Board of Supervisors: Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes-August 2, 2007

Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes-August 2, 2007

Virginia:

AT A CONTINUED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 4:00
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
       Debra K. McCann, Finance and Human Resources Director

I.   Call Meeting to Order

The continued meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. with all members present to establish a quorum.

II.   New Business
A.   Resolution (R2007-067) AEP Utility Easement –Shipman Collection Site

Mr. Carter noted that in consultation with the County Attorney, it was determined that a public hearing was not required to execute the easement, but it was recommended that the Board ratify the granting of the easement for the Shipman solid waste collection site. Additionally, he noted that the Shipman and Massies Mill collection site construction projects were going out to bid on Sunday, August 5th.

Mr. Harris moved to approve R2007-067 Utility Easement for the Shipman collection site and Ms. Brennan seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion and the following resolution was approved:

RESOLUTION R2007-067
Nelson County Board of Supervisors
Utility Easement for Shipman Collection Site

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the applicable provisions of §15.2-1888.B of the Code of Virginia, that said Board hereby confirms and ratifies the granting of a utility easement to American Electric Power Company for the purpose of providing electrical service to Nelson County’s Shipman (Solid Waste) Collection Site, as effected on behalf of the County on July 17, 2007 by the County Administrator.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said utility easement shall be maintained for record keeping purposes in the office of the County Administrator and as recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Nelson County.

Mr. Carter noted that the bids on the two collection sites would be opened at 11:00 am on September 11th, the morning of the Board’s regular meeting. He also noted that the bids on Piney River Phase III were advertised the previous Friday and are due Thursday, September 6th at 2 pm. with the public hearings on the RD funds scheduled for the September 11th meeting.

III.   Courthouse Project Work Session

Mr. Carter noted that it may be preferable to discuss the financial aspects related to the project first, and then proceed with discussions with Mr. Vaughn of Wiley & Wilson on the project design.

Mr. Carter directed the Board’s attention to the two page financial information provided with the first page labeled Projected Debt Capacity and page two labeled Additional Considerations, as noted by the following:

Projected Debt Capacity
                           2008 General Reassessment % Increase in                                    Taxable Assessed Value
                       10%   20%   30%   40%        50%          60%
Sustainable Revenues/Expenditures           NA   NA   NA   $532,132       $1,619,381   $2,706,579
FY (2008-2012) (1)

Estimated Debt Capacity (2)           $0   $0   $0          $7,735,000 $23,535,000 $39,335,000

Notes: (1) based on Case 3 as presented in the July 10, 2007 analysis and represents surplus revenues over expenditures and        after the debt service for the Solid Waste, Piney River and Radio Communications Projects.

             (2) Financing Assumptions: 5.5% Interest Rate and 30 year amortization.

Additional Considerations
County of Nelson

(1) Elimination of the Radio Communications Project adds $434,138 to sustainable revenues and a corresponding additional $6.3 million in estimated debt capacity.

(2) Estimated Debt Capacity assuming a 30% increase in real estate values is only provided by elimination of the Radio Communications Project as noted above.

(3) Additional Debt Capacity could be gained by increasing the tax rate. Each penny increase in the tax rate would yield approximately $2.6 million in debt capacity.

(4) Estimated Debt Capacity does not incorporate additional revenues that may be generated by the 2012 reassessment.

(5) Limiting expenditure growth to revenue growth has the potential to yield $530,569 to annual sustainable revenue by 2010. The corresponding additional debt capacity is approximately $7.7 million.

(6) Tax Increase (increase in assessed value due to reassessment) as compared to Equivalent Tax Rate Adjustment (assumes no increase in assessed values)

   Tax Increase (% Change in Assessed Value)          Equivalent Tax Rate Adjustment
   30%                           $0.94 per $100 value ($0.22 incr.)
   40%                            $1.01 per $100 value ($0.29 incr.)
   50%                           $1.08 per $100 value ($0.36 incr.)
   60%                           $1.15 per $100 value ($0.43 incr.)

