Board of Supervisors: May 8, 2007

May 8, 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
        Thomas D. Harvey, North District Supervisor
        Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
        Candice W. McGarry, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
        Fred M. Boger, Planning Director
        Maureen Corum, Director of Tourism and Economic Development


I.    Call to Order

Mr. Bruguiere, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:05 P. M. with 4 members present to establish a quorum, with Ms. Brennan being absent.

A.    Moment of Silence
B.    Pledge of Allegiance

Ms. Brennan joined the meeting following the call to order and before consideration of the Consent Agenda.

II.    Consent Agenda

Minutes for approval were discussed and it was the consensus of the Board to hold the minutes for the April 10, 2007 and April 18, 2007 for future consideration and approval.

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

RESOLUTION-R2007-040

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

(March 28, 2007 and April 4, 2007)

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board meetings conducted on March 28, 2007 and April 4, 2007 be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.

RESOLUTION (R2007-041)
AMENDMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 BUDGET
NELSON COUNTY, VA
May 8, 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
        $   4,330.00    3-100-001899-0001    4-100-092010-9210
             1,080.00    3-100-002404-0010    4-100-022010-5504
        $   5,410.00

II.         Transfer of Funds (General Fund)
Amount    Credit Account(-)    Debit Account (+)
      $ 30,000.00    4-100-042030-1003    4-100-012040-3002


RESOLUTION R2007-042

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE NELSON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION THE SUB-RECIPIENT OF FY 07-08 FEDERAL HOUSING FUNDS FOR NELSON COUNTY

WHEREAS, Nelson County is a member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and included in the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium, along with Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna, Greene and Louisa Counties for the receipt of Federal housing funds to support housing programs for low to moderate income citizens; and

WHEREAS, Nelson County’s allocation of these funds beginning July 1, 2007 will be $116,233 to be used to assist low-income families to become homeowners and to facilitate the rehabilitation of substandard housing, provide assistance to first time home buyers, and provide support for affordable rental properties in Nelson County; and

WHEREAS, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors has previously designated the Nelson County Community Development Foundation the sub-recipient of these funds on the County’s behalf;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on May 8, 2007, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors designates the Nelson County Community Development Foundation the sub-recipient of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium FY 07-08 local allocation of Federal housing funds, and authorizes the County Administrator to give signatory affirmation of this designation.

RESOLUTION R2007-043

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 11, TAXATION, SECTION 11-8 OF THE CODE OF NELSON COUNTY (Imposition of Costs for Courthouse Security)

WHEREAS, Effective July 1, 2007, Senate Bill 1082, amending the Virginia State Code §53.1-120, increases the cap of the Courthouse Security fee from five dollars ($5.00) to ten dollars ($10.00) as the maximum amount to be assessed as part of the criminal or traffic court costs levied against a convicted defendant;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby authorize the advertisement of a public hearing on a proposed Amendment to Article I, Chapter 11, Taxation, Section 11-8 of the Code of the County of Nelson, Virginia, as follows:

Article I, Chapter 11, Section 11-8. Imposition of costs for courthouse security.

    (a) There is hereby assessed the sum of ten ($10.00) as part of the costs in each criminal and traffic case in this County’s district and circuit courts in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of any statute or ordinance.

    (b) The assessment shall be collected by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard, remitted to the Treasurer of this County, and held by such Treasurer subject to the appropriation by the Board of Supervisors to the Sheriff’s office for the funding of courthouse security personnel.

    (c) This section shall be effective July 1, 2007.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the public hearing is hereby scheduled for the June 12, 2007 Board of Supervisors Meeting at 7:30 PM at the Courthouse in Lovingston, Virginia.

RESOLUTION-R2007-044

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to execute the legal instruments to accept the Donations of Conveyance for three (3) corrected deeds of gift from Stephen C. Martin and Mary Porter Martin, dated April 15, 2007; correcting instruments recorded in the Nelson County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office numbered #020002600, #000000098, and #050002236 and to accept the conveyance of property, Tax Map #74-A-1F, by Deed of Gift dated April 15, 2007, by Stephen C. Martin and Mary Porter Martin and conveyed by Special Warranty Deed for the remaining and final portion of the Virginia Blue Ridge Railway Trail.

RESOLUTION-R2007-045

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the County Administrator, Stephen A. Carter, or County Attorney, Philip D. Payne, IV, is hereby authorized to accept on behalf of the Board and execute all necessary legal instruments concerning the purchase of property from the Massies Mill Recreation Center, Inc.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Administrator, Stephen A. Carter, or County Attorney, Philip D. Payne, IV is hereby authorized to accept on behalf of the Board and execute all necessary legal instruments concerning the future purchase of property approved by said Board.

PROCLAMATION-P2007-006

NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK – MAY 13TH to May 19TH

WHEREAS, Nelson County is proud to have a thriving base of business to support the local economy; and

WHEREAS, these businesses provide essential employment opportunities for the citizens of Nelson County; and

WHEREAS, these businesses provide local revenues from which the entire local citizenry benefits; and

WHEREAS, these businesses also make significant contributions to our community, promote educational opportunities for our children, and advance a variety of activities which increase the quality of life in Nelson County; and

WHEREAS, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors recognizes and appreciates these businesses;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes our existing businesses, and by virtue of this Proclamation, gives notice to our citizens that Nelson County is promoting the Virginia Department of Business Assistance’s theme of “Virginia-The Foundation of American Business” during the week of May 13-19, 2007 – Business Appreciation Week.

