judicial facility –inclusive of security, custodial services, and utility costs.

Local Contribution to Schools:

•   School Nursing Program (Level)
•   School Operations (+$678,946)
•   Purchase of new buses eliminated
•   Roof & Window Replacement (TRES & RRES)
•   Total to Operations $ 13,047,118
•   Total to Debt            $   2,841,558
$ 15,888,676

Within the General Fund, the school nursing program is level funded at $215,000. Local operational funding is proposed at approximately $12.1 million ($12,091,418) which is a 5.9% increase over the current year. The budget proposes the elimination of funding for new school buses, a reduction of $320,000. Also included is $740,700 for roof replacement at Tye River Elementary and window replacements at both Tye River and Rockfish River Elementary. The total local contribution to the School Fund is just over $13 million. In addition to this support, the county funds almost $3 million for school related debt ($2,841,558).

School Fund Budget Compared to FY09-10:

FY09-10   $23,604,790
FY10-11   $22,996,237
Decrease        -$608,553
% Change             -2.6%

*Operations Budget only (excludes debt)

The School Fund budget compared to the current year (original budget) reflects a decrease of $611,553 or 2.6%. The proposed budget is approximately $417,378 more than the School Board originally requested budget, which did not include funding for the roof and window project ($323,322 reduction from request outside of roof/window project) and includes an almost $1.1 million ($1,099,646) increase in local funding. The overall decrease is reflective of a more conservative budget impacted significantly by reductions in state funding for education in FY11.

School Fund Revenue:

The School Fund budget includes almost $7.4 million in state revenues which is a 13.2% decrease ($1,116,585) over the current year. This reduction comes after a similar reduction in FY09, offset by stimulus funding of $493,458. Federal revenue is projected to decrease by 28.2% ($610,165) which is reflective of stimulus money provided in the current year that does recur in FY11. Other revenue includes such items as field trip fees and food services revenue and shows a decrease of $8,841 (0.8%). The local contribution from the General Fund is just over $13 million which is approximately 65% of general property tax revenue. This contribution includes a $678,946 increase for operations, no new funding for school buses, and $740,700 for major repairs.

School Expenditures:

Total All Categories: $22,996,237. More detailed expenditure breakdowns are pending approval by the School Board.

Summary by Fund:

•   General Fund    $31,044,438
•   School Fund    $22,996,237
•   Textbook Fund    $676,747
•   Debt Service Fund    $3,171,676
•   Capital Fund    $274,740
•   Courthouse Project    $6,051,077
•   Broadband Project    $2,283,308
•   CDBG Grant Fund    $22,000
•   Piney River Water/Sewer    $228,379

To conclude, I have noted here all the funds that make up the county budget. We have discussed tonight the General Fund and the School Fund which are by far the largest components of the budget.
Should you have additional questions or want more detailed information, we will be happy to provide that to you.

Following Ms. McCann’s presentation, Ms. Brennan thanked staff for their hard work in putting the County in a much more fortunate position than its surrounding counties. She noted that many localities were raising taxes and fees and that this was a budget that they could live with.

Ms. Brennan then opened the public hearing and the following persons were recognized:

1. Janice Jackson, Shipman

Ms. Jackson stated that she was the County’s JAUNT representative and she thanked the Board for its support. She noted that maintaining funding at current levels preserved the Tuesday Seniors route service. She noted that they would be inviting the Board on 6/22 for a thank you reception.

2. Tom Guthrie, Arrington

Mr. Guthrie inquired as to the cost of school buses funded last year and Ms. McCann reported $320,000 for four (4) years.

3. Roger Collins, Superintendent of Schools

Dr. Collins thanked the Board for its assistance this year and noted that Nelson County was fortunate relative to its peers.

There being no other persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed and Ms. Brennan advised the public that the Board would consider approval of the budget on June 8, 2010.

Mr. Carter requested that the Board consider authorizing staff to advise Dr. Collins to proceed with contracts and establish the school division funding pending final approval. The Board agreed by consensus to authorize staff to proceed with funding notification to the Schools.

III. New/Unfinished Business

Introduced: New Faber Collection Site

Mr. Hale reported that the new Faber collection site was on the verge of having asphalt and Mr. Carter added that the base was put down the previous day and maybe the top coat was done that day; with the site being very close to start up. Ms. Brennan noted that she had been by the site on Tuesday and they were putting asphalt down then. Mr. Carter noted he would report on June 8th and that June 21st may be the startup date.

IV. Public Comments

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

V. Adjournment

At 7:25 pm, Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn 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.

Connie Brennan’s Webpage

admin — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:23:13 +0000

Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes-September 24, 2009

admin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:25:55 +0000

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.