Board of Supervisors: September 27, 2007

September 27, 2007

Virginia:

AT A CONTINUED 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
       Debbie McCann, Director of Finance and Human Resources
       Mark Bolt, Building Code Official
       David Thompson, Assistant Building Code Official
       Allyson Sappington, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
       Tom Crush, Wiley & Wilson

I.   Call Meeting to Order

Mr. Bruguiere, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:10 P. M. with all members present to establish a quorum.

Following a recommendation by Mr. Carter the Board agreed by consensus to consider item III C of the Agenda regarding the Solid Waste Convenience Centers first.

R2007-088 Authority to Award and Execute Contracts – Solid Waste Convenience Centers

Mr. Carter overviewed the status of the project noting that the bids had been received and evaluated by Wiley & Wilson; they have talked with the low-bid Contractors and checked their references. He stated that further cost reductions were being discussed and that Mr. Tom Crush was present to answer any questions the Board may have regarding the bids so that the Contracts could be awarded and construction could proceed.

Mr. Crush explained that the projects were bid on a lump sum bid basis, however estimates of units were used for certain items as specified in the first bid Addendum, as requested by the County. He noted that using unit pricing versus a lump sum bid basis would have required them to specify each unit amount to be bid for each item and would require more monitoring by the Owner Representative to ensure that the units specified were what was put in place. He noted that they did preliminary estimates for the projects as a whole that were a compilation of item quantities, but that they did not provide those estimates to the bidders.

The Board noted some discrepancy in the bid responses for the items to be bid with unit pricing shown. Mr. Crush stated that he questioned the contractors regarding any items that stuck out as being seemingly low or high responses. He then discussed these responses for each of the items that the Board inquired about. There was some concern expressed about the low bidder being the low bidder based on the validity and comparability of some of the unit pricing; however Mr. Crush noted that the bids were advertised as being awarded on a lump sum basis and that given that, the unit pricing is a mute point in terms of who is the low bidder.

The Board also discussed the cost of these sites versus the Rockfish site built two to three years ago, including the engineering costs being higher. Mr. Carter noted that the engineering costs per site were comparable to that of Rockfish (including geotechnical work paid separately from the construction) noting that the costs include additional administration and site inspections that are quantified in the Wiley & Wilson contract. It was also noted that there are E&S Plan; Army Corps of Engineers permit costs, and storm water management costs associated with the projects. He stated that the percent imperviousness of the soils requires the pond at the Massies Mill site, a storm water management pond at Shipman, and he couldn’t speak to how that compares to the requirements of the Rockfish site. Ms. Sappington of the TJSWCD noted that a 16% imperviousness rating requires the Virginia Stormwater Management Plan and permit. She said that the same regulations would’ve been in place but they may not have been enforced by DEQ, who administered the program when Rockfish was built, as DCR is enforcing them now. Ms. Sappington differentiated for the Board the plans and permitting done by her office and that of DCR. Mr. Crush noted that due to the size of the Massies Mill site, the percent of imperviousness was over 20% which required one of the following three methods of Stormwater management to be used: establishment of a wetland, retention pond, or a detention pond. He noted the use of the retention pond such that natural evaporation could take place leaving the particulates at the bottom.

Mr. Carter and Mr. Crush assured the Board that David Thompson, the County’s chief inspector for both of the projects would ensure that the sites were built to specification. It was also noted that Wiley & Wilson and Massie Saunders would be on site at least twice a month and would also be responsible for ensuring the sites were built according to the contract documents.

Another area of concern discussed was the specifications used for the asphalt and gravel base on the sites and how they compare to VDOT’s interstate standards. Mr. Crush noted that these specifications were based on the geotechnical firm’s (PGS) soil survey results and input from Wiley & Wilson on the traffic types that would utilize the sites. He noted that the depths of the base layers were reduced somewhat after further review. It was also noted that the Shipman site contained high ground-water levels. The specifications for the site entrances were also discussed with Mr. Crush noting that they are compatible with the roads they are connected with.

In conclusion, Mr. Crush noted that in preparation for the pre-construction conferences, should the Board authorize the Contract Awards as recommended; the following items have been discussed as potential deducts: elimination of 8ft fence and gates & replacement with 6 ft high ones, elimination of asphalt & replacement with gravel, replace concrete entrances with base stone and asphalt, and the elimination of one or more concrete pads to be replaced with gravel.

The Board agreed by consensus not to eliminate the concrete pads or the asphalt in order to maintain the same standards of the Rockfish Center site. Elimination of the concrete entrances and replacing them with asphalt was discussed as a potential deduct. Mr. Crush noted that Robertson Construction verbally stated that the additional layers of stone needed to asphalt the entrances would wash the savings from not doing the concrete.

The Board discussed that any potential deducts can be discussed at the pre-construction conferences with the Contractors.

The Board then considered the proposed resolution and Mr. Hale moved to adopt resolution R2007-087 Authorization to Award & Execute Contracts for the Shipman and Massies Mill Solid Waste Convenience Centers to Robertson Construction Company for $494,688 for the Shipman Site and to Saunders Construction Company for $430,980.55 for the Massies Mill site.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and the Board discussed the error made by Robertson Construction in filling in a combination bid amount equal to their bid for the Massies Mill site. This was noted to be a mistake made by the Contractor on the bid form with the correct combination bid amount noted further down the page.

Further discussion included the fairness of negotiating changes to the project specifications after the projects have been bid with it being noted that this is a common practice. It was also suggested that the sites should be built as specified with no changes made.

