Board of Supervisors: May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

Virginia:

AT A CONTINUED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 5:00
P. M. in the Board of Supervisors Room at the Courthouse, Lovingston Virginia.

Present:
Harry S. Harris, South District Supervisor
       Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor
       Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor
       Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
       Candice W. McGarry, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
       Fred Boger, Planning Director
       Betty Fortune, Planning Secretary
       Phil Payne, County Attorney


I.    Call to Order

The continued meeting was called to order by consensus at 5:20 P.M. with three members present to establish a quorum with Mr. Bruguiere and Mr. Harvey being absent.

In the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, Ms. Brennan nominated Mr. Harris to be temporary Chairman and Mr. Hale Seconded the nomination. The meeting was then turned over to the temporary Chair Mr. Harris.

Mr. Carter proposed that the Board consider Other Business while waiting for Mr. Harvey to arrive prior to beginning the work session. The consensus was to begin consideration of items B, C & D under Other Business.

II.   Other Business

B.   Solid Waste – Revised Tipping Fee

Mr. Carter gave an overview of the methodology used in calculating the two tipping fees presented in his report to the Board. Both methods are based on a 40% commercial waste stream (an industry standard) with total annual tonnage estimated at 14,750 or a 5,900 ton annual commercial waste amount. Mr. Carter noted that staff recommends going from $55 per ton to $60 per ton.

The first method utilizes 40% of the FY07-08 Solid Waste Department budget less expenditures associated with convenience center operations (residential waste) divided by 5,900 Tons to yield a tipping fee of approximately $60 per ton.

The second method utilizes the same as above, but allocates 5% of the total FY07-08 departmental budgets of the County Administrator, Finance and Human Resources, and Maintenance. This method yields a tipping fee of approximately $68 per ton.

Mr. Carter noted the projected revenue from the first method is $354,000 and from the second is $401,200. He noted the current budgeted revenue for FY07-08 to be $342,000 and explained that number was derived using a 15% increase factor over the FY06-07 revenue.

Mr. Carter noted that the calculations were based on commercial waste only and included no residential costs. He noted that the 40% commercial waste stream is an industry standard that has been used historically in determining tipping fees.

The Board discussed that the revenues from the 40% commercial waste stream subsidizes those who illegally dump into open tops, avoiding paying the tipping fee. It was also discussed that the reduction of commercial waste dumped at the residential sites might make up some of the cost differential. The Board discussed whether or not a breakdown by industry of the current commercial accounts at the transfer station is available with Mr. Carter noting he could check on this. He also noted that if the Board was inclined to change the tipping fee, it could be incorporated into the budget adoption resolution as in the past. Mr. Carter noted that the inclusion of administrative costs has not been applied universally but in the case of Street Lights and the proposed Planning fees it has.

The Board also discussed that Wintergreen Condominium trash is currently considered residential. Mr. Carter noted that a proposed change included in the presentation on implementing the public solid waste collection system, was treating the condominium waste as commercial and requiring payment of the tipping fee.

The Board discussed approving $60 per ton and re-evaluating it after the other convenience centers were built and also deferring a decision until the other members were present with a possible recommendation at the next regular meeting.

At 5:40 PM, Mr. Harvey joined the meeting and assumed the Chair from Mr. Harris. The Board then proceeded to begin the Work Session.

III.   Work Session - Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments

Mr. Boger distributed draft Ordinance revisions dated 5/21/07 for the Board’s review containing proposed language addressing concerns that came out of the public hearings held on May 8, 2007 on the amendments. He also handed out a typed addition to section 4-2-1 to the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Payne addressed the Board noting having spoken with various other localities regarding the concerns that had been expressed. Mr. Payne referred to the additional language added to 4-2-1 of the Zoning Ordinance which clarifies how the Subdivision Ordinance affects division rights. He noted that the Subdivision Ordinance cannot be used to control lot sizes and all land use has to occur in the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Payne explained that the first part of the new language says that prior subdivisions do not limit future divisions (every lot that exists will have the division rights in the chart), however where there is a platted subdivision, all landowners must agree to lot changes or the Board of Supervisors must vacate the plat. He noted this is a procedural limitation but not a limit on the number of lots that can be created. The vacation procedure may affect whether the landowner may take advantage of the division rights in the table.

Mr. Payne noted that division rights should be transferable with the sale of parcels resulting in no net increase in the number of rights. He also noted that each parcel has a specific number of rights and boundary lines cannot be vacated in order to create more division rights for the parcel.

