Board of Supervisors: March 5, 2007

March 5, 2007

Virginia:

AT A CONTINUED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 1:30
P. M. in the Board of Supervisors Room at the Courthouse, Lovingston Virginia.

Present:     Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr., Chair
Harry S. Harris, South District Supervisor
       Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor
       Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor
       Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
       Candice W. McGarry, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
       Philip Payne, IV, County Attorney
       Debbie McCann, Director of Finance & Human Resources
       Fred Boger, Director of Planning & Zoning
       Betty Fortune, Secretary III, Planning & Zoning


I.   Call to Order

Mr. Bruguiere, Chair, called the continued meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. with four members present to establish a quorum with Mr. Harvey being absent.

II.   Work Session – Draft Zoning Ordinance, PC Recommendations

Mr. Boger overviewed the process undertaken by the Planning Commission to arrive at the recommendations for the Board’s consideration. He noted that the division rights chart needed clarification for greater than 75 acres and a drop dead date for projects in process needed to be established.

The Board then discussed how to determine when the drop dead date would be. Mr. Carter suggested stating an application deadline and anything submitted after would be subject to the revised Ordinance. Mr. Boger noted problems with this due to applicants being in various stages of field work. Using the public hearing date was discussed. Mr. Payne stated that an option would be to set an effective date in the future after the adoption of the revisions and say that all applications pending would be considered under the old Ordinance. Mr. Payne clarified that the application date is easy to follow since the application is made to the County not the engineers. He stated that if the Board does nothing then the effective date of the Ordinance applies to everything that’s not finished; so he recommends a window of time to honor pending applications.

Mr. Boger described the application process as follows: the submittal date is the 3rd Friday of each month which includes submittal of a preliminary plat and site plan. The review date is set and the application is sent to VDOT to review. Fees are paid at the time of submittal and preliminary applications have one year expirations. Mr. Payne suggested setting a date that all applications have to be made to the County by to be considered under the old Ordinance. Mr. Harris noted that the public hearing process would likely take 90 days, which should be enough time for current applicants to get their stuff in order. The County could give notice to the public and the public hearing date could be the drop dead date. The Board discussed holding the public hearing on the amendments at the Regular Board meeting in April using the Circuit Court Room. Mr. Boger noted having to notify all property owners and needing to verify if this could be done within the proposed timeframe. The Board noted they were not ready to authorize proceeding to public hearing just yet, but maybe by the next regular meeting on March 13, 2007.

The Board then began review of the Planning Commissions recommendations on the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, going page by page with the following changes:

Page 2, Districts: Discussed Conservation Districts and whether or not to keep them since
they have never been used and their practicality is in question. It was noted that Agricultural District A-1 includes this concept. It was noted that Conservation Districts apply to the National Forests. The Board decided by consensus to leave this in for now.

Page 3, section 2-48a Horticulture, 2-65a Nursery were stricken, 2-8b Automobile Graveyard class B was clarified and deemed ok.

Page 4, section 2-65b Nursery was stricken, 2-85a subdivision: Mr. Carter suggested using the definition from the Code of Virginia, since the proposed one conflicts with the proposed sliding scale. He is to forward this code section to the Board. Mr. Payne suggested removing the terms “does not apply to family subdivision” because it implies there is no need for a plat etc. and doesn’t change what’s being done, but rather removes the ambiguity. 2-66a Parcel: This definition is in the present subdivision Ordinance per Mr. Boger; The Board noted not liking the phrase “readily ascertainable” and decided to come back to this definition.

Page 4 & 5, Conservation District, No Change at this time

Page 6, Agricultural District A-1, No Change

Page 7, Lot Size Table leave as is with the change in the language of no. of lots allowed for > 75 acres to remove “unlimited” and insert “this size parcel has additional division rights provided each additional lot created is 20 acres or more in size.” The minimum no. of Acres and No. of lots allowed was clarified and left as is at 0-5 acres has 2 lots allowed. Item 4-2-1a was proposed to include the language in 3-2-2 to say “the required area shall be approved by the health official.” No action was taken on this proposal. Mr. Payne asked for clarification on the need for “per dwelling unit” in this definition. Mr. Boger noted that without it, a non-conforming lot could be created; and the language was left as is.

Page 8, Section 4-3-5 Road Frontage was discussed and 125 ft was agreed to be a reasonable requirement and would mitigate pipe-stem issues.

