Board of Supervisors: April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 2:00 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:     Thomas H. Bruguiere, Chair
        Harry S. Harris, South District Supervisor
        Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor
        Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor
        Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
        Candice W. McGarry, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
        Fred M. Boger, Planning Director
        Jeremy Boggs, Assistant County Attorney

I.    Call to Order

Mr. Bruguiere, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:05 P. M. with 5 members present to establish a quorum.

A.    Moment of Silence
B.    Pledge of Allegiance

II.    Consent Agenda

Mr. Harvey made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion, and the following resolutions were approved:

RESOLUTION-R2007-0034

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
(March 13, 2007)

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meeting conducted on March 13, 2007 be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.

RESOLUTION (R2007-035)
AMENDMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 BUDGET
NELSON COUNTY, VA
April 10, 2007

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County that the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget be hereby amended as follows:

I.          Appropriation of Funds (General Fund)
Amount    Revenue Account    Expenditure Account
        $   2,851.00    3-100-002302-0001    4-100-031020-7007
             2,311.00    3-100-002404-0015    4-100-032020-5648
                786.26    3-100-002404-0002    4-100-032020-5650
        250,000.00    3-100-004104-0002    4-100-091050-1001
        $255,948.26

    II.        Appropriation of Funds (CDBG Fund)
Amount    Revenue Account    Expenditure Account
        $ 25,000.00    3-503-003201-0007    4-503-094700-3002



RESOLUTION R2007-036
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR A MARKET STUDY OF ENHANCED PASSENGER RAIL IN THE U.S. 29 “PIEDMONT” CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, a growing population and a burgeoning commercial explosion have helped to expand Virginia’s prosperous economy, but they have also helped to create steadily worsening problems of congestion and accessibility in its major transportation corridors, and
WHEREAS, among Virginia’s major transportation corridors, U. S. 29 North, or the “Piedmont Corridor,” represents a vital and heavily used north-south travel route between Washington, DC and Lynchburg that serves many counties and cities in the Piedmont region of the Commonwealth, and
WHEREAS, the counties of Albemarle, Greene, Madison, Orange, Culpeper, Nelson, Amherst, Fauquier and Prince William and the cities of Lynchburg and Charlottesville have a vital interest in providing their citizens with an efficient and affordable transportation alternative to access the population and commercial centers of Northern Virginia, the District of Columbia and the Northeast, and
WHEREAS, enhanced passenger rail service in the Piedmont Corridor could be an important part of the solution to the problems of congestion, safety and environmental stresses caused by the fast increasing population in the areas adjacent to U.S. 29 North, I-66 and I-95, and
WHEREAS, the economies of the cities and counties of the Piedmont Corridor would greatly benefit from greater accessibility by rail that could accommodate tourists, students, business persons and others who travel on U.S. 29 to and from Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia, and
WHEREAS, communities along the corridor between Lynchburg and Washington, DC make heavy use of the services provided by Amtrak, the limited frequency and capacity of these trains do not adequately meet the needs of most travelers who could use this passenger rail alternative. With 20 weekly Amtrak trains, ridership is higher per scheduled train at Charlottesville’s Main Street Station than that at either the Richmond or Newport News stations, and
WHEREAS, with expanded passenger rail services we believe that substantial numbers of travelers would use these services, reducing the demands placed on overcrowded highways and fuel consumption, while helping to reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming, and
WHEREAS, the potential ridership and the accompanying economic and environmental benefits of enhanced passenger rail service in the Piedmont Corridor between Lynchburg and Washington, DC has not yet received the attention of the Virginia Rail Advisory Board and the Commonwealth Transportation Board that we believe is merited, and
WHEREAS, sound market research will provide a basis for determining the potential use, costs and benefits that will accrue to the citizens of Albemarle, Greene, Madison, Orange, Culpeper, Nelson, Amherst, Fauquier and Prince William counties and the cities of Lynchburg and Charlottesville from enhanced passenger rail service,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County joins the Piedmont Rail Coalition in requesting that a market study of the nature and demand for passenger rail service in the aforementioned corridor be conducted, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors supports the application to the Commonwealth of Virginia to fund a valid and comprehensive survey of citizens throughout this corridor, and understands that such funding may require a local match by participating jurisdictions, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, upon approval of such funding by the Commonwealth of Virginia, or at such time as it becomes necessary, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors may consider a request to financially participate in any required local match.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County joins the Piedmont Rail Coalition in requesting that the Commonwealth of Virginia fund the conduct of a market study of the nature and demand for passenger rail service in the aforementioned corridor.

PROCLAMATION-P2007-003

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FAIR HOUSING MONTH – APRIL 2007

WHEREAS, April is Fair Housing Month and marks the anniversary of the passage of the Federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988); and

WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act provides that no person shall be subjected to discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or financial status in the sale, rental, financing, or advertising of housing; and

WHEREAS, the Virginia Fair Housing Law also prohibits housing discrimination based on elderliness; and

WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act supports equal housing opportunity throughout the United States and fair housing creates healthy communities, and housing discrimination harms us all; and

WHEREAS, Nelson County supports equal housing opportunity and seeks to affirmatively further fair housing not only during Fair Housing Month in April, but throughout the year;

THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, that April is Fair Housing Month.

PROCLAMATION-P2007-004

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

NATIONAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK 2007– APRIL 22 -28

WHEREAS, America’s counties provide a variety of essential services, many of which work to protect our environment; and

WHEREAS, counties take seriously their responsibility to protect and enhance the health welfare and safety of its citizens in sensible and cost effective ways; and

WHEREAS, many county government initiatives involve the protection of valuable and vulnerable environmental resources in communities; and

WHEREAS, there are 3,066 counties in the United States, collectively responsible for the well being of more than 250 million residents; and

WHEREAS, counties have a long history of providing critical services with county governments being the citizens’ local government voice, providing solutions that bring communities together; and

In recognition of the leadership, innovation and valuable services provided by our nation’s counties;

THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, that April 22-28, 2007 is National County Government Week in Nelson County.