Note: All estimates are preliminary and subject to further analysis.

Mr. Carter noted having asked Mr. Kooch to back out the tax increases (6.2 cents in 2011) shown in the July 10th analysis and the 2012 15% reassessment to show the sustainable level of debt with inclusion of only the 2008 reassessment. He noted that the radio project is included due to a mis-communication with Mr. Kooch. He also noted that staff did not have the benefit of having the background numbers used to derive the numbers presented by Mr. Kooch and he is currently on vacation.

He noted that in looking at the projected debt capacity, the County has no ability to sustain additional debt until a 40% increase in real estate valuation, at which point $7,735,000 is afforded. He noted that if the radio project is eliminated from the analysis, a 30% reassessment valuation yields a debt capacity of $6.3 million and at 40% the capacity would be approximately $14 million. He noted that Mr. Kooch was able to confirm this week that elimination of the radio project would free up the $6.3 million debt capacity.

He directed the Board’s attention to note (3) of additional considerations that says additional
Debt Capacity could be gained by increasing the tax rate and each penny increase would yield
approximately $2.6 million in debt capacity. He stated that at 40% reassessment, with
      elimination of the radio study and a penny increase in the tax rate would yield approximately $16 million in debt capacity. He also noted that note (5) says that limiting expenditure growth to revenue growth has the potential to yield $530,569 to annual sustainable revenue by 2010 with the corresponding additional debt capacity being approximately $7.7 million. Historically, the expenditure rate has been outpacing the revenue growth rate. If note (5) were employed, then the cumulative resulting debt capacity could be approximately $23 million at 40%.

The Board discussed the unlikelihood of retaining a 40% increase in reassessment value,
   questioning the public’s ability to pay considering the economic disparity within the County. It was discussed that the resulting percentage change in real estate valuation accounts for increases in value over the four years since the last re-assessment and can be viewed as a certain % change per year equaling the total percentage increase.

Previous funding of the school construction projects was discussed and it was noted that a 5
cent increase in the real estate tax rate was utilized as part of the financing formula. Limiting
the percentage increase in expenditures to the same percentage increase in revenues in any
given budget year was also discussed with Mr. Bruguiere noting that he has discussed this
      concept with the School Board chairman. Mr. Carter noted that the historical trend of spending a greater percentage than the percentage increase in revenues has diminished the County’s ability to set-aside any money for capital improvements.

Mr. Harris noted his recollection of a sheet proposing various new sources of revenues that could be implemented if needed, that was distributed at budget time. Ms. McCann noted discussing the ability to go higher on the vehicle license fee as of July 1st with Mr. Carter noting the potential new revenue from that being $100,000. The admissions tax of 5% was briefly discussed as a potential source of approximately $1 million in new revenue, but would require tremendous effort to get there.

The Board discussed the apparent inability to proceed with the Courthouse project as developed in its entirety with discussion centering on proceeding with new court facilities only and renovating the existing courthouse for administration.

Mr. Vaughn of Wiley and Wilson overviewed the floor plan concepts as keeping current offices where they are with the exception of the courts. He noted that these conceptual plans do not incorporate those offices that are currently off-campus. He noted that not re-arranging the interior space as much would save money on the existing courthouse renovation. He noted that the range of the project budget including the elimination of the new administration building is $16,052,928 to $19,315,418 and these figures are based on a range of price per square foot and no hard design behind the numbers. Mr. Vaughn’s suggested first areas to look at to cut costs are the Health Department and reducing the scope of the stair tower. He noted this concept also removes the need for an additional parking area and the current lot and the dumpster area would be re-worked to accommodate 180 spaces. The diminished site work needed would save approximately $500,000. He also noted that further savings could be realized by not purchasing all new furniture as is included in the estimates.

Mr. Carter reiterated that proceeding with a decision at this point may require whittling down the scope of the project or committing to future tax increases. He noted that staff will endeavor to go back to Davenport this week for confirmation of the debt capacity numbers and report back on August 14th.