Page 9, Article 5. Residential District R-1, no changes

Page 10, Section 5-2-2 Mr. Boger clarified that the same square footage (30,000 sq ft) is required for utilization of both public sewer and water.

Page 11, Section 5-6-4 height regulations for accessory buildings in R-1 were discussed at length with the primary example being a garage built to house an RV and the proposed use of a 35 ft maximum as used in an Agricultural District. The Board agreed by consensus to strike the entire amendment to 5-6-4, which leaves the height restriction in R-1 at a 35 ft maximum, as stated in the current Ordinance.

Page 12, General Provisions, full removal of posting provisions recommended by PC and agreed upon by the Board.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that Mr. Harris needed to leave by 3:45 pm and proposed that the Board continue with the review of the subdivision recommendations at the regular meeting on the 13th and move on to the FY08 budget presentation.

Pages 13 -16 were deemed ok as recommended by the Planning Commission.

III.       Work Session – FY08 Budget Introduction

Mr. Carter made opening remarks regarding the budget stating that the goal for the day was to present the budget PowerPoint over-view, take questions, get some direction and plan the next work sessions. He noted that the premise was to present a balanced budget to the Board. He noted that the tax rate needed to be set as soon as the Board is ready and if any changes to the rates were to be made it would involve a public hearing and would take a minimum of 3 weeks; noting that the tax tickets would need to go out at least 2 weeks prior to the due date per the Code. He noted receipt of the ratio of assessed values from the Department of Taxation which was 45.5% for 2007, which comports with what the assessors have been saying that real estate values could increase by about 55%, at a minimum of 30-35%.

Ms. McCann gave a PowerPoint presentation which included the following:

Revenues:

The overall budget change from FY06-07 to FY-07-08 was shown to be a decrease of $812,386 or a 3% decrease. This is due to a decline in local revenues outside of the real estate and personal property taxes. Ms. McCann confirmed that there would be no shortfall at June 30, 2007 but rather some carry-over is anticipated and included in the FY08 budget.

The general property taxes change from FY06-07 to FY-07-08 was shown to be a projected increase of $181,651 or 1.2%. Ms. McCann noted that no impact from the re-assessment was included here and the Commissioner of Revenue’s book values were not yet ready.

The other local revenues change from FY06-07 to FY-07-08 was shown to be a projected increase of $191,555 or 4.0%. This was noted to include revenue recovery from the Paid EMS program in FY08.

The State revenues were shown to change from FY06-07 to FY07-08 a projected $569,935 increase or 15.7%, primarily due to Trail and Tunnel grants in FY08. It was noted this doesn’t include State Compensation Board reimbursements as those are not yet known. Mr. Carter noted that the state sales tax number is also projected to be the same as FY07 and could possibly be less; which would require an adjustment to the numbers presented here.

The Federal revenues were shown to change from FY06-07 to FY07-08 a projected $57,345 decrease or -66%, primarily due to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes hitting twice in FY06-07 and a non-recurring COPS grant. The PILT is expected to return to its normal level in FY08.

The Non-recurring revenue for FY08 includes a re-assessment reserve of $273,640, prior year E911 revenue of $233,386, Courthouse Reserve of $827,549, Dedicated Trail Revenue of $54,764, and Projected FY07 Carryover of $221,573 for a total of $1,610,912. Certain non-recurring revenues are dedicated to non-recurring expenditures.

Other non-recurring revenue is utilized for operational expenditures such as $233,386 in E911 funds and $144,315 in FY07 carry-over. Ms. McCann stated that since the expenditures are recurring and the revenues are not, these funds would have to be covered by current year revenues in future years. She noted that E-911 funds are now part of the General Fund due to the State’s instituting the telecommunications tax (which incorporates the former E-911 funds) and can’t easily be differentiated now. The E-911 fund is essentially exhausted in FY08 and will likely have to be made up in next year’s budget.

Expenditures:

Ms. McCann noted that a balanced budget is presented that started with an initial deficit of $2.0 million dollars.