PROCLAMATION-P2007-005

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK 2007– APRIL 15TH -21ST

WHEREAS, our nation’s public, academic, school and specialized libraries transform their communities; and

WHEREAS, libraries play a vital role in supporting the quality of life in their communities; and

WHEREAS, librarians are trained professionals, helping people of all ages and backgrounds find the resources they need to live, learn and work in the 21st century; and

WHEREAS, libraries are part of the American Dream – places for opportunity, education, self-help and lifelong learning; bringing people a world of knowledge both in person and online; and

WHEREAS, libraries are a key player in the national discourse on intellectual freedom, equity of access, and narrowing the digital divide; and

WHEREAS, libraries, librarians, library workers and supporters across America are celebrating National Library Week with The Campaign for America’s Libraries;

THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, that April 15-21, 2007 is National Library Week in Nelson County.

III.    Public Comments and Presentations

A.    Public Comments – None

B.       VDOT Report – Kevin Wright

Mr. Wright noted the continuation of two projects in the County, work on Rt. 620, Rock Springs Road and the Arrington bridge project. Both are progressing on time and within budget.

Mr. Hale asked Mr. Wright to check into large pot holes alongside the newly constructed bridge at Cove Creek in Faber in the Shiloh loop area, where Rt. 632 intersects with Rt. 6. He also noted tree limbs that were blocking the County gateway sign in need of trimming.

Ms. Brennan commented on the issue of center line cutting in the median at the northern end of the County that is split between Nelson and Albemarle Counties. She noted that Albemarle County had contracted the trimming of trees in the median and the contractor clear cut the entire median including the Nelson side. A discussion followed regarding who is responsible and to what extent, to remedy the mistake. Mr. Wright noted that since the contractor was hired by Albemarle County and was not within his jurisdiction, he could not really speak to the issue.

Ms. Brennan inquired about the qualification of Nelson County to institute impact fees for transportation in accordance with new legislation and it was noted by Mr. Boger and confirmed by Mr. Wright, that Nelson County did not meet the population requirement of 20,000 and did not qualify.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that landowners along Rt. 655 wanted the road shut down as opposed to spending money to maintain it. The road (Rt. 655) runs from the Dairy Isle in Colleen over to Rt. 56 West at Four Brothers, Inc.

Calohill Drive down from Food Lion to Rt. 29 was discussed as having a drop off on the right shoulder that is getting significant due to water run-off and cars using the shoulder for a turning lane at the stop light. Mr. Boger noted that an agreement had been made with the Calohill property owners to install a water bar to re-direct storm water and have the road fixed. The possibility of widening the lane at the light to allow for a right turn lane was discussed as desirable.

The hole near the storm drain on Brookside Lane in Lovingston was discussed and Mr. Wright noted that he thought it had been fixed and would check to be sure. A discussion of the poor condition of the through street of Brookside Lane onto Front Street and private vs. public maintenance of the alley ensued. Mr. Carter noted having asked Mr. Payne to render an opinion on who owns this particular road (alley), with no response yet. Some concern was expressed and discussion had on the prospect of the County spending tax-payer dollars to fix private roads. Mr. Wright indicated that County maintained private roads would not have to meet VDOT standards, but if the State takes ownership of these roads at some point, they would need to be brought up to State standards.

IV.    Unfinished Business

A.    Nellysford Master Plan (TJPDC)

Mr. Carter overviewed the process of distributing the draft plan for citizen review and comment since the last meeting and introduced Bill Wanner of TJPDC to take questions.

Mr. Wanner noted the extensive community outreach that had been done and noted multiple conversations with citizens. He stated that phasing the project and a related matrix had been discussed with Mr. Carter. He noted the compatibility of the plan with the promotion of villages potentially being used by Economic Development efforts, and the ability to build on this concept and the concept of promoting affordable housing in the plan.

The Board discussed eliminating the use of roundabouts and emphasizing and delineating the use of an access road that connects the properties along the back side of the lots along Rt. 151, in order to reduce the number of vehicles turning off of Rt. 151 to access the businesses there. It was noted that the access road was already in place except for a small piece.

Mr. Wanner recommended keeping the planned parallel road to Rt. 151 in the plan despite some unwillingness expressed by the property owners on the concept. He noted that the Planning Commission’s inclusion of the plan into the County’s Comprehensive Plan would give added leverage in working with businesses and property owners. He noted that getting the backing of landowners in the plan area was key.

Following the discussion, the Board’s consensus was to defer directing staff to refer the plan to the Planning Commission, until the final plan can be presented with the elimination of the roundabout and the delineation of the access road on the plan map.

B.    JABA – Ryan School Apartments Additional Funding Request

Mr. Carter noted that the packet includes a November 2006 letter addressed to Mr. Harris, financial information from JABA on the project, and a letter from LMW, the project architect commenting on their work. Mr. Carter noted that Mr. Heckman, in attendance for JABA, had been outstanding to work with on the project. He then introduced Mr. Mike Heckman of JABA.

Mr. Heckman briefly reviewed the accomplishments at Ryan School Apartments. He noted the coordination of five funding sources: Tax Credits, Home Funds, FHLB of Atlanta, CDBG and USDA-RD for a total of $3.77 million dollars for the project which provides affordable housing for low-to-moderate income seniors. He noted 31 apartments leased with 42 on the waiting list and the average income for tenants being $9,000 per year.

Mr. Heckman noted that during the construction phase, there was $500,000 to $600,000 in unbudgeted expenses with greater than $69,000 in costs to correct existing conditions related to the building. Mr. Heckman referred to the project sources and uses provided, noting that $168,000 in personnel costs over 5 years for the JABA Housing Manager and JABA CFO were not covered by the Developer fees as in a “traditional” housing project due to the use of the developer fees to cover other cost overruns. He noted the use of developer fees from other projects by JABA to pay these personnel costs. Mr. Heckman stated that the two major cost overruns that JABA wants the County to pay for are the asbestos abatement and extensive surveying costs incurred to produce a plat to satisfy the Tax Credit Syndicators. He noted that additional survey work was required to account for easements etc. not done the first time and that inadequate drawings by LMW led to bids coming in $400,000 higher than expected. The rationale for this request was that the County would have had to pay for asbestos abatement if it did anything with the building and also would have had to obtain a survey of the property if selling it.
The Board’s discussion included noting that newly included easements on a survey do not shrink the property. Also discussed were the scope of the County’s responsibility and the legitimacy of JABA’s issues regarding the asbestos abatement and survey expenses given that the building, worth $1.2 million, was conveyed for nothing and as is. There was some discussion that the extensive survey costs were between JABA, LMW, and the subsequent surveyor not between JABA and the County. The importance of the project to the County and its success was noted in the discussion.