III.        Public Comments and Presentations

A.    Public Comments

1.    Gail Troy – Shipman/Library Board Representative

Ms. Troy addressed the Board to clarify the percentage contributions questioned at the previous budget work session. She stated that 5.65% of the local funds are paid to the Regional Library for administration and technical assistance and the remaining local funds are applied locally for library operations. She stated that the 5.65% is based on local annual circulation. She appealed to the Board to increase funding for a second full-time person and to increase substitute hours.
Use of the volunteers for sub hours was discussed, with Ms. Troy noting that the volunteers do a lot of the shelving. The Regional Library policy doesn’t allow the volunteers to operate the library check out system, which requires a lot of training and is only operable by library employees.

2.    Morgan Lanier – Region Ten

Mr. Lanier introduced himself as the Program Manager for ESS (Educational Support Services) for Region Ten noting his purpose was to make the Board more familiar with Region Ten’s services.   He overviewed the services that Region Ten provides including providing counseling for 3 days at Nelson Middle School, 1 day at Tye River Elementary, ½ day at Rockfish River Elementary, and ½ day at the High School. He emphasized the increased burden on the school guidance counselors who are not as able to provide the early prevention and intervention services to students that are being provided through Region Ten. The Board noted that they would like to have numbers and statistics on the school based program. It was also noted that these programs are funded through the school system’s budget in the amount of $40,000 that goes toward funding the school counselor position. Mr. Lanier noted that this level of funding has remained at $40,000 with no other funding from the School Board that he is aware of.

3.    Sheriff Gary Brantley

Sheriff Brantley presented each Board of Supervisors member with a framed 2007 commemorative badge in honor of their support for the Sheriff’s Department and in commemoration of the County’s bicentennial.

B.    VDOT Report

Mr. Wright noted that he had no updates but noted that the Board needed to wrap up the Secondary Six Year Plan workshop and overviewed the accident data provided to the Board on the intersections that they requested. Mr. Wright noted he would analyze the data by the combination of the number of vehicles traveling the road and the number of accidents as well as the cost/benefit ratio.

Mr. Wright reviewed the accident data presented and took questions from the Board.

The Board then discussed the current priority list beginning with the Variety Mills Road reconstruction (Rt. 665) from the Lake Nelson entrance down to Rucker’s Run, noting 450 vehicles per day travel the 1.2 miles of road. The cost/benefit of this project was discussed with Mr. Wright noting that roads in general are costing approximately $3 million dollars per mile to construct.

The Board discussed the Rockfish River Road project with Mr. Hale reporting that he has spoken with citizens along that road and some were in favor of it and some were against it. Intermediate measures to improve the road seemed to be preferred by the residents. Mr. Wright noted that improvement of the road was not really an option since half of the cost would be spent on patching which is not recommended or cost effective. Building up the road creates drainage issues that would not be cost effective to address and would basically constitute the full project. He noted that the disadvantage in leaving this road in the priority list and deferring it is that the design/survey work that has already been done would need to be redone in five years. If this road was re-prioritized, the accumulated funds could go to the next priority on the list. Mr. Wright stated that VDOT thinks the road needs to be built but is concerned also about the cost. He recommended that the Board drop this on the priority list a couple of places and still accumulate funds while addressing the other intersections first, where safety is an issue. He also advised the Board that moving Rt. 617 to priority four (4) and moving one of the hazardous intersections ahead of it to begin design work would only delay the construction of Rockfish River Road one (1) to two (2) years.

Mr. Wright noted that based on the accident analysis for the past 3-5 years, adding the intersections of Rt. 151 and Rt. 613 North (Lodebar) and South (Rhodes Farm) could take care of two (2) bad intersections in one project and would provide the most benefit for the cost. Mr. Hale stated that he thought that the Board should listen to VDOT’s advice on this and not be as concerned about projects in their respective districts.

The Board discussed this at length with some disagreement on whether or not to change the priorities with Mr. Harris opposed to dropping the Findlay Mountain Road Intersection down on the priority list, although he agreed that Rt. 151 and 613 were a concern. The consensus of the Board was that the accident data provided supported adding the Rt. 151 and Rt. 613 North and South intersections ahead of Rockfish River Road and the Findlay Mountain Road intersection.

Mr. Hale suggested that the North and South intersections of Rt. 151 and Rt. 613 be put on the priority list at position three (3) and the Rockfish River Road project be moved down the list now to position four (4). Mr. Harris expressed that he thought more research and discussion was warranted before making this decision, when the priorities have already been set.

Mr. Wright noted that changes in funding, cost estimates, and accident data etc. is why it is necessary to look at the priorities every year. Ms. Brennan noted it would be helpful to have accident data etc. to look at prior to the SSYP workshop.

Ms. Brennan made a motion to insert the North and South intersections of Rt. 151 and Rt. 613 as priority number three (3) and shift everything else down the list. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion.

Mr. Harvey then made a motion to allow Mr. Carter, County Administrator to sign off on the Secondary Six Year Plan revisions on the Board’s behalf. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion.

Supervisors noted concerns regarding the turn at St. Mary’s church coming South on Rt. 29, and the speed limit on Hickory Hill Rd. with increased traffic due to DelFosse winery there. Also noted was whether or not the apron could be extended coming down Calohill drive to allow for an acceleration lane onto Rt. 29. Mr. Wright commented that he could meet with Ms. Brennan and the citizens concerned about Hickory Hill Rd. and he noted that VDOT would look at Calohill drive. Mr. Wright also said that the mowing schedule is not anticipated to be diminished this year but would depend on budgets etc.

C.    Presentation – NC Branding & Marketing Study

Mr. Aaron Arnett of Arnett Muldrow & Associates gave a PowerPoint presentation over-viewing their work on marketing and branding for Nelson County. He noted the premises used in designing the brand to be celebrating the natural environment, focusing on the journey rather than the destination, building off of existing strong brands and marketing, and using the brand as a means to promote the preservation of a rural lifestyle.

Mr. Arnett noted that their work consisted of County tours, focus group meetings, public meetings, a branding survey and marketing research.