Following discussion, the Chair called for the vote and Supervisors voted to approve the motion (4-1) with Mr. Harvey voting No, and the following Resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION-R2007-087
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD & EXECUTE CONTRACTS FOR THE
SHIPMAN AND MASSIES MILL SOLID WASTE CONVENIENCE CENTERS

WHEREAS, the County has completed the sealed bid procurement process for the Shipman and Massies Mill solid waste convenience centers in accordance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act §4.2-4300 et seq. of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended, and;

WHEREAS, for the Shipman site, one (1) bid was received, and for the Massies Mill site, three (3) bids were received, and;

WHEREAS, the Project Engineers, Wiley & Wilson, Inc. have completed a thorough review of the low bids for both sites and have recommended the contracts be awarded as follows:

Shipman Convenience Center Site:   Robertson Construction Co. Inc. $494,688.00
Massies Mill Convenience Center Site:   Saunders Construction Co. $430,980.55

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby accept the low bids as herein provided, authorizes the County Administrator and/or Chairman of the Board to issue Notices of Award to the respective Contractors for each site, bestows signatory authority to said County Administrator and/or Chairman of the Board to execute the contract documents accordingly, and subsequently issue Notices to Proceed upon fulfillment of all pre-construction requirements by the respective Contractors.

II.   Work Session – Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance & Fees

Mr. Carter noted that there is no new information to present on the subject other than noting a worksheet prepared by staff showing how percentage reductions affect the proposed fee structure. He also noted that Allyson Sappington of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District was present to answer questions from the Board.

Mr. Carter briefly overviewed the proposed fees again, including discussing those requiring an E&S plan and permit, those utilizing an Agreement in Lieu of a Plan, use of the Alternate Inspection Plan, and the process an applicant would go through in obtaining an E&S permit.

The Board discussed the use of the Alternate Inspection Plan for small commercial projects with Mr. Bolt noting that it would be allowed, but most commercial projects are greater than 2 acres which disqualifies the use of the AIP. The Board discussed the Rockfish Valley Fire Department’s current site plan and how the proposed E&S Ordinance affects it. It was noted by Ms. Sappington that gravel once it’s compacted is not impervious and changing the surface of the land is considered by the State to be land disturbance if the disturbed area is greater than 10,000 square feet. The Board then discussed the State’s definition of land disturbance and how this applies to the Blue Ridge Trail project.

The Board discussed the AIP permit fees being based on the inspection frequency for a full year and how this applies to projects that do not require a full year of inspections. Mr. Bolt noted that the required inspections cease when the project is considered complete. Mr. Carter noted that provisions for the fees to be pro-rated if it is determined up-front that the project will not last for a full year can be incorporated into the Ordinance. Ms. Sappington noted that other localities have provisions for shorter permit periods, but that it can result in greater administrative time and costs if renewal or extension is required. Some concern was expressed about adopting the Ordinance utilizing an AIP that has not been approved yet by DCR. Mr. Carter noted that it has been reviewed by DCR staff and all indications are that it will be approved; if not the County would have to do E&S inspections every two weeks and the Ordinance revised to reflect this.

Mr. Carter noted that the Board could consider pro-ration of the fees for less than 12 months and provide for the commercial projects that can utilize the AIP in the Ordinance. Alternatively to pro-rating the fees, the Board discussed payment of the twelve-month permit fee and refunding a pro-rated amount if the project is completed within the twelve months.

The Board discussed the civil fines as noted in the proposed Ordinance. It was noted that permits can be renewed or extended if necessary prior to expiration and subsequent subjugation to the fines. Mr. Thompson noted that if civil fines are imposed and are refused to be paid, then the matter goes to Circuit Court and serves as the method of recourse. It was noted that in consultation with the County Attorney, civil fines were utilized versus criminal penalties which are allowed by the State for violations.

Mr. Carter then noted a list provided by Mr. Thompson of the current commercial permits issued in 2007 (18) and a history of the number of such permits issued back to 2000 ranging from 8 to 12 per year. Mr. Carter noted the average residential permits to be 238.

Mr. Carter also noted the proposed change in the process of submitting E&S plans for review. Whereas currently individuals submit plans directly to TJSWCD for review, the proposed Ordinance prescribes that plans are submitted to the County, the plan review and permit fee is paid, and then the plan is forwarded to TJSWCD for review. It was noted that the current process allows for plan reviews of plans that never proceed to implementation.

Ms. Sappington noted that her review ensures that the plans meet the State’s criteria and mistakes are sometimes made by Engineers and discovered in the review process. She also noted that the State requires the plans to be reviewed by a Certified Plan Reviewer; however the plans themselves do not have to be drawn up by an Engineer.

Mr. Carter noted that any changes the Board wishes to make to the proposed Ordinance can be worked up and presented at the October 9, 2007 meeting and will still allow for making the October 12th deadline in the Corrective Action Plan. The proposed changes were noted to be the AIP application for small commercial projects and the prorating or refunding of permit fees for projects lasting less than 12 months. No consensus was reached or action taken with regard to this discussion

The Board discussed the correlation between Appendix A of the Ordinance and the fee reduction sheet provided. Mr. Carter noted that setting the fees was entirely up to the Board and that DCR had no authority over the fees set in the Ordinance. However; the County Attorney has advised that the fees must be in the Ordinance. The plan review fee was noted to be potentially pass through money supporting the Board’s annual contribution to the TJSWCD, but a per plan fee is not actually assessed and paid. It was noted that the plan review fee does not obligate the County to pay the plan review fee to TJSWCD and it is a related but separate issue. Ms. Sappington noted that for budgetary planning purposes, the current process of contributing to the TJSWCD is preferred. She also noted the utilization of a MOU between the County and the TJSWCD for plan reviews no matter what the actual number of reviews done turns out to be.

The Board discussed the information provided on the fees of surrounding localities. It was noted that it may not be pertinent to compare Nelson’s proposed fees with them since it was unclear as to which, if any of the other’s listed, are in the same process of E&S program evaluation and remediation. Mr. Carter noted that staffs’ objectives were to develop fees in order to cover the costs to the County; noting that using historical trends to anticipate the increase in workload, the inspections department will be approximately 1.8 inspectors short.