Mr. Carter noted that there was limited County involvement in decisions impacting the project. He noted that the County recommended LMW as the architect due to procurement issues already being satisfied in their retention, but that it was ultimately JABA’s decision. He also stated that JABA assumed administrative responsibilities in the beginning of the project.

The $18,000 per year for 10 years, set-aside by the County for rent subsidies, was discussed. It was noted that these funds were not an emergency reserve but rather were set-aside annually to guarantee the continuance of rental subsidies should the Rural Development rental subsidies cease due to their 4-5 year funding cycle. This was a requirement by the Tax Credit Syndicators to ease their project cash flow concerns. In ten years, whatever monies not expended in the fund would revert back to the County. It was noted by Mr. Heckman that JABA is restricted from raising rents to cover costs.

Following this discussion, it was the Board’s consensus to discuss this request during a budget work session and no action was taken.

V.    New Business

A.    Resolution – R2007-038 Authorization of VRA Pooled Bond Financing Requirements

Mr. Carter briefly overviewed the proposed resolution, which would authorize the County Administrator, Board Chairman or the Director of Finance to execute the required documents for participation in the VRA Pooled Bond Financing program to provide financing for the design, acquisition, improvement, and construction and equipping of new County solid waste convenience center facilities. He noted that the resolution as presented contains an amount of $2,500,000 to be financed and after talking with VRA, they recommend adding a cost of issuance amount of $150,000 for a total of $2,650,000 to be financed. Mr. Carter noted that the amounts and interest rate percentages in the document were cap amounts and could actually be lower; however the County would have to re-authorize the financing should the amounts be higher.

Mr. Carter also noted that the site design and cost estimates from Wiley & Wilson were expected to be provided in the next week and should the amount to be financed need to be changed, this could be done by resolution prior to closing on the VRA financing. He noted that closing on the funds would most likely occur prior to going out to bid on the site construction, but the County has the ability to pay project related costs and reimburse itself with financed monies.

There was some discussion on the method of financing with Mr. Carter noting that an analysis done by Davenport and staff had indicated that financing with VRA was the best route to take as compared to VML, Private Placement and utilization of Bank Qualified Loans. Given the attractive interest rate of an estimated 4.27% and the shared cost of issuance by members participating in the pooled bond issuance, VRA was the best choice. Mr. Carter noted that localities can utilize $10 million dollars per year in Bank Qualified Loans which may be a financing tool utilized in the upcoming Courthouse project. The disbursement of funds through the VRA program was discussed and it was noted that the funds would have to be 100% drawn down in two years and any excess funds remaining can be used to repay the borrowing. Also noted was the budgeted amount of $156,000 for debt service that will be carried forward for the project.

Mr. Harris made a motion to approve R2007-038 as amended and there was no second to the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion and R2007-038 as follows:

RESOLUTION R2007-0038

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LEASE FINANCING DOCUMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Nelson County, Virginia (the “County”) has determined (i) that a true and very real need exists for the design, acquisition, improvement, construction and equipping of new County solid waste convenience center facilities on certain real estate (the “Real Estate”) owned and to be owned by the County (the “Project”) described in the Prime Lease and Financing Lease (each as hereinafter defined); (ii) that the Project is essential to the governmental functions of the County; and (iii) that it reasonably expects the Project to continue to be essential to the governmental functions of the County for a period not less than the terms of the Prime Lease and the Financing Lease; and

    WHEREAS, the Board proposes to enter into a Financing Lease (defined below) with the Virginia Resources Authority (the “VRA”) and related documents to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project in the principal amount of not to exceed $2,650,000                                         ; and
    WHEREAS, the VRA is a public body corporate and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia and intends to issue its infrastructure revenue bonds, Series 2007A (the “VRA Bonds”) and use a portion of the proceeds thereof to acquire a leasehold interest in the Project to assist the County in financing the Project; and

    WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting drafts of the following documents (together, the “Basic Documents”) in connection with the transactions described above, copies of which shall be filed with the records of the Board:

A.    Prime Lease between the County and the VRA dated as of June 1, 2007 conveying certain interests in the Real Estate and the Project to the VRA (the “Prime Lease”);

B.    Financing Lease between the County and the VRA dated as of June 1, 2007 conveying to the County a leasehold interest in the Real Estate and the Project (the “Financing Lease”); and

C.    Local Lease Acquisition Agreement between the County and the VRA providing for the County to execute the Financing Lease and related documents and for financing proceeds to be provided by the VRA to the County (the “Local Lease Acquisition Agreement);

D.    Nonarbitrage Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement between the County and the VRA concerning, among other things, the expenditure and use of financing proceeds and use of the Project (the “Tax Compliance Agreement”); and

E.    Leasehold Deed of Trust and Security Agreement between the VRA and certain deed of trust trustees to be named therein dated as of June 1, 2007 (the “Leasehold Deed of Trust”).

    WHEREAS, (i) all amounts payable by the Board under the Financing Lease (the "Lease Obligations") are subject to appropriation by the Board; (ii) the Financing Lease is not a general obligation of the County or the Board or a charge against the general credit of the County; and (iii) amounts payable by the Board under the Financing Lease do not constitute a debt of the Board or the County within the meaning of any constitutional, charter or statutory limitation.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT:

It is hereby found and determined that the terms of the Basic Documents in the form presented to this meeting and incorporated in this resolution are in the best interests of the County for the design, acquisition, improvement, construction and equipping of the Project.

The Basic Documents and related financing documents are hereby approved in substantially the form presented to this meeting. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, County Administrator and any officer of the Board who shall have power generally to execute contracts on behalf of the Board be, and each of them hereby is, authorized to execute, acknowledge, consent to and deliver, as appropriate, the Basic Documents and related financing documents (including but not limited to any documents necessary to add Acquired Real Estate (as defined in the Financing Lease) to the Real Estate (as defined in the Financing Lease) in accordance with the terms of the Financing Lease) with any changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be approved by the individuals executing the Basic Documents and such documents, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. The Lease Obligations shall be composed of principal and interest components having a maximum original principal amount of not to exceed $2,650,000, shall accrue interest at a maximum interest rate of 6.00% per annum, and shall have a term to maturity not exceeding 10 years after origination of the Lease Obligations. The term of the Prime Lease shall not be more than five years longer than the term of the Lease Obligations or any additional obligation entered into by the County under a supplement to the Financing Lease; in each case such terms are intended to provide security to VRA in the event of default or non-appropriation by the County, all as more fully set forth in the Financing Lease (or any supplement thereto). Following the pricing of the VRA Bonds, the Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator or the County Finance Director, each of whom is authorized to act, shall evidence his approval of the final terms of and amount of available proceeds under the VRA Bonds and the Lease Obligation by executing and delivering to VRA the Local Lease Acquisition Agreement, which shall be in substantially the form submitted to this meeting, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officer executing the Local Lease Acquisition Agreement. The actions of the Chairman, the County Administrator and the County Finance Director, each of whom is authorized to act, in determining the final terms of and amount of available proceeds under the VRA Bonds and the Lease Obligation shall be conclusive, and no further action shall be necessary on the part of the County.