The finalized brand presented by Mr. Arnett depicted a scenic backdrop of mountains and sky with an old-world style compass pointing to a letter N representing Nelson County. He described the finalized brand concept to be simple, sophisticated, and iconic; clean and contemporary, yet still focusing on the natural and rural environment. He noted that the core component of the brand was based on the journey and less focused on the destinations themselves. He stated that the journey plugs directly to existing trails concepts with “Due Nelson” being the primary tagline. He noted that this still works with the “villages” concepts using more individualized pieces. He also talked about internal marketing and promoting Nelson County to the people who live here; using the concept of “Nelson Made”.

In conclusion, Mr. Arnett noted that the Board would be receiving a very detailed final, bound report containing all of the information regarding the process and the outcomes, which the County could use as a basis to tweak and use as desired.

The Board noted the lack of reference to Oak Ridge and the prominent rivers in the County, to which Ms. Corum replied that those things were taken into consideration in developing the brand concept and the concept could be applied to specifically address these.

Following the presentation, Mr. Carter noted that the intention was to present this to the Board for feedback prior to initiating its use with the potential to apply to the State Corporation Commission to register a service mark, which would be similar to a trademark or copyright, preserving the use of the concept for Nelson County only. It was noted that the SCC required that the brand be in use for an undefined period of time before approval of a trademark or service mark would be granted. Mr. Carter noted that if the Board likes it, then the County may proceed with implementing the strategies discussed but if the Board doesn’t like it or wants more work done then additional work can be done. Ultimately, the Board needs to be comfortable with it.

Brief discussion followed with the Board noting apprehension about people getting the tag line of “Due Nelson” and the more modern feel of the logo. The consensus was to digest the information and review the detailed report to be submitted by Arnett & Muldrow Associates and proceed from there. No action was taken by the Board.

IV.    Unfinished Business

A.    Brookside Lane Alleyway

Mr. Payne spoke to the Board regarding his opinion that the Brookside Lane alleyway onto Front Street in Lovingston is a public way absent formal abandonment by the County. He noted that in accordance with the State Code, the County can spend money on non-secondary public roads and the County may improve the road with County funds, but is not obligated to do so. He also clarified that the landowners do not own to the middle of the road when it is considered public, but up to the edge. They would own to the middle of the road if the road was abandoned.

The Board discussed using the taxpayers’ money to fix public roads and the potential for it to lead to other requests to do so. Mr. Payne noted that the Board would have the discretion as to whether or not additional public ways were fixed. Mr. Carter noted that staff had gotten two (2) quotes thus far on the paving of the approximately 248 ft of road for $9,500 and $8,500. Also discussed was the necessity, as a courtesy, to let the adjoining property owners know that improvements to that road were being considered. It was also noted that improvements may lead to increased traffic flow there. Mr. Carter noted that the work could be completed prior to the Historic Homes Tour on May 19th if the Board decided to proceed.

Mr. Hale made a motion to proceed with notifying the adjoining landowners of the County’s intent to pave the Brookside Lane extension pursuant to the cost estimates under consideration. Mr. Harris seconded the motion.

The source of funding was briefly discussed with the Board’s consensus being to give the County Administrator the discretion to utilize the General Fund. There was brief discussion about this being deficit spending from the General fund balance, since this expenditure is unbudgeted.

Following discussion, the Board voted (4-1) with Mr. Bruguiere voting No to approve the motion.

B.    571 Front Street Property Sale Restrictions

Mr. Payne spoke to the Board regarding the possible restrictions associated with the sale of the property. He noted that the Board is not limited in its restrictions; however these have the potential to depress the sale and provide for complicated mechanics in enforcement of the restrictions. He noted that if sale is by public auction, the restrictions would have to be announced and included in the deed, which is essentially the contract. He noted the only remedy he would be comfortable with would be utilizing a right of re-entry clause. If sale is by sealed bid, utilizing a contract, the enforcement would be written into the contract and other remedies besides taking the property back could be in place. He also noted that any standards set by the Board would have to go into the deed. If these were too restrictive it could depress the price received.

Mr. Payne noted that the Board can set a minimum price at auction, and noted his concern with not getting bidders who want to spend a lot of money to improve the building plus purchase the building for more money than the Board paid. He noted that if the Board did not want to save the building, he recommended that the Board auction the building setting the minimum price at $78,000 with no conditions attached, a 10% bidders’ deposit, closing in 30 days and sold as is; rather than getting into specifics about maintaining the façade.

The Board briefly discussed that their initial intentions regarding the building were made in good faith with time having passed allowing its further deterioration. The method of sale: sealed bids, public auction, or acceptance of the highest offer, was briefly discussed. It was the consensus of the Board to hold the public hearing and decide the method of sale at that point.

C.    Closed Session Procedures

Mr. Harvey inquired of Mr. Payne as to having a set of guidelines that the Board could keep in their drawers so as to follow the correct procedures for having a closed session. Mr. Payne noted that the topic had to be very specific. Mr. Hale noted that there are some helpful guidelines in the VACo handbook for Board Meeting Procedure in Virginia. The question of whether or not it has to be an agenda item was discussed with Mr. Payne noting that if it is an agenda item, it could be noted along with the motion but there are times when things come up and it won’t be on the agenda. He noted that it is not required to be an agenda item only that the subject matter be stated with specificity in the motion. He also noted that the Freedom of Information Act states that a person need not be present to claim the benefits of the Chapter.

Mr. Carter noted that staff has developed a draft “cheat sheet” for the conduct of closed sessions for Mr. Payne to review. Mr. Payne noted avoiding closed sessions in general is recommended.

Mr. Payne noted the legal matter remaining to be the arbitrary and capricious suit regarding the decision in approving the permits, with closing arguments in August with Judge Gamble and possible appeals to come.

V.    New Business – None

Mr. Harvey exited the meeting and remained absent for the remainder of the afternoon session.