The Board discussed setting the fees utilizing a 50% reduction in the proposed fees and re-evaluating the program in 6 months to determine if additional staffing would be necessary. The Board agreed by consensus to reduce all fees listed on Appendix A by 50% noting it would be a substantial increase in fee revenue. It was also clarified that no personnel would be hired now, but possibly in 6 months after subsequent review.

Following this discussion, Mr. Hale moved to adopt O2007-009 Amendment and Re-enactment of Chapter 9 Planning and Development, Article III Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Code of Nelson County as presented with the exception of reducing all of the fees listed on Appendix A by 50%.

Mr. Harvey seconded the motion and further discussion included clarifying that the motion made is for approval with nothing needing to be brought back to the Board and that the public hearing has been held on the matter. There was concern expressed over reducing the fees, which were noted to be carefully shown and that they should be left as is to cover the costs to do the inspections. The potential result of overworking County staff was noted to be a concern. Conversely, there were concerns expressed about raising the fees such a high percentage. Concluding the discussion, it was noted to be sure to revisit these issues in six months.

There being no further discussion the Chair called for the vote. Supervisors voted to approve the motion (4-1) with Ms. Brennan voting No and the following Ordinance was adopted:

O2007-009
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AMENDMENT AND RE-ENACTMENT OF CH. 9 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ARTICLE III EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, OF THE CODE OF NELSON COUNTY

WHEREAS, Pursuant to §15.2-1427 and §10.1-562 (I) of the Code of Virginia, a public hearing has been held in the Board of Supervisors Room on September 11, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. to receive citizen comments regarding the Board’s intent to propose for passage the following Amendments to and Re-enactment of Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control, of Chapter 9, Planning and Development, of the Code of Nelson County, as authorized by and to comply with §10.1-560 et seq., of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), known as the Erosion and Sediment Control Law.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, That Article III, Erosion and Sediment Control, of Chapter 9, Planning and Development, of the Code of Nelson County be amended and re-enacted as follows; and

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, That this Ordinance shall become effective on October 12, 2007.

Chapter 9

ARTICLE III

Sec. 9.1-51. Title, Purpose and Authority.

   This ordinance shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of Nelson County.” The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water, air and other natural resources of the County of Nelson establishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation, and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall be administered and enforced.

   This Chapter is authorized by the Code of Virginia, Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4 (10.1-560 et seq.), known as the Erosion and Sediment Control Law.

Sec. 9.1-52 Definitions. As used in the ordinance, unless the context requires a different meaning:

   Agreement in lieu of a plan means a contract between the program authority and the owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in the construction of a single family residence; this contract may be executed by the County and the owner in lieu of a formal site plan.

   Applicant means any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land-disturbing activities to commence.

   Board means the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board.

   Certified inspector means an employee or agent of a program authority who (1) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of project inspection or (ii) is enrolled in the Board's training program for project inspection and successfully completes such program within one year after enrollment.

   Certified plan reviewer means an employee or agent of a program authority who (1) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of plan review, (ii) is enrolled in the Board's training program for plan review and successfully completes such program within one year after enrollment, or (iii) is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Sec. 54.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 54. 1.

            Certified Program administrator means an employee or agent of a program authority who (1) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of program administration or (ii) is enrolled in the Board's training program for program administration and successfully completes such program within one year after enrollment.

             Clearing means any activity, which removes the vegetative ground cover including, but not limited to, root mat removal or topsoil removal.

              Conservation Plan, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan or Plan means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives.

             County means the County of Nelson.

             Department means the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

   Development means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units.

             Director means the director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

   District or Soil and Water Conservation District refers to the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District.

   Erosion and Sediment Control Plan or Plan means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, and appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions and all information deemed necessary by the plan approving authority to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives.

   Erosion Impact Area means an area of land not associated with current land-disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of 10,000 square feet or less used for residential purposes.

   Excavating means any digging, scooping or other methods of removing earth materials.

             Filling means any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials.
   Grading means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled conditions.

              Land-disturbing Activity means any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into State waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, except that the term shall not include:

    1.   Minor land-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work;

    2.   Individual service connections;

    3.   Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk provided such land-disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard-surfaced;

    4.   Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land-disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system;

    5.   Surface or deep mining;

    6.   Exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder lines, and off-site disposal areas;

             7.    Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or
                     Livestock feedlot operations; including engineering operations and agricultural
                     Engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check                    dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam Safely
      Act, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-604 et seq.), ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing,
                    contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however,
                     this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on

          which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the    provisions
                     of Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1100 et seq. or is converted to bona fide agricultural or
       Improved pasture use as described in subsection B of Section 10.1-1163, of the
       Code.

   8.     Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities    and other
                    related structures and facilities of a railroad company;

            9.   Disturbed land areas of less than 10,000 square feet in size, except a land-disturbing       activity of less then 10,000 square feet on individual lots in a recorded subdivision
   shall not be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. [4-VAC50-30-70 (C)]

           10.   Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds    of posts
or poles;

   11.   Shore erosion control projects on tidal waters when the projects are approved by l   ocal
      Wetlands boards, the Marine Resources Commission or the United States Army
      Corps of Engineers;

   12.   Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided    that if
        the land-disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment
        control plan, if the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed    shall
        be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the plan-
        approving authority.

   Land-disturbing permit means a permit issued by the County for the clearing, filling, excavating,     grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for any purpose set forth herein.

   Local erosion and sediment control program or local control program means an outline of the various methods employed by the County to regulate land-disturbing activities and thereby minimize erosion and sedimentation in compliance with the state program and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and guidelines, technical materials, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation.