The same officers of the Board be, and each of them hereby is, authorized and directed to procure, execute and deliver any and all other agreements, financing statements, papers, instruments, title insurance policies, real property surveys and inspections, opinions, certificates, affidavits and other documents and to do or cause to be done any and all other acts and things necessary or proper for carrying out the purposes and intents of this resolution and the Basic Documents.

The Board represents and covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or omission of which, if the interest component of rental payments made by the Board under the Financing Lease were excludable from gross income under Section 103(a of the Code, would (a) cause the Lease Obligations to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), (b) otherwise cause interest on the Lease Obligations derived from such interest component to be includable in the gross income for Federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law or (c) cause the Lease Obligations to be a “private activity bond” within the meaning of Section 141(a) of the Code. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Board shall comply with any provision of law that may require it at any time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross proceeds of the Lease Obligations.

The Board covenants that it shall not permit the proceeds of the Lease Obligations to be used in any manner that would result in (a) 10% or more of such proceeds being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code, provided that no more than 5% of such proceeds may be used in a trade or business unrelated to the Board's use of the Project, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds being used with respect to any "output facility" (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the Board receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that if the interest component of rental payments made by the Board under the Financing Lease were excludable from gross income under Section 103(a of the Code any such covenants would not need to be complied with to prevent the interest on the Lease Obligations from being includable in the gross income for Federal income tax purposes of the registered owner thereof under existing law, the Board need not comply with such covenants.

The County authorizes and consents to the inclusion of information with respect to the County to be contained in VRA's Preliminary Official Statement and VRA's Official Statement in final form, both prepared in connection with the sale of the VRA Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Lease Obligations. If appropriate, such disclosure documents shall be distributed in such manner and at such times as the Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator or the County Finance Director, each of whom is authorized to act, shall determine. The Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator or the County Finance Director, each of whom is authorized to act, are authorized and directed to take whatever actions are necessary and/or appropriate to aid VRA in ensuring compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12.

The recitals to this resolution are hereby incorporated by reference and are declared to be findings of the Board in connection with its decision to acquire and finance the Project.

Nothing in this Resolution, the Basic Documents or other related documents shall constitute a debt or a pledge of the faith and credit of the County and the County shall not be obligated to make any payments under the Basic Documents except from funds that may be appropriated by the Board.

All acts of the officers, agents and representatives of the County that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution and in furtherance of the leasing of the Real Estate to finance the Project and the design, acquisition, improvement, construction and equipping of the Project are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed.

Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver it to the other parties thereto, to record such document where appropriate and to pay from County funds all appropriate recording fees, taxes and related charges.

This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption.

VI.    Reports, Appointments, Correspondence, and Directives

A.    Reports

1.    County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Carter presented his report as follows:

1. FY 07-08 Budget and 5 Year CIP – A work session on the FY 07-08 Budget is proposed to be scheduled on either April 17, 18 or 19 to provide for presentation of a financial forecast (FY 08 through FY 12) that incorporates projected operational and capital expenses through the five year period. The balance of the work session will be utilized to complete work on the General Fund budget and the introduction/completion of the balance of fund groups (Capital, Debt Service, E911, CDBD, Piney River Sewer, Piney River 3 Project, and Street Lights) that will comprise the FY 07-08 Budget.

With regard to adoption of the FY 07-08 Budget, if the budget can be advertised on April 26th, the pubic hearing could be conducted at the regular session on May 8th (or at an adjourned session thereafter) with adoption not sooner than seven (7) days following the public hearing. Additionally, the proposed 2% increase in the local transient occupancy tax has been forwarded to the NC Times for advertisement with the necessary public hearing scheduled for the May 8, 2007 regular session.

2. Courthouse/Government Center Project – Wiley and Wilson is proceeding with work to complete the project’s schematic phase (by 6-15). Interviews were completed with all departments and offices, including each court, to provide for a re-review of spatial considerations. A project financing strategy is in the very preliminary phase of development.

3. Solid Waste Project: (Convenience Centers Project) - Wiley and Wilson will submit the preliminary design(s) and cost estimate(s) for the Shipman site by April 26 and the Massies Mill site by May 11. Acquisition of the Massies Mill property is pending but in process. No progress has been made on acquisition of a property in the Faber-Schuyler area. The Board will consider on 4-10 approval of the County’s participation in the VA Resource Authority’s Spring 2006 Pooled Bond Program for $2.5 in funding for the construction of three convenience center and equipping of the seven (i.e. all) centers that the County will operate.

Mr. Bruguiere noted having received some concern from a citizen regarding the use of the Massies Mill site and traffic flow in and out of the site. It was noted that there would be two entrances, one from Rt. 151 and one from Rt. 56. Upgrades to the 1.09 mile stretch of road were discussed as being required. The Board’s consensus was to continue to move forward with utilizing that site for a convenience center.

(Region 2000 Solid Waste Initiative) – The regional solid waste initiative is proceeding towards submittal of articles of incorporation and a regional services authority member use agreement to each participating locality’s governing body. Preliminary planning proposes to present these instruments to the local governments in May or June (07) with formal ratification, if possible, by July 07. Commencement of the regional operation is still currently proposed to be initiated by July 1, 08 with the potential for an earlier start up, if feasible.

4. Piney River 3 Project: The project is proceeding towards construction. County staff is submitting to USDA-Rural Development the initial set of documents required to receive closing instructions on project funding through RD (the largest source of project funding) which will, following regulatory approvals of the project’s design, enable the project to be advertised for receipt of construction bids. Staff is also working with other project funding sources to establish access to all project funding, as the PR 3 initiative is now proceeding to implementation.

Mr. Carter noted that July 2007 is the projected date for going out to bid with the project taking one year to construct, finishing in the fall of 2008.