The second part addresses the requirements of listing the original number of division rights for the parcel, the number of rights used in the division and the number of rights remaining and the parcels to which they apply on the subdivision plat. If Mr. Boger disagrees with the number of rights on the plat, he will issue a letter noting appeal rights to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Payne noted that once new division lines are drawn the old ones are considered gone. This should not be included in the Ordinance but should be a matter of administrative judgment based on knowledge and experience. He also explained that whenever the Ordinance is enacted, the existing parcels of record in the Clerk’s Office will have the division rights as listed in the table.

Mr. Payne and Mr. Boger discussed that a family division is still use of a division right, but the lot size allowable is less than the regular division requirements (this is the exemption). He also noted that a 30 ft minimum right of way is required for all divisions as well as a survey.

The Board briefly discussed development rights vs. division rights and that once your division rights are used, you can’t make another parcel; but every parcel can have a dwelling if setbacks can be met.

Mr. Payne noted that the appeals process has been changed to track with State language on page 6, 3-11 C & D, of the draft Subdivision Ordinance.

The Board discussed the need to set the effective date of the Ordinances, with Mr. Payne suggesting a quick time frame. He noted the grandfather clause that states that if a submission to Mr. Boger of an appropriate preliminary plat and appropriate documentation occurs prior to the effective date, then that pending application will be treated under the old rules. The Board also discussed the intent to limit large developments coming in under the old rules and not restricting the small landowners.

The Board then discussed the number of divisions that can be administratively approved, currently proposed at 10. Lowering the number to 6 was discussed so as to promote the public hearing process at the Planning Commission level, for informational purposes for adjoining landowners since they must be notified in writing. Mr. Payne noted that making this item more restrictive would not necessitate a new public hearing in his opinion. It was the prevailing consensus of the Board to change it to 11 rather than 10 as stated, in order to allow the Planning Director to be able to approve the full chart of divisions up to 75 acres.

Cluster development and alternative sewer systems were briefly discussed with Mr. Boger noting that these issues will be addressed in the next round of Zoning and Subdivision amendments.

The Board discussed being comfortable with the changes proposed and further discussed the effective date of the amendments. Ten days was discussed as being reasonable and Mr. Payne suggested making it a Friday. June 1, 2007 was noted to be two weeks away and on a Friday and the Board agreed by consensus to use this effective date and a time of 5 PM for both the Zoning and Subdivision amendments. The Board suggested that the Planning Department notify regular area professionals of this adoption.

Mr. Hale made a motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance as revised on 5/21/07 with an effective date of 5 PM on June 1, 2007. Mr. Harris seconded the motion.

Clarification was made regarding the date of adoption and the effective date. The date of adoption was noted to be 5/21/07 with the effective date of the amendments being 6/1/07 at 5 PM. allowing a short time frame to have things in process before the new rules take effect.

Following this discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote, with Mr. Bruguiere being absent, to approve the motion.

Mr. Hale made a motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Nelson County Subdivision Ordinance pursuant to the revisions dated 5/21/07, changing the number of lots under exception of review by the Commission from 10 lots to 11 lots; with an effective date of 5 PM on June 1, 2007. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) by roll call vote, with Mr. Bruguiere being absent, to approve the motion.

The Board commended Mr. Payne, Mr. Boger and Ms. Fortune for their work on this very difficult subject.

At 6:45 PM, the Board agreed by consensus to take a break prior to the scheduled public hearing on the FY 07-08 Budget.

IV.                 Public Hearings

Mr. Bruguiere and Ms. Debbie McCann, Finance Director joined the meeting and all Supervisors were present.

A.   FY 07-08 Budget
Mr. Bruguiere opened the public hearing and noted that the hearing is on the FY07-08 budget beginning July 1, 2007 and that Ms. McCann would present a PowerPoint on the budget and then the Board would take public comments.

Ms. McCann gave a brief overview of the FY07-08 budget noting the following:

Revenue highlights include growth in Real Estate & Personal Property values, increase in the lodging tax from 3% to 5%, level interest earnings, declining recordation taxes and building permit fees, implementation of EMS revenue recovery program and financing proceeds for 3 new solid waste convenience centers.

Compared to FY06-07, the FY07-08 budget increased $1,804,422 or 6.63%

Compared to FY06-07, the FY07-08 local revenue increased $386,883 or 1.92%, State Revenue increased $18,529 or 0.44%, and Federal revenue decreased $26,182 or -47.26%.

All sources of revenue totaled $29,027,866.

Expenditure highlights include the courthouse renovation project, 3 new solid waste convenience centers and roof replacement. Grant projects include the Blue Ridge Railway Trail and the Blue Ridge Tunnel restoration.

Operational increases include a 4% salary adjustment, 2.7% increase in health insurance costs, an average increase of 3.56% to agencies and reassessment costs paid from set-aside.