   Natural channel design concepts means the utilization of engineering analysis and fluvial geomorphic processes to create, rehabilitate, restore, or stabilize an open conveyance system for the purpose of creating or recreating a stream that conveys it bankfull storm event within its banks and allows larger flows to access it bankfull bench and its floodplain.

   Owner means the owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property.

   Peak flow rate means the maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a particular location.

   Permittee means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed.

   Person means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity.

   Plan-approving authority means the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District responsible for determining the adequacy of a conservation plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units of lands and for approving plans.

   Program authority means the County of Nelson which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program approved by the Board.

   Responsible Land Disturber means an individual from the project or development team, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out a land-disturbing activity covered by an approved plan or agreement in lieu of a plan, who (i) holds a Responsible Land Disturber certificate of competence, (ii) holds a current certificate competence from the Board in the areas of Combined Administration, Program Administration, Inspection, or Plan Review, (iii) holds a current Contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control, or (iv) is licensed in Virginia as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Sec.54.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia.

   Runoff volume means the volume of water that runs off the land development project from a prescribed storm event.

   Single-family residence means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family.

   State Erosion and Sediment Control Program or State Program means the program administered by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board pursuant to the State Code including regulations designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

   State waters means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdictions.

   Transporting means any moving of earth materials from one place to another place other than such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs.

   Water Quality Volume means the volume equal to the volume equal to the first one-half inch of runoff multiplied by the impervious surface of the land development project.

Sec. 9.1-53. Local Erosion and Sediment Control Program.

                (a) Pursuant to section 10.1-562 of the Code of Virginia, except as modified below, the County hereby adopts the regulations, standards, and specifications promulgated by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board and the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, which are included in, but not limited to, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 30, as amended, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, for the effective control of storm water, soil erosion, and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Subsection 19 of 4 VAC 50-30-40 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations is hereby modified as follows:

1.   The provision found in subsection 19 b. (1) is deleted.

2.   The following language is added to subsection 19 c. (4):

The plan approving authority may determine that some watersheds or
Receiving stream systems require enhanced criteria in order to address
the increased frequency of bankfull flow conditions brought on by land
development projects. Therefore, in lieu of the reduction of the 2-year
post-developed peak rate of runoff as required in subsection B of this
section, the land development project being considered shall provide
24-hour extended detention of the runoff generated by the 1-year,
24-hour duration storm.

   (b) Before adopting or revising regulations, the County shall give due notice and conduct a public hearing on the proposed or revised regulations, except that a public hearing shall not be required when the County is amending its program to conform to revisions in the state program. However, a public hearing shall be held if the County proposes or revises regulations that are more stringent than the state program.

      (c) Pursuant to Section 10.1-561.1 of the Code of Virginia, an erosion control plan shall not be approved until it is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer. Inspections of land-disturbing activities shall be conducted by a certified inspector. The Erosion Control Program of the County shall contain a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified inspector, who may be the same person.

       (d) The County hereby designates the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District as the plan-approving authority.

      (e) The program and regulations provided for in this ordinance shall be made available for public inspection at the office of the Program Administrator for the County.

       (f) In accordance with , §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, stream restoration and relocation projects that incorporate natural channel design concepts are not man-made channels and shall be exempt from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or man-made channels.

(g) In accordance with §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, any land-disturbing activity that provides for stormwater management intended to address any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels shall satisfy the flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels if the practices are designed to (i) detain the water quality volume and to release it over 48 hours; (ii) detain and release over a 24-hour period the expected rainfall resulting from the one year, 24-hour storm; and (iii) reduce the allowable peak flow rate resulting from the 1.5, 2, and 10-year, 24-hour storms to a level that is less than or equal to the peak flow rate from the site assuming it was in a good forested condition, achieved through multiplication of the forested peak flow rate by a reduction factor that is equal to the runoff volume from the site when it was in a good forested condition divided by the runoff volume from the site in its proposed condition, and shall be exempt from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels.”

Sec. 9.1-54. Regulated Land-Disturbing Activities; Submission and Approval
                           of Plans; Contents of Plans.

   (a) Except as provided herein, no person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has submitted to the Program Administrator an erosion and sediment control plan for the land-disturbing activity and such plan has been approved by the plan-approving authority. Where land-disturbing activities involve lands under the jurisdiction of more than one local control program, an erosion and sediment control plan, at the option of the applicant, may be submitted to the Board for review and approval rather than to each jurisdiction concerned.

   Where the land-disturbing activity results from the construction of a single-family residence, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" may be substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the Program Administrator.

             (b) The standards contained within the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, as modified in Section 9.1-53, above, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, and any additional requirements adopted by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District and the County are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this ordinance and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. The plan-approving authority, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the same standards, regulations and guidelines.

            (c)   All permanent stormwater facilities must be designed by a professional engineer and must meet the specifications of the latest edition of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook.

   (d) The plan-approving authority shall, within 45 days, approve any such plan, if it is determined that the plan meets the requirements of the local control program. The program authority shall require the person responsible for carrying out the plan to certify that he or she will properly perform the erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions of this ordinance.

   (e) The plan shall be acted upon within 45 days from receipt thereof by either approving said plan in writing or by disapproving said plan in writing and giving specific reasons for its disapproval.

   When the plan is determined to be inadequate, the plan-approving authority shall specify such modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. If no action is taken by the plan-approving authority within 45 days, the plan shall be deemed approved.

   (f) An approved plan may be changed by the plan approving authority upon the request of the Program Administrator when:

1. An inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or

2. The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of changed
      circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively
      carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the
      requirements of this ordinance, are agreed to by the Program Administrator,
      plan-approving authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plans.

   (g) In order to prevent further erosion, the Program Administrator may require approval of
conservation plan for any land identified in the local program as an erosion impact area.

(h)   When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work
pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and approval of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner.