5. Paid EMS Project – Per Board direction, the implementation of the revenue recovery program was established as March 1, 2007 with public notices of this decision placed in the Nelson County Times.

6. Visitors Center Project: Brief summaries from the selected AE consultant (Frazier and Associates) and the County’s Building Official, which provide input on the project’s feasibility, are attached hereto. The Board indicated at the work session on 4-4 an intent to sale the property. Staff has requested input from the County Attorney’s office on requirements that the County may establish related to the sale and redevelopment of the property. A public hearing pursuant to §15.2-1800 of the Code of VA is required to sale the property.

The summaries from the A&E consultant and the County Building Official were discussed and noted to be discouraging news in terms of the viability of renovating the building.

Following discussion, Mr. Hale moved to instruct staff to proceed in accordance with the law with the sale of the 571 Front Street property, by closed bids with a right of refusal specified and
including notifying the interested parties.

There was brief discussion regarding the preferred method of sale: closed/sealed bid or auction.

Mr. Hale amended his motion to change the method of sale from closed bid to public auction and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.

Further discussion included instructing staff to develop the terms of sale in consultation with Mr. Payne and bring it back to the Board for approval. Deed restrictions were discussed and noted as desirable but may limit the number of potential bidders. Input from the Historical Society was discussed as being relevant but not necessary. Restrictions pertaining to the building’s architecture and requiring the adherence to certain design standards were noted to be unenforceable due to these not being codified into the current local Ordinance. It was also noted that selling the building and then renting office space there is not a future consideration.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote. Supervisors voted (3-2) with Mr. Harris and Ms. Brennan voting No, to approve the motion and proceed with the sale of the building by public auction.

Ms. Brennan explained that her No vote came from her desire to see the development of restrictions of sale etc. prior to deciding to sell, with there being no rush to sell the building in her opinion. Mr. Harris stated that his No vote came from his desire to look at the sale of the building from more than the legal aspects of its sale.

7. Nellysford Planning Project: The project is included on the Board’s 4-10 agenda for consideration.

8. Broadband: Staff is in process with the selection of a project consultant. $75,000 in CDBG grant funding is available for use through VA-DHCD. The project will determine the feasibility of establishing a broadband network (voice, video, and internet) throughout the County and may also entail system design, etc.

The Board discussed the necessity and benefits of doing this study given the study done by the EDA in the recent past. Mr. Carter noted that the study would determine who best to provide the Broadband service and operate the system if implemented. It was noted that grant monies were paying for the study and there is no taxpayer obligation during the study period. It was also noted that there were no local respondents to the issued RFP for the study with the closest firm being from Blacksburg, VA.

9. Biosolids: The Board appointed Biosolids Committee conducted its initial meeting on 3-29. A draft ordinance with prior input from the Committee’s membership will be prepared by the County Attorney, submitted to the Committee and thereafter jointly reviewed at the Committee’s ensuing meeting, which is scheduled for 4-19.

10. Blue Ridge Tunnel and Blue Ridge Railway Trail Projects: The BR Tunnel project is proceeding towards final design albeit related property acquisitions and/or temporary construction easements are pending completion. The BR Railway Trail Project continues to be on hold pending resolution of litigation files in Amherst County.

11. Community Centers: A cost estimate of $122,000 has been obtained from the Lynchburg office of W.A. Lynch for complete replacement of the roof on the south wing of the Heritage Center. And, as previously reported, county staff is also endeavoring to address a water pressure tank re-certification and the removal of potable water installations that are no longer in use at RVCC, as is being required by the VA Department of Health. Costs estimates are in the process of being obtained with responsibility for resolution of the matters required by VDH to be determined thereafter (i.e. by the County or by RVCC).

The Board discussed the continued financial requests/support made and needed by the Community Centers to maintain the buildings regardless of their ownership. The Board noted that presently there is no money in the budget to pay for the $122,000 roof repair at the Heritage Center and discussed the opportunity to seek grant monies there. Mr. Carter noted the use of grant funds to repair/replace roofs at two other centers; however the Community Centers were the grant recipients with County staff providing administrative/technical assistance. It was noted in the discussion that the Millennium Group currently receives free water from the NC Service Authority in accordance with the agreement. The viability of keeping/selling the RVCC building was also discussed with Ms. Brennan noting the formerly requested lease period request of 30 years for RVCC to be able to get grant monies etc, which is currently unavailable under the short-term lease. Extending the lease or selling them the building was discussed. The poor condition of the ball fields at RVCC was mentioned.

The consensus of the Board was to have Mr. Carter contact RVCC to discuss their preference of a longer lease or ownership of the building to facilitate a decision on the matter at the May regular meeting.

12. Wintergreen Resort Employee Housing Project: Staff has been contacted by B. Douglass of Wintergreen Resort on re-submittal of the proposed adoption of a resolution declaring an area encompassing the housing project as a revitalization area and such other responsibilities or declarations required by provisions within the Code of VA that pertain to the VA Housing Development Authority, the funding source WG Resort has intended to utilize to provide long term financing of this project. Mr. Douglass proposed that the resolution be included on the 4-10-07 agenda and that he and VHDA staff would attend the meeting to introduce a revised resolution, respond to questions from the Board, etc. in an effort to have the resolution approved. Staff cautioned against this proposal as the 4-10 agenda was completed and an untimely submittal of information, etc. was deemed to be not conducive to the Board’s consideration. Mr. Douglass subsequently proposed an alternative means of re-introducing the resolution to the Board (at a late, unspecified date) albeit staff has not, due to time constraints, responded to this input as yet.

13. Staff Reports: In process and to be submitted to the Board the week of 4-9.

2.    Board Reports

Mr. Hale reported that the owner of the current solid waste site in Schuyler, across from the Walton’s Museum, wants to sell the property and the County may have to close this site, combine it with Faber and remove the dumpsters. He noted that the Board should consider purchasing this property even though the site is geologically challenged. Mr. Harvey noted that he may have another site to be checked out.

Mr. Hale noted the problem of plastic bags being a litter nuisance in the County and noted that they have been banned in some places, but that perhaps the County could periodically pick these up.

Ms. Brennan reported her attendance of an Albemarle Planning Commission meeting on green building and conservation techniques, attendance of a Virginia GIS Network Board meeting, attendance of a meeting with Mr. Carter and the Health Department, and attendance of a Central Virginia Conservation League meeting which is a volunteer organization that helps property owners do conservation easement paperwork.