The local contribution to schools increased $3,183 for the school nursing program, $537,191 for school operations, and $90,000 for new debt for buses. The total contribution to schools is $9,958,667 for operations and $3,357,941 for school debt. The increase in the total school operations budget over last fiscal year is $1,091,831 or 5% for a total budget of $23,064,489.

Summarized by Fund: General Fund - $29,027,866, School Fund -$23,064,489, Debt Service Fund - $3,554659, Capital Fund - $848,846, E911 Fund - $178,386, Piney River Water/Sewer - $37,000, Piney River III - $5,239,760, CDBG Grant Fund - $75,000, and Street Light Fund - $9,400.

Mr. Bruguiere invited the public to participate in the public hearing and offer comments on the FY07-08 budget and the following speakers were recognized:

1.   Cheryl Cooper – COO of JABA

Ms. Cooper thanked the Board for their support and briefly described the program funding requests that were made for FY07-08 and noted the outcomes and beneficiaries served by the FY06-07 funding. She noted that for every $1 of local funding, JABA is able to leverage $3.08 in funding from other sources. Ms. Cooper extended an invitation to the Board to attend JABA’s annual public hearing on June 18, 2007 at 10:30 am at the Nelson Center.

2.   Alphonso Taylor – Chairman of the Nelson County Economic Development Authority

Mr. Taylor referenced a memo dated 5/7/07 from the EDA to the Board and reiterated that the EDA supports funding the County’s membership in the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development and added that the EDA would provide $6,250 for half of the membership dues. He asked that the Board reconsider including this funding in the FY07-08 budget.

3.   Robert McSwain – Shipman

Mr. McSwain distributed a memo to the Board outlining his thoughts regarding essential areas for spending if revenues became available and other suggestions to improve administrative processes. Items noted were: hiring a full-time County Attorney and Assistant Planner, having fees cover the costs of services, making the website more user-friendly, having a transition plan for documents during the courthouse construction project, performing an audit of staff resources and prioritizing the use of consultants, designating an intermediary organization to filter community center funding requests and increased use of a committee system to study important issues.

4.   Pete Purdue – Rockfish, Schuyler, and Gladstone Senior Centers

Mr. Purdue thanked the Board for its support of the Senior Centers and advocated leaving the funding for Senior Centers in the budget as proposed.

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

Mr. Bruguiere noted that the Board would consider all of the comments made before finalizing the budget and indicated that there probably would not be much change. He noted the Board would re-consider the EDA’s request for funding the TJPDC.

Board members commented generally thanking the public hearing attendees, speakers and staff.

In closing, Mr. Bruguiere noted that he wished more could be done for everyone but the next few years will present more of a strain due to the expense of the courthouse renovation project mandated by the judge, primarily to address security issues. He noted it was going to be expensive and indicated that taxes may increase as of next year and to be prepared for that. He also asked for more feedback on the budget from the public next year.

V.   Other Business

A.   EMS Council Interest Free Loan Application (R2007-047)

Mr. Carter briefly described the application made by the Rockfish Valley Fire Department and approved by the EMS Council, for utilization of the County’s interest free loan program in the amount of $200,000. He noted the included resolution R2007-047 which notes an available balance in the fund of $221,834.23.

Mr. Harvey described the use of the funds in more detail noting the funds would be used to purchase a new combination pumper and squad truck for rescue extrication equipment. He noted that this includes the cost to transfer their existing equipment, air cascade system, lights and extrication equipment to the new vehicle. He also noted that the new truck costs $235,000 and that Rockfish Fire Department was putting in $35,000 of its own money.

The Board discussed that another informal request from Wintergreen had been noted as coming in December for a ladder truck; pending the balance in the fund in December. Mr. Carter noted that the Treasurer could be consulted to estimate the balance in the fund at that time. It was discussed that the term for repayment of the loans is 8-10 years.

Ms. Brennan made a motion to approve R2007-047 to provide an interest free loan in the amount of $200,000 to the Rockfish Valley Fire Department for the purchase of a new combination pumper and squad truck for rescue extrication equipment. Mr. Harris seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion.

B.   Solid Waste – Revised Tipping Fee

Mr. Carter briefly over-viewed the earlier discussion regarding the proposed increase in tipping fees for the benefit of the members who were absent.

Mr. Harvey agreed with the earlier opinion that increasing the tipping fees now before the illegal dumping could be stopped would penalize the businesses who legally dump now by paying the tipping fee at the Transfer Station.   The reason for raising the fee was questioned and Mr. Carter and Ms. McCann noted that the fee was annually evaluated and was intended to cover the costs of the disposal of commercial waste. The difficulty of identifying businesses that bag their trash and dispose of it at the convenience centers was discussed, with it being noted that attendants can check bags. Mr. Carter noted that staff has been advised to check bags if they suspect it to be commercial trash. Identifying those businesses that aren’t using a pick-up service or the Transfer Station was discussed with Mr. Carter noting that there are approximately 250 Transfer Station accounts and over 800 issued business licenses in the County; some of which are using a private pick-up service.