VI.    Reports, Appointments, Correspondence, and Directives

A.    Reports
1.    County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Carter’s report included the following:

1. FY 07-08 Budget and 5 Year CIP – The public hearing on the Fiscal Year 07-08 Budget is scheduled for May 21, 07 at 7:30 p.m. in the Circuit Court Room. Follow up has also been completed on the Board’s question of the cost of replacing the roof at the Maintenance Building. The revised cost estimate (from W.A. Lynch – C. McCarty) is $24,700 for a roofing system similar to that installed in 2006 on the Courthouse.

2. 2008 General Reassessment –   Per staff of Wingate Appraisal Services, the firm has completed approximately one-third of the 2008 General Reassessment. An article on this subject, drafted by staff, was advertised in the May 3, 08 Nelson County Times.

The Board discussed the increases in values generally across the County, particularly the Southeastern part of the County as noted by Wingate staff.

3. Courthouse/Government Center Project – The project committee (Ms. Brennan, Mr. Hale and S. Carter) met on 5-7-07 with Wiley and Wilson staff (R. Vaughan and C. Clayborne) to discuss work completed to date by W&W on the project’s schematic phase. The outcome of the work session was concurrence from the committee for W&W to revise (i.e. reverse) the location of the Gen. District and J & D Courts to a new facility behind the current Courthouse facility and to include in this building the Sheriffs Department, Dispatch and Emergency Services. County administration, inclusive of the Health and Social Services departments, will be located in the new facility to be constructed in the current parking lot area. The revised space needs study, which will be further reviewed, now provides for 61,190 square feet in total facilities (including the current Courthouse) rather than the approximate 77,000 square feet in total building footprint(s). A revised cost estimate had not been prepared for the work session.

Next steps include a work session with the full Board to be scheduled for the June 12 regular session or an adjourned meeting thereafter and to include the participation and input from Davenport and Company and Sands Anderson Marks and Miller on the financial forecast prepared for the County and to discuss strategies for financing the project.

4. Solid Waste Project: A. Convenience Centers Project:   Wiley and Wilson are completing preliminary designs of the Shipman and Massies Mill sites and plan to provide them to the County for review by 5-17. Work is also in process to complete the County’s purchase of the Massies Mill property (the subdivision plat has been completed, approved and provided to legal counsel for closing).    A firm bid date has not been established but is anticipated for June 07. The VA Resources Authority has advised that the County’s loan request has been approved and will be included in VRA’s closing of its Spring 2006 Bond Pool program (late May to early June 07). Staff is beginning the development of a plan of operation for convenience centers, inclusive collection and transportation of solid waste from convenience centers to the County’s transfer station. Board review and approval of programmatic changes will be necessary with consideration of this subject projected to be by the July 07 regular session.

B. Region 2000 Solid Waste Management Initiative: Work is continuing on a draft document to establish a regional authority to serve as the managing entity of the regional solid waste operation. It is anticipated that the agreement will be submitted to the Board for consideration by late May 07 with formal approval consideration thereafter.

C. Environmental Monitoring Program: Draper Aden Associates is working to complete the County’s proposed closeout of its gas monitoring program at the closed landfill facility. Closeout required DEQ approval. The first semi-annual groundwater monitoring report for 2007 has been submitted to DEQ. The very positive outcome of this report is that the facility’s groundwater protection standards were not exceeded. However, this outcome if required for three consecutive years prior to development and submittal of a program closeout request similar to that being completed for the gas monitoring program. At issue currently is DEQ’s directive that the County install an offsite sentinel well to monitor groundwater results as a means of insuring its continued use of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as the basis of its groundwater program.

Mr. Carter noted that to date, landowners there have refused to allow the installation of a sentinel well and the County will need to find another strategy, which staff is working on. Mr. Carter also noted that previously, the County had been told that it wouldn’t have to install a sentinel well; however DEQ has recently directed that the exemption cannot be granted.

D. Gladstone Convenience Center: Maintenance staff has developed a design and cost of materials ($1,107 approximate) to install a gate at the Gladstone Convenience Center. The project will require three days to complete. Additional considerations include: Staffing, toilet facilities, shelter and potable water (estimated annual cost of personnel at 36 hours per week/ 3 twelve hour days, with toilet and potable water and no provision for shelter is $17,500).

The Board discussed the possibility that the savings from the reduction in out of County trash resulting from the proposed improvements, could offset the costs. The Board’s consensus was to move forward with gating the site but waiting to staff it; utilizing County Staff to open and close the gate if amenable, providing reports on the condition of the site upon opening and closing.

E. Decals: The June 07 real and personal property tax tickets included decals for use of the County’s convenience centers by residents and non-resident property owners (as defined in the local ordinance). Issuance of the decals will be annually (calendar year) with the ensuing distribution for 2008 to be mailed with the December 07 tax tickets. Staff is evaluating the instructions (computer generated code) for the 07 decal distribution to resolve issues ahead of the 08 distribution and are also addressing input from the public as outcomes of the 07 distribution.

The Board discussed the criteria for distribution of the trash sticker with Mr. Carter noting that up to four (4) stickers were to be sent out with personal property tax tickets, depending on the number of DMV registered vehicles. Any more than four (4) would require additional postage. Two (2) stickers were sent with the out of county Real Estate tax tickets, with rental situations left open ended for now. Mr. Carter noted the substantial cost savings in using the smaller trash decals than the former larger County Decal.

5. Paid EMS Project – County staff are receiving and in the process of forwarding the first intake documents for EMS transports to Diversified Ambulance Billing to provide for initiation of the program’s revenue recovery component. Work is continuing on finalization of the compassionate billing policy, which, per the EMS ordinance approved by the Board, will be implemented administratively. Staff is also partnering with Amherst County’s EMS staff to complete an inter-local agreement on EMS services. C. Sheets of Wintergreen Fire and Rescue has suggested that his agency present a report on the program to the Board, including introduction of program personnel. Staff proposes to include this subject as an agenda item for the June or July 07 regular session.