Mr. Harris reported his attendance of a Senior Advisory Committee meeting where JAUNT discussed the budget impact of level funding from the County, homebound seniors issues including senior scams.

Mr. Harvey and Mr. Bruguiere made no reports.

B.   Appointments

Ms. McGarry noted that an application for the JABA Council on Aging had been received after the Agenda had been set, but was included for consideration in the Board’s packets.

1.          Planning Commission

Ms. Brennan made a motion to re-appoint the incumbent Planning Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hale.

There was some concern expressed over the incumbents’ length of service.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote and Supervisors voted (3-2) to re-appoint the incumbent Planning Commissioners ( Ms. Phillipa Proulx, Ms. Linda Russell, and Ms. Emily Hunt) with Mr. Harris and Mr. Bruguiere voting No.

Mr. Hale thanked the incumbents for continuing to do their jobs. Mr. Harris noted that his No vote was nothing personal but he felt some change was needed for better balance on the Commission. Mr. Bruguiere noted his agreement with Mr. Harris. Mr. Harvey said that his mind had been changed after working with the Planning Commission incumbents since January.

2.           JABA Council on Aging

Ms. Brennan moved to appoint Mr. Chuck Strauss to the JABA Council on Aging noting his dedication to seniors and senior issues. Mr. Harris seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the appointment of Mr. Strauss to the JABA Council on Aging.

C.    Correspondence - None

D.       Directives

Ms. Brennan encouraged attendance of the VACO Courthouse Meeting in Fluvanna County on April 19th at 7pm.

The Courthouse shutters were discussed with Mr. Carter noting that fiberglass shutters had been purchased and would be installed prior to the upcoming home tour. He noted that wooden shutters had been priced at significantly higher and wouldn’t be able to be installed by the home tour, thus the decision to go with the fiberglass ones.

Ms. Brennan reiterated her desire to update the Historical Society on the status of the Courthouse plans either prior to or after receiving the schematics in June.

A letter received from George Krieger of the Nelson County Community Development Foundation, offering the use of the Nelson Center for the Tourism Department was discussed. Supervisors noted that Maureen Corum, Tourism Director said that they were ok where they were, noting a small storage problem, but that the department would go wherever the Board wanted. The Board noted that the present location at the Library was free since the County owns the building with limited utility expenses, and noted not wanting to pay rent for any more County offices.

Mr. Hale asked that Mr. Carter look into the ownership status of the Brookside Lane connector road between Front Street and Court Street. Mr. Carter said he would check with Phil Payne on the status of his request for an opinion on the matter, and expressed reluctance to proceed with fixing the road if it indeed is private property.

VII.    Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session

At 5:50 P.M., on a motion by Mr. Harvey, and seconded by Ms. Brennan, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to recess and reconvene for the evening session.

EVENING SESSION
7:30 p.m. – Nelson County Courthouse

I.    Call to Order

Chairman Bruguiere called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. with 5 Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

II.    Public Hearings

A.    Final Subdivision – “The Village” at Glen Mary (Tax Map #31-A-48A.)

Mr. Boger gave an overview of the request, noting that Mr. Morris Foster, land surveyor has submitted the final subdivision plat dividing 23.82 acres into six (6) parcels, five of which will be developed and parcel 6 will be limited to recreational purposes and drain fields for parcel 3. The proposed lots range in size from 2 acres to 5.54 acres. Each parcel has frontage on a state highway and there are two entrances proposed for the development, one from Beech Grove Road, and one from Patrick Henry Highway and serviced by an internal service road. He noted that the applicant has applied for a re-zoning to go to the Planning Commission next month to go to B-1 Conditional. The E&S plan has been approved and the soils work has been submitted to the Health Department. He noted that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the final subdivision plat.

There being no questions from the Board and no further comment by the applicant, The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no comment from the public, the public hearing was closed.

Ms. Brennan made a motion to approve the final subdivision plat for “The Village” at Glen Mary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.

Discussion by the Board included inquiring about the removal of the floodplain designation by FEMA. Mr. Boger explained that Mr. Foster submitted topographic maps etc. to FEMA to have the designation removed and the areas to be built were no longer in the floodplain.

Following discussion, and amendment of the original motion to include Tax Map #31-A-48A, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion and the final subdivision plat for “The Village” at Glen Mary, Tax Map #31-A-48A.

B.    Rezoning #2007-003 – C. Bruguiere (Tax Map #7-A-4)

Mr. Boger gave an overview of the rezoning request to rezone approximately 1.88 acres from Residential R-1 to Agricultural, A-1; noting that the existing building on the property is used as a convenience store and the applicant would like to have an office in the building along with the store. He noted that Mr. Bruguiere has also submitted a conditional use permit to locate the office in the grocery store and a special use permit for the grocery store to make it a conforming use. Consideration of these two requests is dependent on approval of the rezoning application. If the rezoning is approved, then the SUP and CUP can move forward. Mr. Boger noted that the Planning Commission wanted a survey of the property prior to recommending approval of the rezoning. Mr. Boger noted that at the February Planning Commission meeting, the applicant said he would provide the survey and then at the March meeting he said he did not want to provide one and that there was enough information for the Commission to make a decision and asked that it be made with the materials in hand. Mr. Boger noted that neighbors in opposition to the request had presented the Commission with a 1964 survey of the property showing the acreage to be 1.5 acres vs. the 1.88 acres on the application and the tax maps. Mr. Boger noted the Planning Commission is recommending denial of the rezoning application at this time.

Chairman Bruguiere noted his intention to abstain from voting on the application as did Mr. Harvey, noting it was because of his ownership of a similar type of business in the same vicinity.

Discussion by the Board included that rezoning to A-1 does not change the function and the allowability of the store since it already exists and does not require a special use permit, but would still be considered non-conforming. Mr. Boger noted that the rezoning would create a non-conforming use (the store). Mr. Boger noted that the applicant is following the recommendations of the Planning Commission and is applying for a special use permit for the store in order for it to be a conforming use. This would allow for all of the permitted activities in the definition of a retail store, neighborhood, including gasoline sales. Mr. Boger noted that the conditional use permit to allow the office space to continue would be required if the rezoning was approved. He noted there was considerable opposition to these requests by the community. The zoning classification of the adjoining parcels was discussed and noted on the map, and noted to be split-zoned A-1 and R-1. Mr. Boger noted that any addition to the store’s function would require the entrances to be brought up to VDOT standards and the Health Dept. would review the septic standards. He also confirmed that all by right uses for A-1 would be allowed. It was noted that there were problems in determining the lots and their zoning designation on the County’s tax maps, which are generally used to confirm lot sizes and boundaries. Mr. Harvey confirmed that the Planning Commission’s recommendation was due to the lack of a survey and concerns about the conditional use permit for the convenience store.