       (i) Pursuant to Section 10.1-567 of the Code of Virginia, electric, natural gas and telephone utility companies, interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline companies, and railroad companies shall file general erosion and sediment control specifications annually with the Board for review and written comments. the specifications shall apply to:

1.   Construction, installation and maintenance of electric transmission, natural gas, and
telephone utility lines and pipelines; and

2.   Construction of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other
      deleted structures and facilities of the railroad company.

   Projects not included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection shall comply with the requirements of the County erosion and sediment control program, pursuant to Code of Virginia, section 10.1-563 D.

      (j) State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance except as provided for in the Code of Virginia, Section 10.1-564.

   (k) In accordance with the procedure set forth by §10.1-563 (E) of the Code of Virginia, any person engaging in the creation and operation of wetland mitigation banks in multiple jurisdictions, which have been approved and are operated in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance, laws, or regulations for the establishment, use, and operation of mitigation banks, pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality, the Marine Resources Commission, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, may, at the option of that person, file general erosion and sediment control specifications for wetland mitigation banks annually with the Board for review and approval consistent with guidelines established by the Board.

Sec. 9.1-55. Permits; Fees; Bonding; Etc.

              (a) Agencies authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for activities involving land-disturbing activities may not issue any such permit unless the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed.

              (b) No person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has acquired a land-
disturbing permit, unless the proposed land-disturbing activity is specifically exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, and has paid the fees and posted the required bond.

       (c) Fees: All Permit fees shall be paid to the County of Nelson before a Land Disturbing Permit or an Agreement in Lieu of Plan Permit for a single family residence is issued.

E & S Plans:

All Plan Review fees shall be paid to the County of Nelson prior to submittal of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan to the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District for review.

       (1) A Plan Review fee shall be paid for the plan review of all erosion and sediment control plans that are to be reviewed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. The plan review fee will be based upon the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time the plan is submitted for review.

       (2) An administrative land disturbing permit fee for a twelve (12) month permit shall be paid to the County of Nelson at the time of the application for a Land Disturbing Permit. The permit fee will be based upon the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the permit application. Fees for projects exceeding 12 months shall be pro-rated in accordance with the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the permit application and commensurate with the project’s completion date established by the Program Administrator.

       (3) A permit extension may be granted by the Program Administrator upon payment of an extension fee in accordance with the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the extension request.

Agreements in Lieu of E&S Plans:

       (1) An administrative land disturbing permit, in lieu of plan fee for a twelve (12) month permit shall be paid to the County of Nelson at the time of the application for a Land Disturbing Permit. The permit fee will be based upon the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the permit application. Fees for projects exceeding 12 months shall be pro-rated in accordance with the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the permit application and commensurate with the project’s completion date established by the Program Administrator.

       (2) A permit extension may be granted by the Program Administrator upon payment of an extension fee in accordance with the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the extension request.

       (d) No land-disturbing permit shall be issued until the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed.

      (e) Bond: All applicants for permits shall provide to the County a performance bond, cash escrow, or an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the Program Administrator, to ensure that
measures could be taken by the county at the applicant’s expense should the applicant fail,
after proper notice, within the time specified to initiate or maintain appropriate conservation
measures required of him as a result of his land-disturbing activity.

   The amount of the bond or other security for performance shall not exceed the total of the
estimated cost to initiate and maintain appropriate conservation action based on unit price
for new public or private sector construction in the locality and a reasonable allowance for
estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five percent of
the cost of the conservation action. Should it be necessary for the County to take such
conservation action, the County may collect from the applicant any costs in excess of the
amount of the surety held.

   Within sixty (60) days of adequate stabilization, as determined by Program Administrator
in any project or section of a project, such bond, cash escrow or letter of credit, or the
unexpended or unobligated portion thereof shall be either refunded to the applicant or
terminated, based upon the percentage of stabilization accomplished in the project or
project section.

   (f) The Program Administrator and the applicant shall establish a project completion date which shall appear on the land-disturbing permit as the permit’s expiration date. Projects exceeding 12 months shall be pro-rated in accordance with the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the permit application and commensurate with the project’s established completion date. Upon request of the applicant, and for good cause shown, the Program Administrator may issue a new permit extending the original expiration date upon payment of an extension fee in accordance with the fee schedule (Appendix A) in effect at the time of the extension request. In the event the applicant fails, before the permit expiration date, either to complete the permitted activity in accordance with applicable law, or to fulfill the approved erosion and sediment control plan, or both, then the applicant shall stop work and the Program Administrator shall initiate and complete appropriate conservation action at applicant’s expense as provided in paragraph (e) above. Following completion of the Program Administrator’s conservation action, the applicant may again apply for a new land disturbing permit. Failure to complete the project before the permit’s expiration date shall constitute a violation of this ordinance.

   (g) These requirements are in addition to all other provisions relating to the issuance of permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such permits.

              (h) The County shall provide for inspections of land disturbing permits issued prior to the effective adoption date, or effective amendments to the Nelson County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance that was in effect the date when the Agreement-In Lieu or land disturbing permit was issued by the Program Authority. The inspection and fee assessments shall be in accordance with the permit regulations effective at the time the permit was issued

Sec. 9.1-56. Monitoring, Reports, and Inspections.

        (a) The County shall require the person responsible for carrying out the plan to monitor the land-disturbing activity. The person responsible for carrying out the plan will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation.

        (b) The County shall provide for periodic inspections of any land-disturbing activity in accordance with Section 4VAC50-30-60 B of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and require that an individual holding a certificate of competence, as provided by Virginia Code, S 10.1-561, will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land-disturbing activity. Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence prior to engaging in land-disturbing activities may result in revocation of the approval of the plan and the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this chapter. The owner, permittee, or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be given notice of the inspection.

        If the Program Administrator determines that there is a failure to comply with the plan, notice shall be served upon the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by delivery at the site of the land-disturbing activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities.