The projected operational expenditures were shown to have increased from FY06-07 to FY07-08 by $357,374 or 4.0%. This includes reassessment costs, a proposed 4% salary increase and a 2.7% Health insurance increase. Ms. McCann noted that Wingate will bill the County in full in FY08. She also noted that a 1% salary increase equates to $36,000 and the Health Insurance increase amount is $12,500. She noted that the Board’s increase from $4,000 to $6,000 per year starting in January 2008 is also included. Mr. Carter noted that the Board could set their salaries at any level by resolution, but that they wouldn’t be able to adjust them again until the next election year. They could do it by Ordinance, but would be restricted to a cap increase of 5%.

The projected Agency contributions were shown to have decreased from FY06-07 to FY07-08 by $438 or -0.1%. She noted that the Agencies were essentially level funded, with the EMS Council being included in overall operations and not here since it is more a reimbursement of expenditures and is more a part of operations. Mr. Carter noted meeting with the EMS council President on their budget request.

The projected Grant expenditures were shown to have increased from FY06-07 to FY07-08 by $549,399 or 4.9% due to unexpended trail and tunnel grants carried forward.

The projected other Capital Outlay was shown to have increased by $266,566 with the FY08 budget including $336,000 for the 571 Front Street property, continuation of the Courthouse project maintenance shop roof replacement, and the Region 2000 Water Planning study.

The projected Social Services and CSA expenditures were shown to decrease $106,975 or -5.7% as requested by DSS and level funding for CSA which includes the required 30% local match. More funding for CSA was requested, and at some point later in the year more funding will be needed. It was noted there was no General Assembly action on CSA this session.

The projected Schools and Nursing program expenditures were shown to increase $262,447 or 2.8%. The school request included $869,325 in new local dollars and RHOP requested an additional $3,183 in funding for the nursing program. Ms. McCann noted that the amount of increase for school funding was based on the required local match for the additional State funds to be received by the school system. It was noted that the State is funding a portion of a 3% salary increase (SOQ required positions), and it is unsure as to what % increase is being proposed in the school budget request.

The projected Debt Service expenditures were shown to decrease by $200,843 or -6.8%. Ms. McCann noted that the budget contains a proposed use of $156,170 set aside in FY07 for convenience centers plus an additional $18,729 for 6 months of related debt. FY08 also proposes to use $113,401 in fund balance generated by capitalized interest payments on the School project, and the use of these funds has been approved by the County Auditors. There is also a proposed additional $90,000 included for school bus leases.

The projected contribution to Piney River sewer operations remains level at $10,000. These funds are used on an as needed basis.

Mr. Harris exited the meeting at approximately 3:45 PM

Ms. McCann noted several revenue sources for consideration including the Lodging Tax, Vehicle License Tax, Business License and Admissions tax. Ms McCann noted that staff is looking at the County’s fee structures but it is not expected to yield much additional revenue. Mr. Carter noted that the County’s lodging tax is currently 3% and could go to 5% generating roughly $100,000 per each percent and the Code requires that anything over 2% be used for Tourism purposes. The vehicle license tax is at $20 and could go to $23 giving $20,000 to $30,000 more revenues. The business licenses are currently at the maximum of $30 and the County could go to a gross receipts model. Mr. Carter noted that in the past the Board hasn’t been interested in the gross receipts model, but wanted to re-introduce it as an option. The admission tax would yield possibly $15,000 to $25,000 as the current code allows, however substantial revenues could be gained but it would require re-initiating removal of the State’s restriction on taxing recreational uses. In the past, when the County has tried to have this exemption removed the legislators have noted that the County is not utilizing the tax as it currently stands. Mr. Carter explained the gross receipts business license fee concept and there was some discussion over the fairness of this type of tax. The lodging tax was discussed favorably as being a user tax and the County’s percentage being low compared to other jurisdictions. Mr. Carter also noted that the vehicle license fee has not been changed in his tenure with the County.

Ms. McCann noted that the 2006 value of a penny on the real estate tax is $144,673. She noted the other consideration for the Board is the reassessment impact; however the Board would not have to decide anything on that until the next budget cycle. Mr. Carter noted that Davenport would be introducing a budgeting model based on a 30% increase in real estate values in the near future. He also noted the importance of looking 5-6 years down the road and the impact of the Courthouse project and the Schools on operations is potentially 5 to 6 cents. He stated that it is imperative in considering the reassessment that future years be considered. Ms McCann noted that the non-recurring revenues used for operations equates to approximately 2 cents, which will have to be made up next year. Mr. Carter noted the use of non-recurring monies of around $200,000 for schools in this fiscal year that is being made up.