6. Piney River 3 Project: The project’s revised design has been completed and submitted by Draper Aden Associates to state and federal regulatory agencies for review and approval. County staff has also submitted required documentation to USDA-Rural Development to provide for receipt of authorization for bid (construction) and closing instructions for project funding.   A public information meeting was conducted on May 1. Staff’s objective is to bid the project by July 1, 07 albeit this date may slip due to the complexity of the many administrative processes and reviews that are required.

7. Lovingston Revitalization Plan and Nellysford Planning Project: The two master plan projects are proposed for presentation to the Board at the June 07 regular session to provide for final comment on the Nellysford plan with the recommendation that both plans be submitted to the Planning Commission for incorporation into the update of the local Comprehensive Plan and to provide for capital improvement recommendations on each plan with priorities to be developed and submitted by the Commission to the Board.

8. Blue Ridge Tunnel and Blue Ride Railway Trail Projects: Federal Highway Administration staff recently completed an audit of the BRRT project, the next phase of which is nearing implementation. Property acquisition discussions have also been initiated on the BRT project, the design of which is anticipated to be completed later this year or in early 2008.

9. Broadband: Selection of a project consultant is in process. The first Management Team meeting will be conducted on 5-17 in a facilitated planning process provided by staff of VA-DHCD, the planning project’s funding source.

10. Biosolids: The committee has conducted two meetings (most recently on 4-19) and agreed at its second session that the County Attorney complete a draft ordinance for its review and consideration of submitting the (final) draft to the Board.

Mr. Carter noted that there has still been no decision on the pending Biosolids applications due to VDH awaiting the requested revisions from Synagro and expects Mr. Haley to notify the County as soon as those come back.

11. Rockfish Valley Community Center: Staff has advised RVCC of the Board’s inquiry on a long term lease or outright conveyance of the property and has received a response from RVCC that they are developing a reply.

Staff has been working to resolve the re-certification of the hydropneumatic tank that provides water pressure to RVCC. Notice was received from the VA Department of Labor and Industry that the tank be recertified and there is a May 27 deadline imposed by the Department. To date the re-inspection of tank by St. Pauls Travelers Insurance Company has been unsuccessful, despite the County’s efforts. Assistance with this matter had been received from the VA Department of Health Office of Drinking Water (Lexington) and the Nelson County Service Authority on an alternative installation of the existing tank. A final solution has not been identified to date albeit it is a priority focus of County staff. VACO Insurance Programs has also advised that it will provide $8,500 for the repair of the roof over the north wing of the building. Coordination with RVCC is required to facilitate this work.

Mr. Carter noted that staff is working with the NCSA engineer to find alternative solutions and develop cost estimates. He noted that performing a full ultrasound on the tank area may render the tank certifiable; if not an alternative system or replacement of the tank will be necessary. The alternative system would be sized for the system usage and potentially less expensive.
Mr. Carter noted that the Board authorized the current 5 year lease which changed the language of the agreement such that RVCC is responsible for significant improvements to the building, however since the County still owns the building, it is ultimately responsible to remedy the situation or be fined etc. by the regulating State agencies. Additionally, the center would be shut down.

The Board discussed having a workshop on Community Centers to address these issues. The potential for the Nelson County Community Development Foundation to manage the Community Centers was briefly discussed as well as the County’s responsibility for upkeep of the buildings in an ownership or lease situation.

12. Nelson County Public Schools (Front Parking Lot): Dr. R. Collins has advised by memo dated May 4, 07 that a lump sum proposal of $163,950 has been obtained from Marvin V. Templeton & Sons, Inc. for the improvement of the front parking lot at NCHS.

The pending gym floor reimbursement, less the approximately $45,000 already designated for the rear parking lot, was discussed as a means to partially fund this request. The Board discussed re-gravelling or priming and sealing the parking lot as an alternative to paving, asking Mr. Carter to check on this. Mr. Carter noted that the paving quote included dealing with the drainage issues in that area, which can be expensive. No action was taken on this issue.

13. Paving of Brookside Lane: Subject to final decision of the Board, two cost estimates have been obtained for the paving (2” asphalt overlay) of Brookside Lane. The quoted costs are $9,500 (to repair the road and pave it) and $8,500 to pave over the existing road, as is. It is understood that this work can be accomplished prior to 5-19, if the Board so directs.

14. Camera Installations: Video surveillance cameras (4) have been installed in the first floor corridors of the Courthouse and are monitored by the E-911 Dispatch System.   Grant funding (Homeland Security) provided for the cost of this installation.

15. Department Reports: The monthly reports from County departments and offices and quarterly reports from local/regional agencies were forwarded electronically to the Board on 5-7-07.

2.    Board Reports

Mr. Hale:    No report

Ms. Brennan:    Reported attendance of a JABA Forum, TJPDC VACo Courthouse meeting and discussion of TJPDC organizational assessment, Circuit Court for cases, Gladstone Railroad presentation, Regular TJPDC meeting; noting the upcoming Info Sharing Meeting, and a Courthouse project meeting.

Mr. Harris:    Reported attendance of a Senior Issues Committee meeting and briefly noted having spoken with Stu Armstrong regarding the Wintergreen revitalization issue.

Mr. Bruguiere:    Reported meeting with the EDA and a prospective business interested in locating at the Colleen Business Park. He noted being optimistic and that the firm is a small firm from Charlottesville with the potential for expansion and the EDA should know something in the next month.

B.    Appointments

1.          Library Advisory Committee – South District

Ms. Brennan made a motion to appoint Jean Holliday to the Library Advisory Committee to fill the unexpired term in the South District to expire 6/30/09.