The applicant, Mr. Curtis Bruguiere, addressed the Board and stated that he asked the Planning Commission to consider his request without the plat due to time constraints (30 days) and the cost of obtaining a survey. He noted that he did provide a 1964 VDOT map showing the property boundaries and noted that the recorded deed describes 1.88 acres and should be acceptable to the Board. He noted that the existing buildings would remain as is with nothing changing. He noted using the wing of the store as an office building and the only change is the leasing of the building with him still being the owner of the business. Mr. Bruguiere felt that the Planning Commission was being arbitrary and capricious in requiring him to obtain a survey.

Ms. Brennan noted the 1964 plat entered into the tax records showing 1.5 acres and asked if the County’s zoning ordinance says you can rezone without a plat. Mr. Boger noted it doesn’t specifically say that but noted that you should have some idea of what’s being asked to be rezoned and CUP’s and SUP’s require site plans. He noted that the Commission wanted to know what exactly it was they would be rezoning. Ms. Brennan noted that the discrepancies in acreage were a concern. Mr. Harris noted that no buildings were being added or changed with this request.

There being no further questions for the applicant, the Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Roy White, Afton:

Representing relatives and neighbors, Mr. White spoke against the approval of the rezoning request. He noted having a petition from the neighborhood stating opposition to having gas pumps in the neighborhood because of the density of the residential population.   He noted concern about two businesses operating at the one location, and the discrepancy in the size of the lot in question 1.5 vs. 1.88 acres. He cited the Nelson County Code 12-3-6 regarding CUP and SUP requests which says the approval of requests should not change the character and community in which it is proposed to locate and the use shall be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district and shall not affect adversely the neighboring properties. He noted that bright lights, increased traffic, and inadequate parking and turning areas would result. He noted that the request also goes against the comprehensive plan which does not allow for gas pumps at this location. He asked that the applications be denied and noted that the applicant would be going from a non-conforming to a conforming use without meeting the requirements that anyone else would have to meet and the Board’s approval would set a bad precedent. He also reiterated the objections of the Avon community to approving this request.
Ms. Donna Small, Afton:

Ms. Small spoke against the approval of the applicant’s request and would rather the store remain a non-conforming use.

There being no others wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Further discussion by the Board included noting that Mr. Bruguiere has followed the Board’s previous suggestion to return requesting a rezoning to A-1 and then subsequently apply for a conditional use and special use permit. Clarification was made regarding what rezoning of the property means in terms of what is allowed to be done there. Mr. Boger read the by-right uses in the zoning ordinance for the A-1 district for the Board. Mr. Hale noted that the 1964 VDOT map doesn’t show all of the existing improvements such as the house. Also discussed was whether or not the A-1 setback requirements would be met if the property is rezoned as A-1. Mr. Carter noted that if the setbacks are not able to be met, that the Board could potentially make a non-conforming use even more non-conforming. Mr. Boger noted the required setback is the same for the existing zoning designation as in the A-1 district at 55 feet from the center of the road. The setback requirements would have to be met if the building was added on to. Ms. Brennan noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not designate this area as a growth or development area. Safety issues at the intersection of Rt. 151 and Avon Road were also discussed.

After discussion, Mr. Hale moved to deny rezoning request #2007-003; 1897/1889 Avon Road from Residential R-1 to A-1. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion.

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion, and Mr. Hale noted that he shared many of the same concerns as Mr. White, noting the enterprise is not an agricultural one; the failure to obtain a survey calls the acreage of the lot into question, and noted that getting an official acreage determination would not have been costly. Lastly he noted an obligation to the citizens who have consistently expressed their concerns regarding the request and stated that he saw no reason to approve the rezoning.

Mr. Harris agreed regarding the obligation to listen to concerns of the neighbors, but noted that one of their main concerns, the gas pumps, would not be allowed and that approving the rezoning would make that lot in-line with the adjacent A-1 lots, but noted no opposition to going in either direction.

There was some discussion as to what majority was needed to pass the motion since two of the five members were intending to abstain and the original motion was made to deny the approval of the application. It was determined that if the motion did not pass the issue would be dead, either way.

The Chairman then called for the vote and Supervisors voted (3-0-2) with Mr. Bruguiere and Mr. Harvey abstaining, to pass the motion denying the rezoning request #2007-003; 1897/1889 Avon Road from Residential R-1 to A-1.

C.    Conditional Use Permit #2007-002 – C. Bruguiere (Tax Map #7-A-4)

No Action was necessary or taken on this request due to the denial of rezoning request #2007-003; 1897/1889 Avon Road.

D.    Special Use Permit #2007-001 – C. Bruguiere (Tax Map #7-A-4)

No Action was necessary or taken on this request due to the denial of rezoning request #2007-003; 1897/1889 Avon Road.

E.    Piney River III Condemnations - Permanent Utility Easements

Mr. Boggs noted that originally there were four properties to be considered for condemnation; however one property owner came in to execute the easement last week, so no action is necessary on that parcel and there are now three remaining. Two are unknown owners and one is a non-resident owner, who is unresponsive to correspondence.

The second part of the proposed Resolution outlines the money to be appropriated and set aside in trust with the Courts until the condemnation proceedings are over. The amounts are estimates based on the assessment of the property, using a general equation provided by the engineer; if the amount is too low, more is put in trust and if too high, some is taken out.

Mr. Carter noted the continuous effort to work with or locate the property owners to no avail prior to moving to condemnation.

There being no further question or comments from the Board, the Chairman read aloud the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.

Brenda Brown – Clifford, Virginia

Ms. Brown spoke on behalf of the Israel Penn property listed to be condemned, noting that she is a relative of Israel Penn (her great grandfather) and wants to help the County. She noted that she lives in the Clifford area now, but would like more information about the area that the County would like to use. She was referred to Mr. Boggs to speak with regarding providing the information on the easement.

Mr. Harvey clarified that if an agreement was met prior to the conclusion of the condemnation proceedings, then the condemnation of that property wouldn’t go forward.