        The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Upon failure to comply within the specified time, the permit may be revoked and the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be deemed to be in violation of this ordinance and shall be subject to the penalties provided by this ordinance.

       (c) Upon determination of a violation of this ordinance, the Program Administrator shall, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land-disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. If land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan, the Program Administrator shall, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all of the land-disturbing activities be stopped until an approved plan or any required permits are obtained.

      Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the Commonwealth, or where the land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or any required permits, such an order may be issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance. Otherwise, such an order shall be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply.

       The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate relief to the Circuit Court of Nelson County.

       If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or any required permits within seven days from the date of service of the order, the Program Administrator shall issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and any required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or the land records of the County.

      The owner may appeal the issuance of an order to the Circuit Court of Nelson County.

      Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey an order issued by the Program
Administrator may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the Circuit Court of Nelson County to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining an approved plan or any required permits, the order shall immediately be lifted.

      Nothing in this section shall prevent the Program Administrator from taking any other action authorized by this ordinance or Section 10-7 entitled Penalties, Injunctions, And Other Legal Actions.

Sec. 9.1-57. Penalties, Injunctions, and Other Legal Actions.

            (a) Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance shall, upon a finding of the General
District Court of Nelson County, be assessed a civil penalty. The civil penalty for any one violation shall be $100, except that the civil penalty for commencement of land-disturbing activities without an approved plan shall be $1,000. Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. In no event shall a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $3,000, except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of land-disturbing activities without an approved plan for any site shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $10,000.

       (b) Schedule of Civil Penalties

A civil penalty in the amount listed on the schedule below shall be assessed for each
             violation of the respective offenses:

1.   Commencement of land disturbing activity without an approved E&S plan
                   as provided in Section 10-4 shall be $1,000.00 per day.

2.   Vegetative Measures - Failure to comply with items 1, 2, and 3 of
                   regulations in 4 VAC 50-30-40 shall be $100.00 per violation per day.

3.   Structural Measures – Failure to comply with items 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15 and
                  17 of the regulations in 4 VAC 50-30-40 shall be $100.00 per violation per day.

   4.   Watercourse measures – failure to comply with items 12, 13, 14,
       and 15 of the regulations in 4VAC50-30-40 shall be $100.00 per violation per day.

5.   Underground Utility Measures – Failure to comply with either item 16(a), or
                   (c) or both, of the regulations in 4 VAC 50-30-40 shall be $100.00 per
                   violation per day.

6.   Failure to comply with Item 19 of Section 4 of the regulations in 4 VAC
50-30-40 shall be $100.00 per violation per day.
7.   Failure to obey a stop work order shall be $100.00 per day.

8.   Failure to stop work when permit is revoked shall be $100.00 per day.

9.   Failure to complete a project before the permit expiration date shall
                  result in a $100.00 penalty per day.

   10.   All other violations of this chapter not specifically enumerated in items (1) through (9)            of this section shall be $ 100.00 per violation per day.

   (c) The Program Administrator or the owner of property which has sustained damage or which is in imminent danger of being damaged may apply to the Circuit Court of Nelson County to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this ordinance, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist.

      However, an owner of property shall not apply for injunctive relief unless (i) he has notified in writing the person who has violated the local program, and the program authority, that a violation of the local program has caused, or creates a probability of causing, damage to his property, and (ii) neither the person who has violated the local program nor the program authority has taken corrective action within fifteen days to eliminate the conditions which have caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his property.

      (d) In addition to any civil penalties provided under this ordinance, any person who violates any provision of this ordinance may be liable to the County in a civil action for damages.

      (e) Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. A civil action for such violation or failure may be brought by the County.

      Any civil penalties assessed by a court shall be paid into the treasury of the County except that where the violator is the locality itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the state treasury.

      (f) With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or condition of a permit or any provision of this ordinance, the County may provide for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in Subsection E of this section. Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under Subsection E.

      (g) The Commonwealth’s Attorney shall, upon request of either the Program Administrator or the District, take legal action to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.

       (h) Compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation or sedimentation that all requirements of law have been met, and the complaining party must show negligence in order to recover any damages. (Ref. Va. Code Section 10.1-569)

Sec. 9.1-58. Appeals and Judicial Review.

             (a) Final decisions of the Program Administrator under this article shall be subject to review by the Circuit Court of Nelson County provided that an appeal is filed within thirty days from the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties or privileges of the person engaging in or proposing to engage in land-disturbing activities.

             (b) Final decisions of the District shall be subject to an administrative review by the Board,
provided that an appeal is filed within thirty days from the date of the written decision.

             (c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) above, final decisions of the board either upon its own action or upon the review of the action of the District shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Process Act.    (Ref. Va. Code Section 10.1-568)

Appendix A – Fees
Adopted 9/27/07 (Effective 10/12/07)

E & S Plans:

Plan Review Fee:   $500.00 per plan

Land Disturbing Permit Fee: $450.00 (12 months)

Fees for projects exceeding 12 months shall be pro-rated in accordance with the above fee commensurate with the project’s completion date as established by the Program Administrator.

Permit extensions may be granted by the Program Administrator upon payment of a pro-rated (monthly) share of the above fee.

Agreements in Lieu of E & S Plans:

Up to Two (2.0) Acres of Land Disturbance:

Land Disturbing Permit Fees (12 months):

       *Inspection Frequency           Fee

       Once Beginning & End of Project       $ 35.00
       Once Every 8 Weeks               $100.00
       Once Every 4 Weeks               $225.00
       Once Every 2 Weeks               $450.00

Two (2.0) Acres or More of Land Disturbance:

Land Disturbing Permit Fee (12 months):

       *Inspection Frequency           Fee

       Once Every 2 Weeks            $450.00

Fees for projects exceeding 12 months shall be pro-rated in accordance with the above fees based on the project’s required inspection frequency and commensurate with the project’s completion date, as established by the Program Administrator.