The Board briefly discussed the lack of personal knowledge of the applicant, but noted her willingness to serve and interest in the library as described in her application letter.

Mr. Hale seconded the motion and Supervisors voted (4-0), with Mr. Harvey being absent, to approve the appointment of Jean Holliday to the Library Advisory Committee.

2.          Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee

Ms. Brennan made a motion to reappoint Lee Albright, Andy Wright, Eddie Embrey, Susan McSwain and Dr. Andre Derdeyn to the Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee for another four (4) year term. Mr. Hale seconded the motion and Supervisors voted (4-0) with Mr. Harvey being absent to approve the motion and the appointments.

The Board noted that Maureen Littlepath should be contacted again regarding her re-appointment and that two, possibly three other landowners were needed for the Committee. It was noted that the Commissioner of Revenue by Code and Ms. Brennan serves as the Board’s representative on the committee and may need reappointment. Ms. McGarry noted that she would check to see if Ms. Brennan was appointed via blanket resolution at the Board’s annual organizational meeting in January and report back.

C.    Correspondence - None

D.    Directives

Mr. Hale – None

Ms. Brennan – Have the School Board come up with a plan for handling championship team recognition as an alternative to multiple jacket requests, set up a workshop on the Community Center issues, and have staff prepare a report on all rents paid by the County.

Mr. Harris – None

Mr. Bruguiere - None

VII.    Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session
At 6:05 P.M., on a motion by Ms. Brennan, with no second, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) with Mr. Harvey being absent, to recess and reconvene for the evening session at 7:30 PM.
EVENING SESSION
7:30 p.m. – Nelson County Courthouse

I.    Call to Order

Chairman Bruguiere called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with 5 Supervisors present to establish a quorum.

II.    Public Hearings

A.    Amendment of NC Zoning Ordinance, Wine Tasting Rooms (O2007-006)

Mr. Boger overviewed the proposed amendments and noted the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on April 25th noting that the proposed amendments would permit wine tasting rooms either by right or by Special Use Permit in Agricultural, Business and Service Enterprise Districts, and add appropriate definitions. He noted several options were presented and that staff recommends that option 2A, as endorsed by the Explore Nelson Wine Group, and amended by the Planning Commission, be considered by the Board. He noted that the Commission is asking the amendment be referred back to them so they can fine tune it.

Mr. Harvey added that more time was needed by the Planning Commission because the State has not clearly defined “Restaurant” and is the process of working on it themselves. He noted the opportunity to have input from Terry Burn an attorney and one more meeting by the Planning Commission should allow completion of their work on this.

Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing and the following speakers were recognized:

1.    Terry Burn – Attorney representing wineries

Ms. Burn noted that some changes were needed to the proposed ordinance to comply with State ABC laws and offered her services in working with Mr. Boger and the Commission. She agreed that the definition of a Restaurant was in question and being reviewed by the Sate and therefore supports the recommendation that it be sent back to the Planning Commission for further work.

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

The Board discussed a sixty (60) day extension and Mr. Harvey made a motion to refer the proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission for fine tuning to be returned to the Board in sixty (60) days. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (5-0) to approve the motion.

B.    Conditional Use Permit #2007-003 - Veritas Vineyards Tax Map #3-A-154A

Mr. Boger presented the conditional use permit application, stating that Mr. and Mrs. Hodson have submitted a petition for a restaurant at its winery located at 145 Saddleback Farm and the CUP is required because food will be prepared on site for private events held at the winery. Mr. Boger noted that the restaurant area is approximately 5,980 square feet in size and the parking requirement for this size facility is 60 spaces. He said that the site plan does not indicate where the parking spaces are located or the design of the parking area. He also reported that they are working with the Health Department to monitor the existing facility’s water use to determine if the existing septic system is adequate and if a problem is found then the Health Department will require improvements to be made to the system. Mr. Boger noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request contingent upon the re-application for the CUP if the business is sold.

The Board briefly discussed the waiver of the parking requirement as permitted in the ordinance and the concerns of the neighbor that were addressed by the Planning Commission.

There being no further questions, Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing and the following speakers were recognized:

1.    Terry Burn - Attorney representing wineries

Ms. Burn noted that she had been contacted by Veritas, the applicant to represent their interests and that she was asking for a deferral of the vote on this application until the next Board meeting to analyze the impact of the potential Health Department requirements to upgrade the septic system etc.

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

Ms. Brennan made a motion to defer acting on the Conditional Use Permit #2007-003 - Veritas Vineyards Tax Map #3-A-154A until the next Board meeting. Mr. Harris seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (5-0) to approve the motion deferring action on CUP #2007-003.

C.    Conditional Use Permit #2007-004 - N. Nuzzi Tax Map #12-A-79A

Mr. Boger overviewed the application, noting that the purpose of the request is to permit a Nelson County winery to have an off-site wine tasting room where wine can be tasted and purchased. He noted that a restaurant is defined as any building in which, for compensation, food or beverages are dispensed for consumption on the premises, including, among other establishments, cafes, tea rooms, confectionary shops, or refreshment stands. He noted that this is a commercial activity and since wine will be dispensed there for a fee, it falls within the broad definition of a restaurant. Mr. Boger noted that Mr. Nuzzi is restricting the use of the building to antique sales, permit previously granted, the sale of beverages and light snacks prepared off-site for consumption on and off premises, and the sale of bottled wine produced by a Virginia licensed farm winery. Mr. Boger stated that the Building Official has restricted the maximum occupancy of the antique building to 15 people. Mr. Nuzzi also has to verify with the Health Department that the existing septic system can accommodate this number of people, with some modification. Preliminary indications are that there shouldn’t be a problem because there will remain only one restroom and no food preparation on site. The Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: “The use of the building is limited to antique sales (permit previously granted), the sale of beverages and light snacks prepared off-site for consumption on and off premises and the sale of bottled wine produced by a Virginia licensed farm winery”.