Operational considerations for the Board include adjusting the FY08 budget using the revised assumption that the 3rd convenience center site will not be staffed until FY09 and reducing the hours/days of operation at convenience center sites could reduce expenditures. Going from 7 days per week to 5 days per week would save approximately $40,000. Mr. Carter noted that these 2 days off, potentially Tuesday and Wednesday could be used for maintenance if the County assumes operation of the sites and hauling. He noted that the meeting with Wiley & Wilson and Saunder’s Surveys yielded a construction completion for the Shipman and Massie’s Mill sites of August or September 2007. The paid EMS program could yield some changes. Discussions regarding moving to 7 days per week/ 13 hrs per day could mean an increase in expenditures of around $163,000 per Curtis Sheets and the revenue recovery revenues are an unknown. The Board discussed going a whole year with revenue recovery and then making operational decisions, which staff concurred with. The Board noted that things seemed to be going fairly well with the paid EMS program thus far. Mr. Carter noted that there has been some discussion about the mileage reimbursements and wear and tear on the vehicles. He noted that it had been suggested that the County purchase 2 ambulances but that reservations about this had been expressed by Wintergreen and the EMS Council president.

Ms. McCann noted needing direction from the Board at this point in moving forward with the budget process and setting another work session. Mr. Carter noted that a Davenport analysis is forthcoming utilizing the 30% reassessment and incorporating full funding of the school request and capital projects to show how things look operationally 5-6 years down the road noting that the picture is not anticipated to look very good. Mr. Bruguiere and Mr. Hale expressed interest in moving forward with increasing the lodging tax. The Board’s consensus was to discuss tax rates and adjustments, authorize the Health Insurance renewal and set the budget work session schedule with the full Board.

Creative taxing strategies were discussed, however Mr. Carter noted that something along those lines was before the General Assembly now, but is not currently an option, but could be looked into. He also noted that the Commissioner of Revenue is to propose an increase in elderly tax relief. Taxation of house lots and land use lots was discussed.

IV.        Appointments – Biosolids Advisory Committee

Deferred until the regular meeting on March 13, 2007 to include the full Board.

V.        Other Business (As May be Presented)

Mr. Carter introduced the proposed resolution R2007-0025 and noted the deadline to apply for VRA pooled bond financing is approaching at March 16, 2007. The Resolution would authorize the County to apply for this funding to finance the Solid Waste initiative that proposes to purchase convenience center site and hauling equipment together with the development of the 3 remaining sites. He noted favorable interest rates and that applying for the funds did not commit the County to using them.

There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Hale to adopt R2007-025 and seconded by Ms. Brennan. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote (3-0) and Resolution R2007-025 was adopted as follows:

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the County Administrator be and hereby is authorized to submit an application to (the) Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) for participation in VRA’s Pooled Bond Financing Program (Spring 2007) to provide solid waste project funding to Nelson County (the County) to enable the County to construct and equip, including transportation equipment, three solid waste collection stations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by said Board of Supervisors that the project financing to be sought from VRA shall not exceed $2.5 million dollars without prior authorization from the Board.

Approved: March 5, 2007
Attest: ________________________, Clerk

Nelson County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Bruguiere noted that consideration of the appointments for the Biosolids Advisory Group as well as the Planning Commission and other pending appointments would be done on the 13th.

Mr. Carter noted that he had sent communication to Cal Sawyer of VDH requesting delay in consideration of the pending Biosolids applications as the Board directed. Mr. Bruguiere discussed the meeting with Synagro at the Gladstone EPIC transfer site and noted that the icy leakage in photographs presented by Ms. Allen appeared to be from the top of the cars and noted no leakage while there at the meeting. The transfer of authority related to Biosolids from VDH to DEQ purview was discussed as a negative.

Mr. Carter noted that RCC will be presenting at the meeting on the 13th and noted what had been passed out and requested that the small binder with pricing information be returned as proprietary information. He noted the possibility of making an application for Homeland Security Grant funding for the project, but that it would be nationally competitive.

VI.   Adjournment

At 4:35 P. M., on a motion by Mr. Hale and seconded by Ms. Brennan, Supervisors voted unanimously, (3-0), to adjourn and continue until the regular meeting at 2:00 pm on March 13, 2007 at the Lovingston Courthouse.