Eva Cashwell – Piney River

Ms. Cashwell noted she would like septic service on her property on Rt. 56 with Mr. Harvey noting he knew where her property was and she would be in the path of the sewer line.

Jeffery Johnson, Sr. – Piney River

Mr. Johnson asked for confirmation that Mr. Boggs received his signed easement paperwork, and Mr. Boggs confirmed that they had been received.

There being no others wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

The Board briefly discussed the proposed layment of the sewer lines along Rt. 56; noting that Waddell Lane may have be taken out of the plan if the cost out-ways the subscriber interest there.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Harvey made a motion that the Board pass Resolution R2007-039 Authorization for the Acquisition of Parcels by Condemnation for the Piney River III Water and Sewer Project. Mr. Hale seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously
(5-0) to approve the motion and R2007-039 was passed as follows:

RESOLUTION R2007-039

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS BY CONDEMNATION FOR PINEY RIVER III WATER AND SEWER PROJECT

    WHEREAS, the County is undertaking construction of Phase III of the Piney River water and sewer system, and;
    WHEREAS, in order to complete the system, the County requires permanent utility easements and temporary construction easements across three parcels of land, and;
    WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare require the completion of the project, and therefore the acquisition of the easements, and;
WHEREAS, the owners of two parcels are unknown or cannot with reasonable diligence be found in the Commonwealth, to wit, Israel Penn (tax map number 64-A-250) and N. C. Adams and/or M. C. Adams (no tax map number assigned), and;
WHEREAS, the owners of the remaining parcel and the County cannot agree on the terms of purchase or settlement, to wit, Benjamin Adams & Charlotte Adams (tax map number 66-A-23), and;
    WHEREAS, the property taken will consist of three permanent utility easements and three temporary construction easements, to be used for the public purpose of water supply and sewage disposal, including the construction, operation, and maintenance of pipes and lines, and;
    WHEREAS, it is necessary for the County to enter upon and take such property prior to or during the condemnation proceedings, and;
WHEREAS, the County estimates the value of the easements on the Benjamin & Charlotte Adams parcel (tax map number 66-A-23) to be $483.23, and has offered to compensate the owners with that amount or, alternatively, with a free connection to the water and sewer system valued at $4,000.00, and;
WHEREAS, the County estimates the value of the easements on the Israel Penn parcel (64-A-250) to be $171.63, and the value of the easements on the N. C. Adams and/or M. C. Adams parcel (no tax map number assigned) to be $7.88, and;
    WHEREAS, the County specifies the date of entry on the properties to be Monday, April 25, 2007, and directs that prior to the date of entry any known owner be alerted by certified mail of the County’s intention to enter the property on that date and that such letter set forth the compensation, if any, that has been offered to the owner; and
    WHEREAS, such proceedings shall be instituted and conducted in the name of the governing body of the County;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED,
That, pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Title 15.2, Chapter 19, and the County shall enter and take these easements, and therefore directs the acquisition of these properties by condemnation. The County hereby appropriates the amount of $622.74 to be set aside for a certificate of deposit as required by the Code of Virginia, Title 25.1, Chapter 3.
III.    Other Business

Mr. Boger noted that he had an update for the Board regarding the EPIC Biosolids transfer site at the rail yard in Gladstone. He noted that EPIC had removed a large number of empty containers from the site and 60-75 were remaining. He also stated that DEQ had asked EPIC to stop using cars with a certain type of seal that tends to leak in cold weather. Mr. Boger was asked to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation to see about an anchoring system that they could use to secure the cars that need to be stored there and to get an evacuation plan from EPIC, submitted to the County, to comply with 100 year flood plain requirements. The railroad was also asked to put up some gates and possible fencing and stone down there. He noted that they were voluntarily working to get the site under control and no citations have been issued by DEQ.

IV.    Public Comments

The Chairman opened the floor for public comments and the following persons were recognized:

1.    Jennifer Burkes – Gladstone & NCATS

Ms. Burkes spoke about her disappointment with the Biosolids Advisory Committee’s formation and make up noting her opinion that the Committee is slanted in favor of Biosolids and Synagro. She also stated her opposition to the materials provided to and considered by the Committee at the first meeting and questioned the posting requirements for these meetings. Ms. Burkes noted that according to Jean Payne, the Commissioner of Revenue, Business Licenses and Machinery and Tools taxes have not been paid in EPIC or Synagro’s name in the County.

2.    George Peters, Jr. – Gladstone

Mr. Peters spoke about his concerns regarding the continued abuse of the dumpster in Gladstone by out of county dumpers and the ground dumping occurring there. He noted that the compactor door there has been broken for years contributing to the trash on the ground and asked that it be fixed. He also asked that the improvements to the site that have been discussed be made sooner rather than later.

There being no other persons wishing to speak, the public comments session was closed.

Mr. Harris noted he felt that the rest of the Board should not be held accountable for the EPIC/Gladstone issues that have been going on without comment or complaint until recently and that he would have addressed these issues had he been informed and known about the problems there. He noted addressing the truck traffic issue that was brought to his attention and stated that the new complaints should have been brought to him as the representative for the district before the entire Board took a beating over it. He stated that he was not given the opportunity to address the issues before the Board began dealing with them.

He also noted that he has been pushing for improvements at the Gladstone dump site and noted that he would like to see an open top put in there on a trial basis to eliminate ground dumping.

The Board then discussed making site improvements prior to the Shipman site opening up, and it was their consensus to send staff to evaluate the site and report back with recommendations and costs for immediate improvements that can be made and to have the door of the compactor fixed. The Board also noted that they and staff are working on solutions to the County’s trash issues and that the process can be slow.

Ms. Brennan recommended that Ms. Burkes attend the Biosolids Advisory Committee Meetings so that she can get a first-hand account of the meetings. Mr. Bruguiere advised the public that the next Biosolids Advisory Committee meeting was to be on Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 6pm.

The Board then discussed potential dates for the next budget work session and decided on Wednesday April 18, 2007 at 5 PM.

V.    Adjournment

At 9:00 P. M., on a motion by Mr. Hale and seconded by Ms. Brennan, Supervisors voted unanimously by roll call vote, (5-0), to adjourn and continue the meeting until 5:00 PM on April 18, 2007 at the Nelson County Courthouse, Lovingston, Virginia for purposes of the conduct of a work session on the FY08 budget, the VDOT Secondary Six Year Plan priorities, and such other business as said Board of Supervisors may consider.