Permit extensions may be granted by the Program Administrator upon payment of a pro-rated (monthly) share of the above fees based on the project’s required inspection frequency.

*Inspection frequency is determined by each project’s rating in accordance with the   County’s approved Alternate Inspection Plan.

III.   Unfinished Business

A.   R2007-085 Piney River III Construction Funding Commitment

Mr. Carter noted that with the utilization of Rural Development funding for the Piney River III project, it was necessary to include a 5% contingency factor in the construction budget. He noted that staff is recommending that the Board formerly commit to cover the approximate $361,559 shortfall that is created by the inclusion of the contingency of 5%.

The Board discussed that the shortfall amount is primarily contingency and private lateral costs and most likely won’t be expended, but that the funding guarantee was required to show RD a balanced budget. Ms. McCann reiterated that the 5% contingency required by RD may not be utilized but that in order to move forward with the project, RD requires all costs to be covered. She noted that borrowing additional funds from RD is an option, although it is a lengthy one and would delay the start of construction. She also noted that there is enough of a balance in the Capital Fund to cover this cost and still maintain the balance required by the School Funding formula in place to offset the school debt. She noted project unknowns, which may impact the shortfall, such as the private lateral costs which are estimates and the $50,000 in SERCAP funding which can only be used for LMI connections (12 LMI connections would be needed to use the $50,000 SERCAP funding). She noted that approximately $390,000 has been utilized from the Capital Fund to front the costs of the project up to this point and can be re-imbursed when closing on the RD funds occurs. This was discussed as having the same effect of contributing 751,559 to the Capital Fund for the project, should the contingency be expended. The Board noted that staff could determine where the funding will come from.

Mr. Harris exited the meeting at approximately 3:55 pm prior to the conclusion of this item.

There being no further questions or discussion, Mr. Harvey moved to approve R2007-085 Piney River III Water/Sewer Project, guaranteeing to cover the potential project shortfall of $361,559. Mr. Hale seconded the motion and there being no further discussion Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION (R2007-085)
PINEY RIVER 3 WATER/SEWER PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Piney River area of Nelson County, specifically along Route 56 and to the south, has a need for public water and sewer service based on documented problems with wells and septic systems;

WHEREAS, the existing constructed wetlands treatment facility in the Henderson’s Store area of Piney River has not been able to perform as required, and is not a viable long term solution for public wastewater treatment;

WHEREAS, the Piney River 3 project has been designed and construction bids obtained to address these needs;

WHEREAS, funding sources inclusive of loans and grants from USDA Rural Development, grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and grants from Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project, Inc. are not sufficient to cover all costs associated with the Piney River 3 Water and Sewer project;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby authorize the funding of project costs that exceed the designated funding sources, which is currently estimated to be $361,559.

B.   R2007-086 Authority to Award and Execute Contracts-Piney River III

Mr. Carter noted that the resolution for consideration had been revised to include language pursuant to Rural Development requirements. Ms. McGarry noted that the phrase “contingent upon concurrence/approval of USDA-Rural Development” had been added to the last sentence of the proposed resolution provided in the meeting packet. She noted that this was added because Rural Development has to officially approve the bid process inclusive of reviewing the bids and the recommendations of award, prior to them being officially awarded.

Mr. Harvey moved to approve R2007-0086 inclusive of the additional language “contingent upon concurrence/approval of USDA-Rural Development” as noted and provided to the Deputy Clerk for the record. Mr. Hale seconded the motion with Supervisors noting the closeness of the bidding and Mr. Carter stating that 13 Contractors had submitted bids for all phases.

There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION-R2007-0086
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD & EXECUTE CONTRACTS FOR THE
PINEY RIVER III WATER AND SEWER PROJECT, PHASES I, II, AND III

WHEREAS, the County has completed the sealed bid procurement process for the Piney River III water and sewer project, Phases I, II, and III in accordance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act §4.2-4300 et seq. of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended, and;

WHEREAS, for Phase I of the project, thirteen (13) bids were received, for Phase II of the project, six (6) bids were received and for Phase III of the project, five (5) bids were received, and;

WHEREAS, the Project Engineers, Draper Aden Associates, have completed a thorough review of the low bids for all three phases and have recommended the contracts be awarded as follows:

Phase I Piney River Water and Sewer: E.C. Pace Company, Inc. $1,039,255.00
Phase II Piney River Water and Sewer: Atkins Excavating, Inc. $353,652.50
Phase III Piney River Water and Sewer: Commonwealth Excavating, Inc. $3,109,561.00

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby accept the low bids as herein provided, authorizes the County Administrator and/or Chairman of the Board to issue Notices of Award to the respective Contractors for each Phase, bestows signatory authority to said County Administrator and/or Chairman of the Board to execute the contract documents accordingly, and subsequently issue Notices to Proceed upon fulfillment of all contract requirements by the respective Contractors, contingent upon concurrence/approval of USDA-Rural Development .

C.   R2007-087 Authority to Award and Execute Contracts – Solid Waste Convenience    Centers.

Previously Considered

D.   Piney River III Project: Services Agreement with NCSA

Mr. Carter noted that an operations and maintenance agreement with the NCSA was also required to close on Rural Development funding of the Piney River III project. He reviewed the progression of the development of the Agreement with NCSA noting that the flat rates included in the Agreement would be subject to annual review and reconciliation with actual per gallon costs. He noted that the NCSA is to provide billing, metering, treatment services, and operations and maintenance for the system. He also stated that the Agreement satisfies RD for the length of their loan for 40 years and that it is inclusive of language allowing for NCSA to take over the system if/when agreeable terms are decided. He noted it is presented for the Board’s review and subsequent consideration at the October 9th meeting.