Mr. Carter re-stated his earlier comments regarding the Wintergreen condominium waste being treated as primarily residential.

It was discussed again that an evaluation could be done after the other manned convenience centers were up and running (potentially by December) to reconsider increasing the tipping fee.
The Board agreed by consensus to defer increasing the tipping fee from $55 per ton until after the other manned sites are up and running and re-evaluating it again around December.

C.   Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Report

Mr. Carter over viewed the corrective action agreement issued by the Department of Conservation and Recreation following their recent review of the County’s erosion and sediment control program. He noted that significant improvements were required in the areas of inspection and enforcement and discussed a tentative timeline for compliance. He noted the plan needed to be signed by May 26, 2007 with a 180 day allowance to address the compliance issues.

He noted that the substantive new requirements for E&S inspections and enforcement could necessitate the need for additional personnel as confirmed by the Building Code Official and Assistant Code Official in evaluating the potential workload of the programmatic changes; even though the building inspections workload is slightly declining. DCR is now requiring inspections every 2 weeks and within 48 hours of a rain event. He noted that the County is currently doing several hundred residential E&S permits per year.

Mr. Carter noted that every locality in the State will have to abide by these requirements, and noted that the E&S fees will be reviewed as part of the compliance effort to possibly offset the increased costs to the County.

Mr. Carter noted some administrative work was needed on the E&S Ordinance and noted that there were some parts of the current Ordinance that exceed the State requirements. The Board requested that staff provide the sections exceeding the State requirements to them as part of the review process.

Mr. Carter noted that the primary focus for the Board is signing the Corrective Action Agreement and submitting it to DCR as they have directed. He noted that the staff has substantially completed work on the Ordinance revisions, developed the job description for an E&S inspector, and developed program fees and updated inspection forms. Mr. Carter noted that the County has contacted Allyson Sappington of the TJSWCD to inquire about contracting them to do the commercial inspections and she noted that they would be amenable to doing this. Mr. Carter noted that the public hearing on the Ordinance amendments would likely be July or August and if the Board so agreed, recruitment of personnel beginning in June or July. He also noted that the plan includes meeting with the homebuilders association and notifying Responsible Land Disturbers of the new inspection and enforcement rules.

The Board’s consensus was to have Mr. Carter submit the Corrective Action Agreement to DCR with the Ordinance revisions being completed by the end of September and then complying with the inspection and enforcement areas by the end of August and November.

Mr. Bruguiere noted to staff to facilitate the Board’s review of the E & S Ordinance revisions in June with the intent to proceed to public hearing by July.

D.   TJPDC Roundtable Meeting

Mr. Carter noted that staff needed to get a head count of those wishing to attend the meeting in order to RSVP and to gauge the necessity of public notice requirements should 3 or more Board members attend. Mr. Carter noted that Mr. Boger will be working with Harrison Rue to provide Nelson’s input and he will be in attendance.

Mr. Hale noted his intent to attend the meeting; with no other members making a firm commitment.

E.   Handicapped Parking

Mr. Bruguiere noted that an issue had been brought to his attention regarding a recent directive by the Sheriff that all dispatchers must park in the lower parking lot and some of them have authorization to park in handicapped parking. He noted that there was only one space designated for handicapped parking to the left of the dispatch office. The number of handicapped spaces was discussed and Mr. Carter noted that staff would follow up on this.

F.   Nelson County Times Article on School Parking Lot Paving

Mr. Harris noted the recent article in the Nelson County Times regarding the paving of the front parking lot at the High School which stated that the Board had decided not to do the paving due to the high cost of the quote. He noted that he thought the Board had discussed the possibility of surface treatment etc. and had not made an official decision not to do it.

The Board discussed paving the lot vs. surface treatment and Mr. Carter noted that based on the consensus at the previous meeting, he had advised Dr. Collins that the Board had not taken action on the request and had inquired about surface treatment; however the Board could certainly change its position.

The Board discussed the necessity for the lot to be paved but noted when and how was in question and asked that staff find out when the last time any improvements were done to the lot. Mr. Harvey noted the Board should get Dr. Collin’s response and the front paving may need to be re-bid. Following discussion, no action was taken on this item.

VI.   Adjournment

At 9:05 PM, Mr. Harvey moved to adjourn, there was no second and Supervisors agreed by consensus to adjourn until the regular meeting on June 12, 2007.