There being no questions from the Board, Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing and the following speakers were recognized:

1.    Massie Saunders – Applicant representative

Mr. Saunders noted he was representing the applicant and can answer any questions. The Board had no questions for Mr. Saunders.

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

There being no further discussion by the Board, Mr. Harris made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit #2007-004 for Mr. Nicholas Nuzzi, Tax Map #12-A-79A. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and Supervisors voted (5-0) to approve the motion and CUP #2007-004.

D.    Rezoning #2007-004 – “The Village” at Glen Mary

Mr. Boger presented the application stating that Mr. Steve Crandall, representing Verd To Go LLC has submitted a petition to rezone approximately 27.82 acres from Service Enterprise, SE-1 to Business, B-1 Conditional in order to permit the development of a mixed-use commercial/residential center, noting the plan for a 9,000 sq ft grocery store, which is not allowed in a Service Enterprise District. The residential component of the project is contingent upon future amendments to the zoning ordinance, and the primary reason this rezoning is required is that work on revising the zoning ordinance has not been completed and the applicant wants to proceed.   He stated that the applicant has voluntarily proffered away the following uses in the B-1 District: Funeral home/crematorium, golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses, public garages, graveyard and hospitals, veterinarian hospital, sale of new and used cars, waterfront business activities, automobile graveyard, borrow pit, and commercial amusement parks. Mr. Boger noted that staff supports this request and feels this project will become a model for other future developments in this area. However, it should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan will have to be amended in the near future to show the change in designated land use in this area of the County, which is presently a “Rural and Farming District”. Mr. Boger noted that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the application.

There were no additional comments from the applicant, Mr. Crandall. The Board briefly discussed Service Enterprise Districts in general and the uses proffered away. Mr. Boger noted that the site plan has been approved and the project is not in a flood plain per FEMA.

There being no questions from the Board, Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing. There being no persons wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Ms. Brennan made a motion to approve Rezoning #2007-004 – “The Village” at Glen Mary Tax Map #31-A-48A as presented with the proffers as listed in the application. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and Supervisors voted (5-0) to approve the motion and the application for Rezoning #2007-004.

E.    Amendment of NC Zoning Ordinance

Mr. Boger noted that these were the first round of changes proposed for the Zoning Ordinance and that few comments had been received at his office or at the Planning Commission meetings. He gave an overview of the proposed amendments noting the provision of legislative authority, the addition of purpose and intent, additional definitions, minimum lot sizes and division table, and various by right and conditional use changes to existing districts. He noted that the County Attorney would like to offer some changes before adoption by the Board.

The Board received brief clarification from Mr. Boger regarding the established setbacks and road frontage for pipe-stems.

Mr. Bruguiere noted to the public that the Board had decided not to adopt the brand new Ordinance as developed by Frank Cox, but rather decided to amend the old one with some of the things from the draft new one. He then opened the public hearing and the following speakers were recognized:

1.    Rob Rutherford, Shipman
Mr. Rutherford thanked the Board for its work and expressed concerns regarding the associated costs to the average family of increasing the minimum lot sizes by 100%, changing the setback requirements 60% rendering some currently (smaller) divided properties unusable, and noted the need for clarification of the minimum lot sizes for family subdivisions, and addressing the grandfathering of existing non-conforming lots.

2.    David Hite, Roseland
Mr. Hite commended the Board for its revisions and for not proceeding with the draft new ordinance as developed by Mr. Cox.

3.    Carlton Ballowe, Real Nelson
Mr. Ballowe thanked the Board for its work and noted his approval of the results.

4.    Al Weed, Lovingston
Commended the Board for its work - especially in controlling growth; and noted his approval of the results.

5.    Massie Saunders, Piney River
Mr. Saunders expressed concern with the implementation of the amendments into his work schedule and urged the Board to keep the area professionals, who work within the guidelines of the ordinance, in mind during the adoption process.

6.    Bobby Karnes,
Mr. Karnes inquired about subdividing 20 acres and the associated road requirements. Mr. Karnes was referred to Mr. Boger’s office to get help with compliance.

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

Mr. Bruguiere thanked all of those who spoke and noted his appreciation for the positive feedback. He noted that the Board would probably not adopt the amendments tonight, but would have a work session in order to consider all of the comments made.

Mr. Massie Saunders asked about the application of the amendments to existing subdivided parcels of 20 acres within an existing subdivision. The Board, Mr. Boger and Mr. Payne briefly discussed this noting that if it is in an existing subdivision, the 20 acre parcel would not have 6 division rights; but if the 20 acre parcel was not part of a subdivision it would. The Board noted that these issues were addressed in 4-2-1 with some additional work needed. The Board noted that clarification would be made on divisibility at the subsequent work session.

Mr. Ballowe echoed concerns over the lack of clarity concerning the division rights that would be associated with existing parcels of record under the amended ordinance.

Mr. Harvey made a motion to defer action on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Mr. Hale seconded the motion and Supervisors voted (5-0) to approve the motion.

F.    Amendment of NC Subdivision Ordinance

Mr. Boger gave an overview of the proposed amendments noting changes to definitions to coincide with the definitions in the Zoning amendments. Other changes noted were the removal of the Board’s approval for final subdivision plats, the number of lots that can be approved administratively, cluster development approvals, revision to the types of exempted subdivisions, only boundary line adjustments and family subdivisions are exempt, and VDOT exceptions for family subdivisions. He noted that the site review process and committee have now been formalized in the amendment as well as the appeal process. Various platting requirements were also noted.

In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Boger noted that there was no minimum time frame for the sale of a parcel that was a family subdivision set in this round (possibly when the administrative amendments are made), the effective date of the changes would be established at the ensuing work session, and the State Code provides for the minimum right of way standards applicable to family subdivisions.