Some discussion ensued regarding funding the project by matching expenditures with revenue growth, removing the radio project and endeavoring to set a bottom line in order to move ahead. It was noted that they could potentially build the new court facilities, the current administration offices could be left primarily as is with inclusion of constructing the necessary security corridors to tie-in with the new courts facility.

The Board further discussed physical security for the Circuit Court and Clerk’s office and the inclusion or exclusion of the emergency operations center (EOC) in the lower part of the new courts facility, discussing their security monitoring functions. Mr. Vaughn noted that the physical and electronic security can be integrated between the old and new buildings. Other ideas discussed were leaving the County Attorney’s office here and not renovating the Jefferson Building, utilizing a courtroom as the new Board room- freeing up the current Board room for other use, and replacement of worn-out mechanical systems as part of the renovation process.

Mr. Carter suggested that Mr. Vaughn look at the Board’s suggestions while Davenport looks at the revised debt capacity and he can report back at the August 14th meeting; after which, the Committee can meet with Mr. Vaughn again to fine tune things.

In response to concerns expressed regarding the square foot price, Mr. Vaughn noted that there could be a geographic differential incorporated into the square foot prices that were used being that most of their pricing is based on the Eastern part of the state and that actual construction costs may be cheaper in this area; but that they used their best estimates at the time to develop the current project costs presented. Variations in the current construction/building climate were also noted, with Mr. Vaughn noting that things could vary within the next nine months prior to going out to bid.

Mr. Carter noted that Health Department funds of approximately $160,000 that have been set aside could be used to cover construction, renovation or leasing costs. The current configuration of the building and renovation issues was discussed briefly.
Mr. Carter noted that the status of the Lingo property remained uncertain as Mrs. Lingo’s will was probated in Washington D.C. and then has to be probated here in Virginia as well before any conveyances can be made.

The Board discussed the sheriff’s department’s use of the current parking lot for impoundment, other alternatives, and how the proposed lot would be configured.

The Board’s consensus was to have Mr. Vaughn move forward with the interactive design of the new courts facility including discussions with Judge Gamble, with the remainder of the space to be further evaluated based on the discussions had during the meeting. Mr. Bruguiere noted that more definite instructions may be possible after the August 14th meeting given further input from Davenport & Company and Mr. Vaughn in the interim.

IV.   Other Business

A.   Heritage Center Roof

Mr. Bruguiere noted that problems with the Heritage Center (Old Nelson Middle School) roof were not going away and needed consideration by the Board. The Board briefly discussed funding for the roof replacement noting grants etc. used by other Community Centers, with Mr. Carter noting that any Federal funding wouldn’t be available until this time next year. Board members noted the potential use of the sale proceeds from the 571 front street property. The timeline for the evaluation of the Community Center buildings was discussed with Mr. Carter noting completion of this sometime in the fall.

The previous quote of $122,000 to replace the roof was discussed as being a reasonable estimate, but subject to bid.

Mr. Carter noted that the Center has requested a lease extension with two changes, but they have agreed to go with the current language for two years with discussion to ensue regarding the requested changes: extending to a 5 year lease and obligating the County to replace the roof.

The consensus of the Board was to go ahead with bidding out the roof replacement to replace the roof as it is constructed now, as opposed to adding an “A” roof, to keep the cost down .

Mr. Carter noted that the sale of the 571 front street property had closed.

Mr. Harvey then made a motion to commit funding and go forward with bidding out the roof replacement at the Heritage Center (Old Middle School) and Mr. Harris seconded the motion.

Discussion by the Board included the source of funding; with Supervisors directing that staff make that determination. It was noted that should the proceeds from the sale of the 571 front street property be utilized, an appropriation designating the use of funds would be necessary and brought back for the Board’s approval.

There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the motion.

V.   Adjournment

At 5:30 PM, Mr. Harvey moved to adjourn, and Mr. Harris seconded the motion. Supervisors voted unanimously to adjourn until the regular meeting on August 14, 2007.