It was discussed that the NCSA Board has not yet reviewed the agreement, but that Tim Costillo is agreeable to the terms as provided thus far. Mr. Carter noted that his concerns regarding the per thousand gallon treatment costs were allayed after confirming with Draper Aden that they were reasonable.

It was also noted that any operational shortfall would be subsidized by the County as previously authorized and planned for, in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $40,000 per year. Should the County use NCSA rates, the operational shortfall is reduced to around $18,000. The Board discussed this to be much more favorable than previous analysis showed. The annual debt service payment was noted to be around $70,000.

It was also noted that initial maintenance should be minimal and that Mr. Costillo is working on funding sources to be able to take over the system. Also noted was a potential DEQ grant that could extend the water line up to Roseland providing the existing sewer only customers with water, but it is possibly two years away. Also discussed, was the potential for 25 connections at Crabapple Estates that could mitigate the operational shortfall. It was noted that these laterals would be paid for privately and not by the County. The sewage sludge produced by NCSA is and would continue to be spread at Black Eagle Farm with Supervisors noting that it is not quite the same as biosolids and is spread in a more liquefied form.

In conclusion, Mr. Carter noted that the Board should forward any questions/comments on the Agreement to him prior to consideration at the October 9th meeting. It was discussed as a favorable recommendation that the Board not agree to any new fire hydrant fees in future negotiations regarding the system.

E.   Courthouse Project

Mr. Carter noted a new drawing and rough budget from Wiley & Wilson on the second floor of the Courthouse. He noted this was done in anticipation of the Judge’s recommendation to not do the Courthouse project and only do the new J&D and General District Courts building. He noted that the current renovation plans for the current building resulted in insufficient space for the Circuit Court and Clerk’s Office and wouldn’t last for 20 years. A written response is anticipated from the Judge per a conversation with Circuit Court Clerk, Judy Smythers.

The Board discussed the last directive to proceed with not constructing a new administration building and only constructing a new J&D and General District Courts building; which everyone was agreeable to. The vacated space in the current building was to be looked at in maneuvering the remaining occupants to utilize that space; which has not met with the Judge’s approval thus far. Acceptable changes to the existing building were noted to include minor renovations and connectivity for security reasons. Mr. Carter noted that his understanding was that only the Circuit Court would be impacted with space re-alignment and some movement of County staff within the building; which was deemed not acceptable to the Judge as he noted in conversation.

The Board discussed the current configuration presented with the administration offices on the second floor and the School Board Offices located elsewhere, which was noted by the Board to be unappealing. Also discussed was the potential location for the Board’s meetings and the adequacy of the space. Awaiting the Judge’s written response was noted to be prudent before considering any further design alternatives.

To summarize, Mr. Carter noted that if everyone is comfortable with the new building, then the question is narrowing down to what happens to the current building to make the judge and everyone else happy. He noted the Judge’s and Mr. Payne’s comments at the last interactive session to be that they would recommend the Board build the new J&D & Gen. Dist. Courts building as designed, do nothing with this building and leave it alone; they’d make due and address the security issues without too much concern. The Board noted concurrence with these sentiments as what had been previously discussed, including holding the project to $10 Million dollars. Mr. Carter noted that the current drawings presented were an attempt to address the space needs problems noted by the Judge now rather than in 5 to 10 years.

The Board discussed the new Courts building being agreed upon pending resolution to the County acquiring the land. Mr. Carter noted that the deed for the land is being worked out, with Board members noting an upcoming Lingo/Brown open house in October.

In conclusion of this item, Mr. Carter noted he will report back to the Board with the Judge’s response.

IV.   Other Business (As May be Presented)

The Board agreed by consensus to have Mr. Carter draft a letter to Virgil Goode on FEMA’s plans to extend the flood plains on the County’s maps. The Board discussed not using the new maps until field verified in six months. Mr. Carter noted that the maps are official but not official until they do the field verification.

The Board discussed asking the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the full transportation study on Route 151, considering recent events. They discussed waiting for the accident investigation to be completed prior to making this request. It was noted that Mr. Wright stated that the Board would have to request the study with Mr. Carter noting it was probable that VDOT would pay for it. Mr. Carter also noted that consideration of the Board’s Primary Road priorities for the next six years is on the October 9th Agenda. He noted the possibility of having a work session with VDOT on these priorities. The Board discussed truck traffic as a non-primary issue and that speed enforcement along Rt. 151 is the key. Supervisors noted that local deputies can be certified to inspect/pull illegal truck loads in the County.

The Board agreed by consensus to find out the proper Resolution to ask the CTB to do the study for Route 151 by the October 9th meeting. It was noted that the reason the Board previously did not make this request is because they were clearly told and given a copy of the CTB’s guidelines and according to those guidelines, nothing was going to change. The 2001 study was discussed and increased traffic since then was noted by Supervisors. The current primary road priorities were briefly discussed, as well as obtaining Federal Safety money for primary road improvements.

The Board agreed by consensus to have staff find out why only 3 out of 13 company’s that bought the Solid Waste site bid packages, submitted bids and report back the findings.

The Board discussed the High-Top Forest tower (Fortune’s Cove) with Mr. Carter noting that the State Police wants to put up a whole new tower there at their expense. He stated that the parties involved are negotiating with a minor problem being that the local tower Ordinance is in conflict with what everyone wants to do. The Board discussed the use of this tower in the overall communications recommendations made in the recent radio study. Mr. Carter noted that the State Police would have to go through the tower Ordinance process.

A report on this subject was requested by the Board.

V.   Adjournment

At   4:45 P. M., on a motion by Ms. Brennan and seconded by Mr. Hale, Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0), to adjourn until 2:00 PM on October 9, 2007 at the Nelson County Courthouse, Lovingston, Virginia for the regular scheduled meeting.