There being no other questions from the Board, Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing and the following speakers were recognized:

1.    Rob Rutherford, Shipman
Mr. Rutherford noted his dislike for the wording used to describe reasons for plat disapproval, 3-9, noting its ambiguity with no definitions provided.
There being no others wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

The Board decided by consensus to defer action on the propose Subdivision Ordinance amendments until after the work session.

Mr. Hale noted to the public, for clarification of his earlier interpretation, that if a subdivision plat of record shows lots, that those subdivided lots are not then entitled to the subdivision rights denoted in the division rights table.

Mr. Massie Saunders noted that there are a series of subdivisions that pre-date Mr. Boger where there are lots that have been cut-off one at a time that are not platted as part of a subdivision plat that should have to follow this same rule, noting that this is the issue for the Board to consider. He also noted the issue of tax parcels being taxed as single entities, but are made up of multiple parcels.

Mr. Carter notes that the GIS project is going to disaggregate these large conglomerations of tracts, working with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Circuit Court Clerk’s office.

The Board noted further discussion on this would be taken up at the work session.

G.    Amendment of NC Section 11-131 Transient Occupancy Tax (O2007-005)

Mr. Bruguiere noted that the proposed amendment would increase the transient occupancy tax from 3% to 5% for all lodging within the County.

There being no questions from the Board, Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing.

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

Mr. Hale made a motion to adopt Ordinance O2007-005 to amend the Nelson County Code Section 11-131 Transient Occupancy Tax to increase the tax from 3% to 5%. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.

Supervisors discussed the tax as not being paid by Nelson County residents, it not being out of line within the State and nationally, and alternately the possibility of going to 4% this year and 5% next year. It was discussed that some budgetary decisions had been made based on going to 5%.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Bruguiere called for the vote and Supervisors voted (5-0) to approve the motion and amendment to the Nelson County Code increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax levy to 5%.

H.    Disposal of County Property – 571 Front St. Lovingston (R2007-046)

Mr. Bruguiere noted the proposed resolution authorizing the sale of County owned property at 571 Front Street and the requirement to hold a public hearing on the disposal of publicly owned real property prior to its sale.

Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing. There being no persons wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Harris noted that he was not in favor of selling the building and doesn’t feel good about the County purchasing a building and then turning around and selling it.

Mr. Bruguiere noted that the original intent was not to sell the building but to renovate it for around $336,000 and now the renovation costs are estimated at $500,000 and he feels that the taxpayers cannot be obligated to spend that kind of money even if the Board had good intentions initially to use the building for a specific purpose.

Mr. Harris clarified that he was more in favor of negotiating with private parties, who have made offers, for the sale of the building, including certain conditions rather than holding a public auction which was his bigger concern than just selling the property.

Ms. Brennan noted that she was discouraged by the rising costs of renovation estimates and sad about the sale of the building due to its historic nature and noted it will be a loss of cultural heritage if it’s torn down. She noted the building to be the cornerstone of historic Lovingston which the Board wants to revitalize.

Mr. Hale noted it to be important to recognize that the estimates are in the range of $500,000 to $700,000 and the Building Official has given a dire report on the building. There being at least 3-4 parties interested in purchasing the building, in his opinion, warrants the public auction.

The Board discussed the method of disposal of the property noting the advice given by Mr. Payne earlier regarding the pros and cons of public auction or sealed bids. It was noted that the County can retain the right to refuse if a minimum reserve is not met. The Board discussed the fairest way to do it considering the interest expressed by more than one party. They also discussed the setting of standards regarding the use of the building and setting the conditions of sale. It was noted that while the County was not in the real estate business to make money, the use of these conditions could depress the sale price.

It was noted and confirmed by Mr. Payne that the public hearing purpose was to hear comment on the disposal of the building and the method was not yet determined and could be decided by the Board.

The Board noted the original purchase price to be $78,000 and reasons for deferring action were questioned and discussed. Reasons for deferral were noted to be setting standards on what might happen to the building. The Board discussed the setting of conditions to be detrimental to the sale with some opinion that whoever buys the building should be able to do what they want with it. There was brief discussion on the thought that private parties would be more likely than government entities to be able to affordably renovate the building and the historic nature of the building was briefly debated.

Mr. Payne confirmed that the establishment of a minimum bid is permissible and won’t be likely to affect the sale price brought. Mr. Payne also noted that the Board would be remiss to sell the building for less than what was paid for it. He noted the Board could set the minimum bid at whatever it likes and also stated that setting restrictions would be difficult to enforce with creating that mechanism of enforcement being most difficult.

Mr. Hale stated that he believed strongly that controlling the building’s fate after the sale is imposing a difficulty on both the seller and the buyer.

Mr. Hale made a motion to advertise the sale of the building at 571 Front Street in Lovingston VA, by public auction to be advertised as appropriate with a minimum price set at $90,000. Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and Supervisors voted (3-2) to approve the motion with Mr. Harris and Ms. Brennan voting No.

Mr. Payne noted that the sale could take place following proper advertisement and the County would likely have to open the building for inspection etc. The Board instructed Mr. Carter to work with Mr. Payne to facilitate auctioning the building as quickly as possible and proceed with notifying the known interested parties in writing as soon as the details are known.

III.    Other Business - None

IV.    Public Comments - None

V.    Adjournment

At 9:15 P. M., on a motion by Mr. Harvey and seconded by Mr. Harris, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0), to adjourn and continue the meeting until 5:00 PM on May 21, 2007 at the Nelson County Courthouse, Lovingston, Virginia for purposes of the conduct of a work session on the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments, the public hearing on the FY07-08 budget at 7:30 PM, and such other business as said Board of Supervisors may consider.